INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRALIAv. JAPAN)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF JAPAN
VOLUME I
9 MARCH 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 1 . Scope and Nature of the Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . .
Section 2 . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . .
Section 3 . Summary of Arguments on the Merits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
A . Australia’s Submissions are Predicated upon Serious
Misunderstanding about the Facts behind the Dispute . . . . . 9
1 . The Role of the IWC and its Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 .
2 . The Commercial Whaling Moratorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 . The Case for JARPAand JARPAII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 . Status of the Targeted Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . .
B . Australia is Wrong Not Only on the Facts ButAlso on
the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . .
1 . Australia is Wrong about the Object and Purpose
of the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . .
2 . Australia’s Interpretation ofArticle VIII Has No
Legal Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. . . . . . .
Section 4 . Structure and Outline of the Counter-Memorial . . . . . . . . . 20
CHAPTER 1 JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.
Section 1 . The Limits of the Subject-Matter of the Dispute . . . . . . . . 23
Section 2 . Australia’s Reservation Concerning Disputes Relating
to the Exploitation of its Claimed EEZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 .
Section 3 . The Conditions Expressed inAustralia’s Reservation
are Fulfilled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 . . . . . . . . . .
i PART I
THE HISTORY OF INTERENATIONAL
REGULATION OF WHALING
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
CHAPTER 2 CREATION OFTHE ICRWAND THE ROLE OF
THE IWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58. . . . . . . . . .
Section 1 . Pre-1946 Regulation of Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59. . . .
A . Conservation of Whale Stocks was Motivated by the
Need to Maintain Sustainable Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 59. .
B . The 1931 Convention Formed the Basis for Future
Agreements Prior to the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 . . . .
C . The 1937Agreement: Building upon the 1931
Convention and Forming the Basis of the ICRW . . . . . . . . 63
Section 2 . The ICRW was Created to Coordinate and Codify
Existing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . . .
Section 3 . The Mandate and Function of the IWC are to Implement
the Object and Purpose of the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. . .
Section 4 . The Role of the IWC Organs for Conservation and
Management Based on Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 . . .
A. The Scientific Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79. . . . . . .
B . Other IWC Organs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85. . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iiCHAPTER 3 DEVELOPMET OFWHALE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES UNDER
THE IWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90. . . . . . . .
Section 1 . From Blue Whale Unit to a Stock-by-Stock
Attainment of the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) . . . 96
Section 2 . In Search of a New Direction for Conservation and
Management of Whales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 . . . .
A . Moratorium Proposals Rejected by the IWC . . . . . . . . . . . 99
B . Introduction of the New Management Procedure
(NMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . .
C . The NMP: How it Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104. . .
1 . The Three Categories (Not all Stocks were
Regarded as Depleted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104. . . .
2 . Estimation of the MSY Population Levels and
the Scientific Data Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107. . .
Section 3 . From the NMP to the Moratorium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108
A. The Difficulties in Implementing the NMP and the
Efforts by the Scientific Committee to Overcome Them . 108
B . Revival of Moratorium Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 .
C . Controversy Concerning the Moratorium . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Section 4 . Toward Improved Sustainable Use: Revised
Management Procedure (RMP) and its Improvement . . . 123
A . Commercial Whaling Moratorium and Comprehensive
Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . .
B . The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) . . . . . . . . . 128
C . Improvement of the RMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133. . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . . . . .
iii PART II
JARPAII ISASCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME CONTRIBUTING
TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WHALES
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
CHAPTER 4 JARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141. . . . .
Summary of Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142. . . . . . . . . .
Section 1 . JARPA’s Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 . . . . .
Section 2 . Research Methods in JARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155. .
A . Research Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 . . . . . . .
B . Research Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159. . . . . . .
C . Target Species for Lethal Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 .
D . Research Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 . . . . . . .
1 . Age Composition (for Objective 1 of JARPA) . . . . . . 161
2 . Reproductive Parameters (for Objective 1 of
JARPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 . . . . . . . .
3 . Feeding Ecology / Diet Composition and
Consumption Rates (for Objective 2 of JARPA) . . . . 162
4 . Pollutants (for Objective 3 of JARPA) . . . . . . . . . . 163
5 . Stock Structure (for Objective 4 of JARPA) . . . . . . . . 164
E . Necessity of Lethal Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 . . .
1 . General Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166. . . . . .
2 . Age Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 . . . . .
3 . Reproductive Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 . . .
4 . Feeding Ecology / Diet Composition and
Consumption Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 . . . .
5 . Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6 . Stock Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 . . . . . . .
F . Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 . . . . . . . .
iv 1. Scientific Considerations for the Determination of
the Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179. . . . . . . .
2 . Absence of Harms to the Whale Stocks that might
be Caused by Lethal Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182. . .
Section 3 . Research Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182. . . . . . . .
A . Review Meetings/Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183. . .
1 . 1997 IWC JARPAMid-term Review Working
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 . . . . . . . . . .
2 . The 2005 Japan JARPAReview Meeting . . . . . . . . . . 186
3 . The 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop . . . . 187
B. Documents Submitted to the Scientific Committee . . . . . 188
C . Publication in Peer-reviewed Journals . . . . . . . . . . . .190. .
D. Data Sets Provided in Response to Requests under
the IWC’s DataAvailabilityAgreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Section 4 . Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193. . . . . . . . . .
A . Evaluations in Light of Each Research Objective . . . . . . 193
1 . Objective 1: Estimation of Biological Parameters . . . 193
2 . Objective 2: Elucidation of the Role of Whales in
theAntarctic Marine Ecosystem . . . . . . 199
3 . Objective 3: Elucidation of the Effect of
Environmental Change on Cetaceans . . 204
4 . Objective 4: Elucidation of the Stock Structure
of Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whales to Improve Stock Management . 207
5 . Other Important Results:Abundance Estimates . . . . . 209
B . Overall Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 . . . . . . .
1 . The 1997 IWC JARPAMid-term Review WG . . . . . . 215
2 . The 2005 Japan JARPAReview Meeting . . . . . . . . . . 216
3 . The 2006 IWC JARPAFinal Review Workshop . . . . 217
4 . ACriticalAnalysis of IWC Resolutions Negative
to JARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223. . . . . . . . . . . . .
vCHAPTER 5 JARPAII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 . . .
Summary of Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 . . . . . . . . .
Section 1 . Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 . . . . . .
Section 2 . Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232. . . . . . . . .
A . Objective 1: Monitoring of theAntarctic Ecosystem . . . . 233
B . Objective 2: Modelling Competition among Whale
Species and Future Management Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 238
C . Objective 3: Elucidation of Temporal and Spatial
Changes in Stock Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 . . .
D . Objective 4: Improving the Management Procedure for
Antarctic Minke Whale Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 .
Section 3 . Details of the Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246. . .
A . Research Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246. . . . . . .
B . Research Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 . . . . . .
C . Research Items and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250. .
1 . Necessity of Lethal Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250. .
2. Scientific Basis of the Targeted Species and the
Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253. . . . . . .
(1) Targeted Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 . . . . . .
(2) Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255. . . . . .
(i) Antarctic Minke Whales . . . . . . . . . . . .255
(a) Basic Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 . .
(b) Example:Age at Maturity . . . . . . . . . 257
(c) Example: Pregnancy Rate . . . . . . . . . 259
(d) Blubber Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . .260.
(e) Determined Sample Size . . . . . . . . . .260
(f) Actual Catches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 . .
(ii) Humpback and Fin Whales . . . . . . . . . . . 265
(iii) Statements Delivered by Japanese
Officials Regarding the Sample Size . . . . 266
(3) Absence of Harms to the Whale Stocks that
might be Caused by Lethal Methods . . . . . . . . 267
viSection 4 . Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 . . . . . . . . . .
A. Documents Submitted to the Scientific Committee . . . . . 271
1 . Cruise Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273. . . . . . . .
2 . OtherAnalytical Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 . . . .
B . Publications in Peer-reviewed Journals . . . . . . . . . . . .278.
Section 5 . Preliminary Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 . . . . .
Section 6 . JARPA/JARPAII are Not Dictated by Economic or
Commercial Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280. . . . .
A . Research Implementation Framework (RIF) of
JARPA/JARPA II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281. . . . . .
1 . Basic Structure of RIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
(1) Government of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 . .
(2) Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) . . . . . . . .284
(3) Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
2. RIF is Structured for Scientific Purposes . . . . . . . .286.
(1) Lethal Sampling is Employed in JARPA/
JARPA II to Achieve Scientific Objectives . . . . 286
(2) The Number of Whales to be Sampled is
Determined by Scientific Considerations . . . . . 286
(3) The Sale of Whale Meat By-products is
Conducted in Conformity withArticle
VIII(2) of the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287. . . .
B . The Difference Between Whaling Operations for
Commercial Purposes and Scientific Research Purposes . 289
1 . Areas of Operation and Trackline . . . . . . . . . . . . .290. .
2 . Target Species and the Number of Whales Taken . . . . 291
3 . Selection of Individual Whales Taken . . . . . . . . . . 291
4 . Information/Data to be Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . .292. .
5 . Tissue Samples Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 . . . .
6 . Personnel Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 . . . . . .
7 . Manner in which Proceeds are Dealt with . . . . . . . . .293
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294. . . . . . . . . . . .
vii PART III
THE LAW
INTRODUCTION: APPLICABLE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
CHAPTER 6 THE OBJECTAND PURPOSE OFTHE ICRW . . . . 305
Section 1 . The Object and Purpose of the ICRW as Stated in its
Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305. . . . . . . . . . .
Section 2 . Conservation and Exploitation are Not Contradictory . . . 310
Section 3 . The Object and Purpose of the ICRW Contrasted with
that of Other Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318. . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320. . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER 7 INTERPRETATION OFARTICLE VIII . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Section 1. The Meaning of Article VIII is Clear and Unequivocal . . 323
A . The “natural and ordinary meaning”:Article VIII(1)
Gives the Contracting Government Discretion
Regarding the Grant of Special Permits to its
Nationals and the ConditionsAttached to Them . . . . . . . .324
B . The Natural and Ordinary Meaning: “Special Permit”
Whaling is “exempt from the operation” of the
Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 . . . . . . . . . .
C . The Context:Article VIII(4) Establishes that the
Continuous Collection andAnalysis of Biological
Data in Connection with the Operations of Factory
Ships is Indispensable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327. . . . . . . .
D. There is No Subsequent Agreement or Practice to be
Taken into Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 . . . . . . .
Section 2 . The Same Interpretation would Result from Examination
of the Scheme and the Drafting History of the ICRW . . . . 329
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340. . . . . . . . . . . .
viiiCHAPTER 8 THE LEGALSTATUS OF IWC SECONDARY
INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342. . . . .
Section 1 . Australia’s Misuse of IWC Secondary
Instruments for the Purposes of Interpretation . . . . . . .344.
A . Australia’s Reliance upon Secondary Instruments for
Determining the Object and Purpose of the ICRW is
Misplaced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 . . . . . . . . . .
B. Secondary Instruments are Neither Subsequent
Agreements Nor Subsequent Practice . . . . . . . . . . . .349. .
1. Secondary Instruments are Not Subsequent
Agreements within the Meaning of
Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention . . . . . . . .350
(1) Australia Misconceives the Scope of
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule . . . . . . . . .350. . . .
(2) Australia Distorts the Meaning of
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and of
Related Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .355. . . . .
(3) Discussions within the IWC Highlight
the Lack ofAgreement for a Revision
of Article VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 . . . . . . .
2. Secondary Instruments are Not Subsequent
Practice within the Meaning ofArticle 31(3)(b)
of the Vienna Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .365. . . . .
C . The Schedule Amendments do Not Qualify as
“context” for the Interpretation ofArticle VIII . . . . . .369.
Section 2 . Secondary Instruments cannot Provide an
Autonomous Basis forAdjudication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 .
Section 3 . Japan Considered in Good Faith the Secondary
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 . . . . . . . . . .
A . Japan’s Permits Take into Consideration the
Guidelines and Resolutions on Special Permits . . . . . . . 375
ix B . Japan’s Readiness to Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 .
1 . Japan’s Concessions in the Negotiations . . . . . . . . . 380
2 . Japan Engaged in a Good Faith Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . 382
3 . Japan Gave Reasons for its Disagreement,
When it Occurred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .388. . . . . .
C . Japan’s Right to Oppose IWC Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . 388
1 . Resolutions Inconsistent withArticle VIII of
the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 . . . . . . . .
2 . InstrumentsAdopted in Disregard of the Opinion
of the Scientific Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .394. . . .
3 . InstrumentsAdopted Despite the Pro-Whaling
States’ Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 9 JARPAII IS IN CONFORMITYWITH
ARTICLE VIII OF THE ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Section 1 . The Court Has No Jurisdiction over the Dispute . . . . . . . 409
Section 2. The Conditions Specified in Article VIII have been
Complied with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 . . . . . . . .
A . Australia’s Five Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .411. . . . .
B . JARPAII Falls Well within the Margins of
Appreciation underArticle VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .416. . .
C . Obligations underArticle VIII have been Complied
with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Section 3. JARPA II is Carried Out for Purposes of Scientific
Research inAccordance with the Object and Purpose
of the ICRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .419. . . . . . . . .
Section 4 . JARPAII Supports a PrecautionaryApproach to
Whaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 . . . . . . . . . .
Section 5 . JARPAII Complies with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule . . 426
Section 6 . Special Permit Whaling is Not anAbuse of Right . . . . . . 428
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF ANNEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .435. . . . . . . .
xi List of Abbreviations
AAT Australian Antarctic Territory
AM Memorial of Australia
AWS Australian Whale Sanctuary
BWU Blue Whale Unit
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources
Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora
CLA Catch Limit Algorithm
CLCS Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct
1999
EPCS Electronic Particle Counting and Sizing System
FAJ Fisheries Agency of Japan
ICR Institute of Cetacean Research
ICRW International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
IDCR International Decade of Cetacean Research
IMS Initial Management Stock
ISTs Implementation Simulation Trials
IWC International Whaling Commission List of Abbreviations
AAT Australian Antarctic Territory
AM Memorial of Australia
AWS Australian Whale Sanctuary
BWU Blue Whale Unit
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCAMLR Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources
Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora
CLA Catch Limit Algorithm
CLCS Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct
1999
EPCS Electronic Particle Counting and Sizing System
FAJ Fisheries Agency of Japan
ICR Institute of Cetacean Research
ICRW International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
IDCR International Decade of Cetacean Research
IMS Initial Management Stock
ISTs Implementation Simulation Trials
IWC International Whaling Commission
xiiiJARPA Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic
JARPA I I Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program
1 .
under Special Permit in theAntarctic this Counter-Memorial in accordance with the Order of the Court dat ed 13
JARPN Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in July 2010 fixing the time -limits for the filing of the written pleadings . As
the North Pacific provided in Article 49(2) of the Rules of Court, Japan’s Counter
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
will deal with points of agreement and disagreement regarding the factual and
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield legal statements made inAustralia’s Memorial .
MSYR Maximum Sustainable Yield Rate
NMP New Management Procedure 2 .
PS Protection Stock
nature of the current dispute . Australia’s Application and Memorial present a
RIF Research Implementation Framework dispute which is about whether or not Japan has violated its obligations under
RMP Revised Management Procedure Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
RMS Revised Management Scheme (ICRW)
SMS Sustained Management Stock
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPAII) (Section
SOWER Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research
1) . The Introduction summarizes the arguments made in the main body of the
SORP Southern Ocean Research Partnership Counter-Memorial . However, Japan considers that the Court lacks
SSCS Sea Shepherd Conservation Society jurisdiction to entertain the present case (Section 2) and it is therefore only in
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
the alternative that Japan discusses Australia’s arguments on the merits
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(Section 3) .
VPA Virtual Population Analysis
3 .
and continues to do so . There is thus no cause for the Court to issue decisions
of any kind against Japan .
1
xivJARPA Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic
JARPA I I Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program
1 .
under Special Permit in theAntarctic this Counter-Memorial in accordance with the Order of the Court dat ed 13
JARPN Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in July 2010 fixing the time -limits for the filing of the written pleadings . As
the North Pacific provided in Article 49(2) of the Rules of Court, Japan’s Counter
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
will deal with points of agreement and disagreement regarding the factual and
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield legal statements made inAustralia’s Memorial .
MSYR Maximum Sustainable Yield Rate
NMP New Management Procedure 2 .
PS Protection Stock
nature of the current dispute . Australia’s Application and Memorial present a
RIF Research Implementation Framework dispute which is about whether or not Japan has violated its obligations under
RMP Revised Management Procedure Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
RMS Revised Management Scheme (ICRW)
SMS Sustained Management Stock
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPAII) (Section
SOWER Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research
1) . The Introduction summarizes the arguments made in the main body of the
SORP Southern Ocean Research Partnership Counter-Memorial . However, Japan considers that the Court lacks
SSCS Sea Shepherd Conservation Society jurisdiction to entertain the present case (Section 2) and it is therefore only in
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
the alternative that Japan discusses Australia’s arguments on the merits
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(Section 3) .
VPA Virtual Population Analysis
3 .
and continues to do so . There is thus no cause for the Court to issue decisions
of any kind against Japan .
1 Section 1. Scope and Nature of the Dispute 7 .
legal under Article VIII of the Convention”
4 . In its Application, filed in the Registry of the Court on 31 May 2010, methodology of JARPA . Now it has changed its mind and argues for a
Australia stated that the “subject of the dispute between Australia and Japan, dynamic interpretation of the provisions of the
2
… [is] the legality of large-scale ‘special permit’whaling under JARPA II” . obligations for the Contracting Governments .
5 . In its Memorial, while stating that “ a legal dispute exists between 8 .
Australia and Japan as to the lawfulness of JARPA II under international is in violation of Japan’s obligations under the Factory Ship Moratorium, the
law” , Australia f urther contends that “ [t]he focus of Australia’s case is Commercial Whaling Moratorium a
Japan’s failure to comply with its obligations under the ICRW, and, in stipulated in the Schedule to the ICRW
particular, its obligation not to kill whales for commercial purposes and its answer to the question whether or not JARPA II can be justified under Article
obligation not to conduct commercial whaling for fin and humpback whales VIII . If JARPA II is a programme conducted legitimately under Article VIII
in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary .” 4 of the ICRW, it will follow logically that its implementation does not viola te
Japan’s obligations under the Moratoria and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary ,
6 . The scope of the dispute currently before the Court is, therefore, because the Contracting Governments are given the right to issue the special
whether or not Japan has violated and/or is violating its obligations under the permits “ [n]otwithstanding anything contained in”
ICRW by authori zing and implementing JARPA II . In other words, the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of . . .
dispute is about the conduct of special permit whaling pursuant to Article Article [VIII] shall be exempt from the operation of [the] Convention .”
VIII of the ICRW . Article VIII sets out the right of each Contracting
Government to “grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that 9 .
national to kil l, take , and treat whales for purposes of scientific research JARPA II under any rules of international law other than Ar ticle VIII of the
subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions ICRW .
5
as the Contracting Government thinks fit” .
6
2 Australia’s Application, para . 29 .
3 Memorial of Australia (AM), para . 1 .7 . 7
5 AM, para . 1 .8 . 9
ICRW, Art . VIII(1) .
2 Section 1. Scope and Nature of the Dispute 7 .
legal under Article VIII of the Convention”
4 . In its Application, filed in the Registry of the Court on 31 May 2010, methodology of JARPA . Now it has changed its mind and argues for a
Australia stated that the “subject of the dispute between Australia and Japan, dynamic interpretation of the provisions of the
2
… [is] the legality of large-scale ‘special permit’whaling under JARPA II” . obligations for the Contracting Governments .
5 . In its Memorial, while stating that “ a legal dispute exists between 8 .
Australia and Japan as to the lawfulness of JARPA II under international is in violation of Japan’s obligations under the Factory Ship Moratorium, the
law” , Australia f urther contends that “ [t]he focus of Australia’s case is Commercial Whaling Moratorium a
Japan’s failure to comply with its obligations under the ICRW, and, in stipulated in the Schedule to the ICRW
particular, its obligation not to kill whales for commercial purposes and its answer to the question whether or not JARPA II can be justified under Article
obligation not to conduct commercial whaling for fin and humpback whales VIII . If JARPA II is a programme conducted legitimately under Article VIII
in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary .” 4 of the ICRW, it will follow logically that its implementation does not viola te
Japan’s obligations under the Moratoria and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary ,
6 . The scope of the dispute currently before the Court is, therefore, because the Contracting Governments are given the right to issue the special
whether or not Japan has violated and/or is violating its obligations under the permits “ [n]otwithstanding anything contained in”
ICRW by authori zing and implementing JARPA II . In other words, the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of . . .
dispute is about the conduct of special permit whaling pursuant to Article Article [VIII] shall be exempt from the operation of [the] Convention .”
VIII of the ICRW . Article VIII sets out the right of each Contracting
Government to “grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that 9 .
national to kil l, take , and treat whales for purposes of scientific research JARPA II under any rules of international law other than Ar ticle VIII of the
subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions ICRW .
5
as the Contracting Government thinks fit” .
6
2 Australia’s Application, para . 29 .
3 Memorial of Australia (AM), para . 1 .7 . 7
5 AM, para . 1 .8 . 9
ICRW, Art . VIII(1) .10 . The dispute is not, for example, about the conformity of JARPAII to that what is in reality a matter of multilateral marine resource management
Japan’s obligations under various environmental treaty regimes protecting has been disguised as a bilateral legal dispute and broug ht before the Court
biodiversity or endangered species . In this connection, Japan notes that while efforts are being made through the proper forum (the IWC) to
Australia has made it clear that it “is not seeking any remedy flowing from overcome differences among the Contracting Governments .
10
the obligations of Japan under the Convention on Biological Diversity .” As
for Australia’s statement that it “ reserves the right to seek remedies from the 14 .
Court in relation to a breach of the C onvention on International Trade in current and proposed IWC processes cannot resolve the key legal issue that is
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)” 11, such a the subject of the dispute between Australia and Japan .”
reservation does not give Australia the right to make its claim under CITES at wonder that that is so . The Future of the IWC process
a later stage of the proceedings . This point will be elaborated in Chapter 1 of referred to as the “ current and proposed IWC processes”
this Counter-Memorial on jurisdiction . about the legality of JARPAII .
11 . In this Counter -Memorial, therefore, whaling conducted under an 15 .
authorization given in accordance with Artic le VIII of the ICRW will be resolve the differences that exist among the members of the IWC, based on
referred to as “special permit whaling” rather than “scientific whaling”, the principle of cooperation and compromise, and thus to save the
“research whaling” or any other terms commonly used . organization by restoring its function of effective whale conservation and
management . This was clearly expressed in the 2010 Report of the Chair of
12 . Based on the above, in this Counter -Memorial, Japan will show that the Commission, as follows:
JARPA II is a legitimate scientific programme , permitted under Article VIII
of the ICRW . JARPA II’s objectives and methods, together with its valuable
scientific outputs designed to contribute to the working of the Interna tional
Whaling Commission ( IWC) and its Scientific Committee , are fully
consistent with the text as well as with the object and purpose of the ICRW .
13 . Japan has acted and is continuing to act in full conformity with the
ICRW and for the furtherance of its object and purpose . It therefore regrets
12
10AM, para . 1 .9 . 13
11AM, para . 1 .9 . 14
410 . The dispute is not, for example, about the conformity of JARPAII to that what is in reality a matter of multilateral marine resource management
Japan’s obligations under various environmental treaty regimes protecting has been disguised as a bilateral legal dispute and broug ht before the Court
biodiversity or endangered species . In this connection, Japan notes that while efforts are being made through the proper forum (the IWC) to
Australia has made it clear that it “is not seeking any remedy flowing from overcome differences among the Contracting Governments .
10
the obligations of Japan under the Convention on Biological Diversity .” As
for Australia’s statement that it “ reserves the right to seek remedies from the 14 .
Court in relation to a breach of the C onvention on International Trade in current and proposed IWC processes cannot resolve the key legal issue that is
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)” 11, such a the subject of the dispute between Australia and Japan .”
reservation does not give Australia the right to make its claim under CITES at wonder that that is so . The Future of the IWC process
a later stage of the proceedings . This point will be elaborated in Chapter 1 of referred to as the “ current and proposed IWC processes”
this Counter-Memorial on jurisdiction . about the legality of JARPAII .
11 . In this Counter -Memorial, therefore, whaling conducted under an 15 .
authorization given in accordance with Artic le VIII of the ICRW will be resolve the differences that exist among the members of the IWC, based on
referred to as “special permit whaling” rather than “scientific whaling”, the principle of cooperation and compromise, and thus to save the
“research whaling” or any other terms commonly used . organization by restoring its function of effective whale conservation and
management . This was clearly expressed in the 2010 Report of the Chair of
12 . Based on the above, in this Counter -Memorial, Japan will show that the Commission, as follows:
JARPA II is a legitimate scientific programme , permitted under Article VIII
of the ICRW . JARPA II’s objectives and methods, together with its valuable
scientific outputs designed to contribute to the working of the Interna tional
Whaling Commission ( IWC) and its Scientific Committee , are fully
consistent with the text as well as with the object and purpose of the ICRW .
13 . Japan has acted and is continuing to act in full conformity with the
ICRW and for the furtherance of its object and purpose . It therefore regrets
12
10AM, para . 1 .9 . 13
11AM, para . 1 .9 . 14 scientific level . This has created concerns among some members whaling in the Southern Ocean within five years .”
over the possible collapse of the IWC .
The status quo is not an option for an effective multilateral 17 .
organisation . To overcome the present impasse, the IWC has in
position as follows:
recent years recognised the need to create a non -confrontational
environment within which issues of fundamental difference amongst
members can be discussed with a view to their resolution .
Reconciliation of differences in views about whales and whaling will
strengthen actions related to the common goal of maintaining healthy
whale populations and maximising the likelihood of the recovery of
15
depleted populations .”
16 . The members of the IWC, and especially most of those who
participated as members of the Small Working Group on the Future of the
16
IWC and as members of the Support Group , have worked strenuously since
2008 for this purpose . They thought that they had come close to reaching an
agreement, until Australia suddenly backed out of the process and adopted an
uncompromising position in which it would accept nothing short of its 18 .
proposal submitted in March 2010, which included “phasing down and out of 31st Annual Meeting of the IWC in 1979, that Australia had changed its basic
policy “from one of the conservative utilisation of whale stocks to promoting
a policy of banning whaling and protecting whale populations
15 “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from the Chair and Vice
Chair of the Commission”, Annex E, Chair’s Report of the 62ndAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of obvious that Australia is opposed to any form of whaling (except aboriginal
the International Whaling Commission,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/agadir/AnnexE .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012, p . 57 subsistence whaling), regardless of science or law . This is incompatible with
[Annex 118] .
16 The Small Working Group on the Future of the IWC (SWG) was established at the 60th Annual the text as well as with the object and purpose of the ICRW and the objective
Meeting of the IWC in 2008 to “assist the Commission to arrive at a consensus solution to the main
issues it faces … and thus to enable it to best fulfill its role with respect to the conservation of whale of the IWC’s work, which is to ensure sustainable use of whale resources
stocks and the management of whaling .” (Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission
2008, p . 87 .) The SWG’s primary task was to “make every effort to develop a package or packages through proper conservation measures .
for review by the Commission .” (Ibid.)
The Support Group (SG) was established in accordance with Resolution 2009-2 adopted at the 17
61st Annual Meeting of the IWC in 2009 to “assist him/her [the IWC Chair] in providing direction
to the process and to assist in the preparation of material for submission to the Small Working 18
Group .” (Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2009, p . 96 .) The SG was 19
designed to contain “equitable geographic and socio-economic representation and range of views”
(Ibid.) and eventually comprised Antigua and Berbuda, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Germany,
Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, St . Kitts and Nevis, Sweden and the USA . (Annual Report of
the International Whaling Commission 2009, p . 14 .)
6 scientific level . This has created concerns among some members whaling in the Southern Ocean within five years .”
over the possible collapse of the IWC .
The status quo is not an option for an effective multilateral 17 .
organisation . To overcome the present impasse, the IWC has in
position as follows:
recent years recognised the need to create a non -confrontational
environment within which issues of fundamental difference amongst
members can be discussed with a view to their resolution .
Reconciliation of differences in views about whales and whaling will
strengthen actions related to the common goal of maintaining healthy
whale populations and maximising the likelihood of the recovery of
15
depleted populations .”
16 . The members of the IWC, and especially most of those who
participated as members of the Small Working Group on the Future of the
16
IWC and as members of the Support Group , have worked strenuously since
2008 for this purpose . They thought that they had come close to reaching an
agreement, until Australia suddenly backed out of the process and adopted an
uncompromising position in which it would accept nothing short of its 18 .
proposal submitted in March 2010, which included “phasing down and out of 31st Annual Meeting of the IWC in 1979, that Australia had changed its basic
policy “from one of the conservative utilisation of whale stocks to promoting
a policy of banning whaling and protecting whale populations
15 “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from the Chair and Vice
Chair of the Commission”, Annex E, Chair’s Report of the 62ndAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of obvious that Australia is opposed to any form of whaling (except aboriginal
the International Whaling Commission,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/agadir/AnnexE .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012, p . 57 subsistence whaling), regardless of science or law . This is incompatible with
[Annex 118] .
16 The Small Working Group on the Future of the IWC (SWG) was established at the 60th Annual the text as well as with the object and purpose of the ICRW and the objective
Meeting of the IWC in 2008 to “assist the Commission to arrive at a consensus solution to the main
issues it faces … and thus to enable it to best fulfill its role with respect to the conservation of whale of the IWC’s work, which is to ensure sustainable use of whale resources
stocks and the management of whaling .” (Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission
2008, p . 87 .) The SWG’s primary task was to “make every effort to develop a package or packages through proper conservation measures .
for review by the Commission .” (Ibid.)
The Support Group (SG) was established in accordance with Resolution 2009-2 adopted at the 17
61st Annual Meeting of the IWC in 2009 to “assist him/her [the IWC Chair] in providing direction
to the process and to assist in the preparation of material for submission to the Small Working 18
Group .” (Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2009, p . 96 .) The SG was 19
designed to contain “equitable geographic and socio-economic representation and range of views”
(Ibid.) and eventually comprised Antigua and Berbuda, Australia, Brazil, Cameroon, Germany,
Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, St . Kitts and Nevis, Sweden and the USA . (Annual Report of
the International Whaling Commission 2009, p . 14 .)19 . The whaling controversy at the IWC and elsewhere has drifted away
from any basis in science and law for too long . Notwithstanding its objection 23 .
to the jurisdiction of the Court, Japan submits this Counter -Memorial with jurisdiction to decide on the Australian Application . It is therefore only in the
the earnest hope that it will contribute to rational discussion, putting an end to alternative that Japan will discuss the arguments of the Applicant on the
the unreasonable rows and restor ing the “non-confrontational environment” merits .
at the IWC so as to enable the Commission to function properly again as an
institution promoting whale conservation and management based on science .
Section 2. Jurisdiction
24 .
20 . Japan fully respects the important role of the Court as the principal argument on its own interpretation of the object and purpose of the ICRW
judicial organ of the United Nations . It made a Declaration recognizing the and of Article VIII
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in 1958 and has maintained it since then . characteristics” of a programme “properly”
However, in the present case, Japan seriously questions the jurisdiction of the scientific research
Court regarding the dispute referred to it byAustralia . undertaken for purposes other than scientific research”
that JARPA II cannot be justified as a programme conducted under Article
21 . Although Japan did not exercise its right to raise preliminary VIII of the ICRW . This means, in Australia’s understanding, that JARPAII is
objections, it understands that nothing prevents the Respondent from raising commercial whaling, and that Japan is therefore in breach of the Moratoria
objections to the jurisdiction in its Counter -Memorial . Japan considers that and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary adopted by the IWC .
the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the present case be cause of the
reservation in Australia’s Declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction 25 .
of the Court . the dispute, including the facts relating to the role and history of the IWC, the
development of conservation and management measures by the IWC, and the
22 . Japan’s argument on jurisdiction is explained in more detail in purpose, methods and the scientific outputs of the Japanese Whale Research
Chapter 1 .
20
21
22
819 . The whaling controversy at the IWC and elsewhere has drifted away
from any basis in science and law for too long . Notwithstanding its objection 23 .
to the jurisdiction of the Court, Japan submits this Counter -Memorial with jurisdiction to decide on the Australian Application . It is therefore only in the
the earnest hope that it will contribute to rational discussion, putting an end to alternative that Japan will discuss the arguments of the Applicant on the
the unreasonable rows and restor ing the “non-confrontational environment” merits .
at the IWC so as to enable the Commission to function properly again as an
institution promoting whale conservation and management based on science .
Section 2. Jurisdiction
24 .
20 . Japan fully respects the important role of the Court as the principal argument on its own interpretation of the object and purpose of the ICRW
judicial organ of the United Nations . It made a Declaration recognizing the and of Article VIII
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in 1958 and has maintained it since then . characteristics” of a programme “properly”
However, in the present case, Japan seriously questions the jurisdiction of the scientific research
Court regarding the dispute referred to it byAustralia . undertaken for purposes other than scientific research”
that JARPA II cannot be justified as a programme conducted under Article
21 . Although Japan did not exercise its right to raise preliminary VIII of the ICRW . This means, in Australia’s understanding, that JARPAII is
objections, it understands that nothing prevents the Respondent from raising commercial whaling, and that Japan is therefore in breach of the Moratoria
objections to the jurisdiction in its Counter -Memorial . Japan considers that and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary adopted by the IWC .
the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the present case be cause of the
reservation in Australia’s Declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction 25 .
of the Court . the dispute, including the facts relating to the role and history of the IWC, the
development of conservation and management measures by the IWC, and the
22 . Japan’s argument on jurisdiction is explained in more detail in purpose, methods and the scientific outputs of the Japanese Whale Research
Chapter 1 .
20
21
22Program under Special Permit in the Antar ctic (JARPA) and JARPA II, as purpose of the ICRW as stipulated in its
well as their evaluation by the IWC Scientific Committee . ensure the sustainable use of whales . Thus, f
Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, which prescribes the Commercial Whaling
1. The Role of the IWC and its Work Moratorium, agreed by the Contracting Governments in 1982, was a measure
26 . According to its Memorial, Australia recogniz es that “the ICRW compatible with that object and purpose .
established the Commission as the principal institution responsible to give
23
effect to its object and purpose .” Australia also accepts that “[a]t the time 2.
of the conclusion of the Convention, the ICRW’s objective – the conservation 29 .
and recovery of all whale stocks – was seen as a means to achieve the orderly adoption of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium in 1982, or of its
development of the whaling industry .” 24 Australia recognizes that the ICRW background and the reasons for its adoption .
is “the international legal regime for the regulation of whaling” which was “ a context and history of these negotiations can only be characteri
system primarily designed to manage the exp loitation of a natural resource” self-serving . Austr alia asserts that “with the adoption in 1982 of the
25
when the ICRW was concluded . However, it contends that the practice of moratorium on commercial whaling, the Contracting Governments
26
the IWC has seen “an increased emphasis on conservation per se” , and that determined that in the immediate future the ICRW’s object and purpose could
27
“[t]he IWC now pursues conservation of whales as an end itself .” only be achieved by a complete and total prohibition on commercial
whaling .”
27 . If Australia is right, the IWC has gone beyond the mandate given to Moratorium and the reasons behind its adoption in 1982, this sentence creates
it by the ICRW, and what A ustralia calls the “evolution” of the regulation of the impression that the Moratorium was adopted as a “perpetual ban”
whaling under the IWC, including a series of Schedule amendments, would commercial whaling, designed to protect whales as an end in itself, and that
be ultra vires . such a protective measure is called for by the object and purpose of the
ICRW .
28 . The truth is that Australia has misunderstood and misinterpreted the
facts . The role of the IWC has been, and continues to be, to implement whale 30 .
conservation and management measures in pursuance of the object and makes it clear that the Moratorium is a temporary suspens ion of commercial
whaling, with a built-in deadline for review . It was adopted in order to
23
24AM, para . 2 .98 . address concerns about the lack of scientific knowledge at the time ; and it
25AM, para . 2 .125 .
26AM, para . 2 .98 .
27AM, para . 2 .99 . 28
10Program under Special Permit in the Antar ctic (JARPA) and JARPA II, as purpose of the ICRW as stipulated in its
well as their evaluation by the IWC Scientific Committee . ensure the sustainable use of whales . Thus, f
Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, which prescribes the Commercial Whaling
1. The Role of the IWC and its Work Moratorium, agreed by the Contracting Governments in 1982, was a measure
26 . According to its Memorial, Australia recogniz es that “the ICRW compatible with that object and purpose .
established the Commission as the principal institution responsible to give
23
effect to its object and purpose .” Australia also accepts that “[a]t the time 2.
of the conclusion of the Convention, the ICRW’s objective – the conservation 29 .
and recovery of all whale stocks – was seen as a means to achieve the orderly adoption of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium in 1982, or of its
development of the whaling industry .” 24 Australia recognizes that the ICRW background and the reasons for its adoption .
is “the international legal regime for the regulation of whaling” which was “ a context and history of these negotiations can only be characteri
system primarily designed to manage the exp loitation of a natural resource” self-serving . Austr alia asserts that “with the adoption in 1982 of the
25
when the ICRW was concluded . However, it contends that the practice of moratorium on commercial whaling, the Contracting Governments
26
the IWC has seen “an increased emphasis on conservation per se” , and that determined that in the immediate future the ICRW’s object and purpose could
27
“[t]he IWC now pursues conservation of whales as an end itself .” only be achieved by a complete and total prohibition on commercial
whaling .”
27 . If Australia is right, the IWC has gone beyond the mandate given to Moratorium and the reasons behind its adoption in 1982, this sentence creates
it by the ICRW, and what A ustralia calls the “evolution” of the regulation of the impression that the Moratorium was adopted as a “perpetual ban”
whaling under the IWC, including a series of Schedule amendments, would commercial whaling, designed to protect whales as an end in itself, and that
be ultra vires . such a protective measure is called for by the object and purpose of the
ICRW .
28 . The truth is that Australia has misunderstood and misinterpreted the
facts . The role of the IWC has been, and continues to be, to implement whale 30 .
conservation and management measures in pursuance of the object and makes it clear that the Moratorium is a temporary suspens ion of commercial
whaling, with a built-in deadline for review . It was adopted in order to
23
24AM, para . 2 .98 . address concerns about the lack of scientific knowledge at the time ; and it
25AM, para . 2 .125 .
26AM, para . 2 .98 .
27AM, para . 2 .99 . 28imposes a duty on the Commission to conduct a comprehensive assessment 33 .
of the effects of the Moratorium . Once the comprehensive assessment is was designed and implemented after the adoption of the C
conducted, the modification of the Moratorium provision and the Whaling Moratorium in order to provide the scientific data necessary for the
establishment of catch limits other than zero is possible . IWC and it s Scientific Committee to utiliz
contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment”
31 . In the context of whale resource management, the adoption of the in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule
Commercial Wha ling Moratorium in 1982 was not something that was JARPA II also was launched and conducted to collect scien
supported without question. In fact, certain Contracting Governments and the contributing to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment
IWC Scientific Committee, and renowned individual scientists , were of the follow up on the findings of JARPAwhich indicated that significant changes
view that prudent management required the regulation of stocks individually in theAntarctic ecosystem were taking place .
and that a blanket moratorium on commercial whaling could not be justified
scientifically . The idea of such a blanket moratorium was repeatedly rejected 34 .
by the IWC; but it was eventually adopted, although there was no agreed Japan has provided and continues to provide these results to the IWC
advice from the Scientific Committee in support of it . Scientific Committee . JARPA and JARPA II have made significant
contributions to the deliberations at the Scientific Committee, and have been
3. The Case for JARPAand JARPAII duly evaluated as such .
32 . The subject of the dispute is the legality of JARPA II : but Australia
begins its arguments with criticisms of the first phase of Japan’s special 35 .
permit whaling in the Antar ctic, JARPA . Australia alleges that Japan started straight . First of all, the text of Article VIII of the ICRW expressly envisages
JARPA in order to “support its pelagic whaling industry and continue that it may be necessary to kill, take , and treat whales for the purposes of
whaling i ndefinitely under the guise of ‘ science’” 29 despite accepting the scientific research .
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling . The real purpose of JARPA II,
according to Australia, is simply to continue with what Australia calls the 36 .
“business model for ‘ scientific’ whaling to enable whaling operations to methods, and the choice between them is dependent, not on economic interest,
30
continue on a largely self-sustainable financial basis .” but on the particular biological data sought in order to pursue the objectives
of the research . For lethal methods, the sample sizes are calculated so that
29
30AM, para . 5 .110 . See also AM, Chapter 3 . 31
AM, paras . 3 .72-3 .117 .
12imposes a duty on the Commission to conduct a comprehensive assessment 33 .
of the effects of the Moratorium . Once the comprehensive assessment is was designed and implemented after the adoption of the C
conducted, the modification of the Moratorium provision and the Whaling Moratorium in order to provide the scientific data necessary for the
establishment of catch limits other than zero is possible . IWC and it s Scientific Committee to utiliz
contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment”
31 . In the context of whale resource management, the adoption of the in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule
Commercial Wha ling Moratorium in 1982 was not something that was JARPA II also was launched and conducted to collect scien
supported without question. In fact, certain Contracting Governments and the contributing to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment
IWC Scientific Committee, and renowned individual scientists , were of the follow up on the findings of JARPAwhich indicated that significant changes
view that prudent management required the regulation of stocks individually in theAntarctic ecosystem were taking place .
and that a blanket moratorium on commercial whaling could not be justified
scientifically . The idea of such a blanket moratorium was repeatedly rejected 34 .
by the IWC; but it was eventually adopted, although there was no agreed Japan has provided and continues to provide these results to the IWC
advice from the Scientific Committee in support of it . Scientific Committee . JARPA and JARPA II have made significant
contributions to the deliberations at the Scientific Committee, and have been
3. The Case for JARPAand JARPAII duly evaluated as such .
32 . The subject of the dispute is the legality of JARPA II : but Australia
begins its arguments with criticisms of the first phase of Japan’s special 35 .
permit whaling in the Antar ctic, JARPA . Australia alleges that Japan started straight . First of all, the text of Article VIII of the ICRW expressly envisages
JARPA in order to “support its pelagic whaling industry and continue that it may be necessary to kill, take , and treat whales for the purposes of
whaling i ndefinitely under the guise of ‘ science’” 29 despite accepting the scientific research .
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling . The real purpose of JARPA II,
according to Australia, is simply to continue with what Australia calls the 36 .
“business model for ‘ scientific’ whaling to enable whaling operations to methods, and the choice between them is dependent, not on economic interest,
30
continue on a largely self-sustainable financial basis .” but on the particular biological data sought in order to pursue the objectives
of the research . For lethal methods, the sample sizes are calculated so that
29
30AM, para . 5 .110 . See also AM, Chapter 3 . 31
AM, paras . 3 .72-3 .117 .they are the minimum numbers required to obtain statistically meaningful such efforts are welcomed by the IWC Scientific Committee .
results necessary to meet the research objectives pursued, making sure that
the lethal samplings do not have an adverse effect on the status of the targeted 40 .
species . Furthermore, the research objectives are derived from the scientific endangered or threatened with extinction . There are more than 80 cetacean
discussions held in the Scientific Committee of the IWC . It will be shown in species in the world, among which 16 large whale species are managed by
this Counter-Memorial that there are good scientific explanations for every the IWC . They are: blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale, common
choice of research method employed . minke whale, Antarctic minke whale, humpback whale, gray whale, bowhead
whale, North Pacific right whale, North Atlantic right whale, southern right
37 . Finally, the sale of whale meat, by-products of Japan's special permit whale, pigmy right whale, sperm whale, northern bottlenose whale, and
whaling, is fully in accordance with Article VIII(2) of the ICRW . The southern bottlenose whale
proceeds obtained through the sales of by -products are allocated to the
expenditure associated with conducting special permit whaling : the sales do 41 .
not seek commercial gain . species, stock and population in question . Scientific findings show that some
whale species/stocks/populations are depleted or endangered, while others are
4. Status of the Targeted Species abundant or recovering from the past over-exploitation . Several whale stocks
38 . Australia alleges that JARPA II is not designed to avoid adverse are abundant enough to be utilized sustainably .
32
effects on the targeted whale stocks . But this allegation lacks any sound
scientific basis . 42 .
minke, and Bryde’s whales , that were exploited by commercial whaling
39 . It is indeed true that at one point in history certain spec ies of whales operations but nevertheless maintained high abundance levels . Furt hermore,
were subjected to over -exploitation and were seriously depleted , to near most of the large whale species depleted by commercial whaling in the past
extinction, and that some species such as blue whales in the Antarctic Ocean have shown signs of recovery , and some have now reached the abundance
have not recovered from past over-harvesting and remain at low stock levels . level of the pre-exploitation period .
Japan has made significant efforts to protect the endangered western North
Pacific gray whales from entanglement or entrapment in fishing gear ; and
33
34
32See AM, paras . 5 .96-5 .104 .
14they are the minimum numbers required to obtain statistically meaningful such efforts are welcomed by the IWC Scientific Committee .
results necessary to meet the research objectives pursued, making sure that
the lethal samplings do not have an adverse effect on the status of the targeted 40 .
species . Furthermore, the research objectives are derived from the scientific endangered or threatened with extinction . There are more than 80 cetacean
discussions held in the Scientific Committee of the IWC . It will be shown in species in the world, among which 16 large whale species are managed by
this Counter-Memorial that there are good scientific explanations for every the IWC . They are: blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, Bryde’s whale, common
choice of research method employed . minke whale, Antarctic minke whale, humpback whale, gray whale, bowhead
whale, North Pacific right whale, North Atlantic right whale, southern right
37 . Finally, the sale of whale meat, by-products of Japan's special permit whale, pigmy right whale, sperm whale, northern bottlenose whale, and
whaling, is fully in accordance with Article VIII(2) of the ICRW . The southern bottlenose whale
proceeds obtained through the sales of by -products are allocated to the
expenditure associated with conducting special permit whaling : the sales do 41 .
not seek commercial gain . species, stock and population in question . Scientific findings show that some
whale species/stocks/populations are depleted or endangered, while others are
4. Status of the Targeted Species abundant or recovering from the past over-exploitation . Several whale stocks
38 . Australia alleges that JARPA II is not designed to avoid adverse are abundant enough to be utilized sustainably .
32
effects on the targeted whale stocks . But this allegation lacks any sound
scientific basis . 42 .
minke, and Bryde’s whales , that were exploited by commercial whaling
39 . It is indeed true that at one point in history certain spec ies of whales operations but nevertheless maintained high abundance levels . Furt hermore,
were subjected to over -exploitation and were seriously depleted , to near most of the large whale species depleted by commercial whaling in the past
extinction, and that some species such as blue whales in the Antarctic Ocean have shown signs of recovery , and some have now reached the abundance
have not recovered from past over-harvesting and remain at low stock levels . level of the pre-exploitation period .
Japan has made significant efforts to protect the endangered western North
Pacific gray whales from entanglement or entrapment in fishing gear ; and
33
34
32See AM, paras . 5 .96-5 .104 .43 . It will be shown in this Counter -Memorial that the JARPA II 47 .
35
research plan makes clear that lethal research under JARPA II does not that the Convention was concluded to conserve whale stocks and thereby
have any adverse effect on the status of targeted species 36 . make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry . The concept
of conservation, within the context of the Convention, is not an end in itself :
44 . The subsequent Chapters in this Counter-Memorial will show that all it is rather a means to sustain future use . Such an interpretation of the object
of the statements made above are supported by solid evidence . and purpose of the ICRW is supported by the travaux préparatoires. This
point is developed more fully in Chapter 6, by reference not only to the text
B. Australia is Wrong Not Only on the Facts of the Preamble and the travaux but also to other multilateral conventions . In
ButAlso on the Law this regard, the ICRW has a fundamentally different object and purpose
compared to multilateral treaties concluded for the purpose of preserving
45 . As stated earlier, the current dispute is about the interpretation of endangered species, such as polar bears, from exploitation
Article VIII of the ICRW and its application to Japan’s implementation of
JARPA II .Here tooAustralia is in serious error . 2. Australia’s Interpretation of Article VIIIHas No Legal Grounds
48 .
1. Australia is Wrong about the Object and Purpose of the ICRW that when the ICRW was concluded
46 . Australia argues that the P reamble to the ICRW “evidences two self-judging” , and then argues further that the IWC is given the mandate to
fundamental objectives underpinning the system established by the ICRW: have “oversight of special permits issued by Contracting Governments, with
first, to provide for the proper and effective conservation and recovery of all the authority to determine the proper scope and application of the special
whale stocks; and secondly (relying on and flowing from the first), to make permit whaling exception under Article VIII
possible the ‘orderly development’of the whaling industry .”7 This is a procedure for prior review under Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and under
misinterpretation of the object and purpose of the Convention . It is a mistake relevant guidelines as specific forms of oversight by the IWC .
which seems to be inseparable from Australia’s misunderstanding of the
concept of conservation . 49 .
permission granted to Contracting Governments, the exercise of which must
35 Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1(2005) [Annex 38
150] .
36 Ibid., Appendix 9 . 39
37 AM, para . 2 .19 . 40
1643 . It will be shown in this Counter -Memorial that the JARPA II 47 .
35
research plan makes clear that lethal research under JARPA II does not that the Convention was concluded to conserve whale stocks and thereby
have any adverse effect on the status of targeted species 36 . make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry . The concept
of conservation, within the context of the Convention, is not an end in itself :
44 . The subsequent Chapters in this Counter-Memorial will show that all it is rather a means to sustain future use . Such an interpretation of the object
of the statements made above are supported by solid evidence . and purpose of the ICRW is supported by the travaux préparatoires. This
point is developed more fully in Chapter 6, by reference not only to the text
B. Australia is Wrong Not Only on the Facts of the Preamble and the travaux but also to other multilateral conventions . In
ButAlso on the Law this regard, the ICRW has a fundamentally different object and purpose
compared to multilateral treaties concluded for the purpose of preserving
45 . As stated earlier, the current dispute is about the interpretation of endangered species, such as polar bears, from exploitation
Article VIII of the ICRW and its application to Japan’s implementation of
JARPA II .Here tooAustralia is in serious error . 2. Australia’s Interpretation of Article VIIIHas No Legal Grounds
48 .
1. Australia is Wrong about the Object and Purpose of the ICRW that when the ICRW was concluded
46 . Australia argues that the P reamble to the ICRW “evidences two self-judging” , and then argues further that the IWC is given the mandate to
fundamental objectives underpinning the system established by the ICRW: have “oversight of special permits issued by Contracting Governments, with
first, to provide for the proper and effective conservation and recovery of all the authority to determine the proper scope and application of the special
whale stocks; and secondly (relying on and flowing from the first), to make permit whaling exception under Article VIII
possible the ‘orderly development’of the whaling industry .”7 This is a procedure for prior review under Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and under
misinterpretation of the object and purpose of the Convention . It is a mistake relevant guidelines as specific forms of oversight by the IWC .
which seems to be inseparable from Australia’s misunderstanding of the
concept of conservation . 49 .
permission granted to Contracting Governments, the exercise of which must
35 Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1(2005) [Annex 38
150] .
36 Ibid., Appendix 9 . 39
37 AM, para . 2 .19 . 40 41
not undermine the effectiveness of the regulatory regime as a whole .” 52 .
Furthermore, according t o Australia, the ICRW regime has “evolved” since with the procedural requirement for prior review as prescribed by Paragraph
1946, and therefore Article VIII shall not be interpreted in such a manner that 30 of the Schedule, as well as by the relevant guidelines adopted by the
would “deprive any of the conservation measures adopted by Contracting Commission .
42
Governments – in particular since 1979 – of their full and operative effect .”
Australia concludes from this line of argument that special permit whaling 53 .
conducted under Article VIII has to adhere to the “essential characteristics ” reasonable to argue that, when exercising rights under Article VIII, the
of a prog ramme genuinely intended to be “ for purposes of scientific Contracting Governments must act in furtherance of the object and purpose
research” . of the Convention, that does not support Australia’s conclusion that special
permit whaling must meet the so -called “essential characteristics” identified
50 . However, established rules of treaty interpretation do not support by Australia .
either of the conclusions above . On the first point, the ordinary meaning of
the terms of Article VIII in their context and in the light of the object and 54 .
purpose of the Convention is clear and unequivocal: a Contracting imposition of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium and the Southern Ocean
Government authori zing a special permit has discretion to do so Sanctuary, provide “the context”
“[n]otwithstanding anything contained in” the ICRW, and to set the argues that “[t]he Article VIII exception falls to be interpreted by reference to
conditions as it thinks fit . Under the ICRW, no- one else is given the right to the ICRW regime as it has evolved, and in particular as a regime that has,
challenge that exercise of the discretion . since 1985, included a zero catch limit on commercial whaling .”
Schedule amendments cannot be used to restrict the rights that the
51 . Furthermore, Article VIII (1) explicitly exempts special permit Contracting Governments enjoy under Article VIII , because they cannot
whaling from the operation of the ICRW . The IWC cannot make a legall y change the object and purpose of the Convention;
43
binding decision which would “determine the proper scope and application” intended to change, or to qualify, or to throw light on the meaning of Article
of Article VIII through prior review . VIII .
55 .
non-binding recommendations and resolutions does not change the above
41AM, para . 4 .52 .
42AM, para . 4 .54 . 44
43AM, para . 4 .19 . 45
18 41
not undermine the effectiveness of the regulatory regime as a whole .” 52 .
Furthermore, according t o Australia, the ICRW regime has “evolved” since with the procedural requirement for prior review as prescribed by Paragraph
1946, and therefore Article VIII shall not be interpreted in such a manner that 30 of the Schedule, as well as by the relevant guidelines adopted by the
would “deprive any of the conservation measures adopted by Contracting Commission .
42
Governments – in particular since 1979 – of their full and operative effect .”
Australia concludes from this line of argument that special permit whaling 53 .
conducted under Article VIII has to adhere to the “essential characteristics ” reasonable to argue that, when exercising rights under Article VIII, the
of a prog ramme genuinely intended to be “ for purposes of scientific Contracting Governments must act in furtherance of the object and purpose
research” . of the Convention, that does not support Australia’s conclusion that special
permit whaling must meet the so -called “essential characteristics” identified
50 . However, established rules of treaty interpretation do not support by Australia .
either of the conclusions above . On the first point, the ordinary meaning of
the terms of Article VIII in their context and in the light of the object and 54 .
purpose of the Convention is clear and unequivocal: a Contracting imposition of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium and the Southern Ocean
Government authori zing a special permit has discretion to do so Sanctuary, provide “the context”
“[n]otwithstanding anything contained in” the ICRW, and to set the argues that “[t]he Article VIII exception falls to be interpreted by reference to
conditions as it thinks fit . Under the ICRW, no- one else is given the right to the ICRW regime as it has evolved, and in particular as a regime that has,
challenge that exercise of the discretion . since 1985, included a zero catch limit on commercial whaling .”
Schedule amendments cannot be used to restrict the rights that the
51 . Furthermore, Article VIII (1) explicitly exempts special permit Contracting Governments enjoy under Article VIII , because they cannot
whaling from the operation of the ICRW . The IWC cannot make a legall y change the object and purpose of the Convention;
43
binding decision which would “determine the proper scope and application” intended to change, or to qualify, or to throw light on the meaning of Article
of Article VIII through prior review . VIII .
55 .
non-binding recommendations and resolutions does not change the above
41AM, para . 4 .52 .
42AM, para . 4 .54 . 44
43AM, para . 4 .19 . 45conclusions, since they do not qualify as “context”, “subsequent agreements” 60 .
or “subsequent practice” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties JARPA I,I covering their scientific objectives, methods, and outputs . It will
(VCLT,)nor do they constitute amendments to the ICRW . show that Japan’s special permit whaling commenced and has developed to
respond and contribute to the scientific debate at the IWC Scientific
Section 4. Structure and Outline of the Counter-Memorial Committee . These Chapters will establish that
legitimate scientific programmes contributing to the sustainable management
56 . This Counter-Memorial consists of four Volumes . Volume I contains of whales, and appreciated as such by the Scientific Committee .
the main text of the Counter -Memorial and Volumes II to IV contain the
supporting materials and evidence . 61 .
of the ICRW, which is the focal point of the present dispute between
57 . The main text of the Counter -Memorial contained in Volume I and Australia . While Japan agrees that the only applicable law in the case put
consists of nine Chapters, followed by Japan’s Submissions to the Court . The before the Court is indeed Article VIII of the ICRW, it does not subscribe to
outline of each Chapter is as follows . the Applicant’s contra legem interpretation of this provision . The matter put
before the Court is therefore a matter of the interpretation of Article VIII and
58 . Chapter 1, which follows immediately after this Introduction, of its application to JARPA II . Chapter 6 outlines the object and purpose of
contains Japan’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction over the present dispute, the ICRW, following which Chapter 7 explains how Article VIII of the ICRW
which has already been summarized in Section 2 above . must be interpreted in accordance with the principles and rules reflected in
the VCLT
59 . Part I (Chapters 2 and 3) will show that Japan takes a very different in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the ICRW is clear
view of the nature and functions of the ICRW and IWC for the purpose of the and unequivocal. Article VIII gives each Contracting Government discretion
conservation and management of whales . Chapter 2 commences with an regarding the grant of special permits to its nationals to take whales for
overview of the history of international regulation of whaling , culminating in purposes of scientific research . This includes a
the creation of the ICRW in 1946, and followed by an outline of the main respect to the need for research and the conditions attached to the permits .
features of the ICRW and of the mandate and function of the IWC . Chapter 3 Furthermore, special permit whaling is exempt from the operation of the
will then explain the development of whale conservation and manag ement ICRW . Chapter 8 will show that in the presentation of its case Australia has
measures under the IWC, providing a fuller account of the IWC’s work in misused the IWC’s secondary instruments, such as the Schedule amendments
pursuance of the object and purpose of the ICRW . as well as the recommendations and guidelines , reference to which does not
20conclusions, since they do not qualify as “context”, “subsequent agreements” 60 .
or “subsequent practice” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties JARPA I,I covering their scientific objectives, methods, and outputs . It will
(VCLT,)nor do they constitute amendments to the ICRW . show that Japan’s special permit whaling commenced and has developed to
respond and contribute to the scientific debate at the IWC Scientific
Section 4. Structure and Outline of the Counter-Memorial Committee . These Chapters will establish that
legitimate scientific programmes contributing to the sustainable management
56 . This Counter-Memorial consists of four Volumes . Volume I contains of whales, and appreciated as such by the Scientific Committee .
the main text of the Counter -Memorial and Volumes II to IV contain the
supporting materials and evidence . 61 .
of the ICRW, which is the focal point of the present dispute between
57 . The main text of the Counter -Memorial contained in Volume I and Australia . While Japan agrees that the only applicable law in the case put
consists of nine Chapters, followed by Japan’s Submissions to the Court . The before the Court is indeed Article VIII of the ICRW, it does not subscribe to
outline of each Chapter is as follows . the Applicant’s contra legem interpretation of this provision . The matter put
before the Court is therefore a matter of the interpretation of Article VIII and
58 . Chapter 1, which follows immediately after this Introduction, of its application to JARPA II . Chapter 6 outlines the object and purpose of
contains Japan’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction over the present dispute, the ICRW, following which Chapter 7 explains how Article VIII of the ICRW
which has already been summarized in Section 2 above . must be interpreted in accordance with the principles and rules reflected in
the VCLT
59 . Part I (Chapters 2 and 3) will show that Japan takes a very different in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the ICRW is clear
view of the nature and functions of the ICRW and IWC for the purpose of the and unequivocal. Article VIII gives each Contracting Government discretion
conservation and management of whales . Chapter 2 commences with an regarding the grant of special permits to its nationals to take whales for
overview of the history of international regulation of whaling , culminating in purposes of scientific research . This includes a
the creation of the ICRW in 1946, and followed by an outline of the main respect to the need for research and the conditions attached to the permits .
features of the ICRW and of the mandate and function of the IWC . Chapter 3 Furthermore, special permit whaling is exempt from the operation of the
will then explain the development of whale conservation and manag ement ICRW . Chapter 8 will show that in the presentation of its case Australia has
measures under the IWC, providing a fuller account of the IWC’s work in misused the IWC’s secondary instruments, such as the Schedule amendments
pursuance of the object and purpose of the ICRW . as well as the recommendations and guidelines , reference to which does notaffect the conclusions reached in Chapter 7 .
62 . Chapter 9 concludes the Counter -Memorial . It shows that JA RPA II
falls well within Article VIII of the ICRW, and that its implementation 1 .1
therefore does not contravene Japan’s obligations under the ICRW . The
jurisdiction to examine Australia’s Application, Japan has not exercised its
conclusion is that Japan is openly exercising a liberty that remains untouched
right to raise preliminary objections . However, in accordance with the
by the ICRW, and that Australia deeply disapproves of Japan doing so . Japan
Court’s Statute and case-law, nothing prevents it from raising objections to
respects Australia’s right to its own opinion on this, but that opinion c annot jurisdiction in its Counter -Memorial . The Court needs to decide upon these
change the nature or extent of the legal rights and duties to which Japan objections, and to proceed to the merits of the case if, and only if, these
subscribed in the ICRW .
objections are dismissed . This is the approach followed time and again by the
Court
63 . Finally, this Counter-Memorial sets out Japan’s Submissions . For all
Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v.
of the reasons summari zed above, each of which will be more fully Greece) where it notes:
articulated in the Chapters to follow, Australia is not entitled to the order
from the Court that it has requested, or to any other relief. To the contrary, as
set forth in Japan’s Submissions, all of Australia’s claims should be rejected
by the Court .
1 .2
Application lodged by Australia . As the Court has made clear, for this
purpose:
46
47
22affect the conclusions reached in Chapter 7 .
62 . Chapter 9 concludes the Counter -Memorial . It shows that JA RPA II
falls well within Article VIII of the ICRW, and that its implementation 1 .1
therefore does not contravene Japan’s obligations under the ICRW . The
jurisdiction to examine Australia’s Application, Japan has not exercised its
conclusion is that Japan is openly exercising a liberty that remains untouched
right to raise preliminary objections . However, in accordance with the
by the ICRW, and that Australia deeply disapproves of Japan doing so . Japan
Court’s Statute and case-law, nothing prevents it from raising objections to
respects Australia’s right to its own opinion on this, but that opinion c annot jurisdiction in its Counter -Memorial . The Court needs to decide upon these
change the nature or extent of the legal rights and duties to which Japan objections, and to proceed to the merits of the case if, and only if, these
subscribed in the ICRW .
objections are dismissed . This is the approach followed time and again by the
Court
63 . Finally, this Counter-Memorial sets out Japan’s Submissions . For all
Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v.
of the reasons summari zed above, each of which will be more fully Greece) where it notes:
articulated in the Chapters to follow, Australia is not entitled to the order
from the Court that it has requested, or to any other relief. To the contrary, as
set forth in Japan’s Submissions, all of Australia’s claims should be rejected
by the Court .
1 .2
Application lodged by Australia . As the Court has made clear, for this
purpose:
46
47 “[I]t is the Application which is relevant and the Memorial, ‘though jurisdiction by virtue of one of Australia’s reservation
it may elucidate the terms of the Application, must not go beyond
the limits of the claim as set out therein’ ( Certain Phosphate Lands whereas in the Application Australia alleges that Japan is in violation of the
in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
I.C.J. Reports 1992, p . 267, para . 69, citing the Order of the renounced “seeking any remedy flowing from the obligations of Japan under
Permanent Court of 4 February 1933 in the case concerning Prince
von Pless Administration (Order of 4 February 1933, P.C.I.J., the Convention on Biological Diversity .”
Series A/B, No. 52, p . 14)) . A fortiori, a claim formula ted
referring to this Convention as a basis for adjudication .
subsequent to the Memorial ... cannot transform the subject of48he
dispute as delimited by the terms of the Application .”
1 .7
1 .3 In its Application, Australia refers to the Declarations made by
the Court in relation to a breach of the Convention on International Trade in
Japan and Australia in accordance with the provisions of Article 36(2) of the
49 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)”
ICJ Statute as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the case . This is the
does not give Australia the right to portray the dispute of which the Court is
only basis mentioned by Australia and no other basis seems to exist . seised as a dispute under CITES at a later stage of the proceedings . Such a
request would be inadmissible for at least two reasons:
1 .4 While it is true that both Japan and Australia have deposited
Optional Clause D eclarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as
1 .8
compulsory, it must be noted that both Declarations contain reservations
preliminary objections in respect of such a dispute: as Article 79
which exclude the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of certain categories of
Rules of Court makes clear:
disputes .
1 .5 In the present case, one of the Australian reservations prevents the
Court from exercising jurisdiction over the present dispute, which relates, in
Australia’s words, to “Japan’s failure to comply with its obligations under the
50
ICRW” . The Court recogni zes the right to raise preliminary objections as being a
fundamental procedural right of the Respondent:
1 .6 Before showing that the present dispute falls outside the Court’s
48Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, I.C.J. 51
Judgment, 30 November 2010, para . 39 . 52
49Application, para . 4; AM, para . 1 .10 . 53
50AM, para . 1 .8 . 54
24 “[I]t is the Application which is relevant and the Memorial, ‘though jurisdiction by virtue of one of Australia’s reservation
it may elucidate the terms of the Application, must not go beyond
the limits of the claim as set out therein’ ( Certain Phosphate Lands whereas in the Application Australia alleges that Japan is in violation of the
in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
I.C.J. Reports 1992, p . 267, para . 69, citing the Order of the renounced “seeking any remedy flowing from the obligations of Japan under
Permanent Court of 4 February 1933 in the case concerning Prince
von Pless Administration (Order of 4 February 1933, P.C.I.J., the Convention on Biological Diversity .”
Series A/B, No. 52, p . 14)) . A fortiori, a claim formula ted
referring to this Convention as a basis for adjudication .
subsequent to the Memorial ... cannot transform the subject of48he
dispute as delimited by the terms of the Application .”
1 .7
1 .3 In its Application, Australia refers to the Declarations made by
the Court in relation to a breach of the Convention on International Trade in
Japan and Australia in accordance with the provisions of Article 36(2) of the
49 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)”
ICJ Statute as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over the case . This is the
does not give Australia the right to portray the dispute of which the Court is
only basis mentioned by Australia and no other basis seems to exist . seised as a dispute under CITES at a later stage of the proceedings . Such a
request would be inadmissible for at least two reasons:
1 .4 While it is true that both Japan and Australia have deposited
Optional Clause D eclarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as
1 .8
compulsory, it must be noted that both Declarations contain reservations
preliminary objections in respect of such a dispute: as Article 79
which exclude the Court’s jurisdiction in respect of certain categories of
Rules of Court makes clear:
disputes .
1 .5 In the present case, one of the Australian reservations prevents the
Court from exercising jurisdiction over the present dispute, which relates, in
Australia’s words, to “Japan’s failure to comply with its obligations under the
50
ICRW” . The Court recogni zes the right to raise preliminary objections as being a
fundamental procedural right of the Respondent:
1 .6 Before showing that the present dispute falls outside the Court’s
48Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, I.C.J. 51
Judgment, 30 November 2010, para . 39 . 52
49Application, para . 4; AM, para . 1 .10 . 53
50AM, para . 1 .8 . 54 “A Respondent’s right to raise preliminary objections, that is to
Section 2.
say, objections which the Court is re quired to rule on before the
debate on the merits begins (see Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v . United
1 .11
Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998,
p . 26, para . 47), is a fundamental procedural right . This right is one of the reservations included in Australia’s Declaration under Article
infringed if the Applicant asserts a substantively new claim after
the Counter -Memorial, which is to say at a time when the 36(2) of the Statute . Australia’s Declaration provides that:
Respondent can still raise objections to admissibi55ty and
jurisdiction, but not preliminary objections .”
Since Australia would invoke CITES as a basis for adjudication at best in its
Reply, Japan would automatically be barred from raising preliminary
objections .
1 .9 Second, this would transfor m the subject -matter of the dispute
initially put forward before the Court and as such would be an inadmissible However, one of the reservations accompanying this D
new claim .56 from the scope of the jurisdiction thus consented to:
1 .10 It follows that Japan need only demonstrate that the dispute
submitted by Australia in the Application, and developed in the Memori al,
falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and that consequently its merits
cannot be entertained by the Court .
1 .12
optional clause of Article 36(2) on condition of reciprocity . Australia’s
Declaration specifies that it accepts the Court’s jurisdiction
55 any other State accepting the same obligation”, and Japan’s Declaration puts
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democric Republic of the Congo), Merits, I.C.J.
56Judgment of 30 November 2010, para . 44 . forward the same condition:
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru vAustralia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 19p . 266,
Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (NicaraguaHonduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2007, p . 659, para . 108 and Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of
the Congo), Merits, I.C.J. Judgment of 30 November 2010, paras . 39 -42 and the jurisprudence cited 57
therein .
26 “A Respondent’s right to raise preliminary objections, that is to
Section 2.
say, objections which the Court is re quired to rule on before the
debate on the merits begins (see Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v . United
1 .11
Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998,
p . 26, para . 47), is a fundamental procedural right . This right is one of the reservations included in Australia’s Declaration under Article
infringed if the Applicant asserts a substantively new claim after
the Counter -Memorial, which is to say at a time when the 36(2) of the Statute . Australia’s Declaration provides that:
Respondent can still raise objections to admissibi55ty and
jurisdiction, but not preliminary objections .”
Since Australia would invoke CITES as a basis for adjudication at best in its
Reply, Japan would automatically be barred from raising preliminary
objections .
1 .9 Second, this would transfor m the subject -matter of the dispute
initially put forward before the Court and as such would be an inadmissible However, one of the reservations accompanying this D
new claim .56 from the scope of the jurisdiction thus consented to:
1 .10 It follows that Japan need only demonstrate that the dispute
submitted by Australia in the Application, and developed in the Memori al,
falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and that consequently its merits
cannot be entertained by the Court .
1 .12
optional clause of Article 36(2) on condition of reciprocity . Australia’s
Declaration specifies that it accepts the Court’s jurisdiction
55 any other State accepting the same obligation”, and Japan’s Declaration puts
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democric Republic of the Congo), Merits, I.C.J.
56Judgment of 30 November 2010, para . 44 . forward the same condition:
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru vAustralia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 19p . 266,
Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (NicaraguaHonduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2007, p . 659, para . 108 and Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of
the Congo), Merits, I.C.J. Judgment of 30 November 2010, paras . 39 -42 and the jurisprudence cited 57
therein . “Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special
1 .14
agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same Australia’s Declaration when they have the effect of restraining the Court’s
obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice .” 58 jurisdiction more than its own do .
1 .13 It is the Court’s consistent approach to consider that the condition
1 .15
of reciprocity goes further than imposing a simple requirement that both
the dispute submitted to the Court by Australia is not a dispute relating to the
States should have made an optional c lause declaration . As recalled in the
delimitation of maritime areas, it is a dispute “ arising out of, concerning, or
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria case, quoting
relating to the exploitation of any disputed area
earlier case-law: maritime zone pending its delimitation ” . This is so because the JARPA II
programme is taking place in or around maritime areas Australia claims to be
“The Court has on numerous occasions had to consider what
meaning it is appropriate to give to the condition of reciprocity in part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the rights of which are generated,
the implementation of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute . As
according to Australia’s claims, by its purported sovereignty over a large part
early as 1952, it held in the case concerning Anglo- Iranian Oil Co .
that, when declarations are made on condition of reciprocity, of the Antarctic continent
‘jurisdiction is conferred on the Court only to the extent to which
the two Declarations coincide in conferring it’ (I.C.J. Reports 1952,
p . 103) . The Court applied that rule again in the case of Certain 1 .16
Norwegian Loans (I.C.J. Reports 1957, pp . 23 and 24) and clarified interpretation of declarations under Article 36(2) in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
it in the Interhandel case where it held that:
case, where it recalled that:
‘Reciprocity in the case of Declarations accepting the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court enables a Party to invoke
a reservation to that acceptance which it has not expressed in
its own Declaration but which the other Party has e xpressed in
its Declaration . . . Reciprocity enables the State which has made
the wider acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court to rely
upon the reservations to the acceptance laid down by the other
Party . There the effect of reciprocity ends .’ ( I.C.J. R eports
1959, p . 23 .)”59
58Declaration of the Government of Japan, made by virtue of Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute, 9 July 60
2007 . 61
59Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 62
I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp . 298-299, para . 43 .
28 “Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special
1 .14
agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same Australia’s Declaration when they have the effect of restraining the Court’s
obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice .” 58 jurisdiction more than its own do .
1 .13 It is the Court’s consistent approach to consider that the condition
1 .15
of reciprocity goes further than imposing a simple requirement that both
the dispute submitted to the Court by Australia is not a dispute relating to the
States should have made an optional c lause declaration . As recalled in the
delimitation of maritime areas, it is a dispute “ arising out of, concerning, or
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria case, quoting
relating to the exploitation of any disputed area
earlier case-law: maritime zone pending its delimitation ” . This is so because the JARPA II
programme is taking place in or around maritime areas Australia claims to be
“The Court has on numerous occasions had to consider what
meaning it is appropriate to give to the condition of reciprocity in part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the rights of which are generated,
the implementation of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute . As
according to Australia’s claims, by its purported sovereignty over a large part
early as 1952, it held in the case concerning Anglo- Iranian Oil Co .
that, when declarations are made on condition of reciprocity, of the Antarctic continent
‘jurisdiction is conferred on the Court only to the extent to which
the two Declarations coincide in conferring it’ (I.C.J. Reports 1952,
p . 103) . The Court applied that rule again in the case of Certain 1 .16
Norwegian Loans (I.C.J. Reports 1957, pp . 23 and 24) and clarified interpretation of declarations under Article 36(2) in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
it in the Interhandel case where it held that:
case, where it recalled that:
‘Reciprocity in the case of Declarations accepting the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court enables a Party to invoke
a reservation to that acceptance which it has not expressed in
its own Declaration but which the other Party has e xpressed in
its Declaration . . . Reciprocity enables the State which has made
the wider acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court to rely
upon the reservations to the acceptance laid down by the other
Party . There the effect of reciprocity ends .’ ( I.C.J. R eports
1959, p . 23 .)”59
58Declaration of the Government of Japan, made by virtue of Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute, 9 July 60
2007 . 61
59Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 62
I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp . 298-299, para . 43 .It also specified: the Australian reservation shows that it applies to the dispute brought by its
Application in the present case .
“[T]he Court has in earlier cases elaborated the appropriate rules
for the interpretation of declarations and reservations . Every
declaration ‘must be interpreted as it stands, having regard to the 1 .18
words actually used’ ( Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Preliminar y
boundary disputes from the jurisdiction of the Court
Objection, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1952, p . 105) . Every
reservation must be given effect ‘as it stands’ ( Certain Norwegian part of the reservation excludes in addition disputes “
Loans, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1957, p . 27) . Therefore,
declarations and reservations are to be read as a whole .” 63 concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent
to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation ” . This other exclusion is
The Court stressed the importance of the intention of the State having made introduced by the conjunction “or” , so as to make clear that a dispute is
the declaration: excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court if either it is a dispute relating to
the delimitation of maritime zones such as the territorial sea, the EEZ and the
“At the same time, since a declaration under Article 36, paragraph
continental shelf or it is a dispute arising out of any such maritime zone,
2, of the Statute, is a unilaterally drafted instrument, the Court has
not hesitated to place a certain em phasis on the intention of the concerning any such maritime zone or
depositing State .” 64
disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its
And it concluded: delimitation .
“The Court will thus interpret the relevant words of a declaration 1 .19
including a reservation contained therein in a natural and
the conditions expressed therein are clearly not cumulative . This is
reasonable way, having due regard to the intention of the S tate
concerned at the time when it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction emphasised by the repetitive use of the conjunction “or” , employed first to
of the Court .” 65
dissociate the disputes on delimitation from other kind of disputes involving
1 .17 In view of these principles, it will be apparent that, in spite of the maritime zones . The same conjunction “or” is also used within the second
Australia’s efforts to overlook the close relationship between reservation (b) branch of the reservation: the disputes excluded by the reservation are those
“arising out of maritime zones ” or “concerning maritime zones” or “relating
of its Optional Clause Declaration and its Application, the latter plainly falls
within the scope of the former . Any natural and reasonable interpretation of 66
63Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p .
454, para . 47 .
64Ibid., para . 48 .
65Ibid., para . 49 .
30It also specified: the Australian reservation shows that it applies to the dispute brought by its
Application in the present case .
“[T]he Court has in earlier cases elaborated the appropriate rules
for the interpretation of declarations and reservations . Every
declaration ‘must be interpreted as it stands, having regard to the 1 .18
words actually used’ ( Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Preliminar y
boundary disputes from the jurisdiction of the Court
Objection, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1952, p . 105) . Every
reservation must be given effect ‘as it stands’ ( Certain Norwegian part of the reservation excludes in addition disputes “
Loans, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1957, p . 27) . Therefore,
declarations and reservations are to be read as a whole .” 63 concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent
to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation ” . This other exclusion is
The Court stressed the importance of the intention of the State having made introduced by the conjunction “or” , so as to make clear that a dispute is
the declaration: excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court if either it is a dispute relating to
the delimitation of maritime zones such as the territorial sea, the EEZ and the
“At the same time, since a declaration under Article 36, paragraph
continental shelf or it is a dispute arising out of any such maritime zone,
2, of the Statute, is a unilaterally drafted instrument, the Court has
not hesitated to place a certain em phasis on the intention of the concerning any such maritime zone or
depositing State .” 64
disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its
And it concluded: delimitation .
“The Court will thus interpret the relevant words of a declaration 1 .19
including a reservation contained therein in a natural and
the conditions expressed therein are clearly not cumulative . This is
reasonable way, having due regard to the intention of the S tate
concerned at the time when it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction emphasised by the repetitive use of the conjunction “or” , employed first to
of the Court .” 65
dissociate the disputes on delimitation from other kind of disputes involving
1 .17 In view of these principles, it will be apparent that, in spite of the maritime zones . The same conjunction “or” is also used within the second
Australia’s efforts to overlook the close relationship between reservation (b) branch of the reservation: the disputes excluded by the reservation are those
“arising out of maritime zones ” or “concerning maritime zones” or “relating
of its Optional Clause Declaration and its Application, the latter plainly falls
within the scope of the former . Any natural and reasonable interpretation of 66
63Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p .
454, para . 47 .
64Ibid., para . 48 .
65Ibid., para . 49 .to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
zone pending its delimitation ” 67 . Such a drafting must have a meaning 68 .
Therefore, anydisputes involving, to some degree or other, maritime zones or
areas adjacent to them are covered by Australia’s reservation (b) and thus
These considerations are even more compelling in the present case where the
excluded from the Court’s jurisdiction .
reserving State (Australia) expressly added in its own Optional Declaration
the expression “ relating to the explo
1 .20 In the first place, this group of expressions shows that Australia
(“arising out” and “concerning”) in its Declaration which was interpreted in
was anxious to exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction all kinds of activities in
some way or another “arising out of . . . any disputed area of or adjacent to any the 1998 Judgment .
such maritime zone ”, “concerning any disputed area of or adjacent to any
1 .21
such maritime zone” or “relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or
terms, both of which exclude the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case .
adjacent to any such maritime zone” . Thus, in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case
between Spain and Canada, the Court pointed out that:
1 .22
“[I]n excluding from its jurisdiction ‘disputes arising out of or Australia’s claim is based on the allegation that JARPA II is commercial
concerning’ the conservation and management measures in
question and their enforcement, the reservation does not reduce the whaling, which is nothing but an allegation that JARPA II is a programme for
criterion for exclusion to the ‘subject -matter’ of the dispute . The commercial exploitation of whales . In its Memorial, Australia stated as
language used in the English version - ‘disputes arising out of or
concerning’ - brings out more clearly the broad and comprehensive follows:
character of the formula employed . The words of the reservation
exclude not only disputes whose immediate ‘subject -matter’ is the
measures in question and their enforcement, but also those
‘concerning’ such measures and, more generally, those having their
‘origin’ in those measures ( ‘arising out of’) - that is to say, those
disputes which, in the absence of such measures, would not have
come into being . Thus the scope of the Canadian reservation 1 .23
appears even broader than that of the reservation which Greece
attached to its accession to the General Act of 1928 (‘disputes whaling’ was intended to be synonymous with ‘whaling’
67 69
68On the principle of the effet utilthe recent case concerning Application of the Internation al
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(Georgia v. Russian
Federation), Preliminary Objections , I.C.J. Judgment of 1 April 2011, para . 133 and the case-law
cited . 70
32to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
zone pending its delimitation ” 67 . Such a drafting must have a meaning 68 .
Therefore, anydisputes involving, to some degree or other, maritime zones or
areas adjacent to them are covered by Australia’s reservation (b) and thus
These considerations are even more compelling in the present case where the
excluded from the Court’s jurisdiction .
reserving State (Australia) expressly added in its own Optional Declaration
the expression “ relating to the explo
1 .20 In the first place, this group of expressions shows that Australia
(“arising out” and “concerning”) in its Declaration which was interpreted in
was anxious to exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction all kinds of activities in
some way or another “arising out of . . . any disputed area of or adjacent to any the 1998 Judgment .
such maritime zone ”, “concerning any disputed area of or adjacent to any
1 .21
such maritime zone” or “relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or
terms, both of which exclude the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case .
adjacent to any such maritime zone” . Thus, in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case
between Spain and Canada, the Court pointed out that:
1 .22
“[I]n excluding from its jurisdiction ‘disputes arising out of or Australia’s claim is based on the allegation that JARPA II is commercial
concerning’ the conservation and management measures in
question and their enforcement, the reservation does not reduce the whaling, which is nothing but an allegation that JARPA II is a programme for
criterion for exclusion to the ‘subject -matter’ of the dispute . The commercial exploitation of whales . In its Memorial, Australia stated as
language used in the English version - ‘disputes arising out of or
concerning’ - brings out more clearly the broad and comprehensive follows:
character of the formula employed . The words of the reservation
exclude not only disputes whose immediate ‘subject -matter’ is the
measures in question and their enforcement, but also those
‘concerning’ such measures and, more generally, those having their
‘origin’ in those measures ( ‘arising out of’) - that is to say, those
disputes which, in the absence of such measures, would not have
come into being . Thus the scope of the Canadian reservation 1 .23
appears even broader than that of the reservation which Greece
attached to its accession to the General Act of 1928 (‘disputes whaling’ was intended to be synonymous with ‘whaling’
67 69
68On the principle of the effet utilthe recent case concerning Application of the Internation al
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination(Georgia v. Russian
Federation), Preliminary Objections , I.C.J. Judgment of 1 April 2011, para . 133 and the case-law
cited . 70 71
Convention” , Australia refers elsewhere to the past whaling activities as
exploitation or over -exploitation and to the abundance estimate of whale
stocks for the time prior to the commencement of any whaling as “pre-
72
exploitation” abundance estimate . Therefore it is obvious that Australia
equates commercial whaling with the exploitation of whales .
Both activities (research/exploration and exploitation) are commonly linked
1 .24 In such a hypothesis, it would be postulated that JARPA II, being a
73 in legal instruments
whaling programme , is a programme for the exploitation of the resources of
74 management measures for the maintenance of the living resources in the
the area as contended by Australia . In such a case, it would be indisputable
exclusive economic zone and their exploitation are … linked to scientifi
that the dispute “ relates to the exploitation” of the area in question or the
knowledge and in consequence its furtherance” .
adjacent zone .
1 .26
1 .25 Second and alternatively, Australia could rely upon Japan’s
main purposes of its research programmes is to collect the scientific data
characterization of JARPA II as a research programme – which indeed it is . 75
Under such a (correct) approach, the jurisdiction of the Court would necessary for the comprehensive assessment conditioning the resumption of
nevertheless be excluded by the Australian reservation (b) . In effect, while commercial whaling
research as such should not be considered as exploitation itself, it is ICRW (the so-called Revised Management Procedure (RMP)), which aims at
nevertheless an element of the process leading to exploitation . It is noticeable regulation of commercial whaling
that, according to the common understanding of the word, “ exploitation”, as detail the scientific obj ectives of JARPA II, but it can be observed that,
has been noted,
76
71AM, para . 2 .105 .
72See AM, Chapter 2, Section IV,passim . 77
73For this equation between whaling and exploitation, see AM, e .g . para . 1 .2 or para . 2 .125 and the 78
annexed Expert Opinion, p . 294, para . 2 .15, or p . 318, parSee also, for instance, Elle Hey,
The Regime for the Exploitation of Transboundary Marine Fisheries Resources: The United Nations 79
Law of the Sea Convention Cooperation Between States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989), 80
referring in this context of exploitation of transboundary resources to the ICRW: see pp . 237-244 .
74See e .g .: AM, para . 1 .13 (“Chapter 3 sets out the facts behind the current dispute . It describes how, in
January 1988, Japan commenced so-called ‘scientific’ whaling in the Southern Ocean as a means of
continuing whaling per se and to protect its whaling industry following its acceptance of a
commercial whaling moratorium .”); or para . 1 .15 ( “The manifest purpose of JARPA II - which may
be traced to the inception of JARPA in 1987 in response to the moratorium on commercial whaling -
is the continuation of whaling on a permanent basis ” .); see also para . 2 .122 .
75See below, Chapter 5 .
34 71
Convention” , Australia refers elsewhere to the past whaling activities as
exploitation or over -exploitation and to the abundance estimate of whale
stocks for the time prior to the commencement of any whaling as “pre-
72
exploitation” abundance estimate . Therefore it is obvious that Australia
equates commercial whaling with the exploitation of whales .
Both activities (research/exploration and exploitation) are commonly linked
1 .24 In such a hypothesis, it would be postulated that JARPA II, being a
73 in legal instruments
whaling programme , is a programme for the exploitation of the resources of
74 management measures for the maintenance of the living resources in the
the area as contended by Australia . In such a case, it would be indisputable
exclusive economic zone and their exploitation are … linked to scientifi
that the dispute “ relates to the exploitation” of the area in question or the
knowledge and in consequence its furtherance” .
adjacent zone .
1 .26
1 .25 Second and alternatively, Australia could rely upon Japan’s
main purposes of its research programmes is to collect the scientific data
characterization of JARPA II as a research programme – which indeed it is . 75
Under such a (correct) approach, the jurisdiction of the Court would necessary for the comprehensive assessment conditioning the resumption of
nevertheless be excluded by the Australian reservation (b) . In effect, while commercial whaling
research as such should not be considered as exploitation itself, it is ICRW (the so-called Revised Management Procedure (RMP)), which aims at
nevertheless an element of the process leading to exploitation . It is noticeable regulation of commercial whaling
that, according to the common understanding of the word, “ exploitation”, as detail the scientific obj ectives of JARPA II, but it can be observed that,
has been noted,
76
71AM, para . 2 .105 .
72See AM, Chapter 2, Section IV,passim . 77
73For this equation between whaling and exploitation, see AM, e .g . para . 1 .2 or para . 2 .125 and the 78
annexed Expert Opinion, p . 294, para . 2 .15, or p . 318, parSee also, for instance, Elle Hey,
The Regime for the Exploitation of Transboundary Marine Fisheries Resources: The United Nations 79
Law of the Sea Convention Cooperation Between States (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1989), 80
referring in this context of exploitation of transboundary resources to the ICRW: see pp . 237-244 .
74See e .g .: AM, para . 1 .13 (“Chapter 3 sets out the facts behind the current dispute . It describes how, in
January 1988, Japan commenced so-called ‘scientific’ whaling in the Southern Ocean as a means of
continuing whaling per se and to protect its whaling industry following its acceptance of a
commercial whaling moratorium .”); or para . 1 .15 ( “The manifest purpose of JARPA II - which may
be traced to the inception of JARPA in 1987 in response to the moratorium on commercial whaling -
is the continuation of whaling on a permanent basis ” .); see also para . 2 .122 .
75See below, Chapter 5 .insofar as the results of JARPA II can be used to prove that whaling of
certain species can be sustainable and helps to improve the RMP, it is a form 1 .28
of research clearly relating to exploitation . There can therefore be no doubt jurisdiction disputes:
that the dispute brought by Australia before the Court is related to the •
exploitation of a maritime area claimed by Australia and its adjacent zone .
•
1 .27 Australia claims that the disputed research programme is conducted
for commercial purposes . Japan disagrees with this characteri zation of the •
purpose of its programme and maintains that its whaling operations are
undertaken for immediate scientific purposes . Japan does not deny that, in
full accordance with the ICRW, this scientific progr amme is aimed at The dispute now submi tted to the Court could fall within any of the three
collecting and analysing data in order to assist the IWC to review Paragraph
alternatives, the terms of which are indeed very broad . It is a dispute “ arising
Schedule 10(e) of the ICRW, i .e ., the C ommercial Whaling Moratorium: in
out of” or “concerning any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
other words, JARPA II is designed to determine whether there exist sufficient zone”, and it is, on
whale stocks for sustainable commercial whaling 81 . Moreover, it is to be exploitation of whales in a disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
noted that whaling under special permit and commercial whaling are zone .
conducted very different ly: the areas of operation, the target species and
number taken, the individual animals taken, the information/data to be 1 .29
obtained, the tissue samples collected, the personnel involved and the manner only does it cover a wide range of disputes “ concerning” or “relating to the
in which they proceed when the whaling is conducted for scientific purposes
exploitation” of maritime areas, it also has a broad geographical scope, which
all differ from whaling carried out for commercial purposes 82 . For its part,
includes both the Australian Antarctic claims and also the areas adjacent to
JARPA II is clearly – and exclusively – related to the exploitation of the
resources of the area 83 .
81See ICRW Preamble, third paragraph . See also Schedule, Para . 10(b): “ Exploitation should not
commence until an estimate of stock size has been obtained which is satisfactory in the view of the
Scientific Committee . Stocks classified as Initial Management Stock are listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of
this Schedule” .
82See below, paras . 5 .127-5 .138 .
83See e .g . Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
36insofar as the results of JARPA II can be used to prove that whaling of
certain species can be sustainable and helps to improve the RMP, it is a form 1 .28
of research clearly relating to exploitation . There can therefore be no doubt jurisdiction disputes:
that the dispute brought by Australia before the Court is related to the •
exploitation of a maritime area claimed by Australia and its adjacent zone .
•
1 .27 Australia claims that the disputed research programme is conducted
for commercial purposes . Japan disagrees with this characteri zation of the •
purpose of its programme and maintains that its whaling operations are
undertaken for immediate scientific purposes . Japan does not deny that, in
full accordance with the ICRW, this scientific progr amme is aimed at The dispute now submi tted to the Court could fall within any of the three
collecting and analysing data in order to assist the IWC to review Paragraph
alternatives, the terms of which are indeed very broad . It is a dispute “ arising
Schedule 10(e) of the ICRW, i .e ., the C ommercial Whaling Moratorium: in
out of” or “concerning any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
other words, JARPA II is designed to determine whether there exist sufficient zone”, and it is, on
whale stocks for sustainable commercial whaling 81 . Moreover, it is to be exploitation of whales in a disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime
noted that whaling under special permit and commercial whaling are zone .
conducted very different ly: the areas of operation, the target species and
number taken, the individual animals taken, the information/data to be 1 .29
obtained, the tissue samples collected, the personnel involved and the manner only does it cover a wide range of disputes “ concerning” or “relating to the
in which they proceed when the whaling is conducted for scientific purposes
exploitation” of maritime areas, it also has a broad geographical scope, which
all differ from whaling carried out for commercial purposes 82 . For its part,
includes both the Australian Antarctic claims and also the areas adjacent to
JARPA II is clearly – and exclusively – related to the exploitation of the
resources of the area 83 .
81See ICRW Preamble, third paragraph . See also Schedule, Para . 10(b): “ Exploitation should not
commence until an estimate of stock size has been obtained which is satisfactory in the view of the
Scientific Committee . Stocks classified as Initial Management Stock are listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of
this Schedule” .
82See below, paras . 5 .127-5 .138 .
83See e .g . Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem andthem, as the following section will make clear .
Section 3. The Conditions Expressed in Australia’s Reservation
are Fulfilled
1 .30 For understandable reasons, Australia strives to introduce its claims
as if they do not fall within the scope of reservation (b) of its Optional Clause
Declaration . However, it is for the Court to characteri ze, on an objective
basis, the dispute submitted to it:
“It is for the Court itself, while giving particular attention to the
formulation of the dispute chosen by the Applicant, to determine on
an objective basis the dispute dividing the parties, by examining the
position of both parties .” 84
1 .31 Australia’s striking silence on the issues of jurisdiction posed by
the reservation included in its own Optional Declaration cannot conceal the
fact that the JARPA II research area covers the entirety of Australia ’s
claimed EEZ in the Antarctic and extends to other maritime areas adjacent
thereto, as is illustrated on the sketch map next page .
84
448, para . 30 . See also Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v . France), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1974, p . .
466, para . 30; see also Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph
63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in tNuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France)
Case, Order of 22 September 1995, I.C.J. Reports 1995,p . 304, para . 55 .
38them, as the following section will make clear .
Section 3. The Conditions Expressed in Australia’s Reservation
are Fulfilled
1 .30 For understandable reasons, Australia strives to introduce its claims
as if they do not fall within the scope of reservation (b) of its Optional Clause
Declaration . However, it is for the Court to characteri ze, on an objective
basis, the dispute submitted to it:
“It is for the Court itself, while giving particular attention to the
formulation of the dispute chosen by the Applicant, to determine on
an objective basis the dispute dividing the parties, by examining the
position of both parties .” 84
1 .31 Australia’s striking silence on the issues of jurisdiction posed by
the reservation included in its own Optional Declaration cannot conceal the
fact that the JARPA II research area covers the entirety of Australia ’s
claimed EEZ in the Antarctic and extends to other maritime areas adjacent
thereto, as is illustrated on the sketch map next page .
84
448, para . 30 . See also Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v . France), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1974, p . .
466, para . 30; see also Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph
63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in tNuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France)
Case, Order of 22 September 1995, I.C.J. Reports 1995,p . 304, para . 55 .1 .32 Reservation (b) in Australia’s current Optional Clause Declaration total area of Australia itself .
is aimed at covering the claims to maritime zones generated by the claimed
Australian Antarctic Territory . D eclarations made before the Australian 1 .34
Parliament by Australia’s highest authorities leave no doubt concerning th is to the first half of the 20th century . It is based on an Order in Council dated
fact: 7 February 1933, by which the British Government asserted what it called
“sovereign rights” over “that part of the territory in the Antarctic Seas which
“Australia’s maritime zones abut the maritime zones of Indon esia, comprises all the islands and territories other than Adélie Land situated so uth
New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, France
(New Caledonia, Kerguelen Island and Antarctica), East Timor and of the 60th degree of south latitude and lying between the 160th degree of
Norway . Australia is yet to resolve boundaries with France, New east longitude and the 45th degree of east longitude .” The Order placed the
Zealand and Norway in the maritime area adjacent to
Antarctica .” 85 administration of the territory under the authority of the Commonwealth of
Australia
“At the present time we are involved in maritime boundary
negotiations with New Zealand, where we have maritime by 60 degrees S outh latitude, and situated between 160
boundaries on four fronts, including between our Antarctic
longitude and 45 degrees East longitude, with the exception of the Adélie
possessions . We also have unresolved boundaries with France and
Norway in relation to where they abut the Australian Antarctic Land, claimed by France .
Territory . They are the unresolved ones .” 86
“Secondly, this applies to all our maritime boundaries ; we are not 1 .35
just talking about our maritime boundaries with East Timor; we do
87 Norway and the United Kingdom have territorial claims in the Antarctic . The
have unresolved boundaries .”
signature of the Antarctic Treaty (Washington, 1 December 1959)
1 .33 In Australia’s perception there is an EEZ adjacent to Antarctica, in representing a milestone for the management of the polar continent, does not
the Southern Ocean, generated by the sovereignty which Australia claims
88
over a portion of territory in Antarctica (the self -proclaimed Australian
Antarctic Territory (AAT)) . The AAT covers nearly 5.9 million square
89
kilometres, amounting to about 42% of Antarctica and nearly 80% of the
90
91
85
Attorney-General Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, “Changes
86to International Dispute Resolution” (News Release, 25March 2002) (emphasis added) [Annex 166] .
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates , Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 12 July 2002 92
87(William Campbell) TR 49 (emphasis added) [Annex 167] . 93
Ibid ., TR 50-51 (emphasis added) .
401 .32 Reservation (b) in Australia’s current Optional Clause Declaration total area of Australia itself .
is aimed at covering the claims to maritime zones generated by the claimed
Australian Antarctic Territory . D eclarations made before the Australian 1 .34
Parliament by Australia’s highest authorities leave no doubt concerning th is to the first half of the 20th century . It is based on an Order in Council dated
fact: 7 February 1933, by which the British Government asserted what it called
“sovereign rights” over “that part of the territory in the Antarctic Seas which
“Australia’s maritime zones abut the maritime zones of Indon esia, comprises all the islands and territories other than Adélie Land situated so uth
New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, France
(New Caledonia, Kerguelen Island and Antarctica), East Timor and of the 60th degree of south latitude and lying between the 160th degree of
Norway . Australia is yet to resolve boundaries with France, New east longitude and the 45th degree of east longitude .” The Order placed the
Zealand and Norway in the maritime area adjacent to
Antarctica .” 85 administration of the territory under the authority of the Commonwealth of
Australia
“At the present time we are involved in maritime boundary
negotiations with New Zealand, where we have maritime by 60 degrees S outh latitude, and situated between 160
boundaries on four fronts, including between our Antarctic
longitude and 45 degrees East longitude, with the exception of the Adélie
possessions . We also have unresolved boundaries with France and
Norway in relation to where they abut the Australian Antarctic Land, claimed by France .
Territory . They are the unresolved ones .” 86
“Secondly, this applies to all our maritime boundaries ; we are not 1 .35
just talking about our maritime boundaries with East Timor; we do
87 Norway and the United Kingdom have territorial claims in the Antarctic . The
have unresolved boundaries .”
signature of the Antarctic Treaty (Washington, 1 December 1959)
1 .33 In Australia’s perception there is an EEZ adjacent to Antarctica, in representing a milestone for the management of the polar continent, does not
the Southern Ocean, generated by the sovereignty which Australia claims
88
over a portion of territory in Antarctica (the self -proclaimed Australian
Antarctic Territory (AAT)) . The AAT covers nearly 5.9 million square
89
kilometres, amounting to about 42% of Antarctica and nearly 80% of the
90
91
85
Attorney-General Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, “Changes
86to International Dispute Resolution” (News Release, 25March 2002) (emphasis added) [Annex 166] .
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates , Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 12 July 2002 92
87(William Campbell) TR 49 (emphasis added) [Annex 167] . 93
Ibid ., TR 50-51 (emphasis added) .purport to resolve any of these territorial claims, which are maintained .
Among the signatorie s of the Treaty were the seven “ claimant” States (in
French, “États possessionnés ”) 94 and five non- claimant States, so called
because they either simply maintain a “basis of claim” (Russia and the United
States) or do not recogni ze any claim to sovereignty over the continent
(Belgium, Japan and South Africa among the original Parties 95, and other
States which have acceded to the Antarctic Treaty) .
1 .36 All these positions are accommodated in Article IV of the Antarctic
Treaty, “freezing” all sovereignty claims: 1 .38
Antarctic Treaty , Australia made several maritime claims relating to this
“1 . Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: territory . Since 1994, Australia has claimed maritime zones adjacent to
(a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted
rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; Antarctica
(b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any zones adjacent to Antarctica, Australia has claimed rights i
basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it
may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its territorial sea, an EEZ and a continental shelf under the Seas and Submerged
nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;
Lands Act .
(c) prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its
recognition or non-recognition of any other State’s right of or
claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica .
1 .39
2 . No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in 2004 a submission with the Commission on the Limits
force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a Shelf (CLCS), claiming an extended continental shelf off the AAT . Although
claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of
sovereignty in Antarctica . No new claim, or enlargement of an Australia asked the Commission not to take any steps in respect of the outer
existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be continental shelf of the AAT, it explicitly asserted in its Submission its right
asserted while the present Treaty is in force .”
96
1 .37 As a result of this provision, claims to sovereignty over parts of
Antarctica are essentially held in abeyance: 97
94See for instance, Gilbert Guillaume, “Le statut juridique de l’Antarctique” in Les grandes crises 98
internationales et le droit (Seuil 1994) pp . 131-132 .
95See Christopher C . Joyner, Antarctica and the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992) pp .
62-64 . 99
42purport to resolve any of these territorial claims, which are maintained .
Among the signatorie s of the Treaty were the seven “ claimant” States (in
French, “États possessionnés ”) 94 and five non- claimant States, so called
because they either simply maintain a “basis of claim” (Russia and the United
States) or do not recogni ze any claim to sovereignty over the continent
(Belgium, Japan and South Africa among the original Parties 95, and other
States which have acceded to the Antarctic Treaty) .
1 .36 All these positions are accommodated in Article IV of the Antarctic
Treaty, “freezing” all sovereignty claims: 1 .38
Antarctic Treaty , Australia made several maritime claims relating to this
“1 . Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: territory . Since 1994, Australia has claimed maritime zones adjacent to
(a) a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted
rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; Antarctica
(b) a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any zones adjacent to Antarctica, Australia has claimed rights i
basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it
may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its territorial sea, an EEZ and a continental shelf under the Seas and Submerged
nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise;
Lands Act .
(c) prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its
recognition or non-recognition of any other State’s right of or
claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica .
1 .39
2 . No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in 2004 a submission with the Commission on the Limits
force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a Shelf (CLCS), claiming an extended continental shelf off the AAT . Although
claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of
sovereignty in Antarctica . No new claim, or enlargement of an Australia asked the Commission not to take any steps in respect of the outer
existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be continental shelf of the AAT, it explicitly asserted in its Submission its right
asserted while the present Treaty is in force .”
96
1 .37 As a result of this provision, claims to sovereignty over parts of
Antarctica are essentially held in abeyance: 97
94See for instance, Gilbert Guillaume, “Le statut juridique de l’Antarctique” in Les grandes crises 98
internationales et le droit (Seuil 1994) pp . 131-132 .
95See Christopher C . Joyner, Antarctica and the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992) pp .
62-64 . 99to make such a submission later 100 and reaffirmed its interest in this area,
which is still to be delineated and delimitated:
1 .41
“Australia has regard to the circumstances of the area of 60 degrees Antarctica, are highly controversial under international law and not
South latitude and the special legal and political status of
Antarctica under the provisions of t he Antarctic Treaty, including recognized by Japan
in its article IV, and notes that appurtenant to Antarctica there exist Australia, and there can be no doubt that inasmuch as JARPA II concerns any
areas of continental shelf the extent of which has yet to be defined .
disputed maritime area or is related to the exploitation of this disputed area –
It is open to States concerned to submit information to the
Commission which would not be examined by it for the time being, which is the case, even though, in spite of Australia’s allegations
or to make a partial submission not including such areas of
101 not consist in the exploitation of the resources of the area
continental shelf, for which a submission may be made later .”
no jurisdiction to examine the Australian Application in the present case
1 .40 On this occasion, Japan recalled its consistent rejection of any and virtue of reservation (b) in Australia’s Optional Declaration
every claim to sovereignty over Antarctica and of the declaration by States of
maritime areas generated by their Antarctic continental claims . To Japan, 1 .42
102
these areas are high seas . Japan reacted to Australia’s submission with the in the Antarctic remains partly unspecified . “
CLCS by recalling Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty and explaining that: territorial sea claim offshore Antarctica from 3 to 12 nautical miles in 1990,
and in 1994 proclaimed an EEZ offshore the AAT, no straight baselines were
“Japan does not recognize any State’s right of or claims to
declared around the AAT .”
territorial sovereignty in the Antarctic, and consequently does not
recognize any State’s rights over or claims to the water, seabed and used . Under current Australian law, the 1994 amendments to the Seas and
subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the continent of
Submerged Lands Act 1973 provide that the Governor
100See Government of Australia, Executive Summary, Continental Shelf Submission of Australia, proclamation declare the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea
2004, pp . 11-13,
<http://www .un .org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_deli is to be measured . However, the Seas and Submerged Lands (Territorial Sea
very .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 168] .
101Government of Australia, “Note from the Permanent Mission of Australia to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement of Australia’s submission”, Submission to the 103
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (November 2004),
<http://www .un .org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_attachme 104
nt .pdf > accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 169] .
102Attorney-General, “Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth as
Amicus Curiae”, Submission in Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ,
NSD 1519/2004 (25 January 2005), paras . 13- 14 [Annex 170] . Japanese whaling vessels have 105
responded to Australian queries denying Australian jurisdiction offshore of the ‘Australian Antarct ic 106
Territory’ . See James Shevlin, “Japanese Whaling Activity Observed” (1992) 69 ANARE News 18, 107
p . 18 (cited by Stuart B . Kaye and Donald R . Rothwell, “Southern Ocean Boundaries and Maritime 108
Claims: Another Antarctic Challenge for the Law of the Sea?” (2002) 33 Ocean Development &
International Law359, p . 386, fn . 78 .)
44to make such a submission later 100 and reaffirmed its interest in this area,
which is still to be delineated and delimitated:
1 .41
“Australia has regard to the circumstances of the area of 60 degrees Antarctica, are highly controversial under international law and not
South latitude and the special legal and political status of
Antarctica under the provisions of t he Antarctic Treaty, including recognized by Japan
in its article IV, and notes that appurtenant to Antarctica there exist Australia, and there can be no doubt that inasmuch as JARPA II concerns any
areas of continental shelf the extent of which has yet to be defined .
disputed maritime area or is related to the exploitation of this disputed area –
It is open to States concerned to submit information to the
Commission which would not be examined by it for the time being, which is the case, even though, in spite of Australia’s allegations
or to make a partial submission not including such areas of
101 not consist in the exploitation of the resources of the area
continental shelf, for which a submission may be made later .”
no jurisdiction to examine the Australian Application in the present case
1 .40 On this occasion, Japan recalled its consistent rejection of any and virtue of reservation (b) in Australia’s Optional Declaration
every claim to sovereignty over Antarctica and of the declaration by States of
maritime areas generated by their Antarctic continental claims . To Japan, 1 .42
102
these areas are high seas . Japan reacted to Australia’s submission with the in the Antarctic remains partly unspecified . “
CLCS by recalling Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty and explaining that: territorial sea claim offshore Antarctica from 3 to 12 nautical miles in 1990,
and in 1994 proclaimed an EEZ offshore the AAT, no straight baselines were
“Japan does not recognize any State’s right of or claims to
declared around the AAT .”
territorial sovereignty in the Antarctic, and consequently does not
recognize any State’s rights over or claims to the water, seabed and used . Under current Australian law, the 1994 amendments to the Seas and
subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the continent of
Submerged Lands Act 1973 provide that the Governor
100See Government of Australia, Executive Summary, Continental Shelf Submission of Australia, proclamation declare the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea
2004, pp . 11-13,
<http://www .un .org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_deli is to be measured . However, the Seas and Submerged Lands (Territorial Sea
very .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 168] .
101Government of Australia, “Note from the Permanent Mission of Australia to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement of Australia’s submission”, Submission to the 103
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (November 2004),
<http://www .un .org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_attachme 104
nt .pdf > accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 169] .
102Attorney-General, “Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth as
Amicus Curiae”, Submission in Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ,
NSD 1519/2004 (25 January 2005), paras . 13- 14 [Annex 170] . Japanese whaling vessels have 105
responded to Australian queries denying Australian jurisdiction offshore of the ‘Australian Antarct ic 106
Territory’ . See James Shevlin, “Japanese Whaling Activity Observed” (1992) 69 ANARE News 18, 107
p . 18 (cited by Stuart B . Kaye and Donald R . Rothwell, “Southern Ocean Boundaries and Maritime 108
Claims: Another Antarctic Challenge for the Law of the Sea?” (2002) 33 Ocean Development &
International Law359, p . 386, fn . 78 .)Baseline) Proclamation 2006 of the Governor-General is completely silent as question is controversial and involves considerable diplomatic sensitivity .
to the baselines applicable in the purported AAT 109 . It follows that, in the Claims to sovereignty over Antarctica and claims to sovereign rights over
absence of clarification of the extent of the territorial claim and of the type of adjacent maritime zones are at the heart of a disagreement among the
baselines contemplated by Australia around the Antarctic coast, the exact participants in the Antarctic Treaty
extent of Australia’s maritime claims off Antarctica cannot be precisely extent of these claims, but also and most importantly the basis of their
established . validity, that is, whether the claimant State is the holder of sovereign rights
over the relevant area . It follows that this undelimited maritime a
1 .43 But this has no impact on the present discussion: whole is a “disputed area” within the meaning of Australian reservation (b) .
- on the one hand, Australian reservation (b) is not limited to maritime Moreover, and in any case, the Australian reservation also covers areas
disputed areas claimed by Australia, but extends to areas “adjacent to any “adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation” .
such maritime zone …”;
- on the other hand, and in any case, the maritime sector claimed by Australia 1 .45
between 160 degrees East longitude and 45 degrees East longitude, with the and of its claim to an EEZ off the so
exception of the Adélie Land extends northward from the Antarctic Australia’s claims are not the issues of which the Court is seised . For the
continent up to 60 degrees South latitude . This is the area where JARPA II purposes of determining its (lack of) jurisdiction, it suffices for the Court to
operates . determine that these claims exist, that they have not been resolved, and that
their extent covers a geographic area in which or adjacent to which
Keeping in mind that Australia’s maritime claims are not the subject- matter JARPA II programme is operating . That is the clear effect of the Australian
of the present dispute, the Court can only interpret the reservation, in reservation regarding disputes “arising out of, concerning, or relating to the
110
ensuring its full or maximum effect , without frustrating Australia’s intent exploitation of any disputed area of or adj acent to any such maritime zone
or making determinations as to extent of Australia’s maritime claims . pending its delimitation” .
1 .44 Neither the legality of Australia’s territorial and maritime claims 1 .46
nor their exact extent needs to be established for the purposes of the maritime claims, Australia ha s on several occasions purported
application of Australia’s reservation, however: it is sufficient to note that the legislative and judicial jurisdiction over these areas in respect of whaling .
109 111
See Seas and Submerged Lands (Territorial Sea Baseline) Proclamation 2006, 15 February 2006,
110<http://www .comlaw .gov .au/Details/F2006L00525> accessed 14 February 2012 .
See above, para . 1 .16 .
46Baseline) Proclamation 2006 of the Governor-General is completely silent as question is controversial and involves considerable diplomatic sensitivity .
to the baselines applicable in the purported AAT 109 . It follows that, in the Claims to sovereignty over Antarctica and claims to sovereign rights over
absence of clarification of the extent of the territorial claim and of the type of adjacent maritime zones are at the heart of a disagreement among the
baselines contemplated by Australia around the Antarctic coast, the exact participants in the Antarctic Treaty
extent of Australia’s maritime claims off Antarctica cannot be precisely extent of these claims, but also and most importantly the basis of their
established . validity, that is, whether the claimant State is the holder of sovereign rights
over the relevant area . It follows that this undelimited maritime a
1 .43 But this has no impact on the present discussion: whole is a “disputed area” within the meaning of Australian reservation (b) .
- on the one hand, Australian reservation (b) is not limited to maritime Moreover, and in any case, the Australian reservation also covers areas
disputed areas claimed by Australia, but extends to areas “adjacent to any “adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation” .
such maritime zone …”;
- on the other hand, and in any case, the maritime sector claimed by Australia 1 .45
between 160 degrees East longitude and 45 degrees East longitude, with the and of its claim to an EEZ off the so
exception of the Adélie Land extends northward from the Antarctic Australia’s claims are not the issues of which the Court is seised . For the
continent up to 60 degrees South latitude . This is the area where JARPA II purposes of determining its (lack of) jurisdiction, it suffices for the Court to
operates . determine that these claims exist, that they have not been resolved, and that
their extent covers a geographic area in which or adjacent to which
Keeping in mind that Australia’s maritime claims are not the subject- matter JARPA II programme is operating . That is the clear effect of the Australian
of the present dispute, the Court can only interpret the reservation, in reservation regarding disputes “arising out of, concerning, or relating to the
110
ensuring its full or maximum effect , without frustrating Australia’s intent exploitation of any disputed area of or adj acent to any such maritime zone
or making determinations as to extent of Australia’s maritime claims . pending its delimitation” .
1 .44 Neither the legality of Australia’s territorial and maritime claims 1 .46
nor their exact extent needs to be established for the purposes of the maritime claims, Australia ha s on several occasions purported
application of Australia’s reservation, however: it is sufficient to note that the legislative and judicial jurisdiction over these areas in respect of whaling .
109 111
See Seas and Submerged Lands (Territorial Sea Baseline) Proclamation 2006, 15 February 2006,
110<http://www .comlaw .gov .au/Details/F2006L00525> accessed 14 February 2012 .
See above, para . 1 .16 . 1 .49
1 .47 After the purported declaration of an Antarctic EEZ, Australia amicus curiae
established the Australian Whale Sanctuary (AWS) under section 225(1) of exercise jurisdiction in these areas is highly controversial, the Attorney
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ( EPBC General reaffirmed that:
Act) . This Act is applicable to the waters claimed off the AAT, and the
112
location of the sanctuary is defined by reference to the Australian EEZ . In
the AWS, it is an offence to kill, injure, take, possess or treat (process) a
113
cetacean . Under the EPBC Act, section 5(4), this law applies to
Australians and to other nationals in Australia’s claimed EEZ .
1 .48 This was confirmed in a case involving a Japanese company
114
(Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha , Ltd . ( Kyodo)) , which had been engaged in
whaling under special permit and was brought before the Australian courts
for violation of Australian domestic laws, in particular the EPBC Act . 1 .50
Humane Society International Inc . filed proceedings in the Federal C ourt of sections 229-232 and 238 of the EPBC Act 1999 by killing, treating, and
Australia seeking an injunction to prevent Kyodo from conducting whaling in possessing whales in the AWS in the EEZ adjacent to the AAT
the AWS . The evidence brought before the Judge mainly referred to the also forbade Kyodo from further killing, injuring, taking, or interfering with
115
purported violation by Kyodo of the AWS . any Antarctic minke whale, fin whale, or humpback whale in the AWS
adjacent to the AAT .
112EPBC Act Sec . 225(2)(a) [Annex 165] . See also Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary,
<http://www .environment .gov .au/coasts/species/cetaceans/pubs/sanctuary-maaccessed 14 1 .51
February 2012 [Annex 175] . The legend of this map explainsThe Australian Whale Sanctuary
provides protection for whales within Australian waters . The Sanctuary extends to 200 nautical - First, that the AWS applies to the purported AAT-adjacent maritime areas:
miles from Australia’s coast and territorial islands . Tctuary is legally enforceable under
federal environment law . Australian jurisdiction over the Antarctic waters is not universally
113recognised .”
114EPBC Act Secs . 229-30 [Annex 165] .
On the legal status of Kyodo according to Japanese law and its role in the JARPA programme, see
115below paras . 5 .116-5 .117 .
Thus in the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia, Full Court, allowing the appeal, it is 116
stressed: “The appellant . . . has commenced this action against the respondent, a Japanese company,
alleging that its fleet of whalers has been unlawfully (that is, in breach of a law of the
Commonwealth) killing, injuring, taking and dealing with Antarctic minke whales in that part of the 117
Australian Whale Sanctuary that is adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory .” (Humane Society
International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd , FCAFC 116 (14 July 2006), para . 2) [Annex 171] .
48 1 .49
1 .47 After the purported declaration of an Antarctic EEZ, Australia amicus curiae
established the Australian Whale Sanctuary (AWS) under section 225(1) of exercise jurisdiction in these areas is highly controversial, the Attorney
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ( EPBC General reaffirmed that:
Act) . This Act is applicable to the waters claimed off the AAT, and the
112
location of the sanctuary is defined by reference to the Australian EEZ . In
the AWS, it is an offence to kill, injure, take, possess or treat (process) a
113
cetacean . Under the EPBC Act, section 5(4), this law applies to
Australians and to other nationals in Australia’s claimed EEZ .
1 .48 This was confirmed in a case involving a Japanese company
114
(Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha , Ltd . ( Kyodo)) , which had been engaged in
whaling under special permit and was brought before the Australian courts
for violation of Australian domestic laws, in particular the EPBC Act . 1 .50
Humane Society International Inc . filed proceedings in the Federal C ourt of sections 229-232 and 238 of the EPBC Act 1999 by killing, treating, and
Australia seeking an injunction to prevent Kyodo from conducting whaling in possessing whales in the AWS in the EEZ adjacent to the AAT
the AWS . The evidence brought before the Judge mainly referred to the also forbade Kyodo from further killing, injuring, taking, or interfering with
115
purported violation by Kyodo of the AWS . any Antarctic minke whale, fin whale, or humpback whale in the AWS
adjacent to the AAT .
112EPBC Act Sec . 225(2)(a) [Annex 165] . See also Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary,
<http://www .environment .gov .au/coasts/species/cetaceans/pubs/sanctuary-maaccessed 14 1 .51
February 2012 [Annex 175] . The legend of this map explainsThe Australian Whale Sanctuary
provides protection for whales within Australian waters . The Sanctuary extends to 200 nautical - First, that the AWS applies to the purported AAT-adjacent maritime areas:
miles from Australia’s coast and territorial islands . Tctuary is legally enforceable under
federal environment law . Australian jurisdiction over the Antarctic waters is not universally
113recognised .”
114EPBC Act Secs . 229-30 [Annex 165] .
On the legal status of Kyodo according to Japanese law and its role in the JARPA programme, see
115below paras . 5 .116-5 .117 .
Thus in the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia, Full Court, allowing the appeal, it is 116
stressed: “The appellant . . . has commenced this action against the respondent, a Japanese company,
alleging that its fleet of whalers has been unlawfully (that is, in breach of a law of the
Commonwealth) killing, injuring, taking and dealing with Antarctic minke whales in that part of the 117
Australian Whale Sanctuary that is adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory .” (Humane Society
International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd , FCAFC 116 (14 July 2006), para . 2) [Annex 171] . including, importantly for this matter, the Australian Antarctic
Territory . By virtue of the statutory definition in s 225 of the EPBC
Act, the waters within 200 nautical miles from the Australian
Antarctic Territory land mass are within the Australian Whale
118
Sanctuary .”
- Second, that the delimitation of this area is disputed, notably between Japan
and Australia:
“Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic
Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France,
Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and
otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land
mass . Japan rejects Australia’s purported exercise of jur isdiction
over waters that are considered by Japan to be the high seas .” 119 1 .52
Australia attempts to enforce its claimed jurisdiction over the AAT, for
- Third, that JARPA II is considered to be conducted mainly in or adjacent to
legislative, judicial and ultimately for enforcement purposes . With regard to
the claimed Australian maritime areas:
the latter aspect, a change in the A ustralian Government’s position became
“Under JARPA, the whaling activity was conducted in two groups visible . In his submission in the Kyodo
of areas, alternating on a biennial basis . In the 2001/2002 and appreciated that, in view of the controversy surrounding claims to maritime
2003/2004 seasons, whaling was conducted south of latitude 60 zones off Antarctica, Australia had followed a practice of not seeking
deg . S to the ice edge of the Antarctic land mass between longitude
35 deg . E and longitude 130 deg . E (referred to as Area IV and enforce its domestic law against foreign nationals in the claimed EEZ
Area IIIE) . In the 2000/2001, 2002/2003 and 2004/2005 seasons, extending from Antarctica;
whaling was conducted south of latitude 60 deg . S to the ice edge
of the Antarctic land mass between longitude 13 0deg . E and 2007 changed its position . The new Attorney -General, Robert McClelland
longitude 145 deg . W (referred to as Area V and Area VIW) . After
MP, wrote to Justice Allsop and:
the introduction of JARPA II, the internal boundaries were shifted
such that in the 2005/2006 season, whaling occurred between 35
deg . E and 175 deg . E and in 2006/2007, between 175 deg . E and
145 deg . W .
The applicant relied upon reports submitted by the respondent to 120
121
118Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, [2008] FCA 3 15 January 2008, 122
para . 12 .
119Ibid., para . 13 .
50 including, importantly for this matter, the Australian Antarctic
Territory . By virtue of the statutory definition in s 225 of the EPBC
Act, the waters within 200 nautical miles from the Australian
Antarctic Territory land mass are within the Australian Whale
118
Sanctuary .”
- Second, that the delimitation of this area is disputed, notably between Japan
and Australia:
“Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic
Territory is recognised only by four nations (New Zealand, France,
Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves with asserted (and
otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land
mass . Japan rejects Australia’s purported exercise of jur isdiction
over waters that are considered by Japan to be the high seas .” 119 1 .52
Australia attempts to enforce its claimed jurisdiction over the AAT, for
- Third, that JARPA II is considered to be conducted mainly in or adjacent to
legislative, judicial and ultimately for enforcement purposes . With regard to
the claimed Australian maritime areas:
the latter aspect, a change in the A ustralian Government’s position became
“Under JARPA, the whaling activity was conducted in two groups visible . In his submission in the Kyodo
of areas, alternating on a biennial basis . In the 2001/2002 and appreciated that, in view of the controversy surrounding claims to maritime
2003/2004 seasons, whaling was conducted south of latitude 60 zones off Antarctica, Australia had followed a practice of not seeking
deg . S to the ice edge of the Antarctic land mass between longitude
35 deg . E and longitude 130 deg . E (referred to as Area IV and enforce its domestic law against foreign nationals in the claimed EEZ
Area IIIE) . In the 2000/2001, 2002/2003 and 2004/2005 seasons, extending from Antarctica;
whaling was conducted south of latitude 60 deg . S to the ice edge
of the Antarctic land mass between longitude 13 0deg . E and 2007 changed its position . The new Attorney -General, Robert McClelland
longitude 145 deg . W (referred to as Area V and Area VIW) . After
MP, wrote to Justice Allsop and:
the introduction of JARPA II, the internal boundaries were shifted
such that in the 2005/2006 season, whaling occurred between 35
deg . E and 175 deg . E and in 2006/2007, between 175 deg . E and
145 deg . W .
The applicant relied upon reports submitted by the respondent to 120
121
118Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, [2008] FCA 3 15 January 2008, 122
para . 12 .
119Ibid., para . 13 . The Commonwealth Government believes that the matter would EEZ” and the adjacent waters . Australia claims a legal interest in the
best be considered by t123Court without the Government regulation of the living resources in a large part of those waters . It has made
expressing a view .”
no attempt to explain its jus standi in respect to its application to the Court .
1 .53 Thus, the Australian Government not only maintains a claim over The Australian presentation of the seisin of the Court in the present case then
the EEZ extending from its purported AAT, but also declares itself ready to appears as a means to protect this claimed jurisdiction, even though the
implement the rules it adopts and to effectively seek their enforcement 124 . Application and the Memorial cautiously do not directly present it as such .
1 .54 The JARPA II program me, the subject -matter of the dispute of 1 .56
which the Court is seised 125, actually operates within the EEZ of the claimed claims over the AAT and the adjacentmaritime area, the present dispute must
AAT and the adjacent area 126 . The research area covered by JARPA II is be defined as either “concerning [a] disputed area or adjacent to such
situated between 35 degrees East longitude and 145 degrees West longitude, maritime zone” or as “relating to the exploitation of [a] disputed area ” or of
and south of 60degrees South latitude 127 . However, under JARPA II, the area an area “adjacent to such [a] maritime zone” . Australia’s claims in this area
for the research take was narrowed from south of 60 degrees South latitude to are a reality; and it is apparent that Japan’s scientific whaling, since it takes
south of 62 degrees South latitude 128 . It follows from the above that the place in these areas, necessarily “concerns” them. It can equally be said that
JARPA II area actually encompasses the purpor ted AAT maritime zone and JARPA II, while not itself constituting an exploitation of resources of the
the adjacent area . area
meaning of Australia’s reservation .
1 .55 JARPA II is thus co nducted in Australia’s claimed “Antarctic
1 .57
123
Correspondence, dated 12 December 2007, written on behalf of the new Attorney -General to Allsop scope of the Court’s jurisdiction as a consequence of Australia’s reservation
J, quoted in Chris McGrath, “Injunction granted in Japanese Whaling Case” HSI Technical Bulletin,
p . 2 [Annex 173] . See also Donald K . Anton, “Antarctic Whaling: Australia’s Attempt to Protect (b), which applies on the basis of reciprocity .
124Whales in the Southern Ocean” (2009) 36 B .C . Envtl . Aff . L . Rev . 319, p . 319 .
See Australian Embassy Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘Scientific Whaling’” (Press Release,
TK01/2008, 7 January 2008), <http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008> accessed
14 February 2012 [Annex 176] . See also, Australian Embassy Tokyo, “Australia Acts to Stop
Whaling” (Press Release, TK21/2007, 19 December 2007) ,
<http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK21/2007> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex
125174] .
126See above, para . 1 .5 .
127See above, paras . 1 .31-1 .41 .
See Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program 129
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
128Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) pp . 12-13 .
See also below, para . 5 .38, describing and explaining the reasons why the research take is realized
within this area .
52 The Commonwealth Government believes that the matter would EEZ” and the adjacent waters . Australia claims a legal interest in the
best be considered by t123Court without the Government regulation of the living resources in a large part of those waters . It has made
expressing a view .”
no attempt to explain its jus standi in respect to its application to the Court .
1 .53 Thus, the Australian Government not only maintains a claim over The Australian presentation of the seisin of the Court in the present case then
the EEZ extending from its purported AAT, but also declares itself ready to appears as a means to protect this claimed jurisdiction, even though the
implement the rules it adopts and to effectively seek their enforcement 124 . Application and the Memorial cautiously do not directly present it as such .
1 .54 The JARPA II program me, the subject -matter of the dispute of 1 .56
which the Court is seised 125, actually operates within the EEZ of the claimed claims over the AAT and the adjacentmaritime area, the present dispute must
AAT and the adjacent area 126 . The research area covered by JARPA II is be defined as either “concerning [a] disputed area or adjacent to such
situated between 35 degrees East longitude and 145 degrees West longitude, maritime zone” or as “relating to the exploitation of [a] disputed area ” or of
and south of 60degrees South latitude 127 . However, under JARPA II, the area an area “adjacent to such [a] maritime zone” . Australia’s claims in this area
for the research take was narrowed from south of 60 degrees South latitude to are a reality; and it is apparent that Japan’s scientific whaling, since it takes
south of 62 degrees South latitude 128 . It follows from the above that the place in these areas, necessarily “concerns” them. It can equally be said that
JARPA II area actually encompasses the purpor ted AAT maritime zone and JARPA II, while not itself constituting an exploitation of resources of the
the adjacent area . area
meaning of Australia’s reservation .
1 .55 JARPA II is thus co nducted in Australia’s claimed “Antarctic
1 .57
123
Correspondence, dated 12 December 2007, written on behalf of the new Attorney -General to Allsop scope of the Court’s jurisdiction as a consequence of Australia’s reservation
J, quoted in Chris McGrath, “Injunction granted in Japanese Whaling Case” HSI Technical Bulletin,
p . 2 [Annex 173] . See also Donald K . Anton, “Antarctic Whaling: Australia’s Attempt to Protect (b), which applies on the basis of reciprocity .
124Whales in the Southern Ocean” (2009) 36 B .C . Envtl . Aff . L . Rev . 319, p . 319 .
See Australian Embassy Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘Scientific Whaling’” (Press Release,
TK01/2008, 7 January 2008), <http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008> accessed
14 February 2012 [Annex 176] . See also, Australian Embassy Tokyo, “Australia Acts to Stop
Whaling” (Press Release, TK21/2007, 19 December 2007) ,
<http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK21/2007> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex
125174] .
126See above, para . 1 .5 .
127See above, paras . 1 .31-1 .41 .
See Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program 129
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
128Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) pp . 12-13 .
See also below, para . 5 .38, describing and explaining the reasons why the research take is realized
within this area . PART I
THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL
REGULATION OF WHALING PART I
THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL
REGULATION OF WHALING INTRODUCTION
I .1 The Memorial of Australia gives a very selective account of the
historical background and nature of the ICRW, creating the impression that
the object and purpose of the Convention includes protection of whale stocks
per se. It assumes that the work of the IWC in recent years has been to pursue
that particular objective . However, Australia’s teleological approach is
contrary to the actual nature and history of the IWC . Japan’s purpose in Part I
is to give the Court a better sense of the historical background of the creation
of the ICRW and its object and purpose, based on the work of the Contracting
Governments and the IWC .
I .2 In this P art, Japan will explain the history of the regulation of
whaling in order to explain the background to JARPAand the context within
which JARPA II is currently being implemented . In its attempt to show that
130
“JARPA II is not within the Article VIII exception ” , Australia contends
first of all that there was a significant change in the philosophy behind
regulation of whaling in the ICRW, arguing that the “orderly development” of
the whaling industry was “ expressly made contingent upon the proper and
effective con servation of whale stocks .”31 Furthermore, Australia then
argues that “the past few decades …have witnessed an increased emphasis on
132
conservation per se in the practice of the IWC” , and that “the international
legal regime for the regulation of whaling has evolved from a system
primarily designed to manage the exploitation of a natural resource to an
130AM, Chapter 5 .
131AM, para . 2 .19 .
132AM, para . 2 .98 . INTRODUCTION
I .1 The Memorial of Australia gives a very selective account of the
historical background and nature of the ICRW, creating the impression that
the object and purpose of the Convention includes protection of whale stocks
per se. It assumes that the work of the IWC in recent years has been to pursue
that particular objective . However, Australia’s teleological approach is
contrary to the actual nature and history of the IWC . Japan’s purpose in Part I
is to give the Court a better sense of the historical background of the creation
of the ICRW and its object and purpose, based on the work of the Contracting
Governments and the IWC .
I .2 In this P art, Japan will explain the history of the regulation of
whaling in order to explain the background to JARPAand the context within
which JARPA II is currently being implemented . In its attempt to show that
130
“JARPA II is not within the Article VIII exception ” , Australia contends
first of all that there was a significant change in the philosophy behind
regulation of whaling in the ICRW, arguing that the “orderly development” of
the whaling industry was “ expressly made contingent upon the proper and
effective con servation of whale stocks .”131 Furthermore, Australia then
argues that “the past few decades …have witnessed an increased emphasis on
132
conservation per se in the practice of the IWC” , and that “the international
legal regime for the regulation of whaling has evolved from a system
primarily designed to manage the exploitation of a natural resource to an
130AM, Chapter 5 .
131AM, para . 2 .19 .
132AM, para . 2 .98 .
55 133
increasingly conservation-oriented regime .” and consequently for maintaining the whaling industry. It will also explain
that the IWC organs were
I .3 This is mere wishful thinking . History reveals that the ICRW was management of whale stocks, based on science .
established primarily in order to function as a mechanism for maintaining the
sustainable use of whale resources in the interest of the whaling industry . I .6
This has been a constant and continuing objective of all the previous measures adopted by the IWC have pursued the sustainable utili
agreements and protocols on regulation of whaling, as shown by discussions whale resources . This is reflected directly in the aims of the individual
during the drafting Conference in 1946, in the views expressed by member management measures such as the New Management Procedure (NMP) and
countries at IWC meetings, and by the main provisions of the ICRW . The the Revised Management Procedure(RMP) .
ICRW, in Article V, gave the IWC the authority to modify the Schedule in
order to achieve its object and purpose and to provide for the conservation,
development and optimum utilization of the whale resources , based on
scientific findings .
I .4 The conservation and management of whales and whaling under
the IWC is aimed at the sustainable use of whales . The resource management
measures of this organization have “evolved”, not towards an “ increasingly
134
conservation-oriented” mechanism as Australia claim s, but so as to
135
“provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks ” , while from time to
time adapting to changing circumstances , and “thus make possible the
orderly development of the whaling industry” 136 .
I .5 Chapter 2 will examine the negotiation of the ICRW . The ICRW
and previous agreements and protocols that formed the basis of the ICRW
were created for the purpose of the sustainable utilization of whale resources
133AM, para . 2 .125 .
134AM, paras . 2 .1, 2 .3 .
135ICRW, Preamble, seventh paragraph .
136ICRW, Preamble, seventh paragraph .
56 133
increasingly conservation-oriented regime .” and consequently for maintaining the whaling industry. It will also explain
that the IWC organs were
I .3 This is mere wishful thinking . History reveals that the ICRW was management of whale stocks, based on science .
established primarily in order to function as a mechanism for maintaining the
sustainable use of whale resources in the interest of the whaling industry . I .6
This has been a constant and continuing objective of all the previous measures adopted by the IWC have pursued the sustainable utili
agreements and protocols on regulation of whaling, as shown by discussions whale resources . This is reflected directly in the aims of the individual
during the drafting Conference in 1946, in the views expressed by member management measures such as the New Management Procedure (NMP) and
countries at IWC meetings, and by the main provisions of the ICRW . The the Revised Management Procedure(RMP) .
ICRW, in Article V, gave the IWC the authority to modify the Schedule in
order to achieve its object and purpose and to provide for the conservation,
development and optimum utilization of the whale resources , based on
scientific findings .
I .4 The conservation and management of whales and whaling under
the IWC is aimed at the sustainable use of whales . The resource management
measures of this organization have “evolved”, not towards an “ increasingly
134
conservation-oriented” mechanism as Australia claim s, but so as to
135
“provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks ” , while from time to
time adapting to changing circumstances , and “thus make possible the
orderly development of the whaling industry” 136 .
I .5 Chapter 2 will examine the negotiation of the ICRW . The ICRW
and previous agreements and protocols that formed the basis of the ICRW
were created for the purpose of the sustainable utilization of whale resources
133AM, para . 2 .125 .
134AM, paras . 2 .1, 2 .3 .
135ICRW, Preamble, seventh paragraph .
136ICRW, Preamble, seventh paragraph . CHAPTER 2 undertaken by the IWC, which are described in detail in Chapter 3 .
CREATION OFTHE ICRWAND THE ROLE OFTHE IWC
2 .1 The ICRW adopted in 1946 finally consolidated and codified “a
system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and
effective conservation and development of whale stocks on the basis of the
137
principles embodied” in the International Agreement for the Regulation of 2 .3
Whaling (1937 Agreement) and its Protocols of 1938 and 1945 .
evidences a significant change from the philosophy of the 1931 Convention
and the 1937 Agreement .”
2 .2 The ICRW did not evidence “a significant change from the
as well as the travaux préparatoires indicates otherwise . There was a clear
philosophy of the 1931 Convention [i .e . the Convention for the Regulation of
138 continuity between the object and purpose of the ICRW and those of the
Whaling] and the 1937 Agreement” as Australia claims; nor did it thereby
preceding instruments for international regulation of whaling .
“[abandon] industrial profitability as the sole underlying object of
139
international regulation of whaling” . Rather, as history clearly proves, the 2 .4
ICRW represents a continuation and culmination of the past regulation of
principle of the freedom of
whaling based on sustainable development of the whaling industry . The
conducted without any regulation for many years . The invention of the shell
interest of whaling States in maintaining the whaling industry led to the need
(exploding) harpoon led to the inauguration of modern whaling in 1868; and
for regulating whaling (Section 1) . The ICRW adopted in 1946 was consistent
the advent of factory ships and harpoon guns in the 1920s enabled whaling to
with the previous efforts and succeeded the provisions of the previous
expand into the open sea and to be conducted without regular shoring
agreements (Section 2) . The functions of the IWC show that its mandate Vessels from more States joined in this new type of whaling, which led to
clearly adheres to the consistent object and purpose of the ICRW (Section 3) . intensified pelagic whaling, especially in the Antarctic, in the 1920s and
To implement the ICRW, the IWC organs were established to play an
1930s . Inter alia, Japanese companies began whaling in the Antarctic in the
important role in framing conservation and management measures based on
1934/35 season .
science . The recent activities of those organs will also be explained (Section
4) in order to provide the background for understanding the measures 140
141
137 ICRW, Preamble, sixth paragraph .
138 AM, para . 2 .16 .
139 AM, para . 2 .17 .
58 CHAPTER 2 undertaken by the IWC, which are described in detail in Chapter 3 .
CREATION OFTHE ICRWAND THE ROLE OFTHE IWC
2 .1 The ICRW adopted in 1946 finally consolidated and codified “a
system of international regulation for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and
effective conservation and development of whale stocks on the basis of the
137
principles embodied” in the International Agreement for the Regulation of 2 .3
Whaling (1937 Agreement) and its Protocols of 1938 and 1945 .
evidences a significant change from the philosophy of the 1931 Convention
and the 1937 Agreement .”
2 .2 The ICRW did not evidence “a significant change from the
as well as the travaux préparatoires indicates otherwise . There was a clear
philosophy of the 1931 Convention [i .e . the Convention for the Regulation of
138 continuity between the object and purpose of the ICRW and those of the
Whaling] and the 1937 Agreement” as Australia claims; nor did it thereby
preceding instruments for international regulation of whaling .
“[abandon] industrial profitability as the sole underlying object of
139
international regulation of whaling” . Rather, as history clearly proves, the 2 .4
ICRW represents a continuation and culmination of the past regulation of
principle of the freedom of
whaling based on sustainable development of the whaling industry . The
conducted without any regulation for many years . The invention of the shell
interest of whaling States in maintaining the whaling industry led to the need
(exploding) harpoon led to the inauguration of modern whaling in 1868; and
for regulating whaling (Section 1) . The ICRW adopted in 1946 was consistent
the advent of factory ships and harpoon guns in the 1920s enabled whaling to
with the previous efforts and succeeded the provisions of the previous
expand into the open sea and to be conducted without regular shoring
agreements (Section 2) . The functions of the IWC show that its mandate Vessels from more States joined in this new type of whaling, which led to
clearly adheres to the consistent object and purpose of the ICRW (Section 3) . intensified pelagic whaling, especially in the Antarctic, in the 1920s and
To implement the ICRW, the IWC organs were established to play an
1930s . Inter alia, Japanese companies began whaling in the Antarctic in the
important role in framing conservation and management measures based on
1934/35 season .
science . The recent activities of those organs will also be explained (Section
4) in order to provide the background for understanding the measures 140
141
137 ICRW, Preamble, sixth paragraph .
138 AM, para . 2 .16 .
139 AM, para . 2 .17 . international agreement appeared to be most desirable and reali
2 .5 As a result of intensified whaling, S tates began to feel the need for proposed that the matter be examined
an international arrangement to conserve whales so as to maintain their
whaling industries . Due to the fact that whaling took place beyond S tates’
territorial jurisdiction, and also due to the highly migratory character of the
species, it was ineffective for a single State to regulate whaling unilaterally .
2 .8
2 .6 Early attempts to regulate whaling internationally were made in the of a convention based on the Norwegian Whaling Act of 1929 was prepared
1920s by the Norwegian and British Governments, the two dominant whaling in April 1930 in Berlin . The drafters “unanimously agreed that it would be
142
States at that time ; but later, serious multilateral efforts began in the possible to help the whaling industry by means of an international
League of Nations . convention .”
Whaling (1931 Convention) and was opened for signature at Geneva on 24
2 .7 In his report, M . Jose Leon Suarez, the Rapporteur of the League’s
September 1931
Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law
effect in 1935 . It was subsequently adhered to by another 10 States . Neither
in 1925, argued in relation to the lack of legislation regulating whaling that
Japan norAustralia was a party .
“the absence of such legislation accelerates the disappearance of these
species year by year ” and concluded that “ it is po ssible, by means of
2 .9
adequate regulation, to secure the economical exploitation of the products of
first attempt at general international regulation of whaling . The purpose of
the sea .” 143 He indicated the need to create a new jurisprudence based on
the 1931 Convention was “ to secure the adoption by the greatest possible
scientific and economic considerations 144 . The Committee declared that an
number of countries of certain rules intended to prevent, in the interests of the
142 whaling industry itself , the destruction of a source of wealth available to
They carried out joint investigations and shared their scientific dath other whaling States
through the Whaling Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) .
At the 1927 meeting of the ICES, the Norwegian delegate recommended that each participant 145
government should prohibit any further expansion of whaling activities and institute a system of
licenses for each expedition, but the member States could not agree to adopt such system or any
143alternative .
“Report on the Exploitation of the Products at Sea”, Shabtai Rosenne (ed), League of Nations 146
Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law (11928) (2 vols,
144Dobbs Ferry, Oceana Publications 1972), pp . 149, 151 .
The League of Nation’s Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International 147
Law started deliberations on seeking for an international agreement for exploration of the products
at sea in 1926. The Committee of Experts adopted a list of questions for governments about 148
subjects of international law that regulation by an international agreement would seem most
desirable and realizable . This was in accordance with the mandate given by the Resolution adopted
60 international agreement appeared to be most desirable and reali
2 .5 As a result of intensified whaling, S tates began to feel the need for proposed that the matter be examined
an international arrangement to conserve whales so as to maintain their
whaling industries . Due to the fact that whaling took place beyond S tates’
territorial jurisdiction, and also due to the highly migratory character of the
species, it was ineffective for a single State to regulate whaling unilaterally .
2 .8
2 .6 Early attempts to regulate whaling internationally were made in the of a convention based on the Norwegian Whaling Act of 1929 was prepared
1920s by the Norwegian and British Governments, the two dominant whaling in April 1930 in Berlin . The drafters “unanimously agreed that it would be
142
States at that time ; but later, serious multilateral efforts began in the possible to help the whaling industry by means of an international
League of Nations . convention .”
Whaling (1931 Convention) and was opened for signature at Geneva on 24
2 .7 In his report, M . Jose Leon Suarez, the Rapporteur of the League’s
September 1931
Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law
effect in 1935 . It was subsequently adhered to by another 10 States . Neither
in 1925, argued in relation to the lack of legislation regulating whaling that
Japan norAustralia was a party .
“the absence of such legislation accelerates the disappearance of these
species year by year ” and concluded that “ it is po ssible, by means of
2 .9
adequate regulation, to secure the economical exploitation of the products of
first attempt at general international regulation of whaling . The purpose of
the sea .” 143 He indicated the need to create a new jurisprudence based on
the 1931 Convention was “ to secure the adoption by the greatest possible
scientific and economic considerations 144 . The Committee declared that an
number of countries of certain rules intended to prevent, in the interests of the
142 whaling industry itself , the destruction of a source of wealth available to
They carried out joint investigations and shared their scientific dath other whaling States
through the Whaling Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) .
At the 1927 meeting of the ICES, the Norwegian delegate recommended that each participant 145
government should prohibit any further expansion of whaling activities and institute a system of
licenses for each expedition, but the member States could not agree to adopt such system or any
143alternative .
“Report on the Exploitation of the Products at Sea”, Shabtai Rosenne (ed), League of Nations 146
Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law (11928) (2 vols,
144Dobbs Ferry, Oceana Publications 1972), pp . 149, 151 .
The League of Nation’s Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International 147
Law started deliberations on seeking for an international agreement for exploration of the products
at sea in 1926. The Committee of Experts adopted a list of questions for governments about 148
subjects of international law that regulation by an international agreement would seem most
desirable and realizable . This was in accordance with the mandate given by the Resolution adoptedall .”49 In order to ensure that the utilization of whales would be sustainable,
it introduced various regulations, including a ban on catching certain species,
and a duty to fix a whaler’s bonus in accordance with the size and species and
oil yield of the whale and not with the number of whales caught 150 . 2 .11
1931 Convention, with the same object and purpose . It became the basis for
2 .10 The 1931 Convention laid the foundation for the later the ICRW .
international instruments to regulate whaling . When the International
2 .12
Whaling Conference was held in London in 1937 in response to the calls for
whaling were also in the interest of the whaling companies themselves
the level of conservation to be increased, the provisions of the 1931
151 because the industry was facing a significant fall in the price of oil following
Convention were maintained , and many of the Articles were continued by
the rapid increase in the number of whales caught and the
the subsequent international agreement and its protocols, and eventually by
production of whale oil
the ICRW .
collectively responsible for more than 90 percent
production, entered into production agreements .
significant development in the history of international whale management,
because for the first time the term “
149Special Committee of the US Senate on Conservation of Wild Life Resources, Report on the companies were restricted to a fixed number of whales that each could
Convention of the Regulation of whaling, (19 September 1931), pp . 19, 44 (emphasis added)
[Annex 180] . catch
150The main provisions of the 1931 Convention are listed below .
-Aban on the catching of the right whales (Article 4)
-Aban on the catching of calves, sexually immature whales, female whales which are accompanied
by calves (Article 5) 2 .13
-Full utilization of the carcass (Article 6)
-The whalers’bonus to be f ixed essentially according to the size, species and oil yield of the whale, order to maintain the whaling industry
and not according to numbers (Article 7)
-No catching to be undertaken without a license from the government of the flag state or at least countries operating in the Antarctic in the 1930s . Recognition of the u
notifying the government of the intention to carry out whaling (Article 8)
-The most complete biological information practicable shall be collected (Article 10)
-Statistical information to be submitted to the International Bureau for Whaling Statistics at Oslo
(Article 12) 152
151The Chairman of the 1937 Conference, in mentioning that certain principles in the 1931 Convention
should be accepted, explained that Article 7 of the 1931 Convention a “very important article”
because “[m]ost companies enforce regulations under which a gunner does not get paid for a whale 153
under a certain size”, and Article 6 was “ in effect, it is that every part of the whale that can be
turned to commercial use shall be utilised .” (Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) , 154
Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission,
International Whaling Conference and International Whaling Commission, Records, p . 3 [Annex
8] .)
62all .”49 In order to ensure that the utilization of whales would be sustainable,
it introduced various regulations, including a ban on catching certain species,
and a duty to fix a whaler’s bonus in accordance with the size and species and
oil yield of the whale and not with the number of whales caught 150 . 2 .11
1931 Convention, with the same object and purpose . It became the basis for
2 .10 The 1931 Convention laid the foundation for the later the ICRW .
international instruments to regulate whaling . When the International
2 .12
Whaling Conference was held in London in 1937 in response to the calls for
whaling were also in the interest of the whaling companies themselves
the level of conservation to be increased, the provisions of the 1931
151 because the industry was facing a significant fall in the price of oil following
Convention were maintained , and many of the Articles were continued by
the rapid increase in the number of whales caught and the
the subsequent international agreement and its protocols, and eventually by
production of whale oil
the ICRW .
collectively responsible for more than 90 percent
production, entered into production agreements .
significant development in the history of international whale management,
because for the first time the term “
149Special Committee of the US Senate on Conservation of Wild Life Resources, Report on the companies were restricted to a fixed number of whales that each could
Convention of the Regulation of whaling, (19 September 1931), pp . 19, 44 (emphasis added)
[Annex 180] . catch
150The main provisions of the 1931 Convention are listed below .
-Aban on the catching of the right whales (Article 4)
-Aban on the catching of calves, sexually immature whales, female whales which are accompanied
by calves (Article 5) 2 .13
-Full utilization of the carcass (Article 6)
-The whalers’bonus to be f ixed essentially according to the size, species and oil yield of the whale, order to maintain the whaling industry
and not according to numbers (Article 7)
-No catching to be undertaken without a license from the government of the flag state or at least countries operating in the Antarctic in the 1930s . Recognition of the u
notifying the government of the intention to carry out whaling (Article 8)
-The most complete biological information practicable shall be collected (Article 10)
-Statistical information to be submitted to the International Bureau for Whaling Statistics at Oslo
(Article 12) 152
151The Chairman of the 1937 Conference, in mentioning that certain principles in the 1931 Convention
should be accepted, explained that Article 7 of the 1931 Convention a “very important article”
because “[m]ost companies enforce regulations under which a gunner does not get paid for a whale 153
under a certain size”, and Article 6 was “ in effect, it is that every part of the whale that can be
turned to commercial use shall be utilised .” (Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) , 154
Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission,
International Whaling Conference and International Whaling Commission, Records, p . 3 [Annex
8] .)need to take action for conserving whale stocks led to the convening of the to indicate explicitly its importance as a means to secure the prosperity of the
International Whaling Conference in London from 24 May to 4 June 1937 . whaling industry . For example, in the Fifth Plenary Session on 1 June 1937,
The Minister of A griculture and Fisheries of United Kingdom made the the following discussion took place:
following statement at the opening of the Conference:
“From this we judge that your Governments recognise that the future
of the great whaling industry is in jeopardy, and that its importance
is such that we ought to make an effort to preserve it from the fate
which has overtaken other whaling industries in the past … [Y]our
presence here to -day indicates that your Governments share our
opinion that some such agreement is necessary if the Whaling
Industry [i .e . Antarctic Whaling Industry] is to be preserved for the
present and for future generations. The path of conservation is beset
by many difficulties, but as we are all gathered to pursue a common
object, I hope that your united efforts will find a way through or over
these difficulties, and that we may reach an agreement which will be
beneficial for all of us, and which because of its reasonableness and
its practical character, may induce those155o are not with us to- day
to work with us in the near future .”
2 .14 The Conference brought about the conclusion of the 1937
156
Agreement , whose main objective was to “ secure the prosperity of the
157
whaling industry and, for that purpose, to maintain the stock of whales ” .
The discussions among the participants on the wording of the Preamble, for
2 .15
example, show that the reference to the maintenance of the stock was put in
to take or kill, and designated seasons for certain types of whaling
155UK Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at the Opening of the Conference”,
ICW/1937/3 (24 Ma y 1937), Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International 158
Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conference and International Whaling Commission,
Records, pp . 1, 3 (emphasis added) [Annex 7] .
156International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 7 May 1938) 190 LNTS 159
79 [Annex 2] .
1571937 Agreement, Preamble . The following paragraphs of the Final Act also have similar phrases :
“It is likely, in the opinion of the Conference, to go far towards maintaining the stock of whales,
upon which the prosperity of the whaling industry depends .”Final Act, Paragraph 2) ; “The
Conference believes that the regulations upon which it has agreed will certainly contribute to the
maintenance of the stock of whales and to the prosperity of the whaling industrFinal Act,
Paragraph 10) “Final Act” (1940) 34(2) American Journal of Intern ational Law 112, pp .112-114
[Annex 13] .
64need to take action for conserving whale stocks led to the convening of the to indicate explicitly its importance as a means to secure the prosperity of the
International Whaling Conference in London from 24 May to 4 June 1937 . whaling industry . For example, in the Fifth Plenary Session on 1 June 1937,
The Minister of A griculture and Fisheries of United Kingdom made the the following discussion took place:
following statement at the opening of the Conference:
“From this we judge that your Governments recognise that the future
of the great whaling industry is in jeopardy, and that its importance
is such that we ought to make an effort to preserve it from the fate
which has overtaken other whaling industries in the past … [Y]our
presence here to -day indicates that your Governments share our
opinion that some such agreement is necessary if the Whaling
Industry [i .e . Antarctic Whaling Industry] is to be preserved for the
present and for future generations. The path of conservation is beset
by many difficulties, but as we are all gathered to pursue a common
object, I hope that your united efforts will find a way through or over
these difficulties, and that we may reach an agreement which will be
beneficial for all of us, and which because of its reasonableness and
its practical character, may induce those155o are not with us to- day
to work with us in the near future .”
2 .14 The Conference brought about the conclusion of the 1937
156
Agreement , whose main objective was to “ secure the prosperity of the
157
whaling industry and, for that purpose, to maintain the stock of whales ” .
The discussions among the participants on the wording of the Preamble, for
2 .15
example, show that the reference to the maintenance of the stock was put in
to take or kill, and designated seasons for certain types of whaling
155UK Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at the Opening of the Conference”,
ICW/1937/3 (24 Ma y 1937), Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International 158
Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conference and International Whaling Commission,
Records, pp . 1, 3 (emphasis added) [Annex 7] .
156International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 7 May 1938) 190 LNTS 159
79 [Annex 2] .
1571937 Agreement, Preamble . The following paragraphs of the Final Act also have similar phrases :
“It is likely, in the opinion of the Conference, to go far towards maintaining the stock of whales,
upon which the prosperity of the whaling industry depends .”Final Act, Paragraph 2) ; “The
Conference believes that the regulations upon which it has agreed will certainly contribute to the
maintenance of the stock of whales and to the prosperity of the whaling industrFinal Act,
Paragraph 10) “Final Act” (1940) 34(2) American Journal of Intern ational Law 112, pp .112-114
[Annex 13] .Moreover, the discussions on these Articles, such as raising the size limits of Article 10 was inserted towards the end of the 1937 Conference , after a draft
immature whales (Article 5) and closing tropical and sub- tropical waters to article was circulated
whaling (Article 9), which were important achievements of the 1937
Agreement, indicate that statistics and biological data were becoming 2 .19
essential tools for science-based rational management of whaling . Convention and the efforts by Norway and United Kingdom in the years from
1932 to 1936, were a significant further step in the direction of rational
2 .16 For example, in the U nited States delegation’s report to the United management of whaling by the international community , based on scientific
States Secretary of State dated 21 June 1937, it is mentioned with regard to evidence, for the purpose of ensuring the sustainability of the whaling
Article 5 of the 1937 Agreement that “[a]ccording to expert opinion, the industry .
raising of the size limits was based on sound biological data and the necessity
2 .20
for so doing was particularly urged by both the British and Norwegian
delegations .” 160 On Article 9 , it was reported that “[t]he closing of the Whaling Conference in London, from 14 June 1938 . In the opening address,
tropical and sub-tropical waters to whale fishing affords for the first time in William Morrison, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisher
its history a measure of protection to whales on the ir calving grounds . It Kingdom, mentioned that there were two major mistakes that they might
appears that much detailed observation and research work of a scientific make in the whaling industry : over-production, and over-exploitation . He
nature remains still to be done in order to determine accurately the location of said:
161
all important calving grounds .”
2 .17 Like the 1931 Convention, the 1937 Agreement also obliged the
Contracting Governments to collect statistical data and send them to the
International Bureau for Whaling Statistics .
2 .21
2 .18 It is import ant to note that Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement
162
permitted the Contracting Governments to issue special permits for scientific
research . Its provisions were later included in Article VIII of the ICRW .
163
160“The US delegation’s report to the US Secretary of State” (21 June 1937) , Smithsonian Institution
Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conf erence
and International Whaling Commission, Records , p . 6 [Annex 181] .
161Ibid ., p . 13 [Annex 181] .
66Moreover, the discussions on these Articles, such as raising the size limits of Article 10 was inserted towards the end of the 1937 Conference , after a draft
immature whales (Article 5) and closing tropical and sub- tropical waters to article was circulated
whaling (Article 9), which were important achievements of the 1937
Agreement, indicate that statistics and biological data were becoming 2 .19
essential tools for science-based rational management of whaling . Convention and the efforts by Norway and United Kingdom in the years from
1932 to 1936, were a significant further step in the direction of rational
2 .16 For example, in the U nited States delegation’s report to the United management of whaling by the international community , based on scientific
States Secretary of State dated 21 June 1937, it is mentioned with regard to evidence, for the purpose of ensuring the sustainability of the whaling
Article 5 of the 1937 Agreement that “[a]ccording to expert opinion, the industry .
raising of the size limits was based on sound biological data and the necessity
2 .20
for so doing was particularly urged by both the British and Norwegian
delegations .” 160 On Article 9 , it was reported that “[t]he closing of the Whaling Conference in London, from 14 June 1938 . In the opening address,
tropical and sub-tropical waters to whale fishing affords for the first time in William Morrison, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisher
its history a measure of protection to whales on the ir calving grounds . It Kingdom, mentioned that there were two major mistakes that they might
appears that much detailed observation and research work of a scientific make in the whaling industry : over-production, and over-exploitation . He
nature remains still to be done in order to determine accurately the location of said:
161
all important calving grounds .”
2 .17 Like the 1931 Convention, the 1937 Agreement also obliged the
Contracting Governments to collect statistical data and send them to the
International Bureau for Whaling Statistics .
2 .21
2 .18 It is import ant to note that Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement
162
permitted the Contracting Governments to issue special permits for scientific
research . Its provisions were later included in Article VIII of the ICRW .
163
160“The US delegation’s report to the US Secretary of State” (21 June 1937) , Smithsonian Institution
Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conf erence
and International Whaling Commission, Records , p . 6 [Annex 181] .
161Ibid ., p . 13 [Annex 181] . 164
modifying the 1937 Agreement . Here again, the importance of conserving they applied; and hence ad hoc conferences had to be held in order to extend
whale stocks was emphasized as a means to maintain the whaling industry . or modify their provisions .
required the holding of diplomatic conferences for their adopt
2 .22 In summary, the consistent and continuing object and purpose ratification or accession by the signatories . Finally, each of the agreements
behind these agreements and protocols was to conserve the stock of whales in and protocols had different parties , and there was therefore confusion as to
order to susta in the development of the whaling industry . The regulation of which States were bound by which agreements . The establishment of the
whaling from its outset in the 1930s w as never an attempt to protect whale ICRW overcame these major difficulties .
species per se , but ha d always been an international effort to secure the
compatibility of conservation and management of whale resources . The 2 .24
object and purpose of the ICRW, and of so many of its provisions , including Conference held in London on 2 February 1944
Article VIII, have their origins in these earlier international instruments for war it would convene a comprehensive international conference on whaling
the regulation of whaling . The next Section will show that the ICRW is in Washington D .C .
essentially a continuation of these earlier treaties . December 1946, and was attended by delegates of fo
observers from five
Section 2. The ICRWwas Created to Coordinate and Acheson, Acting Secretary of State of the United States, said at the Opening
Codify Existing Regulations Session:
2 .23 The ICRW adopted in 1946 codified a number of past agreements
and protocols on the regulation of whaling , and provided a per manent 165
framework for the rational regulation of whaling, so as to conserve whale
stocks in a timely manner and enable the sustainable development of the
whaling industry . The earlier agreements and protocols on whaling had been
concluded on a temporary basis, specifying the whaling seasons to which
166
164Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 30
December 1938) 196 LNTS 131 (1938 Pr otocol) [Annex 3] . Japan did not start whaling in the
Antarctic until 1934/35 season, and at the time the 1937 Agreement was being discussed, Japan felt
that its whaling operation in the Antarctic was too premature to accept regulation on equal terms
with Norway and Britain (Japan did not participate in the 1937 Conference .) Japan did participate
in the 1938 Conference, and agreed to accede to the 1937 Agreement and 1938 Protocol, but had to 167
reconsider its accession to theAgreement and the Protocol when the war broke out in Europe .
68 164
modifying the 1937 Agreement . Here again, the importance of conserving they applied; and hence ad hoc conferences had to be held in order to extend
whale stocks was emphasized as a means to maintain the whaling industry . or modify their provisions .
required the holding of diplomatic conferences for their adopt
2 .22 In summary, the consistent and continuing object and purpose ratification or accession by the signatories . Finally, each of the agreements
behind these agreements and protocols was to conserve the stock of whales in and protocols had different parties , and there was therefore confusion as to
order to susta in the development of the whaling industry . The regulation of which States were bound by which agreements . The establishment of the
whaling from its outset in the 1930s w as never an attempt to protect whale ICRW overcame these major difficulties .
species per se , but ha d always been an international effort to secure the
compatibility of conservation and management of whale resources . The 2 .24
object and purpose of the ICRW, and of so many of its provisions , including Conference held in London on 2 February 1944
Article VIII, have their origins in these earlier international instruments for war it would convene a comprehensive international conference on whaling
the regulation of whaling . The next Section will show that the ICRW is in Washington D .C .
essentially a continuation of these earlier treaties . December 1946, and was attended by delegates of fo
observers from five
Section 2. The ICRWwas Created to Coordinate and Acheson, Acting Secretary of State of the United States, said at the Opening
Codify Existing Regulations Session:
2 .23 The ICRW adopted in 1946 codified a number of past agreements
and protocols on the regulation of whaling , and provided a per manent 165
framework for the rational regulation of whaling, so as to conserve whale
stocks in a timely manner and enable the sustainable development of the
whaling industry . The earlier agreements and protocols on whaling had been
concluded on a temporary basis, specifying the whaling seasons to which
166
164Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 30
December 1938) 196 LNTS 131 (1938 Pr otocol) [Annex 3] . Japan did not start whaling in the
Antarctic until 1934/35 season, and at the time the 1937 Agreement was being discussed, Japan felt
that its whaling operation in the Antarctic was too premature to accept regulation on equal terms
with Norway and Britain (Japan did not participate in the 1937 Conference .) Japan did participate
in the 1938 Conference, and agreed to accede to the 1937 Agreement and 1938 Protocol, but had to 167
reconsider its accession to theAgreement and the Protocol when the war broke out in Europe . and the codification of existing regulations and (2) the 2 .27
establishment of an effective administrative machinery for the
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling , a Protocol for the Regulation of
modification of these regulations from time to time as conditions
may in the future require.” 168 Whaling, and a Final Act , which were opened for signature on 2 December
1946 .
2 .25 The Conference was tasked with th ese two missions in order to
ensure the sustainability of the whaling industry . This is also clear in the
2 .28
instruction issued byAcheson to the United States delegation:
preceding instruments is clear from the
Australia’s claims that “[t] he preamble to the ICRW evidences a significant
“The primary objective of the Conference is to provide for the
conservation and development of the whale stocks, with a view to change from the philosophy of the 1931 Convention
the ultimate achievement of a level of stocks which will permit a
sustained capture of the maximum number of whales . Declines in Agreement”
any stocks thro ugh overfishing should be arrested at the earliest conservation of whale stocks as a means of maintaining the whaling industry .
practicable moment and provision for rebuilding all depleted stocks
should be made promptly .” 169 While “[r]ecognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding
for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale
2 .26 A .T .A . Dobson, a British representative, also declared that the stocks”
task for the Conference was “one of consolidation and codification” and that further over-fishing”
the British Delegation would “do [its] utmost to assist in the achievement of Contracting Governments to “ establish a system of international regulation
that end so that the world resource may be maintained and an immensely for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and
important source of food supply conserved for all time for the benefit of both development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles embodied”
the producer and the consumer in all parts of the world .” 170 the previous agreements and protocols .
2 .29
168“Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946), p . 1 [Anne]. See also AM,
para . 2 .12 . Many of the provisions were inherited from the preceding instruments, most notably the Governments have decided to “ conclude a convention to provide for the
1937 Agreement . For example, in the draft Convention prepared by the US and which formed the
basis of the delegates’debates, Article VI (current Article IX) was taken from Articles 1 and 13 of proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly
the 1937 Agreement (“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 19, p . 2 [Annex
18]); Article VII (current Article VII) was based on a number of paragraphs of earlier agreements development of the whaling industry
(ibid., p . 9); the first part of Article VIII was the same as Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement (ibid., p .
16910) etc .
Letter from Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Chairman of the US Delegation to the 171
International Whaling Conference, Remington Kellogg (20 November 1946) , Smithsonian 172
Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission, International Whaling 173
170Conference and International Whaling Commission, Records , p . 2 (emphasis added) [Annex 185] . 174
“Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946), p . 3 (emphasis added) 175
[Annex16] .
70 and the codification of existing regulations and (2) the 2 .27
establishment of an effective administrative machinery for the
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling , a Protocol for the Regulation of
modification of these regulations from time to time as conditions
may in the future require.” 168 Whaling, and a Final Act , which were opened for signature on 2 December
1946 .
2 .25 The Conference was tasked with th ese two missions in order to
ensure the sustainability of the whaling industry . This is also clear in the
2 .28
instruction issued byAcheson to the United States delegation:
preceding instruments is clear from the
Australia’s claims that “[t] he preamble to the ICRW evidences a significant
“The primary objective of the Conference is to provide for the
conservation and development of the whale stocks, with a view to change from the philosophy of the 1931 Convention
the ultimate achievement of a level of stocks which will permit a
sustained capture of the maximum number of whales . Declines in Agreement”
any stocks thro ugh overfishing should be arrested at the earliest conservation of whale stocks as a means of maintaining the whaling industry .
practicable moment and provision for rebuilding all depleted stocks
should be made promptly .” 169 While “[r]ecognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding
for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale
2 .26 A .T .A . Dobson, a British representative, also declared that the stocks”
task for the Conference was “one of consolidation and codification” and that further over-fishing”
the British Delegation would “do [its] utmost to assist in the achievement of Contracting Governments to “ establish a system of international regulation
that end so that the world resource may be maintained and an immensely for the whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and
important source of food supply conserved for all time for the benefit of both development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles embodied”
the producer and the consumer in all parts of the world .” 170 the previous agreements and protocols .
2 .29
168“Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946), p . 1 [Anne]. See also AM,
para . 2 .12 . Many of the provisions were inherited from the preceding instruments, most notably the Governments have decided to “ conclude a convention to provide for the
1937 Agreement . For example, in the draft Convention prepared by the US and which formed the
basis of the delegates’debates, Article VI (current Article IX) was taken from Articles 1 and 13 of proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly
the 1937 Agreement (“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 19, p . 2 [Annex
18]); Article VII (current Article VII) was based on a number of paragraphs of earlier agreements development of the whaling industry
(ibid., p . 9); the first part of Article VIII was the same as Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement (ibid., p .
16910) etc .
Letter from Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Chairman of the US Delegation to the 171
International Whaling Conference, Remington Kellogg (20 November 1946) , Smithsonian 172
Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165, International Whaling Commission, International Whaling 173
170Conference and International Whaling Commission, Records , p . 2 (emphasis added) [Annex 185] . 174
“Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946), p . 3 (emphasis added) 175
[Annex16] .Government memorandum on the draft proposal for the International agreed that the Preamble is a statement of the principles and the objectives of
Whaling Conference indicates thatthe Preamble: our conservation program …?” No objection was raised . Accordingly at the
time the ICRW was concluded, “ the conservation and recovery of all whale
“Will serve as a g uide to the Commission in performing its
stocks … was seen as a means to achieve the orderly development of the
functions . Points out that the purpose is to rebuild whale stocks to
the greatest size whic h can be supported by the environment, in whaling industry .”
order to achieve ultimately an annual capture of the maximum
number of whales .” 176
2 .32
The core object and purpose of the ICRW, therefore, is clear: proper
development of the whaling industry as evidenced by the statement of
regulation and conservation of whale stocks, for the sustainable development William Patrick Ashley, the Australian Minister for Shipping and Fuel in the
of the commercial whaling industry . Senate:
2 .30 This was also made clear in the following statement, made by the
Chairman of the Conference at the discussion of the draft Preamble:
“The Preamble, as is customary, explains the purpose s and the
objectives of the Convention . It is intended to serve as a guide to
the Commission in performing its functions . The Preamble also
points out specifically and primarily that the purpose of this
Convention is to develop a sound conservation program which will 2 .33
maintain an adequate and healthy breeding stock . By restoring succeeded and continued the approach of the previous agreements on whaling .
depleted stocks, as, for instance, the blue whale and the
humpbacked whale, and by wise management of the existing When the draft of Article VIII, on special permits for scientific research, was
stocks a maximum sustained yield of this natural resource can be
considered at the 1946 Conference there were no major discussions or
assured . Tha177in a few words, is the general intent of the
Preamble .” objections to the provision, because it was simply considered to be the same
as Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement . The Chairman explained the new parts
2 .31 Immediately following the above statement, William Flory, a of Article VIII as “administrative in character” and said that it stresses “the
member of the United States delegation, asked the other delegates “[a]re we importance of scientific research, and encourages dissemination of this
176
Problems Committee”(15 Oct ober 1946), Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165,
International Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conference and International Whaling 178
Commission, Records, p .7 [Annex 184] . 179
177“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946), p . 13 [Annex17] .
72Government memorandum on the draft proposal for the International agreed that the Preamble is a statement of the principles and the objectives of
Whaling Conference indicates thatthe Preamble: our conservation program …?” No objection was raised . Accordingly at the
time the ICRW was concluded, “ the conservation and recovery of all whale
“Will serve as a g uide to the Commission in performing its
stocks … was seen as a means to achieve the orderly development of the
functions . Points out that the purpose is to rebuild whale stocks to
the greatest size whic h can be supported by the environment, in whaling industry .”
order to achieve ultimately an annual capture of the maximum
number of whales .” 176
2 .32
The core object and purpose of the ICRW, therefore, is clear: proper
development of the whaling industry as evidenced by the statement of
regulation and conservation of whale stocks, for the sustainable development William Patrick Ashley, the Australian Minister for Shipping and Fuel in the
of the commercial whaling industry . Senate:
2 .30 This was also made clear in the following statement, made by the
Chairman of the Conference at the discussion of the draft Preamble:
“The Preamble, as is customary, explains the purpose s and the
objectives of the Convention . It is intended to serve as a guide to
the Commission in performing its functions . The Preamble also
points out specifically and primarily that the purpose of this
Convention is to develop a sound conservation program which will 2 .33
maintain an adequate and healthy breeding stock . By restoring succeeded and continued the approach of the previous agreements on whaling .
depleted stocks, as, for instance, the blue whale and the
humpbacked whale, and by wise management of the existing When the draft of Article VIII, on special permits for scientific research, was
stocks a maximum sustained yield of this natural resource can be
considered at the 1946 Conference there were no major discussions or
assured . Tha177in a few words, is the general intent of the
Preamble .” objections to the provision, because it was simply considered to be the same
as Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement . The Chairman explained the new parts
2 .31 Immediately following the above statement, William Flory, a of Article VIII as “administrative in character” and said that it stresses “the
member of the United States delegation, asked the other delegates “[a]re we importance of scientific research, and encourages dissemination of this
176
Problems Committee”(15 Oct ober 1946), Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7165,
International Whaling Commission, International Whaling Conference and International Whaling 178
Commission, Records, p .7 [Annex 184] . 179
177“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946), p . 13 [Annex17] . 180
information .” questions of detailed regulations are more or less a technical question which
might very well be handled by a less formal gathering
Section 3. The Mandate and Function of the IWC are to
adopting regulations was not authori zed to shift its agenda away
Implement the Object and Purpose of the ICRW
defined principle and objectives concerning the management of whales and
whaling and onto protection of whales per se
2 .34 By concluding the ICRW, the Conference achieved two things: something similar to the mechanisms created by two fishery treaties
consolidation and codification of regulations, and the establishment of a effect at that time,
permanent institution, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) . The United States (which prepared the initial draft of the ICRW) shows:
second goal was achieved in Article III, and the powers of the IWC were laid
out in Articles IV to VI . The following statement by William Flory of the
United States Department of State at the 1946 Conference described the
intentions behind the establishment of the IWC:
“One of the principal reasons for the idea of a commission was that
we would thereby get the regulation on a permanent and continuing
basis with readily established machinery whereby any proposals
could be made by any of the governments at any time, whereby the
commission would keep abreast of all the biological and technical
information that may be current . In other words, so that some
continuing organization can keep a finger on the pulse of whaling 2 .36
and would be prepared to step in at any time to take official recommend, or if necessary, organize ” studies on whales and whaling . This
cognizance of any measures which may be necessary in order to
assure a smooth running regulation for the purposes which have was a new article but “ similar to provisions in recent international fisheries
181
been set forth in the Preamble .” agreements and proposals”
2 .35 While the IWC was given the role of adopting regulations, that role 182
183
was limited to prescribing “technical” regulations in order to implement the
object and purpose of the main body of the agreement . At the 1946
Conference, William Flory mentioned that they “agreed in terms on the
principles and objectives of whaling conservation, and consequently the
184
180“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946), p . 10 [Annex18] .
181“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14(20 November 1946), pp . 26-27 [Annex17] . 185
74 180
information .” questions of detailed regulations are more or less a technical question which
might very well be handled by a less formal gathering
Section 3. The Mandate and Function of the IWC are to
adopting regulations was not authori zed to shift its agenda away
Implement the Object and Purpose of the ICRW
defined principle and objectives concerning the management of whales and
whaling and onto protection of whales per se
2 .34 By concluding the ICRW, the Conference achieved two things: something similar to the mechanisms created by two fishery treaties
consolidation and codification of regulations, and the establishment of a effect at that time,
permanent institution, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) . The United States (which prepared the initial draft of the ICRW) shows:
second goal was achieved in Article III, and the powers of the IWC were laid
out in Articles IV to VI . The following statement by William Flory of the
United States Department of State at the 1946 Conference described the
intentions behind the establishment of the IWC:
“One of the principal reasons for the idea of a commission was that
we would thereby get the regulation on a permanent and continuing
basis with readily established machinery whereby any proposals
could be made by any of the governments at any time, whereby the
commission would keep abreast of all the biological and technical
information that may be current . In other words, so that some
continuing organization can keep a finger on the pulse of whaling 2 .36
and would be prepared to step in at any time to take official recommend, or if necessary, organize ” studies on whales and whaling . This
cognizance of any measures which may be necessary in order to
assure a smooth running regulation for the purposes which have was a new article but “ similar to provisions in recent international fisheries
181
been set forth in the Preamble .” agreements and proposals”
2 .35 While the IWC was given the role of adopting regulations, that role 182
183
was limited to prescribing “technical” regulations in order to implement the
object and purpose of the main body of the agreement . At the 1946
Conference, William Flory mentioned that they “agreed in terms on the
principles and objectives of whaling conservation, and consequently the
184
180“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946), p . 10 [Annex18] .
181“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14(20 November 1946), pp . 26-27 [Annex17] . 185IWC was to “have responsibility for planning and recommending research on for the conservation and utili
whales and whaling but not for undertaking field or laboratory investigation . amendment of the Schedule . Article V provided the Commission with the
It is believed that this will provide coordination of research programs and power to amend the Schedule by adopting regulations on the basis of
investigation in fields ” 186 . The IWC was not mandated to plan or supervise scientific findings, whether resulting from scientific research (conducted
scientific programmes itself: it was for the Contracting Governments to do so, pursuant to Article VIII) or from studies and investigations relating to whales
at their discretion . This was confirmed at the 1946 Conference: and whaling (Article IV) . The Chairman (Remington Kellogg) indicated at
the 1946 Conference in relation toArticle V as follows:
“(Kellogg (Chairman)): …The Commission is to have
responsibility for planning and recommending research on whales
and whaling but not for undertaking field or laboratory
investigation . It is believed that this will provide coordination of
research programs and investigation in fields not adequately
covered …
(Dobson (UK)): … ‘The Commission shall plan and recommend’
…[t]his is a very wide power . Th ey may recommend, but I would
only just mention that if you take the example of the International
Council of the Exploration of the Seas, which covers a great many 2 .38
European nations, but simply coordinates . I think coordinate is a
conduct of whaling which are susceptible of change from time to time
better word . This Commission might possibly run two individual
organizations who are already planning . . . depending on the conditions of the stocks of whales
(Flory (US)): I believe the connotation of the word ‘recommend’ scientific evidence, world requirements for fats and oils, and other factors
may have somewhat stronger meaning in the United Kingdom than
it does in the United States . The idea behind the draft here was that that may change from time to time .”
you would have some kind of body to keep in touch with research amendments could not amend the main body of the ICRW . William Flory
developments throughout the world and make observations
concerning the areas that may not be given sufficient attention .” 187 explained the division of subject matter between the Schedule and the “ body
of theAgreement proper” as follows:
The final drafting was left to the Drafting Committee, and hence the current
wording of Article IVcame about . 188
2 .37 The most salient role for the IWC was the adoption of regulations
186AIbid ., p . 25 .rrent Article IV was discussed as Article III .
187 Ibid ., p . 25 . 189
188“Amendments of United States Proposal s for a Whaling Convention Recommended by the Drafting
Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946), pp . 8-10 [Annex 24] . 190
76IWC was to “have responsibility for planning and recommending research on for the conservation and utili
whales and whaling but not for undertaking field or laboratory investigation . amendment of the Schedule . Article V provided the Commission with the
It is believed that this will provide coordination of research programs and power to amend the Schedule by adopting regulations on the basis of
investigation in fields ” 186 . The IWC was not mandated to plan or supervise scientific findings, whether resulting from scientific research (conducted
scientific programmes itself: it was for the Contracting Governments to do so, pursuant to Article VIII) or from studies and investigations relating to whales
at their discretion . This was confirmed at the 1946 Conference: and whaling (Article IV) . The Chairman (Remington Kellogg) indicated at
the 1946 Conference in relation toArticle V as follows:
“(Kellogg (Chairman)): …The Commission is to have
responsibility for planning and recommending research on whales
and whaling but not for undertaking field or laboratory
investigation . It is believed that this will provide coordination of
research programs and investigation in fields not adequately
covered …
(Dobson (UK)): … ‘The Commission shall plan and recommend’
…[t]his is a very wide power . Th ey may recommend, but I would
only just mention that if you take the example of the International
Council of the Exploration of the Seas, which covers a great many 2 .38
European nations, but simply coordinates . I think coordinate is a
conduct of whaling which are susceptible of change from time to time
better word . This Commission might possibly run two individual
organizations who are already planning . . . depending on the conditions of the stocks of whales
(Flory (US)): I believe the connotation of the word ‘recommend’ scientific evidence, world requirements for fats and oils, and other factors
may have somewhat stronger meaning in the United Kingdom than
it does in the United States . The idea behind the draft here was that that may change from time to time .”
you would have some kind of body to keep in touch with research amendments could not amend the main body of the ICRW . William Flory
developments throughout the world and make observations
concerning the areas that may not be given sufficient attention .” 187 explained the division of subject matter between the Schedule and the “ body
of theAgreement proper” as follows:
The final drafting was left to the Drafting Committee, and hence the current
wording of Article IVcame about . 188
2 .37 The most salient role for the IWC was the adoption of regulations
186AIbid ., p . 25 .rrent Article IV was discussed as Article III .
187 Ibid ., p . 25 . 189
188“Amendments of United States Proposal s for a Whaling Convention Recommended by the Drafting
Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946), pp . 8-10 [Annex 24] . 190 191
any provision for administrative amendment .” Convention .”
included in the recent
2 .39 It is interesting to note that the in describing Article V, a member of
Commission to take official cognizance of governmental action or inaction
the French delegation, M .Anziani mentioned the following:
which affects whales or whaling and of matters on which the Commission is
unable to, or does not wish to regulate”
“Article IV [current Article V] fixes the powers of the Commission
with regard to the items mentioned in the Schedule, and of which it (Remington Kellogg) at the 1946 Conference .
may from time to time request modifications in the light of the
objective to be attained —to wit, conservation and utilization of
whale resources —but in order to attain this objective a certain
procedure must be followed which would permit the member
countries to safeguard their legitimate interests .” 192
2 .40 D .J . Van Dijk, a member of the Netherlands delegation, responded: 2 .43
whaling on the basis of science . This has been the case since before the
“The Netherlands Delegation is also of the opinion that the
three-fourths majority in the Commission applies only to a certain ICRW . As already seen in the historical evidence
rule of procedure in the work of the Commission but in Article IV scientific research was recognized by the 1930s . The discussions held during
(current Article V) especially the authority of each c ontracting the negotiations of the 1931 Convention and the 1937 Agreement show that
Government is concerned and that is w hy we emphasize that this
Article should be handled as broadly as possible in order that the scientific information and data were becoming more and more important,
authority of each Government shall not be affected b193ne or the regulations tried to put specific limits on areas, species, seasons, etc .
another of the decisions of the Commission .”
2 .41 The legal effects of Schedule a mendments will be explained in
Chapter 8 .
2 .44
mainly to the Contracting Governments, whether through their commercial
2 .42 The IWC was also entrusted by Article VI with a mandate to“make
operations or scientific research
recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters
United States delegation had indicated that “ the only difference, I think,
which related to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purpose s of the
between the essence of this proposal [
194
191 Ibid ., p .15 .
192“Minutes of the Tenth Session”, IWC/47 (27 November 1946), p .11 [Annex 23] . At this stage, the 195
current Article V was discussed as Article IV . 196
193 Ibid ., p .11 . 197
78 191
any provision for administrative amendment .” Convention .”
included in the recent
2 .39 It is interesting to note that the in describing Article V, a member of
Commission to take official cognizance of governmental action or inaction
the French delegation, M .Anziani mentioned the following:
which affects whales or whaling and of matters on which the Commission is
unable to, or does not wish to regulate”
“Article IV [current Article V] fixes the powers of the Commission
with regard to the items mentioned in the Schedule, and of which it (Remington Kellogg) at the 1946 Conference .
may from time to time request modifications in the light of the
objective to be attained —to wit, conservation and utilization of
whale resources —but in order to attain this objective a certain
procedure must be followed which would permit the member
countries to safeguard their legitimate interests .” 192
2 .40 D .J . Van Dijk, a member of the Netherlands delegation, responded: 2 .43
whaling on the basis of science . This has been the case since before the
“The Netherlands Delegation is also of the opinion that the
three-fourths majority in the Commission applies only to a certain ICRW . As already seen in the historical evidence
rule of procedure in the work of the Commission but in Article IV scientific research was recognized by the 1930s . The discussions held during
(current Article V) especially the authority of each c ontracting the negotiations of the 1931 Convention and the 1937 Agreement show that
Government is concerned and that is w hy we emphasize that this
Article should be handled as broadly as possible in order that the scientific information and data were becoming more and more important,
authority of each Government shall not be affected b193ne or the regulations tried to put specific limits on areas, species, seasons, etc .
another of the decisions of the Commission .”
2 .41 The legal effects of Schedule a mendments will be explained in
Chapter 8 .
2 .44
mainly to the Contracting Governments, whether through their commercial
2 .42 The IWC was also entrusted by Article VI with a mandate to“make
operations or scientific research
recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters
United States delegation had indicated that “ the only difference, I think,
which related to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purpose s of the
between the essence of this proposal [
194
191 Ibid ., p .15 .
192“Minutes of the Tenth Session”, IWC/47 (27 November 1946), p .11 [Annex 23] . At this stage, the 195
current Article V was discussed as Article IV . 196
193 Ibid ., p .11 . 197International Fisheries Commission ] …is that in case of the International 2 .46
198
Fisheries Commission it has its own investigating staff .” While the IWC specific functions: to review and comment on proposals
199
was not mandated to plan or supervise scientific program mes itself , the issued for scientific research , and to review the
IWC established the Scientific Committee in 1950 . It was in part a reflecti on Contracting Governments and other bodies
of Article IV of the ICRW, which refers to scientific research and the the whale stocks and the impact of catches upon them
publication of results, statistics and reports , and in part a reflection of Article management advice on the regulation of whaling .
V(2) which stipulates inter alia that Schedule amendments shall be based on
200
scientific findings . 2 .47
its assigned tasks, is reflected in its membership . The Committee is composed
2 .45 The Scientific Committee was expected to play an important role in of scientists , each of whom is nominated by the Commissioner of a
the effective conservation and management of whales and whaling based on Contracting Government which indicates that it wishes to be represented on
science . The duties of the Scientific Committee were set out, and remain, as that Committee . The head of each national delegation has a right to vote .
follows: Qualified scientists may be invited to participate in Committee meetings as
“(1) Encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organize studies and non-voting contributors (i .e . invited participants)
investigations related to whales and whaling [ Convention Article
inter-governmental organizations with particular relevance to the work of the
IV .1(a)]
(2) Collect and analyze statistical information concerning the Scientific Committee may also participate as non
current condition and trend of whale stocks and the effects of
Non-member governments may be represented by observers at meetings, and
whaling activities on them [Article IV .1(b)]
(3) Study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning any non- governmental organi zation sending an accredited observer to a
methods of maintaining and increasing the population of whale
stocks [Article IV .1(c)] 202
(4) Provide scientific findings on which amendments to the 203
Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of the
Convention and to provide for the conservation, development and
optimum utilization of the whale resources [Article V .2 (a) and (b)] 201
(5) Publish reports of its activities and findings [Article IV .2]”
198Ibid., p . 28 .
199See above, para . 2 .36 .
200Scientific Committee Handbook, October 2009, p . 2, <http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/handbook .htm>
accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 114] .
201“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations as
amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p .16 (numbers added) [Annex
121] .
80International Fisheries Commission ] …is that in case of the International 2 .46
198
Fisheries Commission it has its own investigating staff .” While the IWC specific functions: to review and comment on proposals
199
was not mandated to plan or supervise scientific program mes itself , the issued for scientific research , and to review the
IWC established the Scientific Committee in 1950 . It was in part a reflecti on Contracting Governments and other bodies
of Article IV of the ICRW, which refers to scientific research and the the whale stocks and the impact of catches upon them
publication of results, statistics and reports , and in part a reflection of Article management advice on the regulation of whaling .
V(2) which stipulates inter alia that Schedule amendments shall be based on
200
scientific findings . 2 .47
its assigned tasks, is reflected in its membership . The Committee is composed
2 .45 The Scientific Committee was expected to play an important role in of scientists , each of whom is nominated by the Commissioner of a
the effective conservation and management of whales and whaling based on Contracting Government which indicates that it wishes to be represented on
science . The duties of the Scientific Committee were set out, and remain, as that Committee . The head of each national delegation has a right to vote .
follows: Qualified scientists may be invited to participate in Committee meetings as
“(1) Encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organize studies and non-voting contributors (i .e . invited participants)
investigations related to whales and whaling [ Convention Article
inter-governmental organizations with particular relevance to the work of the
IV .1(a)]
(2) Collect and analyze statistical information concerning the Scientific Committee may also participate as non
current condition and trend of whale stocks and the effects of
Non-member governments may be represented by observers at meetings, and
whaling activities on them [Article IV .1(b)]
(3) Study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning any non- governmental organi zation sending an accredited observer to a
methods of maintaining and increasing the population of whale
stocks [Article IV .1(c)] 202
(4) Provide scientific findings on which amendments to the 203
Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of the
Convention and to provide for the conservation, development and
optimum utilization of the whale resources [Article V .2 (a) and (b)] 201
(5) Publish reports of its activities and findings [Article IV .2]”
198Ibid., p . 28 .
199See above, para . 2 .36 .
200Scientific Committee Handbook, October 2009, p . 2, <http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/handbook .htm>
accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 114] .
201“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations as
amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p .16 (numbers added) [Annex
121] .meeting of the Commission may nominate a scientifically -qualified observer must “carry out the objectives and purposes of th
to be present at meetings . As an example of the current practice, at the annual provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilization of the
meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011, there were 113 national whale resources”
delegates from 25 Contracting Governments, 42 invited participants, and 7 contrast, are adopted in the form of Resolutions, which are non
representatives of 5 intergovernmental organizations (two of them counted Unlike the criteria that Schedule amendments must meet under Article V,
204
also as national delegates) . The Scientific Committee has permitted the there are no specific conditions to be met by recommendations under Article
attendance of local scientists sin ce 2007; and in 2011, 15 local scientists VI .
attended the annual meeting . The Committee has a Chair and Vice-Chair who
are assisted by the IWC Secretariat’s Head of Science . 2 .50
the Schedule, the Commission has been assisted by the work of the Scientific
2 .48 The main meeting of the Scientific Committee is the annual Committee, a bo dy of considerable importance in the present dispute
meeting . This is usually held immediately prior to the IWC’s annual meeting, However, a number of amendments have been made to the Schedule without
although it is currently being considered whether to hold the annual meeting agreed scientific advice provided by the Scientific Comm ittee, such as the
up to two months prior to the IWC’s meetings. At the request of the IWC, the addition of P aragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) in 1979 and 1994
Scientific Committee may hold full inter -sessional meetings on particular Sanctuary and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary) and paragraphs 10(d) and
issues, although such meetings are rare . More commonly, workshops that do 10(e) in 1979 and 1982 ( Moratoria on F actory Ships and on C ommercial
not comprise full members of the Committee are held on specific topics (e .g . Whaling) .
climate change and cetaceans) or on the on-going work of the Committee (e .g . majority of Resolutions that re late to special p ermit whaling , as will be
205
“Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure” ), and the results explained in Chapter 8 .
are reported to the annual meetings of the Scientific Committee .
2 .51
2 .49 Reflecting the importance of Article V(2), t he work of the engaged in comprehensive assessment of data supplied by Contracting
Scientific Committee also serves as a crucial basis for amending the Schedule Governments concerning whale stocks, in the implementation of the RMP
of the ICRW . Article V requires that Schedule amendments, which are legally and in assessing the effects of environmental change on cetaceans, etc
binding on the Contracting Governments, be based on scientific findings and order to develop better ways to manage whalin g in a sustainable manner, in
204“List of Participants”, Annex A, Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011) [Annex 206
123] . 207
205“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations as 208
amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p .16 [Annex 121] . 209
82meeting of the Commission may nominate a scientifically -qualified observer must “carry out the objectives and purposes of th
to be present at meetings . As an example of the current practice, at the annual provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilization of the
meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011, there were 113 national whale resources”
delegates from 25 Contracting Governments, 42 invited participants, and 7 contrast, are adopted in the form of Resolutions, which are non
representatives of 5 intergovernmental organizations (two of them counted Unlike the criteria that Schedule amendments must meet under Article V,
204
also as national delegates) . The Scientific Committee has permitted the there are no specific conditions to be met by recommendations under Article
attendance of local scientists sin ce 2007; and in 2011, 15 local scientists VI .
attended the annual meeting . The Committee has a Chair and Vice-Chair who
are assisted by the IWC Secretariat’s Head of Science . 2 .50
the Schedule, the Commission has been assisted by the work of the Scientific
2 .48 The main meeting of the Scientific Committee is the annual Committee, a bo dy of considerable importance in the present dispute
meeting . This is usually held immediately prior to the IWC’s annual meeting, However, a number of amendments have been made to the Schedule without
although it is currently being considered whether to hold the annual meeting agreed scientific advice provided by the Scientific Comm ittee, such as the
up to two months prior to the IWC’s meetings. At the request of the IWC, the addition of P aragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) in 1979 and 1994
Scientific Committee may hold full inter -sessional meetings on particular Sanctuary and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary) and paragraphs 10(d) and
issues, although such meetings are rare . More commonly, workshops that do 10(e) in 1979 and 1982 ( Moratoria on F actory Ships and on C ommercial
not comprise full members of the Committee are held on specific topics (e .g . Whaling) .
climate change and cetaceans) or on the on-going work of the Committee (e .g . majority of Resolutions that re late to special p ermit whaling , as will be
205
“Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure” ), and the results explained in Chapter 8 .
are reported to the annual meetings of the Scientific Committee .
2 .51
2 .49 Reflecting the importance of Article V(2), t he work of the engaged in comprehensive assessment of data supplied by Contracting
Scientific Committee also serves as a crucial basis for amending the Schedule Governments concerning whale stocks, in the implementation of the RMP
of the ICRW . Article V requires that Schedule amendments, which are legally and in assessing the effects of environmental change on cetaceans, etc
binding on the Contracting Governments, be based on scientific findings and order to develop better ways to manage whalin g in a sustainable manner, in
204“List of Participants”, Annex A, Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011) [Annex 206
123] . 207
205“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations as 208
amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p .16 [Annex 121] . 209the face of an ever-changing picture revealed by scientific findings 210 . are examples . Opposing views are always duly recorded . In making Japan’s
case, this Counter-Memorial attempts to use quotations and excerpts that
2 .52 Japan has always been a committed contributor to the deliberations were agreed by the whole Scientific Committee as much as possible
of the Scientific Committee . I nter alia, it has provided scientific information views that did not secure the agreement of the whole Committee are referred
for the purpose of helping the IWC to establish and revise whale management to, the sources of those views are clearly indicated .
measures consistent with the object andpurpose of the ICRW .
2 .53 The scientific experts in their discussions in the Scientific
Committee often have differ ing views . While scientists strive to conduct 2 .54
objective and scientific discussion, and do provide good scientific advice to the IWC established the Technical Committee . It was tasked with preparing
the IWC, there are instances where irreconcilable differences persist among reports and making recommendations on such issues as “
them . In such case s, the Scientific Committee has allowed groups of principles, categories, criteria and definitions, taking into account the
scientists to record their views . T he response to “ Concerns Regarding recommendations of the Scientific Committee,
Scientific Permits” (Annex 62 of the Memorial of Australia) 211 in the Report Commission to deal with management issues as they arise
of the Scientific Committee 200 3 212 and the response to “ Comments on the technical and practical options for implementation of conservation measures
Government of Japan’s Proposal for a Second Phase Special Permit Whaling based on Scientific Committee advice
in Antarctica (JARPAII)” in the Report of the Scientific Committee 200 5 213, committee are usually taken by vote .
210Specific topics of current concern to the Commission include: 2 .55
“ (1) Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:30]
(2) Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43] Committee, to contribute to the proper conservation and management of
(3) Assessment of stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling [Schedule paragraph 13(b)]
(4) Development of the Aboriginal Subsistenc e Whaling Management Procedure [ Rep. int. Whal. whale stocks . It has made numerous recommendations to the Commission’s
Commn 45:42-3]
(5) Effects of environmental change on cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49] Plenary sessions, and was involved in the Commission’s decisions
(6) Scientific aspects of whale sanctuaries [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45:63]
(7) Scientific aspects of small cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41] concerning proposed Schedule amendments including those relating to quotas
(8) Scientific aspects of whalewatching [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:49-50] ”
(“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee ”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations and to Paragraphs 10(e) and 7(b) of the Schedule .
as amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p . 16 (numbers added)
211[Annex 121] .)
“Concerns Regarding Scientific Permits”, Appendix 2 to Annex O, Report of the Scientific 214
212Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004 , p . 364 . 215
A K Danielsdottir et al, “Response to Appendix 2 Regarding Scientific Permits”, Appendix 3,
Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committe, J. C etacean Res. Manage.6 (Sup pl.), 2004, pp .
213365-366 [Annex 98] .
H Hatanaka et al, “Response to Appendix 2”, Appendix 3, Annex O1, Report of the Scientific
84the face of an ever-changing picture revealed by scientific findings 210 . are examples . Opposing views are always duly recorded . In making Japan’s
case, this Counter-Memorial attempts to use quotations and excerpts that
2 .52 Japan has always been a committed contributor to the deliberations were agreed by the whole Scientific Committee as much as possible
of the Scientific Committee . I nter alia, it has provided scientific information views that did not secure the agreement of the whole Committee are referred
for the purpose of helping the IWC to establish and revise whale management to, the sources of those views are clearly indicated .
measures consistent with the object andpurpose of the ICRW .
2 .53 The scientific experts in their discussions in the Scientific
Committee often have differ ing views . While scientists strive to conduct 2 .54
objective and scientific discussion, and do provide good scientific advice to the IWC established the Technical Committee . It was tasked with preparing
the IWC, there are instances where irreconcilable differences persist among reports and making recommendations on such issues as “
them . In such case s, the Scientific Committee has allowed groups of principles, categories, criteria and definitions, taking into account the
scientists to record their views . T he response to “ Concerns Regarding recommendations of the Scientific Committee,
Scientific Permits” (Annex 62 of the Memorial of Australia) 211 in the Report Commission to deal with management issues as they arise
of the Scientific Committee 200 3 212 and the response to “ Comments on the technical and practical options for implementation of conservation measures
Government of Japan’s Proposal for a Second Phase Special Permit Whaling based on Scientific Committee advice
in Antarctica (JARPAII)” in the Report of the Scientific Committee 200 5 213, committee are usually taken by vote .
210Specific topics of current concern to the Commission include: 2 .55
“ (1) Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:30]
(2) Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43] Committee, to contribute to the proper conservation and management of
(3) Assessment of stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling [Schedule paragraph 13(b)]
(4) Development of the Aboriginal Subsistenc e Whaling Management Procedure [ Rep. int. Whal. whale stocks . It has made numerous recommendations to the Commission’s
Commn 45:42-3]
(5) Effects of environmental change on cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49] Plenary sessions, and was involved in the Commission’s decisions
(6) Scientific aspects of whale sanctuaries [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45:63]
(7) Scientific aspects of small cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41] concerning proposed Schedule amendments including those relating to quotas
(8) Scientific aspects of whalewatching [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:49-50] ”
(“Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee ”, Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations and to Paragraphs 10(e) and 7(b) of the Schedule .
as amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011, p . 16 (numbers added)
211[Annex 121] .)
“Concerns Regarding Scientific Permits”, Appendix 2 to Annex O, Report of the Scientific 214
212Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004 , p . 364 . 215
A K Danielsdottir et al, “Response to Appendix 2 Regarding Scientific Permits”, Appendix 3,
Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committe, J. C etacean Res. Manage.6 (Sup pl.), 2004, pp .
213365-366 [Annex 98] .
H Hatanaka et al, “Response to Appendix 2”, Appendix 3, Annex O1, Report of the Scientific the IWC, and considered that at the very least, the proposers should be
2 .56 However, at the 51st Annual Meeting, the Commission agreed to willing to postpone a decision on the issue while the Commission trie
216
“experiment next year by not convening the Technical Committee ” , find a more widely agreeable avenue for a conservation agenda . Norway, the
because (except for aboriginal/subsistence quotas) all other whaling Republic of Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, China, Dominica, the Russian
management measures in the Schedule were made inoperative by the Federation, Japan, Grenada, St . Lucia , and Morocco made similar remarks .
Commercial Whaling Moratorium, and the current operational status of the Norway and others considered that the R esolution was an attempt to change
IWC does not allow for the Technical Committee to play its role . The
the main purpose of the Convention (i .e . the orderly development of the
Technical Committee has therefore not met since 1999 . However, the IWC
whaling industry) by simple majority, and that the proper way of making such
has agreed to retain on its agenda an item on the “[n]eed for a T echnical a radical change would be to call a diplomatic conference to re -negotiate the
Committee”, since it may be needed in the future if the Commission were to Convention . Against much opposition, the draft Resolution was put to a vote
217
set quotas for commercial whaling . and adopted with 25 votes in favour
adopted by the IWC , the Berlin Initiative
2 .57 In 2003 the Conservation Committee was established by Resolution
Conservation Committee do not evidence a shift of the IWC’s priorities .
2003-1 (the Berlin Initiative) of the IWC . Australia contends that the
adoption of the Berlin Initiative and the establishment of the Conservation
Committee represent “ a particularly critical step in the strengthening of the
218
IWC’s conservation agenda .” However, the adoption of this R esolution 2 .58
was controversial in terms of procedure and substance . As Switzerland noted in 1946 established the ICRW and the IWC in order to coordinate and codify
in the discussions, it was the Scientific Committee and the Commission itself the existing whaling regulations at that time and to install a permanent
that had been dealing with conserv ation issues . Finland noted the possibility
mechanism for effective conservation and management of whales and
of controlled sustainable commercial whaling once an acceptable whaling .
management system was in place . Along with the concerns about procedural
flaws, Iceland warned that the draft resolution would increase polarization in 2 .59
culmination of the past regulation of whaling , and in particular the 1931
216
Chairman’s Report of the Fifty -First Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Convention and the 1937 Agreement . The object and purpose of the ICRW
217Commission 1999 , p . 48 [Annex 59] .
Commission 2008, p . 42 : “However, the F&A Committee recommended that the need for the TC
[Technical Committee] be kept under review and remain on the agenda since it may have a role to 219
play if and when the RMS is completed and catch limit set” [Annex 67] .
218AM, para . 2 .94 .
86 the IWC, and considered that at the very least, the proposers should be
2 .56 However, at the 51st Annual Meeting, the Commission agreed to willing to postpone a decision on the issue while the Commission trie
216
“experiment next year by not convening the Technical Committee ” , find a more widely agreeable avenue for a conservation agenda . Norway, the
because (except for aboriginal/subsistence quotas) all other whaling Republic of Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, China, Dominica, the Russian
management measures in the Schedule were made inoperative by the Federation, Japan, Grenada, St . Lucia , and Morocco made similar remarks .
Commercial Whaling Moratorium, and the current operational status of the Norway and others considered that the R esolution was an attempt to change
IWC does not allow for the Technical Committee to play its role . The
the main purpose of the Convention (i .e . the orderly development of the
Technical Committee has therefore not met since 1999 . However, the IWC
whaling industry) by simple majority, and that the proper way of making such
has agreed to retain on its agenda an item on the “[n]eed for a T echnical a radical change would be to call a diplomatic conference to re -negotiate the
Committee”, since it may be needed in the future if the Commission were to Convention . Against much opposition, the draft Resolution was put to a vote
217
set quotas for commercial whaling . and adopted with 25 votes in favour
adopted by the IWC , the Berlin Initiative
2 .57 In 2003 the Conservation Committee was established by Resolution
Conservation Committee do not evidence a shift of the IWC’s priorities .
2003-1 (the Berlin Initiative) of the IWC . Australia contends that the
adoption of the Berlin Initiative and the establishment of the Conservation
Committee represent “ a particularly critical step in the strengthening of the
218
IWC’s conservation agenda .” However, the adoption of this R esolution 2 .58
was controversial in terms of procedure and substance . As Switzerland noted in 1946 established the ICRW and the IWC in order to coordinate and codify
in the discussions, it was the Scientific Committee and the Commission itself the existing whaling regulations at that time and to install a permanent
that had been dealing with conserv ation issues . Finland noted the possibility
mechanism for effective conservation and management of whales and
of controlled sustainable commercial whaling once an acceptable whaling .
management system was in place . Along with the concerns about procedural
flaws, Iceland warned that the draft resolution would increase polarization in 2 .59
culmination of the past regulation of whaling , and in particular the 1931
216
Chairman’s Report of the Fifty -First Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Convention and the 1937 Agreement . The object and purpose of the ICRW
217Commission 1999 , p . 48 [Annex 59] .
Commission 2008, p . 42 : “However, the F&A Committee recommended that the need for the TC
[Technical Committee] be kept under review and remain on the agenda since it may have a role to 219
play if and when the RMS is completed and catch limit set” [Annex 67] .
218AM, para . 2 .94 .was “the orderly development of the whaling industry ” through “proper management programmes, discussed in the next Chapter, and Japan’s
conservation of whale stocks ” . Japan has also shown that other Contracting scientific contributions to these programmes, need to be understood .
Governments, including Australia itself, shared the same understanding of the
Convention .
2 .60 The 1946 Convention created a permanent body to pursue the best
resource management measures achievable in accordance with the scientific
findings available at the time and as the circumstance surrounding whales
changed over time . The mandate of the IWC, in particular under Articles IV,
V and VI, is to implement the object and purpose of the Convention, which is
sustainable whaling .
2 .61 The main feature of the ICRW is the role of the IWC in adopting
technical measures from time to time, responding to the demands of scientific
evidence, by amending the Schedule in accord ance with Article V of the
ICRW . It may also issue non-binding recommendations to Contracting
Governments .
2 .62 Contrary to Australia’s assertion that the Commission ’s objective
has evolved from managing commercial whaling to protecting whales ,
nothing in the above description of the purpose of the ICRW , or in t he
functions, mandate and role of the IWC , has changed . The work of the
Commission and the Scientific Committee on “ comprehensive assessment”,
the RMP, and the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), explained in the next
Chapter, are all related to the development of resource management measures .
So is the decision to retain the Technical Committee . It is against this basic
but fundamental background that the efforts of the IWC to adopt whale
88was “the orderly development of the whaling industry ” through “proper management programmes, discussed in the next Chapter, and Japan’s
conservation of whale stocks ” . Japan has also shown that other Contracting scientific contributions to these programmes, need to be understood .
Governments, including Australia itself, shared the same understanding of the
Convention .
2 .60 The 1946 Convention created a permanent body to pursue the best
resource management measures achievable in accordance with the scientific
findings available at the time and as the circumstance surrounding whales
changed over time . The mandate of the IWC, in particular under Articles IV,
V and VI, is to implement the object and purpose of the Convention, which is
sustainable whaling .
2 .61 The main feature of the ICRW is the role of the IWC in adopting
technical measures from time to time, responding to the demands of scientific
evidence, by amending the Schedule in accord ance with Article V of the
ICRW . It may also issue non-binding recommendations to Contracting
Governments .
2 .62 Contrary to Australia’s assertion that the Commission ’s objective
has evolved from managing commercial whaling to protecting whales ,
nothing in the above description of the purpose of the ICRW , or in t he
functions, mandate and role of the IWC , has changed . The work of the
Commission and the Scientific Committee on “ comprehensive assessment”,
the RMP, and the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), explained in the next
Chapter, are all related to the development of resource management measures .
So is the decision to retain the Technical Committee . It is against this basic
but fundamental background that the efforts of the IWC to adopt whale CHAPTER 3 management measures, as well as the details of each measure, is important to
DEVELOPMENT OFWHALE CONSERVATIONAND an appreciation of the scientific significance of JARPAand JARPA II in the
context of whale management .
MANAGEMENT MEASURES UNDER THE IWC
3 .1 This Chapter provides an explanation of the history of the
development of conservation and management measures of whaling under
the IWC, to counter Australia’s presentation that, beginning with the adoption
of the New Management Procedure (NMP), “ the IWC has adopted a number
of Schedule amendments which reflect the increasing pursuit of conservation
objectives by the Commission ” and that “ [t]he IWC now pursues
conservation of whales as an end itself .”
3 .2 Over time, there has indeed been an evolution in international
regulation of whaling under the IWC, in the sense that conservation and
management measures have seen a remarkable development; but not the kind
of “evolution” that Australia presents in its Memorial . Contrary to Australia’s
assertions, the history of the development of the conservation and
management measures under the IWC has been a history of continuous effort
by the IWC to employ the most appropriate management measures so as to
ensure the sustainable utiliz ation of whale resources , based on science
(Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1) .
3 .3 As Figure 3- 1 shows, there is a direct correlation between the
development of these management measures and Japan’s special permit
whaling programmes, JARPAand JARPA II . It is in this connection that a
proper understanding of the history of the development of conservation and
220AM, paras . 2 .98-2 .99 .
90 CHAPTER 3 management measures, as well as the details of each measure, is important to
DEVELOPMENT OFWHALE CONSERVATIONAND an appreciation of the scientific significance of JARPAand JARPA II in the
context of whale management .
MANAGEMENT MEASURES UNDER THE IWC
3 .1 This Chapter provides an explanation of the history of the
development of conservation and management measures of whaling under
the IWC, to counter Australia’s presentation that, beginning with the adoption
of the New Management Procedure (NMP), “ the IWC has adopted a number
of Schedule amendments which reflect the increasing pursuit of conservation
objectives by the Commission ” and that “ [t]he IWC now pursues
conservation of whales as an end itself .”
3 .2 Over time, there has indeed been an evolution in international
regulation of whaling under the IWC, in the sense that conservation and
management measures have seen a remarkable development; but not the kind
of “evolution” that Australia presents in its Memorial . Contrary to Australia’s
assertions, the history of the development of the conservation and
management measures under the IWC has been a history of continuous effort
by the IWC to employ the most appropriate management measures so as to
ensure the sustainable utiliz ation of whale resources , based on science
(Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1) .
3 .3 As Figure 3- 1 shows, there is a direct correlation between the
development of these management measures and Japan’s special permit
whaling programmes, JARPAand JARPA II . It is in this connection that a
proper understanding of the history of the development of conservation and
220AM, paras . 2 .98-2 .99 . Table 3-1 . Development of the IWC’s Management of Whaling .
‐ I
multi 2013/14
JARPAieeting BWU
Present or II
– Present)
rocedure)
iscussion eview JARPA
NMP
1985/86 species management JAMPeAeting 2005/06
RMP 2006 2006 Conservation and Management of Whales
Scientific
. 2005
221 haling anagement MS Review
or RMP
anagementJARPAting
(Revised Scheme)
Commercial
Discussion 1997
n (Revised JARPA
1994 1994
eview
f
JARPAersessional WG
Moratorium IWC/SC
Procedure) 1987/88 Ecosystem
y Approach
NMP Development
1980’s 1990’s 2000’s
anagement
ears
(New1975
as were set in the period between 1970 and 1975 (KennethBWU (Blue Whale Unit): Abandoned for the Southern Hemisphere in 1972- 73 in favour of species
1970’s haling 1972 quotas.
NMP (New Management Procedure ): Put into effect for 1975-
～ Classified stocks as Initial Management Stocks (IMS), Sustained Management Stocks (SMS) or
Protection Stocks (PS) . Objective is to bring stocks to or maintain them at MSY level .
RMP (Revised Management Procedure): A risk-averse method of calculating quotas for abundant
CommercialU hale stocks of baleen whales developed by the IWC Scientific Committee and adopted by the Commission
in 1994 by consensus . The RMP has not yet been implemented . RMP has 3 steps: PIA
Pre-Implementation Assessment, RMP Implementation (including ISTs: Implementation Simulation
(Blue
Trials) and CLA – Catch Limit Algorithm
1946
Year Some species and area specific quotd Butterworth & Co ∗ requires lethal sampling
Figure 3-1 . Development of Management Measures under the ICRW and JARPA 2/JARPAII
92Table 3-1 . Development of the IWC’s Management of Whaling .
Concept Evolution/improvement Datarequired
from previous system
BWU - Control oil - Abundance estimate of whale
production population
based on total
catch
irrespective of
species
NMP - Biological - Stock by stock - Current stock size
sustainability management – attempt to - Initial stock size, MSYR (natural
Based on move away from politically mortality rate & reproductive data∗),
MSY based decisions toward - Stock structure (genetic and
science based management non-genetic data)
RMP - Biological - Built-in safety factors to - PIA- review all available data (e .g . on
sustainability address unknowns catches, abundance, life history
- Guidelines for conducting parameters,* stock structure)
surveys and data analysis - RMPImplementation (including the
ISTs) (past catches, whale abundance,
stock structure (genetic and non-genetic
data), MSYR, other life history
parameters∗)
- CLA- past catch history & abundance
estimate
Ecosystem - Ecosystem - From single species to - Whale distribution and abundance
Approach sustainability multispecies (biomass)
- Ecosystem balance - Diet composition*, consumption
rates*, prey distribution and abundance,
prey preference*, natural mortality rate
and reproductive data∗
- Oceanographic information, pollution
data∗
BWU (Blue Whale Unit): Abandoned for the Southern Hemisphere in 1972- 73 in favour of species
quotas.
NMP (New Management Procedure ): Put into effect for 1975- 76 and subsequent seasons.
Classified stocks as Initial Management Stocks (IMS), Sustained Management Stocks (SMS) or
Protection Stocks (PS) . Objective is to bring stocks to or maintain them at MSY level .
RMP (Revised Management Procedure): A risk-averse method of calculating quotas for abundant
stocks of baleen whales developed by the IWC Scientific Committee and adopted by the Commission
in 1994 by consensus . The RMP has not yet been implemented . RMP has 3 steps: PIA –
Pre-Implementation Assessment, RMP Implementation (including ISTs: Implementation Simulation
Trials) and CLA – Catch Limit Algorithm
∗ requires lethal sampling
933 .4 When the ICRW was concluded in 1946, it inherited the legacy of sustainable development of the whaling industry . As such, the introduction of
the past international regulatory regimes, including the management of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium marked a special emphasis on the need
whales and whaling based on catch quota calculations using blue whale units for scientific data and research . JARPAwas exactly a response to that need .
(BWU) . However, when this initial management measure pro ved ineffective
in properly conserving whales, the IWC began to pursue the management of 3 .8
Schedule to the ICRW, the IWC successfully devised a new measure, called
whales and whaling first on a species and area basis , and then by trying to
estimate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a stock -by-stock 222 basis the Revised Management Procedure (R MP) . However, despite the adoption
(Section 1) . of the RMP by the Commission in 1994, it is yet to be incorporated into the
Schedule .
3 .5 The IWC then adopted the New Management Procedure (NMP)
based on the estimation of the MSY for each stock of whales . This was the 3 .9
IWC’s answer to increased calls for addressing declining whale stocks the adoption of the RMP, the Scientific Committee has continued its efforts to
(Section 2) . seek better ways of conservation and sustainable use of whale resources, by
pursuing the appropriate implementation and improvement of the RMP, as
3 .6 However, the difficulties of implementing the NMP, due to the lack well as by
of scientific knowledge , eventually led to the adoption of the Commer cial management to multi- species manag ement, reflecting the global trend
Whaling Moratorium in 1982 (Section 3) . marine resource management (Section 4) .
3 .7 The Moratorium was, therefore, adopted as a means to further 3 .10
improve conservation and management measures, not as a total ban aiming to to overcome the deficiencies of the management measures in place, and new
management measures have from time to time been adopted accordingly . It is
protect whales per se. Nor was it intended to stop scientific research or
to be noted that the scientific uncertainties that hindered the successful
special permit whaling . As its name suggests, it was intended to be a
temporary measure to allow the IWC to accumulate the scientific data implementation of the NMP led to the launch of JARPA, which further
required for the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks , leading to the indicated the need to improve the RMP
development of ecosystem modelling . The need to overcome these scientific
revision of the existing management procedure, in order to ensure the
uncertainties thus became one of the objectives of JARPAII .
222A “stock” is a group of animals of the same species with different characters such as different
breeding areas and migration patterns . They can be distinguished genetically as well as biologically .
In the conservation and management of living resources, scientific knowledge about stoc k structure
is essential because the management is to be implemented by stock .
943 .4 When the ICRW was concluded in 1946, it inherited the legacy of sustainable development of the whaling industry . As such, the introduction of
the past international regulatory regimes, including the management of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium marked a special emphasis on the need
whales and whaling based on catch quota calculations using blue whale units for scientific data and research . JARPAwas exactly a response to that need .
(BWU) . However, when this initial management measure pro ved ineffective
in properly conserving whales, the IWC began to pursue the management of 3 .8
Schedule to the ICRW, the IWC successfully devised a new measure, called
whales and whaling first on a species and area basis , and then by trying to
estimate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a stock -by-stock 222 basis the Revised Management Procedure (R MP) . However, despite the adoption
(Section 1) . of the RMP by the Commission in 1994, it is yet to be incorporated into the
Schedule .
3 .5 The IWC then adopted the New Management Procedure (NMP)
based on the estimation of the MSY for each stock of whales . This was the 3 .9
IWC’s answer to increased calls for addressing declining whale stocks the adoption of the RMP, the Scientific Committee has continued its efforts to
(Section 2) . seek better ways of conservation and sustainable use of whale resources, by
pursuing the appropriate implementation and improvement of the RMP, as
3 .6 However, the difficulties of implementing the NMP, due to the lack well as by
of scientific knowledge , eventually led to the adoption of the Commer cial management to multi- species manag ement, reflecting the global trend
Whaling Moratorium in 1982 (Section 3) . marine resource management (Section 4) .
3 .7 The Moratorium was, therefore, adopted as a means to further 3 .10
improve conservation and management measures, not as a total ban aiming to to overcome the deficiencies of the management measures in place, and new
management measures have from time to time been adopted accordingly . It is
protect whales per se. Nor was it intended to stop scientific research or
to be noted that the scientific uncertainties that hindered the successful
special permit whaling . As its name suggests, it was intended to be a
temporary measure to allow the IWC to accumulate the scientific data implementation of the NMP led to the launch of JARPA, which further
required for the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks , leading to the indicated the need to improve the RMP
development of ecosystem modelling . The need to overcome these scientific
revision of the existing management procedure, in order to ensure the
uncertainties thus became one of the objectives of JARPAII .
222A “stock” is a group of animals of the same species with different characters such as different
breeding areas and migration patterns . They can be distinguished genetically as well as biologically .
In the conservation and management of living resources, scientific knowledge about stoc k structure
is essential because the management is to be implemented by stock . Section 1. From Blue Whale Unit to a Stock-by-Stock Attainmentof seriously low level, the IWC began to take new steps . In 1960, at its 12th
the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Meeting, the Scientific Committee gave special attention to the scientific
appraisal of the Antarctic whale stocks
3 .11 When the ICRW was conclu ded in 1946, the delegates decided to recommendations, and based also on the suggestions made by United
employ the concept of the Blue Whale Unit (BWU) 223, a legacy from Kingdom, the IWC decided inter alia
previous regulatory instruments, as a means to calculate the maximum non-Antarctic whaling countries , who would be tasked to report on the
number of whales to be caught during a whaling season . For example, two fin sustainable yield of whale stocks in the Antarctic and on possible
whales were equivalent to one blue whale. conservation measures to increase this sustainable yield
3 .12 The BWU was originally a system designed to control the total 3 .15
production of whale oil, employed in the cartel arrangements in the 1930s 224, that the catch limit “ should be brought into line with the scientific findings
rather than a system to conserve and manage whale stocks . It prescribed a not later than 31 July 1964, having regard to the provisions of Article V(2) of
total catch of whales defined in terms of BWU, regardless of the species the Convention .”
caught, and set quotas area by area.
3 .16
3 .13 As scientific findings show ed, this whale management system member States in 1963 for discussion at the 15th Meeting . Having reviewed
based on BWU could not effectively halt the depletion of certain whale the theory of fisheries management based on MSY
stocks . The BWU system h ad an inherent shortcoming as a system of whale recommended ending the BWU system
stock conservation and management because it was not designed to regulate
225
whaling on a stock-by-stock basis .
3 .14 Being concerned that some stocks of whales were declining to a
226
227
223
At the end of the International Whaling Conference of 1946, the delegates agreed that “[t]he 228
number of baleen whales taken during the open season caught in any waters south of 40° South
latitude by whale catchers attached to factory ships under the jurisdiction of the Contracting
Governments shall not exceed six -teen thousand blue -whale units .” For the purpose of this
provision, blue-whale units were to be calculated on the bas is that one blue whale equals two fin
whales, two and one -half humpbacks, or six sei whales . According to the travaux prépara,oires
this was taken from the 1944 and 1945 Protocol . SIWC/22 (21 November 1946), p . 7 [Annex
22419] .
See above, Chapter 2, fn 154 .
96 Section 1. From Blue Whale Unit to a Stock-by-Stock Attainmentof seriously low level, the IWC began to take new steps . In 1960, at its 12th
the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) Meeting, the Scientific Committee gave special attention to the scientific
appraisal of the Antarctic whale stocks
3 .11 When the ICRW was conclu ded in 1946, the delegates decided to recommendations, and based also on the suggestions made by United
employ the concept of the Blue Whale Unit (BWU) 223, a legacy from Kingdom, the IWC decided inter alia
previous regulatory instruments, as a means to calculate the maximum non-Antarctic whaling countries , who would be tasked to report on the
number of whales to be caught during a whaling season . For example, two fin sustainable yield of whale stocks in the Antarctic and on possible
whales were equivalent to one blue whale. conservation measures to increase this sustainable yield
3 .12 The BWU was originally a system designed to control the total 3 .15
production of whale oil, employed in the cartel arrangements in the 1930s 224, that the catch limit “ should be brought into line with the scientific findings
rather than a system to conserve and manage whale stocks . It prescribed a not later than 31 July 1964, having regard to the provisions of Article V(2) of
total catch of whales defined in terms of BWU, regardless of the species the Convention .”
caught, and set quotas area by area.
3 .16
3 .13 As scientific findings show ed, this whale management system member States in 1963 for discussion at the 15th Meeting . Having reviewed
based on BWU could not effectively halt the depletion of certain whale the theory of fisheries management based on MSY
stocks . The BWU system h ad an inherent shortcoming as a system of whale recommended ending the BWU system
stock conservation and management because it was not designed to regulate
225
whaling on a stock-by-stock basis .
3 .14 Being concerned that some stocks of whales were declining to a
226
227
223
At the end of the International Whaling Conference of 1946, the delegates agreed that “[t]he 228
number of baleen whales taken during the open season caught in any waters south of 40° South
latitude by whale catchers attached to factory ships under the jurisdiction of the Contracting
Governments shall not exceed six -teen thousand blue -whale units .” For the purpose of this
provision, blue-whale units were to be calculated on the bas is that one blue whale equals two fin
whales, two and one -half humpbacks, or six sei whales . According to the travaux prépara,oires
this was taken from the 1944 and 1945 Protocol . SIWC/22 (21 November 1946), p . 7 [Annex
22419] .
See above, Chapter 2, fn 154 .sustainable total yield can only eventually be obtained by taking the object and purpose of the ICRW . It is not, as Australia suggests, the
maximum sustainable yield for each of these species considered development of an “ increasingly restrictive regulatory regime”
separately” 229 . protection of whales per se .
3 .17 This marked the dawn of a new era in the history of the
international management of whales and the beginning of whale conservation
and management which continues to this day . Since this time, the IWC has
always sought to manage whales and whaling by trying to estimate the MSY 3 .21
for each individual stock . 1972 at the 24th Annual Meeting
management measure to replace the BWU in the following decade, the idea
3 .18 According to the Final Report of the three scientists, the concept of of a moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced . The IWC developed
sustainable yield was defined as “the excess of reproduction and subsequent the New Management Procedure (NMP) based on the stock-
recruitment to the exploitable stock, over the natural deaths ” 230 . The report attainment of the MSY, instead of opting for a moratorium
considered that the catc h of such “surplus” 231 population “could be taken NMP proved difficult to implement, an increasing number of the Contracting
from that stock without either causing it to decline or allowing it to grow” 232 . Governments started to call again for the need to adopt a moratorium on
commercial whaling .
3 .19 This concept lies at the heart of the stock -by-stock management of
whales and whaling, and this is precisely why it became important to 3 .22
estimate reproductive parameters and natural mortality rate . This is a very was brought into effect as a temporary suspension of commercial whaling
important point in understanding the objectives of JARPA, which will be aimed at allowing the IWC to accumulate the scientific knowledge necessary
explained in detail in Part II . to consider modification of the provision establishing the Moratorium itself
and the establishment of other catch limits .
3 .20 The history of the development of whale management measures in
the IWC is the history of the continuing effort to build procedures for
stock-by-stock management of whales and whaling , in order to achieve the
229 3 .23
230Ibid., p . 3 (emphasis added) .
231Ibid ., p . 5 .
232Ibid., p . 5 . 233
98sustainable total yield can only eventually be obtained by taking the object and purpose of the ICRW . It is not, as Australia suggests, the
maximum sustainable yield for each of these species considered development of an “ increasingly restrictive regulatory regime”
separately” 229 . protection of whales per se .
3 .17 This marked the dawn of a new era in the history of the
international management of whales and the beginning of whale conservation
and management which continues to this day . Since this time, the IWC has
always sought to manage whales and whaling by trying to estimate the MSY 3 .21
for each individual stock . 1972 at the 24th Annual Meeting
management measure to replace the BWU in the following decade, the idea
3 .18 According to the Final Report of the three scientists, the concept of of a moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced . The IWC developed
sustainable yield was defined as “the excess of reproduction and subsequent the New Management Procedure (NMP) based on the stock-
recruitment to the exploitable stock, over the natural deaths ” 230 . The report attainment of the MSY, instead of opting for a moratorium
considered that the catc h of such “surplus” 231 population “could be taken NMP proved difficult to implement, an increasing number of the Contracting
from that stock without either causing it to decline or allowing it to grow” 232 . Governments started to call again for the need to adopt a moratorium on
commercial whaling .
3 .19 This concept lies at the heart of the stock -by-stock management of
whales and whaling, and this is precisely why it became important to 3 .22
estimate reproductive parameters and natural mortality rate . This is a very was brought into effect as a temporary suspension of commercial whaling
important point in understanding the objectives of JARPA, which will be aimed at allowing the IWC to accumulate the scientific knowledge necessary
explained in detail in Part II . to consider modification of the provision establishing the Moratorium itself
and the establishment of other catch limits .
3 .20 The history of the development of whale management measures in
the IWC is the history of the continuing effort to build procedures for
stock-by-stock management of whales and whaling , in order to achieve the
229 3 .23
230Ibid., p . 3 (emphasis added) .
231Ibid ., p . 5 .
232Ibid., p . 5 . 233considered in 1972, when a proposal to place a ten- year moratorium on
commercial whaling was introduced at the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment held at Stockholm (Stockholm Conference) 234 .
3 .24 The recommendation adopted at the Stockholm Conference was
formally communicated to the IWC, which considered the recommendation 3 .26
at the 24th Annual Meeting held in 1972 . At the Technical Committee, a Committee and by the Commission at the Plenary
motion for a Schedule amendment to enable the IWC to institute a global Commission held the view , recommended by the Scientific Committee, that
moratorium on commercial whaling was proposed by the United States and “regulation by species and stocks was the only practical method of whale
seconded by United Kingdom 235 . The United States delegation described the conservation .”
rationale behind this motion as being that “ [t]he state of knowledge of the
whale stocks was so inadequate that it was only common prudence to 3 .27
suspend whaling; this was necessary so that scientific efforts could be of species”
redoubled and new research techniques developed” 236 . to continue exploring better methods to calculate catch limits for
Throughout the years from 1972 to 1982 when a moratorium was discussed,
3 .25 The Scientific Committee agreed with the necessity for furthe r the Scientific Committee maintained its view that the moratorium on
scientific research 237, but reiterated the importance of the stock- by-stock commercial whaling was scientifically unjustified
management, as follows:
“[A] blanket moratorium on whaling could not be justified
scientifically since prudent management required regulation of the
stocks individually . It would also probably bring about a reduction 3 .28
234 238
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held at Stockholm, 5-16 June 239
1972 . Recommendation 33 recommended a ten -year moratorium on commercial whaling . 240
(“Recommendations for action at the international level”, Action Plan for the Human Environment, 241
the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (the Stockholm Conference),
<http://www .unep .org/Documents .Multilingual/Default .asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1506&l= 242
235en> accessed 14 February 2012 . 243
236Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting (26-30 June 1972), p . 5 .
237Ibid., (emphasis added) .
The Commission accepted the two other recommendations made by the Stockholm Conference,
namely to strengthen the Commission in order to increase international research efforts, and to seek
support for a decade of intensified research on cetaceans . The Commission agreed to develop a
programme to be known as the International Decade of Cetacean Research (IDCR) (ibid ., pp . 2, 7) .
100considered in 1972, when a proposal to place a ten- year moratorium on
commercial whaling was introduced at the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment held at Stockholm (Stockholm Conference) 234 .
3 .24 The recommendation adopted at the Stockholm Conference was
formally communicated to the IWC, which considered the recommendation 3 .26
at the 24th Annual Meeting held in 1972 . At the Technical Committee, a Committee and by the Commission at the Plenary
motion for a Schedule amendment to enable the IWC to institute a global Commission held the view , recommended by the Scientific Committee, that
moratorium on commercial whaling was proposed by the United States and “regulation by species and stocks was the only practical method of whale
seconded by United Kingdom 235 . The United States delegation described the conservation .”
rationale behind this motion as being that “ [t]he state of knowledge of the
whale stocks was so inadequate that it was only common prudence to 3 .27
suspend whaling; this was necessary so that scientific efforts could be of species”
redoubled and new research techniques developed” 236 . to continue exploring better methods to calculate catch limits for
Throughout the years from 1972 to 1982 when a moratorium was discussed,
3 .25 The Scientific Committee agreed with the necessity for furthe r the Scientific Committee maintained its view that the moratorium on
scientific research 237, but reiterated the importance of the stock- by-stock commercial whaling was scientifically unjustified
management, as follows:
“[A] blanket moratorium on whaling could not be justified
scientifically since prudent management required regulation of the
stocks individually . It would also probably bring about a reduction 3 .28
234 238
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held at Stockholm, 5-16 June 239
1972 . Recommendation 33 recommended a ten -year moratorium on commercial whaling . 240
(“Recommendations for action at the international level”, Action Plan for the Human Environment, 241
the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (the Stockholm Conference),
<http://www .unep .org/Documents .Multilingual/Default .asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1506&l= 242
235en> accessed 14 February 2012 . 243
236Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting (26-30 June 1972), p . 5 .
237Ibid., (emphasis added) .
The Commission accepted the two other recommendations made by the Stockholm Conference,
namely to strengthen the Commission in order to increase international research efforts, and to seek
support for a decade of intensified research on cetaceans . The Commission agreed to develop a
programme to be known as the International Decade of Cetacean Research (IDCR) (ibid ., pp . 2, 7) .continued . The United States again submitted proposals for Schedule of whales into three categories wer
amendments to establish a moratorium on commercial whaling, in 1973 and Committee . The intention behind this recommendation is well expressed in
in 1974, both of which proposals were declined by the Scientific Committee the preamble of the proposal which reads as follows:
and by the Commission .
3 .29 The established view of the Commission continued to be tha t a
stock-by-stock management approach was the most effective, and that there
was no biological justification for a blanket moratorium . For example,
Douglas Chapman, the then Chairman of the Scientific Committee, stated as
follows at the Plenary meeting of the 25thAnnual Meeting in 1973:
“[T]he concept of individual species management is now operative,
the Scientific Committee agreed that at the present time there is no
biological requirement for the imposition of a blanket moratorium
on all commercial wh aling .…A m[a]jority further considered that
…at present, no biological justification for such a blanket
moratorium… . The Committee has repeatedly pointed out to the
Commission,…that effective management can only be achieved if 3 .31
each species, and indeed each individual stock is managed and
exploited separately in a way appropriate to its condition . Any meeting for this purpose in December in La Jolla, the
blanket management, such as a global morato244m, would be in America . Following the advice of the Scientific Committee
direct contradiction to this principle .”
formally adopted by the Commission the following year , in 1975 . It was the
3 .30 The New Management Procedure (NMP) was proposed in 1974, as first systematic effort by the IWC to place the management measure on a
245 scientific basis in order to ensure the sustainability of whale stocks
an amendment by Australia to the U nited States proposal for a ten -year
246
moratorium on commercial whaling . The Commission adopted the
proposal on the condition that detailed criteria for classifying different stocks
247
248
244Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1, (1973), pp . 46- 47 (emphasis added) [Annex 28] .
245Australia proposed that “moratoria on catching should be imposed in respect of those species or
stocks for which the Scientific Committee determines that stock numbers are undesirably low,
based on estimates of initial numbers, and that catching should ceaseto restore them to
levels producing a maximum sustainable yield .” Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974), p . 249
5 [Annex 29] .
246Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974), p . 10 [Annex 30] .
102continued . The United States again submitted proposals for Schedule of whales into three categories wer
amendments to establish a moratorium on commercial whaling, in 1973 and Committee . The intention behind this recommendation is well expressed in
in 1974, both of which proposals were declined by the Scientific Committee the preamble of the proposal which reads as follows:
and by the Commission .
3 .29 The established view of the Commission continued to be tha t a
stock-by-stock management approach was the most effective, and that there
was no biological justification for a blanket moratorium . For example,
Douglas Chapman, the then Chairman of the Scientific Committee, stated as
follows at the Plenary meeting of the 25th Annual Meeting in 1973:
“[T]he concept of individual species management is now operative,
the Scientific Committee agreed that at the present time there is no
biological requirement for the imposition of a blanket moratorium
on all commercial wh aling .…A m[a]jority further considered that
…at present, no biological justification for such a blanket
moratorium… . The Committee has repeatedly pointed out to the
Commission,…that effective management can only be achieved if 3 .31
each species, and indeed each individual stock is managed and
exploited separately in a way appropriate to its condition . Any meeting for this purpose in December in La Jolla, the
blanket management, such as a global morato244m, would be in America . Following the advice of the Scientific Committee
direct contradiction to this principle .”
formally adopted by the Commission the following year , in 1975 . It was the
3 .30 The New Management Procedure (NMP) was proposed in 1974, as first systematic effort by the IWC to place the management measure on a
245 scientific basis in order to ensure the sustainability of whale stocks
an amendment by Australia to the U nited States proposal for a ten -year
246
moratorium on commercial whaling . The Commission adopted the
proposal on the condition that detailed criteria for classifying different stocks
247
248
244Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1, (1973), pp . 46- 47 (emphasis added) [Annex 28] .
245Australia proposed that “moratoria on catching should be imposed in respect of those species or
stocks for which the Scientific Committee determines that stock numbers are undesirably low,
based on estimates of initial numbers, and that catching should ceaseto restore them to
levels producing a maximum sustainable yield .” Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974), p . 249
5 [Annex 29] .
246Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974), p . 10 [Annex 30] .3 .32 The establishment of the NMP was the response of the IWC to the commercial whaling would be permitted down to the MSY level . On the
calls by the international community to address the issue of declining whale other hand, if the abundance was estimated to be far below the MSY level
stocks . As a whale management measure to replace the BWU, the IWC chose (PS, category (c)), then no commercial whaling would be permitted, so as to
to employ for each species a stock -by-stock management approach based on allow the stock to recover . Whale stocks were categori zed as SMS (category
scientific findings, in which it sought to categoriz e different whale stocks in (a)) if the abundance was estimated to be at or around the MSY level . This
relation to the MSY stock levels . way, the NMP aimed at achieving the c
(Figure 3-2) .
C. The NMP: How i t Works
1. The Three Categories (Not all Stocks were Regarded as Depleted)
3 .33 Under the NMP, whale stocks were classified , based on their
estimated population levels, into one of the three following categories, added
to the Schedule to the ICRW as Paragraphs 6(a) to (c) (now Paragraph 10(a)
to (c)):
(a) Sustained Management Stock (SMS);
(b) Initial Management Stock250MS);
(c) Protection Stock (PS)
3 .34 Assuming that there is a link between the level or the size of the
251
population of a given stock of whales and its reproductive capacity , the
idea was that if the abundance of the stock was estimated to be significantly
above the level which would produce the MSY (IMS, category (b)), then
250
The three categories were defined as follows:
- SMS: A stock not more than 10 per cent of MSY stock level below MSY level, and
not more than 20 per cent above that level .
- IMS: A stock more than 20 per cent of MSY stock level above MSY level .
(Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 27, 1977, p . 7
[Annex 45] .)
251It is supposed that the reproductive capacity of a whale stock in a given environment is lowest when
the population is too small or too large . Whales do not reproduce much when there are too few of
them, and they also do not reproduce much when there are too many of them . The level of
population at which the reproductive capacity is highest is to be found somewhere in between, and
this is the population level that produces the MSY .
1043 .32 The establishment of the NMP was the response of the IWC to the commercial whaling would be permitted down to the MSY level . On the
calls by the international community to address the issue of declining whale other hand, if the abundance was estimated to be far below the MSY level
stocks . As a whale management measure to replace the BWU, the IWC chose (PS, category (c)), then no commercial whaling would be permitted, so as to
to employ for each species a stock -by-stock management approach based on allow the stock to recover . Whale stocks were categori zed as SMS (category
scientific findings, in which it sought to categoriz e different whale stocks in (a)) if the abundance was estimated to be at or around the MSY level . This
relation to the MSY stock levels . way, the NMP aimed at achieving the c
(Figure 3-2) .
C. The NMP: How i t Works
1. The Three Categories (Not all Stocks were Regarded as Depleted)
3 .33 Under the NMP, whale stocks were classified , based on their
estimated population levels, into one of the three following categories, added
to the Schedule to the ICRW as Paragraphs 6(a) to (c) (now Paragraph 10(a)
to (c)):
(a) Sustained Management Stock (SMS);
(b) Initial Management Stock250MS);
(c) Protection Stock (PS)
3 .34 Assuming that there is a link between the level or the size of the
251
population of a given stock of whales and its reproductive capacity , the
idea was that if the abundance of the stock was estimated to be significantly
above the level which would produce the MSY (IMS, category (b)), then
250
The three categories were defined as follows:
- SMS: A stock not more than 10 per cent of MSY stock level below MSY level, and
not more than 20 per cent above that level .
- IMS: A stock more than 20 per cent of MSY stock level above MSY level .
(Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 27, 1977, p . 7
[Annex 45] .)
251It is supposed that the reproductive capacity of a whale stock in a given environment is lowest when
the population is too small or too large . Whales do not reproduce much when there are too few of
them, and they also do not reproduce much when there are too many of them . The level of
population at which the reproductive capacity is highest is to be found somewhere in between, and
this is the population level that produces the MSY .Figure 3-2 . Comparison of permitted catch limits under NMP with sustainable yield Catch limits were specified accordingly .
curve for population where MSYL occurs at 60% of initial level . Reprinted from Whales
and Whaling . Vol .1, by Sir Sidney Frost252 .
2. Estimation of the MSY P opulation Levels and the Scientific Data
Required
3 .36
estimation of the population level for each stock of whales in order to
calculate the MSY; and a lot of biological data is required to do so.
3 .37
listed above
the stock structure of each species . Also, in addition to the current abundance
of each stock of whales, there is a
initial unexploited level, as well as the reproductive capacity at each
population level . For
reproductive capacity, it is necessary to collect more detailed biological
information, such as age composition, age at sexual maturity, pregnancy rate
and natural mortality rate
3 .35 When the NMP was applied for the 1975/76 pelagic season and 3 .38
1976 coastal season, certain stocks were categoriz ed as PS, meaning that measure was not an easy task because the NMP was, in a sense, too advanced
catches were not permitted; but there were many other stocks categorized as as compared to the scie ntific knowledge available at the time . Some of the
SMS, such as fin whales (Southern Hemisphere Area I, North Atlantic key scientific data required for the implementation of the NMP were either
(Iceland Stock), North Atlantic (Newfoundland Stock)) and minke whales unavailable or too uncertain
(Southern Hemisphere Area IV, North Atlantic) , and also stocks categorized
253
as IMS, such as minke whales (Southern Hemisphere Areas I, II, III, V, VI) .
254
255
252Nina M . Young (ed .), Examining the Components of a Revised Management Scheme (1993, Center 256
for Marine Conservation), p . 5 .
106Figure 3-2 . Comparison of permitted catch limits under NMP with sustainable yield Catch limits were specified accordingly .
curve for population where MSYL occurs at 60% of initial level . Reprinted from Whales
and Whaling . Vol .1, by Sir Sidney Frost252 .
2. Estimation of the MSY P opulation Levels and the Scientific Data
Required
3 .36
estimation of the population level for each stock of whales in order to
calculate the MSY; and a lot of biological data is required to do so.
3 .37
listed above
the stock structure of each species . Also, in addition to the current abundance
of each stock of whales, there is a
initial unexploited level, as well as the reproductive capacity at each
population level . For
reproductive capacity, it is necessary to collect more detailed biological
information, such as age composition, age at sexual maturity, pregnancy rate
and natural mortality rate
3 .35 When the NMP was applied for the 1975/76 pelagic season and 3 .38
1976 coastal season, certain stocks were categoriz ed as PS, meaning that measure was not an easy task because the NMP was, in a sense, too advanced
catches were not permitted; but there were many other stocks categorized as as compared to the scie ntific knowledge available at the time . Some of the
SMS, such as fin whales (Southern Hemisphere Area I, North Atlantic key scientific data required for the implementation of the NMP were either
(Iceland Stock), North Atlantic (Newfoundland Stock)) and minke whales unavailable or too uncertain
(Southern Hemisphere Area IV, North Atlantic) , and also stocks categorized
253
as IMS, such as minke whales (Southern Hemisphere Areas I, II, III, V, VI) .
254
255
252Nina M . Young (ed .), Examining the Components of a Revised Management Scheme (1993, Center 256
for Marine Conservation), p . 5 . under the NMP, as stated above . However, that was in fact not the case .
Section 3. From the NMPto the Moratorium
3 .41
A. The Difficulties in Implem enting the NMPand the Efforts by least in the right direction . For example, in 1978 the Scientific Committee
the Scientific Committee to Overcome Them expressed its view as follows , and denied the need, once again, to adopt a
moratorium:
3 .39 In order for the NMP to function as designed, it was necessary that
appropriate scientific data be obtained . However, implementation of the NMP
was problematic primarily because of difficulties in estimating the essential
biological parameters, such as natural mortality rates, pregnancy rates and
recruitment rates, “to the level of precision required” to estimate the values of
“initial” and “current”population sizes 257 .
3 .40 The NMP also assumed that boundari es could be drawn to 3 .42
differentiate “stocks” as management units for all whale species in all oceans, improve the NMP rather than to abandon the on -going efforts to develop a
and that these “stocks” could be classified into one of the three categories 258 stock-by-stock management approach or shift in favour of a blanket
moratorium . At every Annual Meeting of the IWC since 1978, discussion on
Secretariat in a 1995 paper from which the following three paragraphs are extracted:
“Review of the Present Management Procedure” has been included on the
“The NMP assumed that management stock boundaries could be drawn for all whale
species in all oceans, and that these ‘stocks’could be classified into one of the above three agenda to seek ways to overcome the challenges faced .
categories [i .e . IMS, SMS and PS], without ever defining what a ‘stock’was or what the
minimum criteria for drawing up such boundaries should be .
Although the method of calculating catch limits for a defined ‘stock’was specified and easy 3 .43
to understand, an acceptable way of obtaining the required values of ‘initial’ population size
and ‘current’population size was not specified . Without going into details, most methods replace it, the NMP remained the only conservation and management
required the use of computer models to simulate the behaviour of the expl oited populations .
These models required estimates of certain life history parameters (such as natural mortality measure at hand . T owards the end of the 1970s, however, doubts were
rates, pregnancy rates, recruitment rates), and in effect assumed that management stocks
were the equivalent of biological stocks. increasingly cast on the feasibility of the NMP, which prompted certain
In practice, although crude estimates of these parameters could be obtained, they could not Contracting Governments to try once again to put in place a moratorium on
be obtained to the level of precision required, even assuming the models really did reflect
the dynamics of the populations . In addition, direct estimates of current n sizetio
rarely existed (ibid .) .” 259
258Ibid. 260
See above, para . 3 .33 .
108 under the NMP, as stated above . However, that was in fact not the case .
Section 3. From the NMPto the Moratorium
3 .41
A. The Difficulties in Implem enting the NMPand the Efforts by least in the right direction . For example, in 1978 the Scientific Committee
the Scientific Committee to Overcome Them expressed its view as follows , and denied the need, once again, to adopt a
moratorium:
3 .39 In order for the NMP to function as designed, it was necessary that
appropriate scientific data be obtained . However, implementation of the NMP
was problematic primarily because of difficulties in estimating the essential
biological parameters, such as natural mortality rates, pregnancy rates and
recruitment rates, “to the level of precision required” to estimate the values of
“initial” and “current”population sizes 257 .
3 .40 The NMP also assumed that boundari es could be drawn to 3 .42
differentiate “stocks” as management units for all whale species in all oceans, improve the NMP rather than to abandon the on -going efforts to develop a
and that these “stocks” could be classified into one of the three categories 258 stock-by-stock management approach or shift in favour of a blanket
moratorium . At every Annual Meeting of the IWC since 1978, discussion on
Secretariat in a 1995 paper from which the following three paragraphs are extracted:
“Review of the Present Management Procedure” has been included on the
“The NMP assumed that management stock boundaries could be drawn for all whale
species in all oceans, and that these ‘stocks’could be classified into one of the above three agenda to seek ways to overcome the challenges faced .
categories [i .e . IMS, SMS and PS], without ever defining what a ‘stock’was or what the
minimum criteria for drawing up such boundaries should be .
Although the method of calculating catch limits for a defined ‘stock’was specified and easy 3 .43
to understand, an acceptable way of obtaining the required values of ‘initial’ population size
and ‘current’population size was not specified . Without going into details, most methods replace it, the NMP remained the only conservation and management
required the use of computer models to simulate the behaviour of the expl oited populations .
These models required estimates of certain life history parameters (such as natural mortality measure at hand . T owards the end of the 1970s, however, doubts were
rates, pregnancy rates, recruitment rates), and in effect assumed that management stocks
were the equivalent of biological stocks. increasingly cast on the feasibility of the NMP, which prompted certain
In practice, although crude estimates of these parameters could be obtained, they could not Contracting Governments to try once again to put in place a moratorium on
be obtained to the level of precision required, even assuming the models really did reflect
the dynamics of the populations . In addition, direct estimates of current n sizetio
rarely existed (ibid .) .” 259
258Ibid. 260
See above, para . 3 .33 .commercial whaling .
3 .45
B. Revival of Moratorium Proposals whales was adopted by vote; however, the moratorium related to land stations
did not receive the required three-quarters majority to be adopted
3 .44 In 1979, Australia and the United States each submitted a proposal Proposals to amend the Schedule to establish a moratorium on all commercial
at the 31st Annual Meeting 261 . Whereas the Australian proposal sought to whaling were tabled again in 1980 and in
bring an end to all whaling, the U nited States proposed a moratorium on receive the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule. In 1982,
commercial whaling “until serious flaws in the d esign and practice of the however, at the 34th Annual M eeting, a proposal for a commercial whaling
Commission’s current conservation programme have been remedied ” 262 . No moratorium did receive the three- quarters majority required for Schedule
agreement could be reached at the Scientific Committee or at the Plenary 263 . amendments, but without any agreed advice from the Scientific Committee .
While certain members supported the proposal, others drew attention to the After extensive discussions in the Technical Committee on issues such as the
264
lack of scientific support . In the Plenary, Panama amended the proposal by need for rational management and sustainable utiliz
dividing it into two parts —a moratorium on the use of factory ships and a uncertainty and the lack of data in assessments, and past over -exploitation
moratorium on whaling from land stations . Denmark then amended the and the decline in the whale stocks, among other matters
proposed moratorium on the use of factory ships to add “excluding minke proposal was adopted
whales” . The proposal was thus to add to the Schedule the following as recommended to the Plenary for adoption by the Commission .
Paragraph 8(d) (which is now numbered Paragraph 10(d) of the Schedule):
3 .46
“Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 8: (i) there Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule in accordance with Article V of the
shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales
excluding minke whales by factory-ships or whale catches attached Convention, as follows:
to factory-ships; (ii) there shall be a moratorium on the taking,
killing or treating of whales by land stations or whale catchers
attached to land stations except as provided for in paragraph 11 .”
261After the adoption of the NMP in 1974, proposals for commercial whaling moratorium did not
appear on the agenda of the IWC Annual Meetings in the years between 1976 and 1978 during
which the discussions focused more on classification of whale stocks and setting of catch limits .
Panama had initially made a proposal fr a moratorium at the Annual Meeting in 1978 but
withdrew the proposal ( See Chairman’s Report of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 29, 1979, p . 21) .
262Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -First Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 30, 1980, p . 26 .
[Annex 46] . 265
263Ibid. 266
264Ibid.
110commercial whaling .
3 .45
B. Revival of Moratorium Proposals whales was adopted by vote; however, the moratorium related to land stations
did not receive the required three-quarters majority to be adopted
3 .44 In 1979, Australia and the United States each submitted a proposal Proposals to amend the Schedule to establish a moratorium on all commercial
at the 31st Annual Meeting 261 . Whereas the Australian proposal sought to whaling were tabled again in 1980 and in
bring an end to all whaling, the U nited States proposed a moratorium on receive the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule. In 1982,
commercial whaling “until serious flaws in the d esign and practice of the however, at the 34th Annual M eeting, a proposal for a commercial whaling
Commission’s current conservation programme have been remedied ” 262 . No moratorium did receive the three- quarters majority required for Schedule
agreement could be reached at the Scientific Committee or at the Plenary 263 . amendments, but without any agreed advice from the Scientific Committee .
While certain members supported the proposal, others drew attention to the After extensive discussions in the Technical Committee on issues such as the
264
lack of scientific support . In the Plenary, Panama amended the proposal by need for rational management and sustainable utiliz
dividing it into two parts —a moratorium on the use of factory ships and a uncertainty and the lack of data in assessments, and past over -exploitation
moratorium on whaling from land stations . Denmark then amended the and the decline in the whale stocks, among other matters
proposed moratorium on the use of factory ships to add “excluding minke proposal was adopted
whales” . The proposal was thus to add to the Schedule the following as recommended to the Plenary for adoption by the Commission .
Paragraph 8(d) (which is now numbered Paragraph 10(d) of the Schedule):
3 .46
“Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 8: (i) there Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule in accordance with Article V of the
shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales
excluding minke whales by factory-ships or whale catches attached Convention, as follows:
to factory-ships; (ii) there shall be a moratorium on the taking,
killing or treating of whales by land stations or whale catchers
attached to land stations except as provided for in paragraph 11 .”
261After the adoption of the NMP in 1974, proposals for commercial whaling moratorium did not
appear on the agenda of the IWC Annual Meetings in the years between 1976 and 1978 during
which the discussions focused more on classification of whale stocks and setting of catch limits .
Panama had initially made a proposal fr a moratorium at the Annual Meeting in 1978 but
withdrew the proposal ( See Chairman’s Report of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 29, 1979, p . 21) .
262Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -First Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 30, 1980, p . 26 .
[Annex 46] . 265
263Ibid. 266
264Ibid. provision and the establishment of other catch limits .” 267 concerns over past management failures, and uncertainties in the assessment
of stocks and sustainable yields which resulted
3 .47 Paragraph 10(e) was initially binding upon all Contracting about whales . The point, therefore, was that “knowledge of whales is not yet
268
Governments except for Japan, Norway, Peru , the Union of Soviet adequate to enable catch limits to be set at levelswhich can be sustained”, as
Socialist Republics, each of which had lodged an objection in accordance Jerry Wiggin, the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
with Article V(3) of the ICRW . In 1985, Japan withdrew its objection to the of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, stated in his address of welcome at the
269
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling , following negotiations with the IWC’s Annual Meeting in 1981
United States concerning Japanese fishing in the United States EEZ . However, Kingdom] recognise that other countries have a
this did not mean that Japan changed its position, that management measures interest in whaling and if, in the future, it could be shown beyond reasonable
should be based on scientific advice . doubt that some exploitation of stocks might safely be resu
satisfactory methods of killing were available, the lifting of the ban might be
3 .48 The Commercial Whaling Moratorium is not, however, a step considered .”
toward preservation of whales per se . It is clear from the text of Paragraph
10(e) that the Commercial Whaling Moratorium adopted by the IWC was a 3 .50
temporary measure, to allow the IWC to accumulate scientific data required
agreed advice in support of the Moratorium
for a comprehensive assessment of whale stock s and consideration of catch
statement submitted to the Special Meeting held in March 1982,
limits other than zero, by 1990 .
representative stated that “ [a] justification for a complete cessation of
whaling can be put forward on aesthetic or moral grounds, but these seem
3 .49 It is also evident from deliberations in the Technical Committee
outside the terms of reference of the Commission .”
that the c ommercial whaling moratorium was proposed and adopted due to
3 .51
267
At the 34th Annual Meeting of the IWC in 1982, after the moratorium proposal was adopted at the
Technical Committee and then recommended to the Plenary, Seychelles proposed an amendment to 270
the Schedule amendment proposal (the existing proposal of the moratorium) which would 1) give 271
three years before the moratorium was implemen ted, 2) allow for the setting of catch limits other
than zero under scientific advice and 3) add also a provision for a full review of the effects of the
decision within five years . The amendment was seconded by Sweden, St Lucia, Australia, New
Zealand and Oman (See Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
268Commn 33, 1983, pp . 20-21 . [Annex 47] .) 272
Peru withdrew its objection on 22 July 1983, but the objections of Norway and the Russian 273
269Federation remain in effect . (See a note attached to the Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule [Annex 6] .)
Japan’s withdrawal of its objection took effect from 1 May 1987 with respect to commercial pelagic 274
whaling: from 1 October 1987 with respect to commercial coastal whaling for minke and Bryde’s
whales; and from 1 April 1988 with respect to commercial coastal sperm whaling .
112 provision and the establishment of other catch limits .” 267 concerns over past management failures, and uncertainties in the assessment
of stocks and sustainable yields which resulted
3 .47 Paragraph 10(e) was initially binding upon all Contracting about whales . The point, therefore, was that “knowledge of whales is not yet
268
Governments except for Japan, Norway, Peru , the Union of Soviet adequate to enable catch limits to be set at levelswhich can be sustained”, as
Socialist Republics, each of which had lodged an objection in accordance Jerry Wiggin, the United Kingdom’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
with Article V(3) of the ICRW . In 1985, Japan withdrew its objection to the of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, stated in his address of welcome at the
269
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling , following negotiations with the IWC’s Annual Meeting in 1981
United States concerning Japanese fishing in the United States EEZ . However, Kingdom] recognise that other countries have a
this did not mean that Japan changed its position, that management measures interest in whaling and if, in the future, it could be shown beyond reasonable
should be based on scientific advice . doubt that some exploitation of stocks might safely be resu
satisfactory methods of killing were available, the lifting of the ban might be
3 .48 The Commercial Whaling Moratorium is not, however, a step considered .”
toward preservation of whales per se . It is clear from the text of Paragraph
10(e) that the Commercial Whaling Moratorium adopted by the IWC was a 3 .50
temporary measure, to allow the IWC to accumulate scientific data required
agreed advice in support of the Moratorium
for a comprehensive assessment of whale stock s and consideration of catch
statement submitted to the Special Meeting held in March 1982,
limits other than zero, by 1990 .
representative stated that “ [a] justification for a complete cessation of
whaling can be put forward on aesthetic or moral grounds, but these seem
3 .49 It is also evident from deliberations in the Technical Committee
outside the terms of reference of the Commission .”
that the c ommercial whaling moratorium was proposed and adopted due to
3 .51
267
At the 34th Annual Meeting of the IWC in 1982, after the moratorium proposal was adopted at the
Technical Committee and then recommended to the Plenary, Seychelles proposed an amendment to 270
the Schedule amendment proposal (the existing proposal of the moratorium) which would 1) give 271
three years before the moratorium was implemen ted, 2) allow for the setting of catch limits other
than zero under scientific advice and 3) add also a provision for a full review of the effects of the
decision within five years . The amendment was seconded by Sweden, St Lucia, Australia, New
Zealand and Oman (See Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
268Commn 33, 1983, pp . 20-21 . [Annex 47] .) 272
Peru withdrew its objection on 22 July 1983, but the objections of Norway and the Russian 273
269Federation remain in effect . (See a note attached to the Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule [Annex 6] .)
Japan’s withdrawal of its objection took effect from 1 May 1987 with respect to commercial pelagic 274
whaling: from 1 October 1987 with respect to commercial coastal whaling for minke and Bryde’s
whales; and from 1 April 1988 with respect to commercial coastal sperm whaling .scientists who had been involved with the work of the Scientific Committee . recognition by the IWC that the over-exploitation and continued depletion of
For example, K . Radway Allen, who served as one of the three eminent whale stocks that had characterised the first three decades of the IWC could
biostatisticians of the Committee of Three in 19 60, and as the Chairman of not be permitted to continue .”
the Scientific Committee from 1973 to 1979, noted in his book on to choose a total and perpetual ban .
Conservation and Management of Whales that “[a] general cessation of
whaling would have an immediate effect upon the acquisition of further 3 .55
275
knowledge of whales…” measures, and the opposing positions among its members were at least in
agreement on the necessity of further scientific research . The United States
3 .52 After the M oratorium was adopted, John Gulland of United emphasized that whaling needed to be suspended “ so that scie ntific efforts
Kingdom, who was the fourth scientist added to the Committee of Three in could be redoubled and new research techniques developed.”
1964 276, also pointed out that seriously depleted stocks had already received that the Moratorium on Commercial W
complete protection, and stated that “[i]f conservation means a sensible further improvement of scientific knowledge by the Scientific Committee , as
balance between the current use of a resource, and conserving it for possible well as the Contracting Go vernments
use in the future, the moratorium was hardly a major victory . Some, myself biological data collected by the commercial operation
included, consider it a setback” 27 . Governments was no longer available to the IWC, the need for scientific
whaling increased . JARPAwas launched in order to respond to that need .
3 .53 As is clear from the above descriptions, after abandoning the BWU
in 1972, the IWC experienced a decade of quandary in search of measures for
proper conservation and management of whales and whaling . Certain IWC
members pushed for the imposition of a blanket moratorium on commercial 3 .56
whaling for all species of whales regardless of their status, while others as agreed and adopted by the IWC, and in which Japan eventually acquiesced,
are as represented in the text of Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule .
sought regulation by individual stocks and species in accordance with the
best scientific knowledge available . 278
279
280
3 .54 Australia argues that the adoption of the Moratorium “ reflects the
275Kenneth Radway Allen, Conservation and Management of Whales (University of Washington Press
and Butterworth & Co . 1980) p . 97 [Annex 199] .
277Chairman’s Report of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting, p . 1 .
John Gulland, “The End of Whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist, p . 42 [Annex 200] .
114scientists who had been involved with the work of the Scientific Committee . recognition by the IWC that the over-exploitation and continued depletion of
For example, K . Radway Allen, who served as one of the three eminent whale stocks that had characterised the first three decades of the IWC could
biostatisticians of the Committee of Three in 19 60, and as the Chairman of not be permitted to continue .”
the Scientific Committee from 1973 to 1979, noted in his book on to choose a total and perpetual ban .
Conservation and Management of Whales that “[a] general cessation of
whaling would have an immediate effect upon the acquisition of further 3 .55
275
knowledge of whales…” measures, and the opposing positions among its members were at least in
agreement on the necessity of further scientific research . The United States
3 .52 After the M oratorium was adopted, John Gulland of United emphasized that whaling needed to be suspended “ so that scie ntific efforts
Kingdom, who was the fourth scientist added to the Committee of Three in could be redoubled and new research techniques developed.”
1964 276, also pointed out that seriously depleted stocks had already received that the Moratorium on Commercial W
complete protection, and stated that “[i]f conservation means a sensible further improvement of scientific knowledge by the Scientific Committee , as
balance between the current use of a resource, and conserving it for possible well as the Contracting Go vernments
use in the future, the moratorium was hardly a major victory . Some, myself biological data collected by the commercial operation
included, consider it a setback” 27 . Governments was no longer available to the IWC, the need for scientific
whaling increased . JARPAwas launched in order to respond to that need .
3 .53 As is clear from the above descriptions, after abandoning the BWU
in 1972, the IWC experienced a decade of quandary in search of measures for
proper conservation and management of whales and whaling . Certain IWC
members pushed for the imposition of a blanket moratorium on commercial 3 .56
whaling for all species of whales regardless of their status, while others as agreed and adopted by the IWC, and in which Japan eventually acquiesced,
are as represented in the text of Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule .
sought regulation by individual stocks and species in accordance with the
best scientific knowledge available . 278
279
280
3 .54 Australia argues that the adoption of the Moratorium “ reflects the
275Kenneth Radway Allen, Conservation and Management of Whales (University of Washington Press
and Butterworth & Co . 1980) p . 97 [Annex 199] .
277Chairman’s Report of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting, p . 1 .
John Gulland, “The End of Whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist, p . 42 [Annex 200] .Post-Moratorium developments in the IWC’s management procedure will be Table 3-2 . Minke Whale Stock Classifications and Catch Limits
explained in the next Section ; but at this point, it is worth emphasiz ing the
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE—1982/83
pelagic season and 1983 coastal season
circumstances surrounding the adoption of this Moratorium, in order to give a
AREA
fuller context to the current dispute . Adoption of the Moratorium on
Commercial Whaling was controversial, and it was certainly not the case that
“the Contracting Governments determined that in the immediate future the
ICRW’s object and purpose could only be achieved by a complete and total
281 Total catch not to exceed:
prohibition on commercial whaling” , as Australia contends . The nature of
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE—1983 season
the Moratorium was much more complicated, due to non- scientific factors . ARCTIC
NORTH PACIFIC
This sub- section demonstrates this complexity by showing that those
Whole region
Contracting Governments who enthusiastically pushed for the imposition of Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific Stock
Sea of Japan —Yellow Sea —East China Sea
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium were motivated by reasons other than Stock
Remainder
pure resource management needs .
Eastern Stock
Western Stock
282 NORTH ATLANTIC
3 .57 First of all, as explained earlier , the Scientific Committee was of Whole region
the view that “ stock-by-stock” was the appr opriate approach to whale West Greenland Stock
Newfoundland—Labrador Stock
conservation and management, and therefore the Scientific Committee did Canadian East Coast Stock
Nova Scotia Stock
not give any agreed advice to the Commission that there was any need to
Central Stock
adopt a moratorium on commercial whaling . Moreover, right up to the year East Greenland—Iceland Stock
Iceland-Denmark Strait Stock
when the Moratorium was adopted by the Commission (1982), ther e were Spain-Portugal—British Isles Stock
Northeastern Stock
several species categorized not as Protection Stock (PS) under the NMP but West Norwa—
North Norway Stock
as Initial Management Stock (IMS) and Sustained Management Stock (SMS), Eastern Stock
and catch quotas for them were specified accordingly (Table 3-2, Table NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN
3-3) 283 . For example, for the 1982/1983 season, the catch quota for Southern
Hemisphere minke whales was 7,072 .
281AM, para . 4 .55 . 284
282
283See above, paras . 3 .25-3 .26 .
See above, para . 3 .33 for categories under the NMP .
116Post-Moratorium developments in the IWC’s management procedure will be Table 3-2 . Minke Whale Stock Classifications and Catch Limits
explained in the next Section ; but at this point, it is worth emphasiz ing the
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE—1982/83
pelagic season and 1983 coastal season
circumstances surrounding the adoption of this Moratorium, in order to give a
AREA
fuller context to the current dispute . Adoption of the Moratorium on
Commercial Whaling was controversial, and it was certainly not the case that
“the Contracting Governments determined that in the immediate future the
ICRW’s object and purpose could only be achieved by a complete and total
281 Total catch not to exceed:
prohibition on commercial whaling” , as Australia contends . The nature of
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE—1983 season
the Moratorium was much more complicated, due to non- scientific factors . ARCTIC
NORTH PACIFIC
This sub- section demonstrates this complexity by showing that those
Whole region
Contracting Governments who enthusiastically pushed for the imposition of Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific Stock
Sea of Japan —Yellow Sea —East China Sea
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium were motivated by reasons other than Stock
Remainder
pure resource management needs .
Eastern Stock
Western Stock
282 NORTH ATLANTIC
3 .57 First of all, as explained earlier , the Scientific Committee was of Whole region
the view that “ stock-by-stock” was the appr opriate approach to whale West Greenland Stock
Newfoundland—Labrador Stock
conservation and management, and therefore the Scientific Committee did Canadian East Coast Stock
Nova Scotia Stock
not give any agreed advice to the Commission that there was any need to
Central Stock
adopt a moratorium on commercial whaling . Moreover, right up to the year East Greenland—Iceland Stock
Iceland-Denmark Strait Stock
when the Moratorium was adopted by the Commission (1982), ther e were Spain-Portugal—British Isles Stock
Northeastern Stock
several species categorized not as Protection Stock (PS) under the NMP but West Norwa—
North Norway Stock
as Initial Management Stock (IMS) and Sustained Management Stock (SMS), Eastern Stock
and catch quotas for them were specified accordingly (Table 3-2, Table NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN
3-3) 283 . For example, for the 1982/1983 season, the catch quota for Southern
Hemisphere minke whales was 7,072 .
281AM, para . 4 .55 . 284
282
283See above, paras . 3 .25-3 .26 .
See above, para . 3 .33 for categories under the NMP .Table 3-3 . Bryde’s Whale Stock Classifications andCatch Limits 285 . 3 .58
Classification Catch limit for a commercial whaling moratorium was adopted, Iceland, Japan, Norway
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE-1982/83 pelagic
and the Republic of Korea opposed the proposal on the basis that it lacked the
season and 1983 coastal season
South Atlantic Stock - 0 scientific justification required under the Article V(2)(b) of the Convention;
Southern Indian Ocean Stock IMS 02 and Switzerland also explained that it would abstain from voting for the same
South African Inshore Stock - 0 reason
2
Solomon Islands Stock IMS 0
2
Western South Pacific Stock IMS 0
2 3 .59
Eastern South Pacific Stock IMS 0
Peruvian Stock - 1651 the Commission . The number of Contracting Governments supporting it had
NORTH PACIFIC-1983 season been continuously increasing, and had reached the three quarters majority.
Eastern Stock IMS 02 The pro- moratorium States were well aware that a general cessation of
Western Stock IMS 536 whaling could not be justified as a reasonable whale resource management
East China Sea Stock - 10 measure; but some of them had reasons other than science to pursue a
NORTH ATLANTIC-1983 season IMS 02
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN-1983 season - 0 moratorium .
1Available to be taken in a six month period starting in November 1982 .
2
Pending a satisfactory estimate on stock size . 3 .60
in policy” regarding whaling inApril 1979:
3 .61
286
285 287
A partial reproduction from “Table 2 . BRYDE’S WHALE STOCK CLASSIFICATION AND
CATCH LIMITS”, ibid, p . 42 [Annex 47] .
118Table 3-3 . Bryde’s Whale Stock Classifications andCatch Limits 285 . 3 .58
Classification Catch limit for a commercial whaling moratorium was adopted, Iceland, Japan, Norway
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE-1982/83 pelagic
and the Republic of Korea opposed the proposal on the basis that it lacked the
season and 1983 coastal season
South Atlantic Stock - 0 scientific justification required under the Article V(2)(b) of the Convention;
Southern Indian Ocean Stock IMS 02 and Switzerland also explained that it would abstain from voting for the same
South African Inshore Stock - 0 reason
2
Solomon Islands Stock IMS 0
2
Western South Pacific Stock IMS 0
2 3 .59
Eastern South Pacific Stock IMS 0
Peruvian Stock - 1651 the Commission . The number of Contracting Governments supporting it had
NORTH PACIFIC-1983 season been continuously increasing, and had reached the three quarters majority.
Eastern Stock IMS 02 The pro- moratorium States were well aware that a general cessation of
Western Stock IMS 536 whaling could not be justified as a reasonable whale resource management
East China Sea Stock - 10 measure; but some of them had reasons other than science to pursue a
NORTH ATLANTIC-1983 season IMS 02
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN-1983 season - 0 moratorium .
1Available to be taken in a six month period starting in November 1982 .
2
Pending a satisfactory estimate on stock size . 3 .60
in policy” regarding whaling inApril 1979:
3 .61
286
285 287
A partial reproduction from “Table 2 . BRYDE’S WHALE STOCK CLASSIFICATION AND
CATCH LIMITS”, ibid, p . 42 [Annex 47] .Government of Australia in March 1978, was perfectly aware that a general
moratorium on commercial whaling would not be scientifically justifiable, as
it is clear from the fact th at not all species were categori zed as PS as of the
288
adoption of the Moratorium . The Inquiry said:
3 .63
“[T]he populations of some species are drastically reduced and that adopted without the necessary agreed advice from the Scientific Committee .
even with the advent of the new management procedure, there are
In 1979, when the U
still risks to the maintenance of the place of some sp289es in marine
ecosystems or even to their long-term survival .” moratorium was rejected, Panama presented an amendment of the U
States proposal
3 .62 Moreover, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand sent the
recommendation by the Scientific Committee nor was it introduced on the
following brief to the New Zealand Delegation to the IWC in 1979:
basis of any scientific discussion elsewhere . It had never been discussed at
“The Government reviewed its position on this issue [i .e ., the the Scientific Committee nor at the Technical Committee
moratorium] earlier this year and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
announced on 29 May that it would support moves at this year’s 3 .64
annual meeting of IWC to declare a moratorium on commercial
whaling . In reviewing its position the Government took account of the “problems [of the NMP] a re being tackled by a very prominent group of
the following considerations: scientists… . So we feel that the management procedures are in the process of
…
(c) Public Opinion being reviewed by very competent people .
…The general feeling is that whales should not be killed even if it
strong concern and opposition
could be shown that whaling does not threaten the existence of the
species .”290 importance of the IWC’s decisions being based on scientific grounds
“(a) The Moral Argument – Like the IWC New Zealand has never
concerned itself with the morality of whaling because it saw the 3 .65
purpose of the Commission as being primarily to provide for the
Factory Ship Moratorium was adopted
proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the
orderly development of the whaling industry . Be that as it may it
would be unrealistic to deny that the Government’s stance on a
moratorium is some way in response to long -standing public 291
288See Tables 3-2 and 3-3 . 292
289Government of Australia, Opening Statement of the 31st Annual Meeting, July 1979, ITEM 2, IWC
31, p . 3 (emphasis added) [Annex 164] . 293
290The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Brief for the New Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual 294
Meeting of the International Whaling Commission” ABHS W4627 950, 104/6/9/4, part . 13 (9- 296
July 1979) (ANZ) (emphasis added) [Annex 194] .
120Government of Australia in March 1978, was perfectly aware that a general
moratorium on commercial whaling would not be scientifically justifiable, as
it is clear from the fact th at not all species were categori zed as PS as of the
288
adoption of the Moratorium . The Inquiry said:
3 .63
“[T]he populations of some species are drastically reduced and that adopted without the necessary agreed advice from the Scientific Committee .
even with the advent of the new management procedure, there are
In 1979, when the U
still risks to the maintenance of the place of some sp289es in marine
ecosystems or even to their long-term survival .” moratorium was rejected, Panama presented an amendment of the U
States proposal
3 .62 Moreover, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand sent the
recommendation by the Scientific Committee nor was it introduced on the
following brief to the New Zealand Delegation to the IWC in 1979:
basis of any scientific discussion elsewhere . It had never been discussed at
“The Government reviewed its position on this issue [i .e ., the the Scientific Committee nor at the Technical Committee
moratorium] earlier this year and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
announced on 29 May that it would support moves at this year’s 3 .64
annual meeting of IWC to declare a moratorium on commercial
whaling . In reviewing its position the Government took account of the “problems [of the NMP] a re being tackled by a very prominent group of
the following considerations: scientists… . So we feel that the management procedures are in the process of
…
(c) Public Opinion being reviewed by very competent people .
…The general feeling is that whales should not be killed even if it
strong concern and opposition
could be shown that whaling does not threaten the existence of the
species .”290 importance of the IWC’s decisions being based on scientific grounds
“(a) The Moral Argument – Like the IWC New Zealand has never
concerned itself with the morality of whaling because it saw the 3 .65
purpose of the Commission as being primarily to provide for the
Factory Ship Moratorium was adopted
proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the
orderly development of the whaling industry . Be that as it may it
would be unrealistic to deny that the Government’s stance on a
moratorium is some way in response to long -standing public 291
288See Tables 3-2 and 3-3 . 292
289Government of Australia, Opening Statement of the 31st Annual Meeting, July 1979, ITEM 2, IWC
31, p . 3 (emphasis added) [Annex 164] . 293
290The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Brief for the New Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual 294
Meeting of the International Whaling Commission” ABHS W4627 950, 104/6/9/4, part . 13 (9- 296
July 1979) (ANZ) (emphasis added) [Annex 194] . 297
This is what is now Paragraph 10(d) of the Schedule . may from time to time be determined by the Commission .”
3 .66 It is also to be noted that during the period 1972- 1982, between the 3 .68
time when the commercial whaling moratorium proposal was first rejected by Southern Ocean Sanctuary . As part of that review process, the Committee
the IWC and the time when the M oratorium was finally adopted, there was a commissioned a review by a group of outside experts . The inde
significant increase in the number of the Contracting Governments . Of the 25 experts concluded that “[o]verall, the SOS [Southern Ocean Sanctuary]—and
members who voted for the adoption of the Commercial Whaling IWC Sanctuaries in general—are not ecologically justified . The SOS is based
Moratorium in 1982, 18 were members who joined the IWC during this on vague goals and objectives that are difficult to measure, lacks a rigorous
298
period . approach to its design and operation, and does not have an effective
monitoring framework to determine whether its objectives are being met .”
3 .67 The increase in the proportion of anti -whaling countries among the
Contracting Governments meant that, if they wanted to pursue an 3 .69
anti-whaling agenda within the framework of the IWC, there was an similar observation . The Committee was unable to reach a consensus view in
increased likelihood that they would succeed, albeit without agreed advice by its review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, noting that its r
the Scientific Committe e . In doing so, they tended to underrate the helped by the fact that the scientific objectives for the sanctua
importance of science- based management, the core principle of the ICRW . clearly spelled out
This created mounting political difficulties for the IWC , and resulted in the
implementation of conservation and management measures without agreed
advice by the Scientific Committee, as exemplified by the adoption of the
299
Indian Ocean Sanctuary in 1979 and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in
300
1994 . The Southern Ocean Sanctuary did not meet the requirements of 3 .70
Article V of the ICRW and thus did not contribute to conservation and 1982, the conservation and management measures of the IWC were
management purpose of the IWC, as it was implemented “ irrespective of the developed even further . The Scientific Committee had already embarked
conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as upon the revision of the NMP in the pre -Moratorium years; but given the
297See above, paras . 3 .44-3 .45 .
298IWC website, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/members .htm#members>accessed 14 301
February 2012 . See also, Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982), p . 86 [Annex 34] . 302
299“Chairman’s Report of the Thirty First Annual Meeting”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, 1980, p . 27;
see also, “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, pp . 48-49 . 303
300Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45, 1995 pp . 27-28 .
122 297
This is what is now Paragraph 10(d) of the Schedule . may from time to time be determined by the Commission .”
3 .66 It is also to be noted that during the period 1972- 1982, between the 3 .68
time when the commercial whaling moratorium proposal was first rejected by Southern Ocean Sanctuary . As part of that review process, the Committee
the IWC and the time when the M oratorium was finally adopted, there was a commissioned a review by a group of outside experts . The inde
significant increase in the number of the Contracting Governments . Of the 25 experts concluded that “[o]verall, the SOS [Southern Ocean Sanctuary]—and
members who voted for the adoption of the Commercial Whaling IWC Sanctuaries in general—are not ecologically justified . The SOS is based
Moratorium in 1982, 18 were members who joined the IWC during this on vague goals and objectives that are difficult to measure, lacks a rigorous
298
period . approach to its design and operation, and does not have an effective
monitoring framework to determine whether its objectives are being met .”
3 .67 The increase in the proportion of anti -whaling countries among the
Contracting Governments meant that, if they wanted to pursue an 3 .69
anti-whaling agenda within the framework of the IWC, there was an similar observation . The Committee was unable to reach a consensus view in
increased likelihood that they would succeed, albeit without agreed advice by its review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, noting that its r
the Scientific Committe e . In doing so, they tended to underrate the helped by the fact that the scientific objectives for the sanctua
importance of science- based management, the core principle of the ICRW . clearly spelled out
This created mounting political difficulties for the IWC , and resulted in the
implementation of conservation and management measures without agreed
advice by the Scientific Committee, as exemplified by the adoption of the
299
Indian Ocean Sanctuary in 1979 and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in
300
1994 . The Southern Ocean Sanctuary did not meet the requirements of 3 .70
Article V of the ICRW and thus did not contribute to conservation and 1982, the conservation and management measures of the IWC were
management purpose of the IWC, as it was implemented “ irrespective of the developed even further . The Scientific Committee had already embarked
conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as upon the revision of the NMP in the pre -Moratorium years; but given the
297See above, paras . 3 .44-3 .45 .
298IWC website, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/members .htm#members>accessed 14 301
February 2012 . See also, Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982), p . 86 [Annex 34] . 302
299“Chairman’s Report of the Thirty First Annual Meeting”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, 1980, p . 27;
see also, “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, pp . 48-49 . 303
300Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45, 1995 pp . 27-28 .adoption of the Commercial Wha ling Moratorium, it continued its work to Scientific Committee has been working not only on the
develop the management procedure in order to respond to the IWC’s tasks of implementation of the RMP
undertaking “a comprehensive assessment” and considering “ the consideration of the possibility of a transition from single
establishment of other catch limits”, as in the provision of Paragraph 10(e) of management to multi-species management based on the ecosystem approach
the Schedule . to whale management
3 .71 With more than a decade of endeavour by scientists, a new, revised A. Commercial Whaling Moratorium and ComprehensiveAssessment
management procedure was finally adopted by the Commission in 1994 . The
new system, known as the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), is a 3 .74
precautionary, risk-averse procedure designed to calculate catch limits for not mean that the IWC had given-up on pursuing an appropriate management
304
abundant species which includes many built -in safety factors so as to procedure to calculate catch limits in order to realiz e sustainable whaling . In
overcome the problems faced under the NMP . fact, quite the contrary is true: following the adoption of the Moratorium, the
Scientific Committee continued its work to revise the existing management
3 .72 The RMP process requires three steps completed by the Scientific procedure as part of the “comprehensive assessment” directed by the
Committee: first, Pre -Implementation Assessment ; second, RMP language of Paragraph 10(e) .
Implementation process (including Implementation Simulation Trials (ISTs));
and finally the specification of a Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) . In this
3 .75
Counter-Memorial, “Implementation” (in italics) is used when referring to the
Paragraph 10(e), directed the IWC as follows:
above three steps by the Scientific Committee . On the other hand,
“implementation” (in plain font) of the RMP includes, in addition to the
above three steps, the Commission’s decision to calculate harvesting quota
and the actual calculation based on the CLA , following the recommendation
by the Scientific Committee .
The text clearly shows that the Moratorium was not an end in itself but was a
temporary measure that would be reassessed and could be replaced by other
3 .73 The RMP is the current management procedure of the IWC, and the
305
304
Those safety factors include substantial misreporting of past catches, environmental disasters which
biological parameters, and other scientific uncertai“Revised Management Procedure”,mation of vital
IWC website, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/rmp .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 306
124adoption of the Commercial Wha ling Moratorium, it continued its work to Scientific Committee has been working not only on the
develop the management procedure in order to respond to the IWC’s tasks of implementation of the RMP
undertaking “a comprehensive assessment” and considering “ the consideration of the possibility of a transition from single
establishment of other catch limits”, as in the provision of Paragraph 10(e) of management to multi-species management based on the ecosystem approach
the Schedule . to whale management
3 .71 With more than a decade of endeavour by scientists, a new, revised A. Commercial Whaling Moratorium and ComprehensiveAssessment
management procedure was finally adopted by the Commission in 1994 . The
new system, known as the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), is a 3 .74
precautionary, risk-averse procedure designed to calculate catch limits for not mean that the IWC had given-up on pursuing an appropriate management
304
abundant species which includes many built -in safety factors so as to procedure to calculate catch limits in order to realiz e sustainable whaling . In
overcome the problems faced under the NMP . fact, quite the contrary is true: following the adoption of the Moratorium, the
Scientific Committee continued its work to revise the existing management
3 .72 The RMP process requires three steps completed by the Scientific procedure as part of the “comprehensive assessment” directed by the
Committee: first, Pre -Implementation Assessment ; second, RMP language of Paragraph 10(e) .
Implementation process (including Implementation Simulation Trials (ISTs));
and finally the specification of a Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) . In this
3 .75
Counter-Memorial, “Implementation” (in italics) is used when referring to the
Paragraph 10(e), directed the IWC as follows:
above three steps by the Scientific Committee . On the other hand,
“implementation” (in plain font) of the RMP includes, in addition to the
above three steps, the Commission’s decision to calculate harvesting quota
and the actual calculation based on the CLA , following the recommendation
by the Scientific Committee .
The text clearly shows that the Moratorium was not an end in itself but was a
temporary measure that would be reassessed and could be replaced by other
3 .73 The RMP is the current management procedure of the IWC, and the
305
304
Those safety factors include substantial misreporting of past catches, environmental disasters which
biological parameters, and other scientific uncertai“Revised Management Procedure”,mation of vital
IWC website, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/rmp .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 306catch limits, based on the results of the comprehensive assessment . identified three major elements of the comprehensive assessment as follows:
3 .76 The IWC embarked upon the two tasks stipulated in Paragraph
10(e), –namely to “undertake a comprehensive assessment” and to “consider
modification of this provision and the esta blishment of other catch limits” –
immediately after the adoption of the moratorium . T he “establishment of
other catch limits” required the development of a revised management 3 .79
procedure, so the revision of the existing management procedure continued when the Scientific Committee was struggling to address and overcome the
as a response to the adoption of the moratorium . difficulties faced in implementing the NMP, so as
develop the whale management measure of the IWC . In addition to engaging
3 .77 It was soon recogni zed that the two items were linked 307, as the constructively in discussions at the Scientific Committee to examine new,
Scientific Committee expressed its view that the analysis of the existing revised management regimes, Japan commenced JARPA to collect the
management procedure should be explored further within the context of the scientific data necessary for estimating the natural mortality rates and other
comprehensive assessment, as that might lead to a new approach to biological parameters forAntarctic minke whales .
management strategy 308 . Thus, the Commission agreed in 1987 to subsume
the Agenda item “Revision of Present Management Procedures ” within the 3 .80
309
management aspects of the “comprehensive assessment” , under which the completion of the comprehensive assessment by 1990, as was
IWC continued to work on the development of a revised management Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, the Chair of the Scientific Committee was
measure . of the view that it would not be possible to conduct
assessment as envisaged by the 1986 special meeting .
3 .78 The “comprehensive assessment” was defined by the Scientific
Committee as “ an in depth evaluation of the status of stocks in the light of
310
management objectives and procedures ” . Furthermore, the Committee
311
307Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p . 12
[Annex 48] .
308“Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Planning for a Comprehensive 312
Assessment of Whale Stocks”, SC/38/Rep1 (1987), p . 12 .
309Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 38, 1988, p . 16
310[Annex 50] .
Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.37, 1987, p . 12
126catch limits, based on the results of the comprehensive assessment . identified three major elements of the comprehensive assessment as follows:
3 .76 The IWC embarked upon the two tasks stipulated in Paragraph
10(e), –namely to “undertake a comprehensive assessment” and to “consider
modification of this provision and the esta blishment of other catch limits” –
immediately after the adoption of the moratorium . T he “establishment of
other catch limits” required the development of a revised management 3 .79
procedure, so the revision of the existing management procedure continued when the Scientific Committee was struggling to address and overcome the
as a response to the adoption of the moratorium . difficulties faced in implementing the NMP, so as
develop the whale management measure of the IWC . In addition to engaging
3 .77 It was soon recogni zed that the two items were linked 307, as the constructively in discussions at the Scientific Committee to examine new,
Scientific Committee expressed its view that the analysis of the existing revised management regimes, Japan commenced JARPA to collect the
management procedure should be explored further within the context of the scientific data necessary for estimating the natural mortality rates and other
comprehensive assessment, as that might lead to a new approach to biological parameters forAntarctic minke whales .
management strategy 308 . Thus, the Commission agreed in 1987 to subsume
the Agenda item “Revision of Present Management Procedures ” within the 3 .80
309
management aspects of the “comprehensive assessment” , under which the completion of the comprehensive assessment by 1990, as was
IWC continued to work on the development of a revised management Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, the Chair of the Scientific Committee was
measure . of the view that it would not be possible to conduct
assessment as envisaged by the 1986 special meeting .
3 .78 The “comprehensive assessment” was defined by the Scientific
Committee as “ an in depth evaluation of the status of stocks in the light of
310
management objectives and procedures ” . Furthermore, the Committee
311
307Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p . 12
[Annex 48] .
308“Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Planning for a Comprehensive 312
Assessment of Whale Stocks”, SC/38/Rep1 (1987), p . 12 .
309Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 38, 1988, p . 16
310[Annex 50] .
Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.37, 1987, p . 12 B. The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) disregard by the body to which it is responsible .”
3 .81 After more than a decade of hard work by the scientists following 3 .83
the adoption of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium, the Scientific RMP by the IWC in 1994 . However, a new requirement for an inspection and
Committee finally completed the details of the RMP, and considered that it observation scheme to ensure that quotas are observed and which, together
would be ready to implement an adopted RMP for Southern Hemisphere and with the RMP, would form the Revised Management Scheme (RMS)
North Atlantic minke whales at the 44th Annual Meeting of the IWC in agreed by resolution . This stalled the implementation of the RMP .
1992 313 . The RMP was then recommended to the Commission for its Commission, unfortunately, ended up acknowledging that it had reached an
adoption at the Plenary . The Commission, however, did not adopt the RMP in impasse at the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC held in St . Kitts and Nevis in
either 1992 or 1993 314 . 2006, despite a great deal of time, energy, and financial resources for
discussion on the components of the RMS, which had taken more than 10
3 .82 In fact, this delay in the adoption of the RMP was due to strong years
opposition by the anti -whaling countries . Facing this, Philip Hammond, a
scientist from United Kingdom and the Chair of the Scientific Committee 3 .84
when the RMP was completed, resigned from the position of the Chair . In his measures to be incorporated in the RMS since then , and there have been no
26 May 1993 letter of resignat ion addressed to the Secretary of the IWC, specific discussions on the RMS since 2007, as the Commission has admitted
Hammond wrote “…what is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its that an impasse ha s been reached on this matter . The RMS has
unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are treated remained on the agenda of the IWC Annual Meetings in order
with such contempt ?” and “… I can no longer jus tify to myself being the chance for a possible discussion in the context of the Future of the IWC
organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such
315
316
313
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Com42, 1992, p . 18
314[Annex 52] .
The Commission noted that additional steps were required and asked the Scientific Committee to 317
submit an instruction and its annotation before catch limits would be considered . These include 318
agreement on minimum data standards, guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing the results,
a fully effective inspection and observation scheme, arrangements to ensure that total catches over
time are within the limits set under the RMP, and the incorporation of the elements of RMS into the
Schedule (“Resolution on t he Revised Management Scheme”, Appendix 3, Chairman’s Report of
the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p . 40 [Annex 70] .) In 1993, the
Scientific Committee submitted the final documents of an instruction and its annotation to the
Commission, however, the Commission failed again to adopt the RMP .
128 B. The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) disregard by the body to which it is responsible .”
3 .81 After more than a decade of hard work by the scientists following 3 .83
the adoption of the Commercial Whaling Moratorium, the Scientific RMP by the IWC in 1994 . However, a new requirement for an inspection and
Committee finally completed the details of the RMP, and considered that it observation scheme to ensure that quotas are observed and which, together
would be ready to implement an adopted RMP for Southern Hemisphere and with the RMP, would form the Revised Management Scheme (RMS)
North Atlantic minke whales at the 44th Annual Meeting of the IWC in agreed by resolution . This stalled the implementation of the RMP .
1992 313 . The RMP was then recommended to the Commission for its Commission, unfortunately, ended up acknowledging that it had reached an
adoption at the Plenary . The Commission, however, did not adopt the RMP in impasse at the 58th Annual Meeting of the IWC held in St . Kitts and Nevis in
either 1992 or 1993 314 . 2006, despite a great deal of time, energy, and financial resources for
discussion on the components of the RMS, which had taken more than 10
3 .82 In fact, this delay in the adoption of the RMP was due to strong years
opposition by the anti -whaling countries . Facing this, Philip Hammond, a
scientist from United Kingdom and the Chair of the Scientific Committee 3 .84
when the RMP was completed, resigned from the position of the Chair . In his measures to be incorporated in the RMS since then , and there have been no
26 May 1993 letter of resignat ion addressed to the Secretary of the IWC, specific discussions on the RMS since 2007, as the Commission has admitted
Hammond wrote “…what is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its that an impasse ha s been reached on this matter . The RMS has
unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are treated remained on the agenda of the IWC Annual Meetings in order
with such contempt ?” and “… I can no longer jus tify to myself being the chance for a possible discussion in the context of the Future of the IWC
organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such
315
316
313
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Com42, 1992, p . 18
314[Annex 52] .
The Commission noted that additional steps were required and asked the Scientific Committee to 317
submit an instruction and its annotation before catch limits would be considered . These include 318
agreement on minimum data standards, guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing the results,
a fully effective inspection and observation scheme, arrangements to ensure that total catches over
time are within the limits set under the RMP, and the incorporation of the elements of RMS into the
Schedule (“Resolution on t he Revised Management Scheme”, Appendix 3, Chairman’s Report of
the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p . 40 [Annex 70] .) In 1993, the
Scientific Committee submitted the final documents of an instruction and its annotation to the
Commission, however, the Commission failed again to adopt the RMP . 319
process . In contrast to the stalle d RMS, the RMP has continued to be
implemented although no catch quotas have been calculated because of the 3 .88
320
lack of a decision by the Commission to do so . need to be followed
3 .85 Australia is right to say that th e RMP is aimed at achieving “stable
321
catch limits” , and that its p rimary feature is the Catch Limit Algorithm
322
(CLA) , a formula to calculate catch quotas . Much of the rest of Australia’s
account of the RMP, however, is wrong, or at best misleading .
3 .89
3 .86 It is certainly not the case that the CLA “does not rely on biological
Committee examines all the available scientific data for establishing
parameters that are difficult to estimate ”323, or that the RMP uses only
plausible stock structure hypotheses, all the available abundance estimates,
“minimal information ” 324 . It is far from true to state that the RMP “ is
and information on the geographical and temporal nature of “likely” whaling
deliberately designed to eliminate the need for data on biological parameters
operations (to be provided by a whaling country) . The Scientific Committee
obtained through whaling, which are often unreliable for management
325 will then make a recommendation as to whether or not formally to begin the
purposes” . The RMP is not “a simple model” as Australia contends .
RMP Implementationprocess
3 .87 First of all, it is important to understand that the completion of the
3 .90
details of the RMP by the Scientific Committee, and the subsequent adoption
tasks is the development of Implementation Simulation Trials
of it by the IWC , does not mean that the IWC is now actually ready to
are computer -run simulations conducted on various hypotheses and
calculate stable catch limits for each species of whales . The RMP is, so to
assumptions . The aim of such trials is to encompass the range of plausible
speak, an instruction model for each whale species , indicating how to set
about the calculation of the catch limits and what kind of data are to be used . scenarios .
Its actual implementation for any particular species is a different story .
3 .91
319See Chair’s Report of the62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling stock structure, Maximum Sustainable Yield rates, and distribution
Commission 2010, p . 21 [Annex 69] .
320See above, para . 3 .72 . migratory range s of whales . The trials also consider the possibility of a
321AM, para . 2 .73 (emphasis added) .
322AM, para . 2 .74 .
323AM . para . 2 .74 . 326
325AM, para . 2 .75 . 328
AM, para . 2 .75 .
130 319
process . In contrast to the stalle d RMS, the RMP has continued to be
implemented although no catch quotas have been calculated because of the 3 .88
320
lack of a decision by the Commission to do so . need to be followed
3 .85 Australia is right to say that th e RMP is aimed at achieving “stable
321
catch limits” , and that its p rimary feature is the Catch Limit Algorithm
322
(CLA) , a formula to calculate catch quotas . Much of the rest of Australia’s
account of the RMP, however, is wrong, or at best misleading .
3 .89
3 .86 It is certainly not the case that the CLA “does not rely on biological
Committee examines all the available scientific data for establishing
parameters that are difficult to estimate ”323, or that the RMP uses only
plausible stock structure hypotheses, all the available abundance estimates,
“minimal information ” 324 . It is far from true to state that the RMP “ is
and information on the geographical and temporal nature of “likely” whaling
deliberately designed to eliminate the need for data on biological parameters
operations (to be provided by a whaling country) . The Scientific Committee
obtained through whaling, which are often unreliable for management
325 will then make a recommendation as to whether or not formally to begin the
purposes” . The RMP is not “a simple model” as Australia contends .
RMP Implementationprocess
3 .87 First of all, it is important to understand that the completion of the
3 .90
details of the RMP by the Scientific Committee, and the subsequent adoption
tasks is the development of Implementation Simulation Trials
of it by the IWC , does not mean that the IWC is now actually ready to
are computer -run simulations conducted on various hypotheses and
calculate stable catch limits for each species of whales . The RMP is, so to
assumptions . The aim of such trials is to encompass the range of plausible
speak, an instruction model for each whale species , indicating how to set
about the calculation of the catch limits and what kind of data are to be used . scenarios .
Its actual implementation for any particular species is a different story .
3 .91
319See Chair’s Report of the62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling stock structure, Maximum Sustainable Yield rates, and distribution
Commission 2010, p . 21 [Annex 69] .
320See above, para . 3 .72 . migratory range s of whales . The trials also consider the possibility of a
321AM, para . 2 .73 (emphasis added) .
322AM, para . 2 .74 .
323AM . para . 2 .74 . 326
325AM, para . 2 .75 . 328
AM, para . 2 .75 .drastic and substantial reduction of whales that might be caused by extreme details of contributions by JARPA/JARPA II to the Implementation
environmental disasters and the possibility of large errors in reporting past RMP are explained in PartII
catches .
3 .92 Thus, the RMP is a very conservative management system that
satisfies the precautionary approach required for resource management and 3 .95
329 Scientific Committee and discussions have been continuing . The Scientific
environmental protection .
Committee has been working on the Implementation of the RMP for certain
3 .93 The trials are assessed in detail, and only successful scenarios stocks, including western North Pacific common minke whales, western
which survived all the above processes will become the CLA . Once North Pacific Bryde’s whales and North Atlantic fin whales . However, it has
developed, it is indeed a simpler calculation by which actual catch limits are also been recogni zed that some aspects of the RMP require further
calculated from the required information 330 , that is, (1) past catch records and improvement
(2) latest abundance estimates .
3 .96
3 .94 Each step requires a huge amount of scientific data, such as those after more than 16 years since its adoption by the Commission due primarily
collected through special permit whaling like JARPAand JARPAII, to make to the fact the Scientific Committee has not been able to agree on the current
the RMP work 331 . For example, special permit whaling data are used in stock abundance estimate . According to discussions at the 63rd Annual
identifying hypotheses, evaluating the relative plausibility of various Meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011, agreed abundance estimates for
hypotheses, and conducting a “reality check” of proposed hypotheses 332 . The
the Antarctic minke whales should be provided in 2012, which could lead to
329Professor Butterworth of the University of Cape Town, one of the prominent members of the
Scientific Committee and a leading expert on fisheries management, stated that almost all fisheries
would need to be prohibited if the RMP was applied to the world fisheries (D .S . Butterworth,
“Commentary: Science and sentimentality,” 357 Nature, 18 June 1992 pp . 532-534 [Annex 201] .)
330 “The Revised Management Procedure”, <http ://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/rmp .htm> 333
accessed 14 February 2012 . In addition to the above steps, an extensive scientific data is necessary 334
for the implementation of RMP at the IWC Scientific Committee ( see “Report of the Scientific
Committee”, Appendix 2 of Annex D, J. Cetacean Res. Manage . 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p . 84 [Annex
104, Annex 105] .)
331A concrete contribution of JARPA/JARPA II to the RMP cannot be obtained because no RMP
Implementation process has been initiated for the Antarctic minke whales because of the absence of
agreed abundance estimates . However, the 2011 Scientific Committee has made substantial
progress in this issue (“Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011) pp . 24-26
[Annex 122] .)
332The Implementation Simulation Trials (IST) has been conducted on western North Pacific minke
132drastic and substantial reduction of whales that might be caused by extreme details of contributions by JARPA/JARPA II to the Implementation
environmental disasters and the possibility of large errors in reporting past RMP are explained in PartII
catches .
3 .92 Thus, the RMP is a very conservative management system that
satisfies the precautionary approach required for resource management and 3 .95
329 Scientific Committee and discussions have been continuing . The Scientific
environmental protection .
Committee has been working on the Implementation of the RMP for certain
3 .93 The trials are assessed in detail, and only successful scenarios stocks, including western North Pacific common minke whales, western
which survived all the above processes will become the CLA . Once North Pacific Bryde’s whales and North Atlantic fin whales . However, it has
developed, it is indeed a simpler calculation by which actual catch limits are also been recogni zed that some aspects of the RMP require further
calculated from the required information 330 , that is, (1) past catch records and improvement
(2) latest abundance estimates .
3 .96
3 .94 Each step requires a huge amount of scientific data, such as those after more than 16 years since its adoption by the Commission due primarily
collected through special permit whaling like JARPAand JARPAII, to make to the fact the Scientific Committee has not been able to agree on the current
the RMP work 331 . For example, special permit whaling data are used in stock abundance estimate . According to discussions at the 63rd Annual
identifying hypotheses, evaluating the relative plausibility of various Meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011, agreed abundance estimates for
hypotheses, and conducting a “reality check” of proposed hypotheses 332 . The
the Antarctic minke whales should be provided in 2012, which could lead to
329Professor Butterworth of the University of Cape Town, one of the prominent members of the
Scientific Committee and a leading expert on fisheries management, stated that almost all fisheries
would need to be prohibited if the RMP was applied to the world fisheries (D .S . Butterworth,
“Commentary: Science and sentimentality,” 357 Nature, 18 June 1992 pp . 532-534 [Annex 201] .)
330 “The Revised Management Procedure”, <http ://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/rmp .htm> 333
accessed 14 February 2012 . In addition to the above steps, an extensive scientific data is necessary 334
for the implementation of RMP at the IWC Scientific Committee ( see “Report of the Scientific
Committee”, Appendix 2 of Annex D, J. Cetacean Res. Manage . 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p . 84 [Annex
104, Annex 105] .)
331A concrete contribution of JARPA/JARPA II to the RMP cannot be obtained because no RMP
Implementation process has been initiated for the Antarctic minke whales because of the absence of
agreed abundance estimates . However, the 2011 Scientific Committee has made substantial
progress in this issue (“Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011) pp . 24-26
[Annex 122] .)
332The Implementation Simulation Trials (IST) has been conducted on western North Pacific minkethe calculation of the catch limit of the species in the Antarctic under the international fora, including the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
RMP 335 . Development (WSSD)
Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
3 .97 In addition to the work on implementing the RMP for various
stocks within the existing procedure, the Scientific Committee is looking into 3 .100
the possibility of an improvement of the RMP in another respect . The RMP 2003, “there has been little prior practical experience in implementing
adopted by the Commission almost 20 years ago is based on a single species the principles, and “ [t]here have been increasing demands for a practical set
management model . In keeping with the global trend in marine living of guidelines for implementing EAF as a result of heightened awareness of
resources management, the Scientific Committee has a keen interest i n the importance of interactions among fishery resources, and between fishery
incorporating the concept of “ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)” 336 . resources and the ecosystems within which they exist”
3 .98 While the NMP and RMP are single- species management 3 .101
procedures based on a stock- by-stock approach (i .e ., the interactions among the management of whales as early as 1974 when the NMP was adopted: “the
species/stocks in the ecosystem are not taken into consideration in calculating management of wh ale stocks should be based not only on the concept of
a catch quota), the idea of a multi-species or ecosystem-based management maximum sustainable yield and numbered by species but should also include
procedure is to manage whale stocks by taking into account interactions …interactions between species in the marine eco
among species/stocks and the relationship between them and the referred to in its recent practice . For example, Resolution 2001-9 specifically
environment . refers to studies by the FAO on ecosystem
and Resolution 2006-1 states that “ …management of whale stocks must be
337
3 .99 The principles pertaining to the ecosystem approach are not new considered in a broader context of ecosystem management since eco system
and have already been accepted, adopted, and recommended by a range of
338
335 339
“Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011), p . 25,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/IWC63docs/63-Rep1 -with%20covers .pdf> 340
336accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 122] .
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines “ecosystem approach 341
to fisheries” as follows: “ An ecosystem approach to fisheries strives to balance diverse societal 342
objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human 343
components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries
within ecologically meaningful boundaries. ” (FAO Fisheries Department “The ecosystem approach
to Fisheries”, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No . 4, Suppl . 2 (2003), p . 6
337(emphasis original) [Annex 131] .)
Ibid., p .5 .
134the calculation of the catch limit of the species in the Antarctic under the international fora, including the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
RMP 335 . Development (WSSD)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
3 .97 In addition to the work on implementing the RMP for various
stocks within the existing procedure, the Scientific Committee is looking into 3 .100
the possibility of an improvement of the RMP in another respect . The RMP 2003, “there has been little prior practical experience in implementing
adopted by the Commission almost 20 years ago is based on a single species the principles, and “ [t]here have been increasing demands for a practical set
management model . In keeping with the global trend in marine living of guidelines for implementing EAF as a result of heightened awareness of
resources management, the Scientific Committee has a keen interest i n the importance of interactions among fishery resources, and between fishery
incorporating the concept of “ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)” 336 . resources and the ecosystems within which they exist”
3 .98 While the NMP and RMP are single- species management 3 .101
procedures based on a stock- by-stock approach (i .e ., the interactions among the management of whales as early as 1974 when the NMP was adopted: “the
species/stocks in the ecosystem are not taken into consideration in calculating management of wh ale stocks should be based not only on the concept of
a catch quota), the idea of a multi-species or ecosystem-based management maximum sustainable yield and numbered by species but should also include
procedure is to manage whale stocks by taking into account interactions …interactions between species in the marine eco
among species/stocks and the relationship between them and the referred to in its recent practice . For example, Resolution 2001-9 specifically
environment . refers to studies by the FAO on ecosystem
and Resolution 2006-1 states that “ …management of whale stocks must be
337
3 .99 The principles pertaining to the ecosystem approach are not new considered in a broader context of ecosystem management since eco system
and have already been accepted, adopted, and recommended by a range of
338
335 339
“Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011), p . 25,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/IWC63docs/63-Rep1 -with%20covers .pdf> 340
336accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 122] .
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines “ecosystem approach 341
to fisheries” as follows: “ An ecosystem approach to fisheries strives to balance diverse societal 342
objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human 343
components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries
within ecologically meaningful boundaries. ” (FAO Fisheries Department “The ecosystem approach
to Fisheries”, FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No . 4, Suppl . 2 (2003), p . 6
337(emphasis original) [Annex 131] .)
Ibid., p .5 . 344
management has now b ecome an international standard .” The Scientific
345
Committee’s work on a “ multi-species management approach” has
3 .104
included an examination of this issue by a Standing Working Group on
346 of whales have been dramatically improved under the IWC in pursuit of the
Environmental Concerns until 2006 and a Working Group on Ecosystem
Modelling established in 2007 347 . sustainable utilization of whale resources based on science .While Australia is
right in stating that more restrictions on the whaling industry have been
3 .102 Furthermore, the Scientific Committee’s Sub -Committee on the adopted by the IWC over the years, it is wrong to assume that
RMP also explored “ some implications of inter -specific competition in increase in regulation indicates any fundamental shift in the objectives of the
estimating MSYR by monitoring the recovery of depleted populations” at the IWC .
2011 annual meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011 .
3 .105
3 .103 As stated in the JARPAII research plan, Japan is of the view that 1946 was the BWU . After it proved ineffective, the IWC began the search for
the RMP is overly conservative in its approach to the utiliz ation of whale management by estimating the MSY on a stock- by-stock basis . The adoption
of the NMP in 1975 brought a significant change to the IWC’s whale stock
resources because of the need to allow a wide range of uncertainties, and
management procedures . However, uncertainty and lack of scientific data
believes that developing good multi -whale-species models would be one of
the possible ways to solve such a problem and thereby create a better made the NMP difficult to implement . Hence, the voices in suppo
RMP 348 . adopting a moratorium became louder in the IWC .
3 .106
Commercial Whaling was intended as a temporary measure to allow the IWC
344 to accumulate scientific data required for a management measure that would
“St . Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006-1, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual
345The current portfolio of the Scientific Committee includes “effects of environmental change on enable sustainable development of the whaling industry . As proof of this, the
cetaceans”, in addition to “Comprehensive Assessment ole stocks”, “Implementation of the
Revised Management Procedure”, and others (Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee, conservation and management measures adopted by the IWC have been
“SPECIFIC TOPICS of current concern”); See also above, para . 3 .72 .
346E .g . “Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns”, Annex K, Report of the dramatically improved since the adoption of the Moratorium .
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007 , pp . 243-246 [Annex 110] .
347“Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Modelling”, Annex K1, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 293-301 . 3 .107
348Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and whale stocks in accordance with the provisions of the Moratorium . One of
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 9
[Annex 150] .See also below, paras . 5 .28-5 .31 .
136 344
management has now b ecome an international standard .” The Scientific
345
Committee’s work on a “ multi-species management approach” has
3 .104
included an examination of this issue by a Standing Working Group on
346 of whales have been dramatically improved under the IWC in pursuit of the
Environmental Concerns until 2006 and a Working Group on Ecosystem
Modelling established in 2007 347 . sustainable utilization of whale resources based on science .While Australia is
right in stating that more restrictions on the whaling industry have been
3 .102 Furthermore, the Scientific Committee’s Sub -Committee on the adopted by the IWC over the years, it is wrong to assume that
RMP also explored “ some implications of inter -specific competition in increase in regulation indicates any fundamental shift in the objectives of the
estimating MSYR by monitoring the recovery of depleted populations” at the IWC .
2011 annual meeting of the Scientific Committee in 2011 .
3 .105
3 .103 As stated in the JARPAII research plan, Japan is of the view that 1946 was the BWU . After it proved ineffective, the IWC began the search for
the RMP is overly conservative in its approach to the utiliz ation of whale management by estimating the MSY on a stock- by-stock basis . The adoption
of the NMP in 1975 brought a significant change to the IWC’s whale stock
resources because of the need to allow a wide range of uncertainties, and
management procedures . However, uncertainty and lack of scientific data
believes that developing good multi -whale-species models would be one of
the possible ways to solve such a problem and thereby create a better made the NMP difficult to implement . Hence, the voices in suppo
RMP 348 . adopting a moratorium became louder in the IWC .
3 .106
Commercial Whaling was intended as a temporary measure to allow the IWC
344 to accumulate scientific data required for a management measure that would
“St . Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006-1, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual
345The current portfolio of the Scientific Committee includes “effects of environmental change on enable sustainable development of the whaling industry . As proof of this, the
cetaceans”, in addition to “Comprehensive Assessment ole stocks”, “Implementation of the
Revised Management Procedure”, and others (Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee, conservation and management measures adopted by the IWC have been
“SPECIFIC TOPICS of current concern”); See also above, para . 3 .72 .
346E .g . “Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns”, Annex K, Report of the dramatically improved since the adoption of the Moratorium .
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007 , pp . 243-246 [Annex 110] .
347“Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Modelling”, Annex K1, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 293-301 . 3 .107
348Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and whale stocks in accordance with the provisions of the Moratorium . One of
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 9
[Annex 150] .See also below, paras . 5 .28-5 .31 .the goals of the comprehensive assessment was the development of a new
approach to management . After more than a decade of endeavours, a new
system, the RMP was adopted in 1994 . Despite tderailing of the IWC
process over the implementation of the RMS, the work of the Scientific
Committee has been progressing . The RMP has been implemented for some
whale stocks . Further research to improve the RMP is ongoing .
138the goals of the comprehensive assessment was the development of a new
approach to management . After more than a decade of endeavours, a new
system, the RMP was adopted in 1994 . Despite tderailing of the IWC
process over the implementation of the RMS, the work of the Scientific
Committee has been progressing . The RMP has been implemented for some
whale stocks . Further research to improve the RMP is ongoing . INTRODUCTION
II .1 The focal point of the presen t dispute is the question whether
JARPA II is lawful under Article VIII of the ICRW . The present Part deals
with factual issues and explains th at JARPA II has been and is being
conducted “for purposes of scientific research” (Art . VIII(1), ICRW) .
II .2 JARPA II is a scientific programme, which, as its appellation
indicates, was launched following and on the basis of the results obtained
from JARPA . It is therefore necessary to explain the scientific nature and
value of the latter before going into detail on JARPA II . Chapter 4 thus deals
with JARPA . It was conducted between the 1987/1988 and the 2004/2005
seasons to collect and analyse data and to contribute to “comprehensive
assessment” and “review” of the Co mmercial Whaling Moratorium . Its
research methods were limited to what was scientifically necessary to
achieve its objectives and carefully de signed to cause no harm to the whale
stocks . JARPA produced a number of scientific findings, which were
positively recognized by the Scientific Committee as well as by a number of
Contracting Governments .
II .3 Chapter 5 deals with JARPA II, which was prepared on the basis of
scientific findings of JARPA and launc hed in the 2005/20 06 season and is
now ongoing . Considerably refined, JARPA II plans to collect and analyse
data and information on the Antarctic ecosystem, necessary for the operation
of sustainable whale resource management . Its research methods are limited
to what is scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives, and carefully
designed to cause no harm to the whal e stocks . Although the first official INTRODUCTION
II .1 The focal point of the presen t dispute is the question whether
JARPA II is lawful under Article VIII of the ICRW . The present Part deals
with factual issues and explains th at JARPA II has been and is being
conducted “for purposes of scientific research” (Art . VIII(1), ICRW) .
II .2 JARPA II is a scientific programme, which, as its appellation
indicates, was launched following and on the basis of the results obtained
from JARPA . It is therefore necessary to explain the scientific nature and
value of the latter before going into detail on JARPA II . Chapter 4 thus deals
with JARPA . It was conducted between the 1987/1988 and the 2004/2005
seasons to collect and analyse data and to contribute to “comprehensive
assessment” and “review” of the Co mmercial Whaling Moratorium . Its
research methods were limited to what was scientifically necessary to
achieve its objectives and carefully de signed to cause no harm to the whale
stocks . JARPA produced a number of scientific findings, which were
positively recognized by the Scientific Committee as well as by a number of
Contracting Governments .
II .3 Chapter 5 deals with JARPA II, which was prepared on the basis of
scientific findings of JARPA and launc hed in the 2005/20 06 season and is
now ongoing . Considerably refined, JARPA II plans to collect and analyse
data and information on the Antarctic ecosystem, necessary for the operation
of sustainable whale resource management . Its research methods are limited
to what is scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives, and carefully
designed to cause no harm to the whal e stocks . Although the first official
139IWC review of JARPA II data and re sults is scheduled in 2013-2014, it has
already made available data and sample s, whose scientific value has been
recognized by the Scientific Committee .
4 .1
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium, provides as follows:
4 .2
to contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged
in Paragraph 10(e) (Section 1) . Resear ch methods employed in JARPA were
limited to what was scientifically necessary to achieve its purpose (Section
2) . The outcome of JARPA was made publicly available in due form so as to
contribute to the “review” and the “co mprehensive assessment” (Section 3) .
JARPA’s scientific contribution has been positively appreciated by the
scientific community (Section 4) .
4 .3
scientifically irrelevant, and made little progress
evaluated as such, according to the Memorial, by the Scientific Committee as
349
350
140IWC review of JARPA II data and re sults is scheduled in 2013-2014, it has
already made available data and sample s, whose scientific value has been
recognized by the Scientific Committee .
4 .1
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium, provides as follows:
4 .2
to contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged
in Paragraph 10(e) (Section 1) . Resear ch methods employed in JARPA were
limited to what was scientifically necessary to achieve its purpose (Section
2) . The outcome of JARPA was made publicly available in due form so as to
contribute to the “review” and the “co mprehensive assessment” (Section 3) .
JARPA’s scientific contribution has been positively appreciated by the
scientific community (Section 4) .
4 .3
scientifically irrelevant, and made little progress
evaluated as such, according to the Memorial, by the Scientific Committee as
349
350 351
well as the IWC . The present Chapter furnishes detailed scientific Procedure (RMP) .
explanations of JARPA, which will make clear that the allegations made by
Australia have no basis . 4 .8
considerations:
Summary of Chapter 4
4 .4 The present Chapter contains detailed scientific explanations of
JARPA, with extensive citations . Th e Government of Japan therefore
considers it useful to provide an executive summary in plain English .
Paragraphs 4 .4 to 4 .17 are thus to be understood as a summary of the
remainder of the Chapter . Citations w ill be found in the footnotes to the
subsequent sections.
4 .5 The present Chapter establishes that JARPA was designed and
conducted “for purposes of scientific re search” by explaining its objectives,
research methods, research outputs, and evaluations .
4 .6 JARPA was launched when Japan w ithdrew its objection to the
4 .9
Commercial Whaling Moratorium established by Paragraph 10(e) of the
Schedule, in order to collect scientific data to contribute to the “review” and above objectives but were limited to
the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in that Paragraph . Research areas were chosen so as to maximize efficiency and ensure the
scientific validity of the sampling methodology by using predetermined
4 .7 JARPA’s research objectives were initially defined so that they routes or tracklines for the research vessels . Thus, some areas were selected
because a lot of information about migrating stocks had already been
corresponded to the need for scientific data under the existing management
accumulated, together with operationa l knowledge about catching whales .
procedure of the IWC at the time, the New Management Procedure (NMP) .
But areas where the density of the target species was low were also included,
They were modified later, when th e IWC adopted the Revised Management
in order to avoid biases .
351AM, paras . 5 .11-5 .17 .
142 351
well as the IWC . The present Chapter furnishes detailed scientific Procedure (RMP) .
explanations of JARPA, which will make clear that the allegations made by
Australia have no basis . 4 .8
considerations:
Summary of Chapter 4
4 .4 The present Chapter contains detailed scientific explanations of
JARPA, with extensive citations . Th e Government of Japan therefore
considers it useful to provide an executive summary in plain English .
Paragraphs 4 .4 to 4 .17 are thus to be understood as a summary of the
remainder of the Chapter . Citations w ill be found in the footnotes to the
subsequent sections.
4 .5 The present Chapter establishes that JARPA was designed and
conducted “for purposes of scientific re search” by explaining its objectives,
research methods, research outputs, and evaluations .
4 .6 JARPA was launched when Japan w ithdrew its objection to the
4 .9
Commercial Whaling Moratorium established by Paragraph 10(e) of the
Schedule, in order to collect scientific data to contribute to the “review” and above objectives but were limited to
the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in that Paragraph . Research areas were chosen so as to maximize efficiency and ensure the
scientific validity of the sampling methodology by using predetermined
4 .7 JARPA’s research objectives were initially defined so that they routes or tracklines for the research vessels . Thus, some areas were selected
because a lot of information about migrating stocks had already been
corresponded to the need for scientific data under the existing management
accumulated, together with operationa l knowledge about catching whales .
procedure of the IWC at the time, the New Management Procedure (NMP) .
But areas where the density of the target species was low were also included,
They were modified later, when th e IWC adopted the Revised Management
in order to avoid biases .
351AM, paras . 5 .11-5 .17 .4 .10 The research period was 18 seasons (1987/88-2004/05) . The first 4 .14
two seasons were a feasibility study, and the remain ing 16 seasons were for necessary accuracy in estimating age-specific natural mortality rates . Until
full-scale research . The period was de termined by the relationship between the 1994/95 season, the sample size of
the sample size and the accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates . allowance) and this was increased to 400 (with 10% allowance) in response
to the research area expansion in
4 .11 The Antarctic minke whale was selected as the main target species . sample size of JARPA was consider
The population size of this species was estimated to be at least 260,000 at the qualified experts, and scientific calculation has shown that a research take of
start of JARPA . In 1990, the Scientific Committee agreed upon an estimate several hundreds of minke whales (less than 1% of the population size)
of the total population size of 760,000 . Due to its great abundance, it was the would not harm the status of the stock . The abundance estimates obtained
natural choice for future commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean, and from JARPA indicate that JARPA caused no harm to Antarctic minke whale
therefore there was a need to collect biological data on this species for stocks .
“review” and “comprehensive assessment ” as envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)
of the Schedule . 4 .15
analyses was made available primarily for the assessment and use by the
4 .12 The research items of JARPA were chosen to achieve the Scientific Committee so as to contribute to the “review” and the
individual research objectives . They were 1) age composition, 2) “comprehensive assessment” . At the same time they were made publicly
reproductive parameters, 3) feed ing ecology/diet composition and available in various fora for peer review .
consumption rates, 4) pollutants, and 5) stock structure .
4 .16
4 .13 Lethal methods were indispensable to achieving the objectives of and have been highly appreciated in the review meetings and workshops and
JARPA . Non-lethal methods are certainly useful, and JARPA combined them by prominent experts in the field . For example, regarding Objective 1, after
with lethal sampling . However, the non-lethal methods proposed as further experiments the natural mortality estimation in JARPA was
replacements for lethal sampling either do not produce sufficiently accurate considered to be sufficiently precise by the Scientific Committee . Further,
data necessary for scientific analysis or are not practicable, as has been the JARPA Final Review Workshop in 2006 recognized the accomplishments
recognized by the Scientific Committee and by various experts . Major of methods based on JARPA that investigate the variation of the biological
research items can only be examined by lethal sampling . parameters . Regarding Objective 2, the potential of the hypothesis proposed
on the basis of research outputs, such as prey consumption and blubber
1444 .10 The research period was 18 seasons (1987/88-2004/05) . The first 4 .14
two seasons were a feasibility study, and the remain ing 16 seasons were for necessary accuracy in estimating age-specific natural mortality rates . Until
full-scale research . The period was de termined by the relationship between the 1994/95 season, the sample size of
the sample size and the accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates . allowance) and this was increased to 400 (with 10% allowance) in response
to the research area expansion in
4 .11 The Antarctic minke whale was selected as the main target species . sample size of JARPA was consider
The population size of this species was estimated to be at least 260,000 at the qualified experts, and scientific calculation has shown that a research take of
start of JARPA . In 1990, the Scientific Committee agreed upon an estimate several hundreds of minke whales (less than 1% of the population size)
of the total population size of 760,000 . Due to its great abundance, it was the would not harm the status of the stock . The abundance estimates obtained
natural choice for future commercial whaling in the Antarctic Ocean, and from JARPA indicate that JARPA caused no harm to Antarctic minke whale
therefore there was a need to collect biological data on this species for stocks .
“review” and “comprehensive assessment ” as envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)
of the Schedule . 4 .15
analyses was made available primarily for the assessment and use by the
4 .12 The research items of JARPA were chosen to achieve the Scientific Committee so as to contribute to the “review” and the
individual research objectives . They were 1) age composition, 2) “comprehensive assessment” . At the same time they were made publicly
reproductive parameters, 3) feed ing ecology/diet composition and available in various fora for peer review .
consumption rates, 4) pollutants, and 5) stock structure .
4 .16
4 .13 Lethal methods were indispensable to achieving the objectives of and have been highly appreciated in the review meetings and workshops and
JARPA . Non-lethal methods are certainly useful, and JARPA combined them by prominent experts in the field . For example, regarding Objective 1, after
with lethal sampling . However, the non-lethal methods proposed as further experiments the natural mortality estimation in JARPA was
replacements for lethal sampling either do not produce sufficiently accurate considered to be sufficiently precise by the Scientific Committee . Further,
data necessary for scientific analysis or are not practicable, as has been the JARPA Final Review Workshop in 2006 recognized the accomplishments
recognized by the Scientific Committee and by various experts . Major of methods based on JARPA that investigate the variation of the biological
research items can only be examined by lethal sampling . parameters . Regarding Objective 2, the potential of the hypothesis proposed
on the basis of research outputs, such as prey consumption and blubberthickness, was recognized at the JA RPA Final Review Workshop . These Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, which envisages “review” and
JARPA outputs continue to stimulate scientific interest and discussion within “comprehensive assessment” .
the Scientific Committee . Major outputs of Objective 3 and 4 were also
welcomed and appreciated by the Final Review Workshop . 4 .19
whether to maintain, amend or abolish the Commercial Whaling Moratorium
4 .17 Australia refuses to recognize th e contributions made by JARPA, must be based only on scientific data , and not on “aesthetical” or “ethical”
but as this Chapter shows, JARPA was conducted “for purposes of scientific arguments
research” and has substantially contributed to the “review” and 10(e) of the Schedule, which established the Commercial Whaling
“comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) . That concludes Moratorium, scientific research is indispensable . It is precisely for this
the summary of this Chapter . The rest of this Chapter sets out the same reason that JARPA was launched imme
material in greater depth, with supporting footnotes . Japan’s objection to the Commercial Whaling Moratorium .
Section 1. JARPA’s Objectives 4 .20
which Japan explained the said Program, Japan reiterated that:
4 .18 It is certainly no co incidence that JARPA was launched in the
1987/1988 season, immediately after the withdrawal of Japan’s objection to
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium 352 . Japan lodged an objection to the
Commercial Whaling Moratorium for th e reason that it was established for
all species, irrespective of the stoc k status of each . Those Contracting 4 .21
Governments which supported the Comm ercial Whaling Moratorium also fiscal year, reiterates the necessity of scientific research for the
recognized scientific uncertainties , which “may be overcome only by comprehensive assessment envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule:
undertaking extensive research on cetaceans .” 353 The necessity for scientific
data, and thus for scientific research, is clearly reflected in the terms of
352AM, para . 3 .4 .
353The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Report of the New
Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London,
9 to 13 July” 20 July 1979, W5330 6956, TKY 46/2/4, part 4, Archives New Zealand (ANZ), p . 3
[Annex 195] . It was also said that “[a]nother argu ment for a moratorium was the stimulus it would
give to the whaling nations to provide mormprehensive data on whale stocks .” (The High
Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Fore ign Affairs, “International Whaling Commission: 354
United States Views”, 7 June 1979, W5330 6956, TKY 46/2/4, part 4, ANZ, para . 7 [Annex 192] .) 355
146thickness, was recognized at the JA RPA Final Review Workshop . These Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, which envisages “review” and
JARPA outputs continue to stimulate scientific interest and discussion within “comprehensive assessment” .
the Scientific Committee . Major outputs of Objective 3 and 4 were also
welcomed and appreciated by the Final Review Workshop . 4 .19
whether to maintain, amend or abolish the Commercial Whaling Moratorium
4 .17 Australia refuses to recognize th e contributions made by JARPA, must be based only on scientific data , and not on “aesthetical” or “ethical”
but as this Chapter shows, JARPA was conducted “for purposes of scientific arguments
research” and has substantially contributed to the “review” and 10(e) of the Schedule, which established the Commercial Whaling
“comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) . That concludes Moratorium, scientific research is indispensable . It is precisely for this
the summary of this Chapter . The rest of this Chapter sets out the same reason that JARPA was launched imme
material in greater depth, with supporting footnotes . Japan’s objection to the Commercial Whaling Moratorium .
Section 1. JARPA’s Objectives 4 .20
which Japan explained the said Program, Japan reiterated that:
4 .18 It is certainly no co incidence that JARPA was launched in the
1987/1988 season, immediately after the withdrawal of Japan’s objection to
the Commercial Whaling Moratorium 352 . Japan lodged an objection to the
Commercial Whaling Moratorium for th e reason that it was established for
all species, irrespective of the stoc k status of each . Those Contracting 4 .21
Governments which supported the Comm ercial Whaling Moratorium also fiscal year, reiterates the necessity of scientific research for the
recognized scientific uncertainties , which “may be overcome only by comprehensive assessment envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule:
undertaking extensive research on cetaceans .” 353 The necessity for scientific
data, and thus for scientific research, is clearly reflected in the terms of
352AM, para . 3 .4 .
353The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Report of the New
Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London,
9 to 13 July” 20 July 1979, W5330 6956, TKY 46/2/4, part 4, Archives New Zealand (ANZ), p . 3
[Annex 195] . It was also said that “[a]nother argu ment for a moratorium was the stimulus it would
give to the whaling nations to provide mormprehensive data on whale stocks .” (The High
Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Fore ign Affairs, “International Whaling Commission: 354
United States Views”, 7 June 1979, W5330 6956, TKY 46/2/4, part 4, ANZ, para . 7 [Annex 192] .) 355 collection/organization of scientif ic data and resource analysis on
whale stocks that are necessary for undertaking the review of the 4 .24
IWC’s Moratorium .” 356
and management tool available to the IWC, though alternative management
4 .22 “The Program for Research on th e Southern Hemisphere Minke procedures were already in the process of being developed
Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the of the view that, until more effectiv
Antarctic”, submitted by the Japanese Government to the Scientific were adopted, the IWC would have no c hoice but to continue to utilize the
Committee in March 1987, explains that the purpose of JARPA is twofold, NMP with some modifications . Japan thus stated at the 41st Annual Meeting
i .e . (Objective 1) estimation of the bi ological parameters required for the of the IWC (1989) that:
stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale ; and (Objective
357
2) elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem .
4 .23 More specifically, Objective 1 of JARPA was to estimate the
age-specific natural mortality coefficient needed for models to calculate
MSY . The failure in the 1980s to reach an agreement on the value of this
parameter was the main reason for the failure of the Scientific Committee to
recommend an agreed commercial catc h limit for the Antarctic minke whale
358
stock . Since the NMP was based on MSY, determining the age-specific 360
natural mortality rates 359 was vitally important for rational management of
360
Antarctic whale populations under the NMP .
361
356
Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries etc . to be taken in the 1988
fiscal year”, submitted to the 112th ordinary session of the Diet of Japan, Association of
Agriculture and Forestry Statistics [Nourin-Toukei-Kyoukai], White Paper on Fisheries [Gyogyou
Hakusho] (1987), p . 22 [Annex 134] .
357Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosyste m in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987) pp . 3-4
358[Annex 135] .
G .P . Kirkwood, “Background to the Development of Revised Management Procedures”, Annex I,
Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 236 [Annex 87] .
359As for scientific criticizms addressed to JARPA’s methods of estimating natural mortality quoted in
AM para . 5 .9, see scientific counter-arguments presented in the following publications: T .
Nakamura, S . Ohnishi and Y . Matsumiya, “A Bayesian Cohort model for catch-at-age data obtained
from research takes of whales .” Rep int. Whal. Commn 39, 1989, pp . 375-382; T . Nakamura, S .
Ohnishi, and Y . Matsumiya, “M odification of the Bayesian Cohort model for catch-at-age data 362
obtained from research takes of whales”, SC/41/O16 (1989); K . Sakuramoto, and S . Tanaka, “On
148 collection/organization of scientif ic data and resource analysis on
whale stocks that are necessary for undertaking the review of the 4 .24
IWC’s Moratorium .” 356
and management tool available to the IWC, though alternative management
4 .22 “The Program for Research on th e Southern Hemisphere Minke procedures were already in the process of being developed
Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the of the view that, until more effectiv
Antarctic”, submitted by the Japanese Government to the Scientific were adopted, the IWC would have no c hoice but to continue to utilize the
Committee in March 1987, explains that the purpose of JARPA is twofold, NMP with some modifications . Japan thus stated at the 41st Annual Meeting
i .e . (Objective 1) estimation of the bi ological parameters required for the of the IWC (1989) that:
stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale ; and (Objective
357
2) elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem .
4 .23 More specifically, Objective 1 of JARPA was to estimate the
age-specific natural mortality coefficient needed for models to calculate
MSY . The failure in the 1980s to reach an agreement on the value of this
parameter was the main reason for the failure of the Scientific Committee to
recommend an agreed commercial catc h limit for the Antarctic minke whale
358
stock . Since the NMP was based on MSY, determining the age-specific 360
natural mortality rates 359 was vitally important for rational management of
360
Antarctic whale populations under the NMP .
361
356
Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries etc . to be taken in the 1988
fiscal year”, submitted to the 112th ordinary session of the Diet of Japan, Association of
Agriculture and Forestry Statistics [Nourin-Toukei-Kyoukai], White Paper on Fisheries [Gyogyou
Hakusho] (1987), p . 22 [Annex 134] .
357Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosyste m in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987) pp . 3-4
358[Annex 135] .
G .P . Kirkwood, “Background to the Development of Revised Management Procedures”, Annex I,
Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 236 [Annex 87] .
359As for scientific criticizms addressed to JARPA’s methods of estimating natural mortality quoted in
AM para . 5 .9, see scientific counter-arguments presented in the following publications: T .
Nakamura, S . Ohnishi and Y . Matsumiya, “A Bayesian Cohort model for catch-at-age data obtained
from research takes of whales .” Rep int. Whal. Commn 39, 1989, pp . 375-382; T . Nakamura, S .
Ohnishi, and Y . Matsumiya, “M odification of the Bayesian Cohort model for catch-at-age data 362
obtained from research takes of whales”, SC/41/O16 (1989); K . Sakuramoto, and S . Tanaka, “On 4 .27
4 .25 The main item under Objective 1 was modified in 1992 from of the effect of enviro nmental change on cetaceans
estimating the age-specific natural mort ality rates to estimating the average response to the IWC’s increasing interest in the effects of environmental
363
natural mortality rate . Given the shift in the management measure by the changes such as global warming on cetaceans, specif
Scientific Committee from the NMP to the RMP, Objective 1 was reworded Resolution 1994-13 on research on
to “estimation of the biological parameters to improve the stock management Resolution 1994-12 on the promotion of research related to conservation of
364
of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale” in 1997 . Japan kept this item as large whale stocks in the Southern Ocean
the primary objective of JARPA because estimation of the natural mortality resolution on the environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution
rate, useful for understanding the popul ation dynamics of minke whales, 1995-10)
remained very important for the ma nagement of whale stocks . This
parameter is also useful during the Implementation Simulation Trials ( ISTs) 4 .28
365
of the RMP process . of the stock structure of Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
management
4 .26 Regarding Objective 2, JARPA pl anned to analyse the stomach a separate item in 1996/97 .
contents of whales, because the pr ey composition and prey consumption
rates would reveal the role and impact of whales on the Antarctic ecosystem . 4 .29
Objective 2 was in line with the growi ng scientific interest in the Antarctic repeatedly voted for resolutions that
ecosystem, reflected at that time by the entry into force of the Convention on needs, as referred to by the Memorial of Australia . For example, IWC
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) 366 . Resolution 1987-4 states that JARP
information, to be structured so as to contribute information essential for
363Government of Japan, “The 1992/93 Research Plan of whale Resource s in the Antarctic”,
SC/44/SHB14 (1992), p . 3 [Annex 143] .
364“Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997”, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. 367
Commn 48, 1998, p . 378 [Annex 95] . Compare M . Mangel, para . 5 .7: “O bjective 1 was relevant to 368
365the NMP but is not relevant to the RMP” .
366See below, para . 4 .164 . 369
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), Appendix
2, pp .46-51 [Annex 135] . See also “The relationship between Japanese research programme and
Comprehensive Assessment”, Annex 3, The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with 370
Note for ‘The Program for the Research on te Southern Hemisphere Mi nke Whale and for the
Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’, 371
SC/41/SHMi13(1989), pp . A .3-A .7 [Annex 140] .
150 4 .27
4 .25 The main item under Objective 1 was modified in 1992 from of the effect of enviro nmental change on cetaceans
estimating the age-specific natural mort ality rates to estimating the average response to the IWC’s increasing interest in the effects of environmental
363
natural mortality rate . Given the shift in the management measure by the changes such as global warming on cetaceans, specif
Scientific Committee from the NMP to the RMP, Objective 1 was reworded Resolution 1994-13 on research on
to “estimation of the biological parameters to improve the stock management Resolution 1994-12 on the promotion of research related to conservation of
364
of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale” in 1997 . Japan kept this item as large whale stocks in the Southern Ocean
the primary objective of JARPA because estimation of the natural mortality resolution on the environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution
rate, useful for understanding the popul ation dynamics of minke whales, 1995-10)
remained very important for the ma nagement of whale stocks . This
parameter is also useful during the Implementation Simulation Trials ( ISTs) 4 .28
365
of the RMP process . of the stock structure of Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
management
4 .26 Regarding Objective 2, JARPA pl anned to analyse the stomach a separate item in 1996/97 .
contents of whales, because the pr ey composition and prey consumption
rates would reveal the role and impact of whales on the Antarctic ecosystem . 4 .29
Objective 2 was in line with the growi ng scientific interest in the Antarctic repeatedly voted for resolutions that
ecosystem, reflected at that time by the entry into force of the Convention on needs, as referred to by the Memorial of Australia . For example, IWC
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) 366 . Resolution 1987-4 states that JARP
information, to be structured so as to contribute information essential for
363Government of Japan, “The 1992/93 Research Plan of whale Resource s in the Antarctic”,
SC/44/SHB14 (1992), p . 3 [Annex 143] .
364“Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997”, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. 367
Commn 48, 1998, p . 378 [Annex 95] . Compare M . Mangel, para . 5 .7: “O bjective 1 was relevant to 368
365the NMP but is not relevant to the RMP” .
366See below, para . 4 .164 . 369
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), Appendix
2, pp .46-51 [Annex 135] . See also “The relationship between Japanese research programme and
Comprehensive Assessment”, Annex 3, The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with 370
Note for ‘The Program for the Research on te Southern Hemisphere Mi nke Whale and for the
Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’, 371
SC/41/SHMi13(1989), pp . A .3-A .7 [Annex 140] .rational management of the stock” 372 . IWC Resolution 1997-5, for its part,
affirms that “the JARPA programme does not address critically important
research needs for the management of whaling in the Southern Ocean” 373 .
4 .32
4 .30 However, the Memorial of Australia fails to mention that the votes Antigua and Barbuda, which cast a negative vote, stated:
for these resolutions were far from unanimous . For example, Resolution
374 375
1987-4 was adopted by 18-8-5 and Resolution 1997-5 by 18-11-2 .
Furthermore, these resolutions were critic ized by States that considered that
research programmes should be evaluated on scientific bases . Thus, the
USSR, which voted against, stated during the debate preceding the adoption
of Resolution 1987-4: 4 .33
representatives, the scientific experts
“Science is such an area when [sic] we cannot do without conflicts
JARPA’s research objectives to whale stock management .
and arguments and the Japanese Commissioner was right when he
was saying that we’ll never know the truth unless we carry out
specific research .…[R]ather than de lve into arguments scientists 4 .34
first should carry out field research and this is exactly what the
Japanese program under consideration is meant to achieve . It is Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held
376
therefore…the USSR also supports this program .”
in May 1997 (1997 IWC JARPA Mid-Term Review WG) stated:
4 .31 The political nature of the IWC is generally recognized . For
example, a French delegate stated:
“Of course I understand the problem [sic: is] not based on
4 .35
372 “Resolution on Japanese Proposal for Special Permits”, Resolution 1987-4,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES39_1987 .pdf> access14 February 2012 . Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by
See AM, para . 5 .8 .
373“Resolution on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”, Resolution 1997-5, the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005 (2005 Japan JARPA
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES49_1997 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 . See
AM, para . 5 .16 .
374Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988, p . 11-15 377
[Annex 50] . 378
375 379
Chairman’s Report of the Fo rty-Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 39
376[Annex 57] .
Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987), p .144 [Annex 35] .
152rational management of the stock” 372 . IWC Resolution 1997-5, for its part,
affirms that “the JARPA programme does not address critically important
research needs for the management of whaling in the Southern Ocean” 373 .
4 .32
4 .30 However, the Memorial of Australia fails to mention that the votes Antigua and Barbuda, which cast a negative vote, stated:
for these resolutions were far from unanimous . For example, Resolution
374 375
1987-4 was adopted by 18-8-5 and Resolution 1997-5 by 18-11-2 .
Furthermore, these resolutions were critic ized by States that considered that
research programmes should be evaluated on scientific bases . Thus, the
USSR, which voted against, stated during the debate preceding the adoption
of Resolution 1987-4: 4 .33
representatives, the scientific experts
“Science is such an area when [sic] we cannot do without conflicts
JARPA’s research objectives to whale stock management .
and arguments and the Japanese Commissioner was right when he
was saying that we’ll never know the truth unless we carry out
specific research .…[R]ather than de lve into arguments scientists 4 .34
first should carry out field research and this is exactly what the
Japanese program under consideration is meant to achieve . It is Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held
376
therefore…the USSR also supports this program .”
in May 1997 (1997 IWC JARPA Mid-Term Review WG) stated:
4 .31 The political nature of the IWC is generally recognized . For
example, a French delegate stated:
“Of course I understand the problem [sic: is] not based on
4 .35
372 “Resolution on Japanese Proposal for Special Permits”, Resolution 1987-4,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES39_1987 .pdf> access14 February 2012 . Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by
See AM, para . 5 .8 .
373“Resolution on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”, Resolution 1997-5, the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005 (2005 Japan JARPA
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES49_1997 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 . See
AM, para . 5 .16 .
374Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988, p . 11-15 377
[Annex 50] . 378
375 379
Chairman’s Report of the Fo rty-Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 39
376[Annex 57] .
Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987), p .144 [Annex 35] .Review Meeting) stated:
“The meeting noted that the research objectives at the start of
JARPA had been designed to meet management needs at that
particular time . Although these ne eds have changed, the meeting
agreed that JARPA work remain s relevant for providing data 4 .37
important for management .” 380
experts considered JARPA’s research obj ectives as relevant to whale stock
management, a majority of political representatives in the IWC considered
4 .36 Finally, the Report of the 2006 Inte rsessional Workshop to Review
them as irrelevant . Japan’s position has always been that any evaluation of
Data and Results from Special Perm it Research on Minke Whales in the
research programmes shall be made on a scientific basis
Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006 (2006 IWC JARPA Final Review
Workshop) stated:
“The results from the JARPA pr ogramme, while not required for
management under the RMP 381, have the potential to improve
4 .38
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the
following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible considerations . While the Memorial of Australia s upports its contention that
scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2)
JARPA’s methods were flawed simply by quoting a few articles
identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation
Simulation Trials will have to be deve loped (e .g . the temporal present Section will explain in detail the scientific considerations on which
component of stock structure) . Th e results of analyses of JARPA JARPA’s research methods were based .
data could be used in this wa y perhaps to increase the allowed
catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without
increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke
382
whales .”
“It is also clear that this work [ on stock structure] is essential to 4 .39
Management Areas IV (70
380“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in south of 60
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6
(2005), p . 2 [Annex 102] . Although all members of the Scientific Committee had been invited, for two consecutive austral summer seas ons, alternating Area IV and Area V
scientists from anti-whaling countries did not participate in the meeting . However, more than 40
participants from eight countries, including an observer representing the IWC/SC, attended the
381meeting and participated in the discussion .
On the meaning of the phrase “while t required for management under the RMP”, see below, 383
382para . 4 .165 . 384
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 385
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 386
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 433 [Annex 113] .
154Review Meeting) stated:
“The meeting noted that the research objectives at the start of
JARPA had been designed to meet management needs at that
particular time . Although these ne eds have changed, the meeting
agreed that JARPA work remain s relevant for providing data 4 .37
important for management .” 380
experts considered JARPA’s research obj ectives as relevant to whale stock
management, a majority of political representatives in the IWC considered
4 .36 Finally, the Report of the 2006 Inte rsessional Workshop to Review
them as irrelevant . Japan’s position has always been that any evaluation of
Data and Results from Special Perm it Research on Minke Whales in the
research programmes shall be made on a scientific basis
Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006 (2006 IWC JARPA Final Review
Workshop) stated:
“The results from the JARPA pr ogramme, while not required for
management under the RMP 381, have the potential to improve
4 .38
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the
following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible considerations . While the Memorial of Australia s upports its contention that
scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2)
JARPA’s methods were flawed simply by quoting a few articles
identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation
Simulation Trials will have to be deve loped (e .g . the temporal present Section will explain in detail the scientific considerations on which
component of stock structure) . Th e results of analyses of JARPA JARPA’s research methods were based .
data could be used in this wa y perhaps to increase the allowed
catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without
increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke
382
whales .”
“It is also clear that this work [ on stock structure] is essential to 4 .39
Management Areas IV (70
380“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in south of 60
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6
(2005), p . 2 [Annex 102] . Although all members of the Scientific Committee had been invited, for two consecutive austral summer seas ons, alternating Area IV and Area V
scientists from anti-whaling countries did not participate in the meeting . However, more than 40
participants from eight countries, including an observer representing the IWC/SC, attended the
381meeting and participated in the discussion .
On the meaning of the phrase “while t required for management under the RMP”, see below, 383
382para . 4 .165 . 384
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 385
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 386
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 433 [Annex 113] . 387 Figure 4-1 . Research area of JARPA (Area III East, Area IV, Area V and Area VI West)
in every two seasons . However, after various aspects of the research plan
showing small strata . Area III East was added in the 1995/96 season, and Area VI West
were considered, a research for a feasibility study was conducted in the in the 1996/97 season
388
1987/88 and 1988/89 seasons . The areas covered during the feasibility
study surveys were smaller: the area between 105 °E and 115 °E, and between
389
the ice-edge line and 55 °S (part of Area IV) during the 1987/88 survey ;
and the area between 168 °E and 180 °E, and between the bottom of the Ross
390
Sea (77 °30’S) and 53 °S (part of Area V) during the 1988/89 survey . After
the completion of the feasibility st udy surveys, Area IV and Area V were
surveyed alternately each season from the 1989/90 season to the 1994/95
391
season .
4 .40
obtain scientific data to contribute to the “comprehensive assessment” and
“review” prescribed in Paragraph 10(e ) of the Schedule, on Antarctic minke
whales in particular, that would consider whether the Moratorium could be
lifted . It thus follows that lethal sampling under JARPA was to be carried out
in Areas IV and V, which used to be a main commercial whaling ground for
minke whales in the Antarctic . In
information about stocks migrating ha
387
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and operational knowledge on the catching of
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 8-9
388[Annex 135] . conditions from previous commercial whaling operations . Such information
Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and Pre liminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in and knowledge were thought to make the research activity more efficient
the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987) [Annex 136] .
389H . Kato, H . Hiroyama, Y . Fujise and K . Ono, “Preliminary report of the 1987/88 Japanese
feasibility study of the special permit proposal for SouHemisphere minke whales”, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 39, 1989, pp . 235-236 [Annex 141] .
390 392
H . Kato, Y . Fujise, H . Yosha, S . Nakagawa, M . Ishida and S . Tanifuji, “Cruise report and
preliminary analysis of the 1988/89 Japanese feas ibility study of the special permit proposal for
Southern Hemisphere minke whales”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 40, 1990, pp . 289-290 [Annex 142] .
391Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemi sphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary 393
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC /41/SHMi13 (1989), p .4
[Annex 140] .
156 387 Figure 4-1 . Research area of JARPA (Area III East, Area IV, Area V and Area VI West)
in every two seasons . However, after various aspects of the research plan
showing small strata . Area III East was added in the 1995/96 season, and Area VI West
were considered, a research for a feasibility study was conducted in the in the 1996/97 season
388
1987/88 and 1988/89 seasons . The areas covered during the feasibility
study surveys were smaller: the area between 105 °E and 115 °E, and between
389
the ice-edge line and 55 °S (part of Area IV) during the 1987/88 survey ;
and the area between 168 °E and 180 °E, and between the bottom of the Ross
390
Sea (77 °30’S) and 53 °S (part of Area V) during the 1988/89 survey . After
the completion of the feasibility st udy surveys, Area IV and Area V were
surveyed alternately each season from the 1989/90 season to the 1994/95
391
season .
4 .40
obtain scientific data to contribute to the “comprehensive assessment” and
“review” prescribed in Paragraph 10(e ) of the Schedule, on Antarctic minke
whales in particular, that would consider whether the Moratorium could be
lifted . It thus follows that lethal sampling under JARPA was to be carried out
in Areas IV and V, which used to be a main commercial whaling ground for
minke whales in the Antarctic . In
information about stocks migrating ha
387
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and operational knowledge on the catching of
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 8-9
388[Annex 135] . conditions from previous commercial whaling operations . Such information
Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and Pre liminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in and knowledge were thought to make the research activity more efficient
the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987) [Annex 136] .
389H . Kato, H . Hiroyama, Y . Fujise and K . Ono, “Preliminary report of the 1987/88 Japanese
feasibility study of the special permit proposal for SouHemisphere minke whales”, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 39, 1989, pp . 235-236 [Annex 141] .
390 392
H . Kato, Y . Fujise, H . Yosha, S . Nakagawa, M . Ishida and S . Tanifuji, “Cruise report and
preliminary analysis of the 1988/89 Japanese feas ibility study of the special permit proposal for
Southern Hemisphere minke whales”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 40, 1990, pp . 289-290 [Annex 142] .
391Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemi sphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary 393
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC /41/SHMi13 (1989), p .4
[Annex 140] .4 .41 The population structure, includi ng age composition, of the minke
whales migrating to the Antarctic, for example, could not be determined from 4 .42
samples obtained from commercial whaling operations in the pre-Moratorium (35
period because these whaling operations were concentrated in areas of high VI West (170
whale density near the ice edge zone (and because of the catching selectivity, Areas III East + IV and Ar eas V + VI West were su rveyed alternately each
394
which preferred larger animals) . Since biological parameters estimated season . This longitudinal expansion of the research area was needed to
using the samples from the past co mmercial whaling operations were investigate the distributi on and boundaries of stocks
susceptible to some biases 395, it was decided that re search areas for JARPA whales in Areas IV and V, because earlier JARPA studies had suggested th▯at
would also cover areas with low density of the target species, where more than one stock was distributed in
commercial whaling operation had not been usually conducted, though their distributions could extend beyond the western boundary of Area IV and
situated within Areas IV and V, us ing predetermined tracklines set by the eastern boundary of Area V
scientific methodology (see the map below) .
Figure 4-2 . Track-line model diagram in areas III (East), IV, V and VI (West) in the
Antarctic Ocean (only shows the main track-lines) 396 .
4 .43
programme, after which the necessity for further research would be reviewed .
It was implemented for the first
feasibility study, and in the remaining 16 seasons (1989/90-2004/05) for
full-scale research . The length of th
years) was determined by the relationship between the sample size and the
accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates . It was considered that
repeating the survey in each Area (Areas IV and V) every two years for 6-8
397
394S . Ohsumi, S .Tanaka, and H . Kato , “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters 398
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 2, p . 20, presented to the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data 399
and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .
395Ibid ., p . 2, p . 20 (Table 2) .
396
The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan’s Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the 400
Antarctic (JARPA) (2nd ed, 2005), p .16, <http://www .icrwha le .org/pdf/04-B-len2 .pdf> accessed
14 February 2012 .
1584 .41 The population structure, includi ng age composition, of the minke
whales migrating to the Antarctic, for example, could not be determined from 4 .42
samples obtained from commercial whaling operations in the pre-Moratorium (35
period because these whaling operations were concentrated in areas of high VI West (170
whale density near the ice edge zone (and because of the catching selectivity, Areas III East + IV and Ar eas V + VI West were su rveyed alternately each
394
which preferred larger animals) . Since biological parameters estimated season . This longitudinal expansion of the research area was needed to
using the samples from the past co mmercial whaling operations were investigate the distributi on and boundaries of stocks
susceptible to some biases 395, it was decided that re search areas for JARPA whales in Areas IV and V, because earlier JARPA studies had suggested th▯at
would also cover areas with low density of the target species, where more than one stock was distributed in
commercial whaling operation had not been usually conducted, though their distributions could extend beyond the western boundary of Area IV and
situated within Areas IV and V, us ing predetermined tracklines set by the eastern boundary of Area V
scientific methodology (see the map below) .
Figure 4-2 . Track-line model diagram in areas III (East), IV, V and VI (West) in the
Antarctic Ocean (only shows the main track-lines) 396 .
4 .43
programme, after which the necessity for further research would be reviewed .
It was implemented for the first
feasibility study, and in the remaining 16 seasons (1989/90-2004/05) for
full-scale research . The length of th
years) was determined by the relationship between the sample size and the
accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates . It was considered that
repeating the survey in each Area (Areas IV and V) every two years for 6-8
397
394S . Ohsumi, S .Tanaka, and H . Kato , “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters 398
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 2, p . 20, presented to the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data 399
and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .
395Ibid ., p . 2, p . 20 (Table 2) .
396
The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan’s Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the 400
Antarctic (JARPA) (2nd ed, 2005), p .16, <http://www .icrwha le .org/pdf/04-B-len2 .pdf> accessed
14 February 2012 .times would provide estimates of age-specific natural mortality rates with an collect the biological data
appropriate accuracy 401 . utilization .
4 .44 Some biological parameters, such as age at sexual maturity and
pregnancy rates, can change with time in response to changes in the
environment and the nutritional conditi on of whales . Therefore investigation 1.
of the trends of these parameters over time is important for stock assessment 4 .46
and management . estimating age-specific natural mortal ity rates and repr oductive parameters
such as age at sexual an d physical maturity, all these parameters are related
C. Target Species for Lethal Sampling to growth and then important fo
management
4 .45 The Antarctic minke whale was selected as the main target species which gives good estimates of past population size and an estimate of
402
for lethal sampling under JARPA . This species was the most abundant recruitment rate . To conduct these analyses, it is important to have accurate
baleen whale in the Antarctic with an estimated exploitable population size information on the age structure in the catch over a number of years
403
of at least 260,000 at the start of JARPA . In 1990, the Scientific Estimating abundance trends is extremely important for stock management
Committee agreed upon an estimate of th is species’ total population size of of any marine living resources .
404
760,000 . The reasons for the large differ ence between these estimates are:
Figure 4-3 . Age composition of Antarctic minke whales based on data from past
1) the former figure refers to the expl oitable (recruited) population size and commercial whaling and JARPA . The lack of young animals in the past commercial
whaling data shows the bias in the size of caught whales (source: Institute of Cetacean
the latter refers to the total populati on size; and 2) different analytical
Research) .
procedures were used to obtain the estimates . Given this large abundance, the
Antarctic minke whale was the natural choice for the focus of future
commercial whaling in the Antarctic, and therefore there was a need to
401Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), p . 7
402[Annex 140] . For the necessity of further research following JARPA, see below, paras . 5 .16-5 .19 . 405
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), p . 3 [Annex
403135] . 406
404“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p . 41, Table 1 [Annex 80] .
“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991, p . 59, Table 1 [Annex 85] .
160times would provide estimates of age-specific natural mortality rates with an collect the biological data
appropriate accuracy 401 . utilization .
4 .44 Some biological parameters, such as age at sexual maturity and
pregnancy rates, can change with time in response to changes in the
environment and the nutritional conditi on of whales . Therefore investigation 1.
of the trends of these parameters over time is important for stock assessment 4 .46
and management . estimating age-specific natural mortal ity rates and repr oductive parameters
such as age at sexual an d physical maturity, all these parameters are related
C. Target Species for Lethal Sampling to growth and then important fo
management
4 .45 The Antarctic minke whale was selected as the main target species which gives good estimates of past population size and an estimate of
402
for lethal sampling under JARPA . This species was the most abundant recruitment rate . To conduct these analyses, it is important to have accurate
baleen whale in the Antarctic with an estimated exploitable population size information on the age structure in the catch over a number of years
403
of at least 260,000 at the start of JARPA . In 1990, the Scientific Estimating abundance trends is extremely important for stock management
Committee agreed upon an estimate of th is species’ total population size of of any marine living resources .
404
760,000 . The reasons for the large differ ence between these estimates are:
Figure 4-3 . Age composition of Antarctic minke whales based on data from past
1) the former figure refers to the expl oitable (recruited) population size and commercial whaling and JARPA . The lack of young animals in the past commercial
whaling data shows the bias in the size of caught whales (source: Institute of Cetacean
the latter refers to the total populati on size; and 2) different analytical
Research) .
procedures were used to obtain the estimates . Given this large abundance, the
Antarctic minke whale was the natural choice for the focus of future
commercial whaling in the Antarctic, and therefore there was a need to
401Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), p . 7
402[Annex 140] . For the necessity of further research following JARPA, see below, paras . 5 .16-5 .19 . 405
Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), p . 3 [Annex
403135] . 406
404“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p . 41, Table 1 [Annex 80] .
“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991, p . 59, Table 1 [Annex 85] . (e .g . food availability) is the examination of blubber thickness of the whales,
2. ReproductiveParameters (for Objective 1 of JARPA)
which is also examined under JARPA . Thick blubber is an indication of good
4 .47 Maturity status can be used with age data for the estimation of age
nutritional conditions while thin blubber
at sexual and physical maturity . Info rmation on the timing and duration of
nutritional conditions
the reproductive cycle, which can be obt ained from these data, is used in
fishery biology for predicting the birth rate, population growth and 4 .49
407
recruitment and hence production , and is therefore relevant to stock Final Review Workshop corroborates the importance of the data collected by
408
assessment and management .
JARPA in relation to Objective 2 .
3. Feeding Ecology / Diet Composition and Consumption Rates (for
Objective 2 of JARPA)
4 .48 Krill is a key species in the Antarctic ecosystem as it supports
species and populations of baleen wh ales, pinnipeds, birds and fish . The
Antarctic minke whale is the most a bundant baleen whale species in the
4.
Antarctic and consumption of krill by this species should be estimated and 4 .50
evaluated . These estimates of prey composition and consumption rates are Committee to address the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans .
important to elucidate the role of whales in the ecosystem . The amount of Consequently JARPA had been monitoring different pollutants both in tissue
prey consumed can change with tim e in response to changes in the
samples of Antarctic minke whales a
environment, for example changes in food availability . Therefore
water)
investigation of the tre nds of prey consumption is important for stock
pollutants in their physical environment, in their prey species, and on the
assessment and management 409 . Another indicator of environmental change
length and age of the animals . The Antarctic Ocean is the least contaminated
407C . Lockyer, “Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implica tions for management”, region on earth and it can be used as a standard fo
Rep. int. Whal. Commn (Special Issue 6), pp . 30-31 .
408 pollutants in other regions .
“The relationship between Japanese research programme and Comprehensive Assessment”, Annex
3, The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The Program for the
Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary Research on the
Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4 )’, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), pp . A .3-A .7 [Annex 140]; 410
S . Ohsumi, S . Tanaka, and H . Kato, “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters 411
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 3, presented to the IWC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data
and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .
409Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The 412
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary
162 (e .g . food availability) is the examination of blubber thickness of the whales,
2. ReproductiveParameters (for Objective 1 of JARPA)
which is also examined under JARPA . Thick blubber is an indication of good
4 .47 Maturity status can be used with age data for the estimation of age
nutritional conditions while thin blubber
at sexual and physical maturity . Info rmation on the timing and duration of
nutritional conditions
the reproductive cycle, which can be obt ained from these data, is used in
fishery biology for predicting the birth rate, population growth and 4 .49
407
recruitment and hence production , and is therefore relevant to stock Final Review Workshop corroborates the importance of the data collected by
408
assessment and management .
JARPA in relation to Objective 2 .
3. Feeding Ecology / Diet Composition and Consumption Rates (for
Objective 2 of JARPA)
4 .48 Krill is a key species in the Antarctic ecosystem as it supports
species and populations of baleen wh ales, pinnipeds, birds and fish . The
Antarctic minke whale is the most a bundant baleen whale species in the
4.
Antarctic and consumption of krill by this species should be estimated and 4 .50
evaluated . These estimates of prey composition and consumption rates are Committee to address the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans .
important to elucidate the role of whales in the ecosystem . The amount of Consequently JARPA had been monitoring different pollutants both in tissue
prey consumed can change with tim e in response to changes in the
samples of Antarctic minke whales a
environment, for example changes in food availability . Therefore
water)
investigation of the tre nds of prey consumption is important for stock
pollutants in their physical environment, in their prey species, and on the
assessment and management 409 . Another indicator of environmental change
length and age of the animals . The Antarctic Ocean is the least contaminated
407C . Lockyer, “Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implica tions for management”, region on earth and it can be used as a standard fo
Rep. int. Whal. Commn (Special Issue 6), pp . 30-31 .
408 pollutants in other regions .
“The relationship between Japanese research programme and Comprehensive Assessment”, Annex
3, The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The Program for the
Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary Research on the
Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4 )’, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), pp . A .3-A .7 [Annex 140]; 410
S . Ohsumi, S . Tanaka, and H . Kato, “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters 411
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 3, presented to the IWC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data
and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .
409Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The 412
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary biological parameters (Objective 1 of JARPA) as well as for the process of
4 .51 The 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop considered the calculating catch quotas for commercial whaling under the RMP . This was
data and analyses on pollutants conducted under Objective 3 of JARPA to be recognized in the Report of the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop,
valuable: which stated:
“The Workshop welcomed the presentation of the pollutant
analyses at this Workshop, alt hough there was some disagreement
413
over the implications of the results drawn by the authors .”
5. Stock Structure (for Objective 4 of JARPA)
4 .52 Species are composed of populations or “stocks” 414 . Each stock is
differentiated from others in their genetic composition, phenotypic
characteristics, migration pattern, breeding areas and demographic
parameters . Therefore abundance and bi ological parameters important for 4 .54
resources management should be estim ated on a stock-by-stock basis . The Committee recognized the value of the information on stock structure of
IWC Management Areas in the Antarcti c were defined by catch distribution minke whales in the Antarctic provided by JARPA:
and mark-recapture information of larg e whales other than Antarctic minke
whales . Therefore, it was necessary to investigate the validity of the
boundaries of Areas IV and V for the Antarctic minke whale, including the
number of stocks and the pattern of distribution (geographical and temporal)
415
in these Areas . For this aim, both the gene tic approach based on DNA as
well as the non-genetic approach based on morphometric and ecological
markers were used in JARPA .
4 .53 The identification of stock is important for the estimation of
416
413
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 417
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 418
414(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 [Annex 113] .
415For the term “stock”, see above, fn 399 .
Government of Japan, “The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic”, SC/48/SH3 (1996), pp . 3, 5-6 [Annex 146] .
164 biological parameters (Objective 1 of JARPA) as well as for the process of
4 .51 The 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop considered the calculating catch quotas for commercial whaling under the RMP . This was
data and analyses on pollutants conducted under Objective 3 of JARPA to be recognized in the Report of the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop,
valuable: which stated:
“The Workshop welcomed the presentation of the pollutant
analyses at this Workshop, alt hough there was some disagreement
413
over the implications of the results drawn by the authors .”
5. Stock Structure (for Objective 4 of JARPA)
4 .52 Species are composed of populations or “stocks” 414 . Each stock is
differentiated from others in their genetic composition, phenotypic
characteristics, migration pattern, breeding areas and demographic
parameters . Therefore abundance and bi ological parameters important for 4 .54
resources management should be estim ated on a stock-by-stock basis . The Committee recognized the value of the information on stock structure of
IWC Management Areas in the Antarcti c were defined by catch distribution minke whales in the Antarctic provided by JARPA:
and mark-recapture information of larg e whales other than Antarctic minke
whales . Therefore, it was necessary to investigate the validity of the
boundaries of Areas IV and V for the Antarctic minke whale, including the
number of stocks and the pattern of distribution (geographical and temporal)
415
in these Areas . For this aim, both the gene tic approach based on DNA as
well as the non-genetic approach based on morphometric and ecological
markers were used in JARPA .
4 .53 The identification of stock is important for the estimation of
416
413
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 417
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 418
414(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 [Annex 113] .
415For the term “stock”, see above, fn 399 .
Government of Japan, “The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic”, SC/48/SH3 (1996), pp . 3, 5-6 [Annex 146] . E. Necessity of Lethal Sampling Table 4-1 . Examples of data and samples collected by biological survey on the research
base vessel in JARPA
1. GeneralRemarks
4 .55 Article VIII(1) of the ICRW provides as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contai ned in this Convention, any
Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special
permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales for
purposes of scientific research subj ect to such restrictions as to
number and subject to such othe r conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of
whales in accordance with the provisions of this Artic419shall be
exempt from the operation of this Convention .”
4 .56 Although non-lethal re search was extensively conducted under
JARPA, lethal research techniques were also indispensable for JARPA to
achieve its main objectives . Major resear ch items that can be examined only
by sampling whales are indicated in the following table .
420
419Emphasis added .
166 E. Necessity of Lethal Sampling Table 4-1 . Examples of data and samples collected by biological survey on the research
base vessel in JARPA
1. GeneralRemarks
4 .55 Article VIII(1) of the ICRW provides as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contai ned in this Convention, any
Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special
permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales for
purposes of scientific research subj ect to such restrictions as to
number and subject to such othe r conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of
whales in accordance with the provisions of this Artic419shall be
exempt from the operation of this Convention .”
4 .56 Although non-lethal re search was extensively conducted under
JARPA, lethal research techniques were also indispensable for JARPA to
achieve its main objectives . Major resear ch items that can be examined only
by sampling whales are indicated in the following table .
420
419Emphasis added .4 .57 It is true that, as indicated by the Memorial of Australia, a series of
4 .61
resolutions were adopted in the Co mmission criticizing lethal sampling
JARPA Mid-Term Review WG, which
carried out under JARPA 421 .
challenging the need for lethal methods
4 .58 These resolutions are, however, to be read with caution, for the
following reasons . First, none of these re solutions has declared that lethal
research is prohibited as such under the ICRW . As Monaco clearly stated:
4 .62
“Surely, I do not wish to challe nge, and actually no one has, the
legality of takes under scientific permits .” 422 identification of Antarctic minke whales through photo-identification . It
should be emphasized here that this method is not appropriate for Antarctic
423
4 .59 Secondly, although these resolutions “call[ed] upon” or minke whales because members of this species have no obvious individual
“urge[d]” 424 Japan to adopt exclusively non-lethal methods, none of them body characteristics (unlike the case of
declared that JARPA constituted a violation of any provisions of the ICRW . and because they stay at the sea surface for a very short time (limited
Thirdly, all of these resolutions were adopted by a majority, and a number of opportunity of observation) . Whereas photo-identification re quires that same
Contracting Governments casted negativ e votes, abstained or refused to individual whales be surveyed over the years in order to estimate their ages,
425
participate in the vote . the chances of actually encountering th e same individual minke whales over
the years are very slim, given the very large population of the species
4 .60 Furthermore, in contrast with the opinions expressed by a majority
of political State representatives, th e Scientific Committee, composed of 4 .63
426
scientists , has never declared that lethal methods can be entirely replaced in the 2009 JARPN II review workshop
with non-lethal methods without affecting scientific quality of research.
421 427
422AM, para . 5 .16 .
Verbatim Record (16-19 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 40] . Monaco
423criticized the scale of taking under JARPA. For this question, see below, paras . 4 .84-4 .88 .
E.g. “Resolution on Southern Hemisphere Minke Wh ales and Special Permit Whaling”, Resolution 428
2003-3, <http://iwcoffice .o rg/meetings/resolutions/resolution2003 .htm> accessed 14 February
2012 .
424E.g. “Resolution on JARPA II”, Resolution 2005-1,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2005 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 429
425For voting records, see below, Table 8-1 .
426See above, para . 2 .47 . 430
1684 .57 It is true that, as indicated by the Memorial of Australia, a series of
4 .61
resolutions were adopted in the Co mmission criticizing lethal sampling
JARPA Mid-Term Review WG, which
carried out under JARPA 421 .
challenging the need for lethal methods
4 .58 These resolutions are, however, to be read with caution, for the
following reasons . First, none of these re solutions has declared that lethal
research is prohibited as such under the ICRW . As Monaco clearly stated:
4 .62
“Surely, I do not wish to challe nge, and actually no one has, the
legality of takes under scientific permits .” 422 identification of Antarctic minke whales through photo-identification . It
should be emphasized here that this method is not appropriate for Antarctic
423
4 .59 Secondly, although these resolutions “call[ed] upon” or minke whales because members of this species have no obvious individual
“urge[d]” 424 Japan to adopt exclusively non-lethal methods, none of them body characteristics (unlike the case of
declared that JARPA constituted a violation of any provisions of the ICRW . and because they stay at the sea surface for a very short time (limited
Thirdly, all of these resolutions were adopted by a majority, and a number of opportunity of observation) . Whereas photo-identification re quires that same
Contracting Governments casted negativ e votes, abstained or refused to individual whales be surveyed over the years in order to estimate their ages,
425
participate in the vote . the chances of actually encountering th e same individual minke whales over
the years are very slim, given the very large population of the species
4 .60 Furthermore, in contrast with the opinions expressed by a majority
of political State representatives, th e Scientific Committee, composed of 4 .63
426
scientists , has never declared that lethal methods can be entirely replaced in the 2009 JARPN II review workshop
with non-lethal methods without affecting scientific quality of research.
421 427
422AM, para . 5 .16 .
Verbatim Record (16-19 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 40] . Monaco
423criticized the scale of taking under JARPA. For this question, see below, paras . 4 .84-4 .88 .
E.g. “Resolution on Southern Hemisphere Minke Wh ales and Special Permit Whaling”, Resolution 428
2003-3, <http://iwcoffice .o rg/meetings/resolutions/resolution2003 .htm> accessed 14 February
2012 .
424E.g. “Resolution on JARPA II”, Resolution 2005-1,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2005 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 429
425For voting records, see below, Table 8-1 .
426See above, para . 2 .47 . 4304 .64 Even a “strong advocate of non-lethal methods” acknowledged that Because of its internal nature, the only way to access the earplugs is by lethal
“some lethal research might be nece ssary from a strictly scientific sampling .
431
standpoint” . William Evans, an ex-US Co mmissioner to the IWC and
cetacean scientist, is reported to have stated as follows: Photo 1 . Earplug analysis (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
“There are certain kinds of data that we can get remotely through
observation and tagging and other kinds of non-invasive
methodology (…) . But … you have really got to use more invasive
techniques in order to get certain answers you’re looking for.” 432
4 .65 The reasons for which lethal methods were required in JARPA are
explained below in more detail in relation to each research item . The
following paragraphs show how unfounde d is Australia’s allegation that
“Japan provides no cogent scientific reasoning to demonstrate that lethal
433
methods are in fact required” . 4 .67
been investigated, i .e ., genetic analysis of telomere (a region of repetitive
2. AgeComposition
DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome)
4 .66 Individual age is obtained by counting growth layers in the earplug
obtained through biopsies
which are formed in the external auditory meatus of baleen whales (i .e ., by
non-lethal technique to age whales. However, this technique is far from
434
earplug reading) . The earplug has proved to be a valid and useful tool for being a practical and useful approach . Within species, telomere lengths and
435
age determination , and it is the only method pr oviding age data accurate
their rate of shortening vary among
enough (i .e . to determine age at the annual scale) for population-level
also by age
analyses in Antarctic minke whales (e .g . VPA: virtual population analysis) 436 .
stage, because this method has critical problems with reproducibility, even
431
Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007),
<http://newsvote .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/817116 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012
432[Annex 207] .
433Ibid. (emphasis added .)
AM, para . 5 .65 .
434R .M . Laws and P .E . Purves, “The earplug of the Mysticeti as an indicator of age with special
reference to the north Atlantic fin whales” (1972) Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende 413, p . 414 . 437
435C . Lockyer, “Age Determination by Means of th e Earplug in Baleen Whales”, Annex F, Report of 438
the Minke Whale Ageing Workshop, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34, 1984, p . 696 [Annex 79] . 439
436Catch-at-age data derived from JARPA (based on earplug reading) is utilized in VPA for the
1704 .64 Even a “strong advocate of non-lethal methods” acknowledged that Because of its internal nature, the only way to access the earplugs is by lethal
“some lethal research might be nece ssary from a strictly scientific sampling .
431
standpoint” . William Evans, an ex-US Co mmissioner to the IWC and
cetacean scientist, is reported to have stated as follows: Photo 1 . Earplug analysis (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
“There are certain kinds of data that we can get remotely through
observation and tagging and other kinds of non-invasive
methodology (…) . But … you have really got to use more invasive
techniques in order to get certain answers you’re looking for.” 432
4 .65 The reasons for which lethal methods were required in JARPA are
explained below in more detail in relation to each research item . The
following paragraphs show how unfounde d is Australia’s allegation that
“Japan provides no cogent scientific reasoning to demonstrate that lethal
433
methods are in fact required” . 4 .67
been investigated, i .e ., genetic analysis of telomere (a region of repetitive
2. AgeComposition
DNA sequences at the end of a chromosome)
4 .66 Individual age is obtained by counting growth layers in the earplug
obtained through biopsies
which are formed in the external auditory meatus of baleen whales (i .e ., by
non-lethal technique to age whales. However, this technique is far from
434
earplug reading) . The earplug has proved to be a valid and useful tool for being a practical and useful approach . Within species, telomere lengths and
435
age determination , and it is the only method pr oviding age data accurate
their rate of shortening vary among
enough (i .e . to determine age at the annual scale) for population-level
also by age
analyses in Antarctic minke whales (e .g . VPA: virtual population analysis) 436 .
stage, because this method has critical problems with reproducibility, even
431
Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007),
<http://newsvote .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/817116 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012
432[Annex 207] .
433Ibid. (emphasis added .)
AM, para . 5 .65 .
434R .M . Laws and P .E . Purves, “The earplug of the Mysticeti as an indicator of age with special
reference to the north Atlantic fin whales” (1972) Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidende 413, p . 414 . 437
435C . Lockyer, “Age Determination by Means of th e Earplug in Baleen Whales”, Annex F, Report of 438
the Minke Whale Ageing Workshop, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34, 1984, p . 696 [Annex 79] . 439
436Catch-at-age data derived from JARPA (based on earplug reading) is utilized in VPA for the 440
within samples from the same individuals . identification . However, as noted above
appropriate technique for Antarctic minke whales . An attempt was made to
4 .68 It is often alleged, on the basis of experience of past commercial assess the reproductive status of right whales using faecal hormone
whaling, that a large number of earplugs are damaged and not readable 441 . In metabolites
JARPA (and also JARPA II), harpoons are launched so that earplugs are not faecal oestrogens and progestins than j uvenile females, the differences were
destroyed, and earplugs are removed by experienced experts . The result of not significant
442
this is that in JARPA 85% of the sampled earplugs were readable . Antarctic minke whales is low . Theref ore, this method is not feasible for
whales .
3. ReproductiveParameters
4 .69 Sexual maturity and reproductive status can be determined by the 4.
observation of ovaries and testes in fe male and male whales respectively . 4 .71
Physical maturity can be investigated by examining dorsal vertebrae of the consumption rates in whales is through the examination of their stomach
whale . Based on this information, the sexual composition of the population contents, and this requires lethal sampling . Analysis of prey remains obtained
can be estimated, e .g . percentage of sexual/physical mature females and from stomachs has been the main method for investigating diet composition
males, immature females and males, pregnant females among mature and consumption rates in whales
females (pregnancy rates) . Pregnancy is investigated by verifying the
presence of a foetus, and the reproduc tive cycle through the pregnancy or 4 .72
ovulation rate . Because of the internal nature of these organs the only way to investigating the diet of marine vertebrate predators, e .g ., molecular analysis
443
collect them is through lethal sampling . of faeces
444
4 .70 Some information, such as information on the reproductive cycle, 445
could potentially be obta ined through long-term monitoring via individual
446
440Carina Dennis, “Conservation at a distance: a gently way to age” (2006) Nature 442, p . 508 . 447
441AM, para . 5 .70 .
442Ryoko Zenitani, “Long-term trend of age at sexual maturity in Antarctic minke whales” (Dphil of
Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of Mari ne Science and Technology 2011), p . 25, Table 7
and Table 8 (based on Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPA between 1987/88 and 2004/05) 448
[Annex 204] .
443S . Ohsumi, S .Tanaka, and H . Kato , “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic 449
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 2, 19, presented to the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and
Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .
172 440
within samples from the same individuals . identification . However, as noted above
appropriate technique for Antarctic minke whales . An attempt was made to
4 .68 It is often alleged, on the basis of experience of past commercial assess the reproductive status of right whales using faecal hormone
whaling, that a large number of earplugs are damaged and not readable 441 . In metabolites
JARPA (and also JARPA II), harpoons are launched so that earplugs are not faecal oestrogens and progestins than j uvenile females, the differences were
destroyed, and earplugs are removed by experienced experts . The result of not significant
442
this is that in JARPA 85% of the sampled earplugs were readable . Antarctic minke whales is low . Theref ore, this method is not feasible for
whales .
3. ReproductiveParameters
4 .69 Sexual maturity and reproductive status can be determined by the 4.
observation of ovaries and testes in fe male and male whales respectively . 4 .71
Physical maturity can be investigated by examining dorsal vertebrae of the consumption rates in whales is through the examination of their stomach
whale . Based on this information, the sexual composition of the population contents, and this requires lethal sampling . Analysis of prey remains obtained
can be estimated, e .g . percentage of sexual/physical mature females and from stomachs has been the main method for investigating diet composition
males, immature females and males, pregnant females among mature and consumption rates in whales
females (pregnancy rates) . Pregnancy is investigated by verifying the
presence of a foetus, and the reproduc tive cycle through the pregnancy or 4 .72
ovulation rate . Because of the internal nature of these organs the only way to investigating the diet of marine vertebrate predators, e .g ., molecular analysis
443
collect them is through lethal sampling . of faeces
444
4 .70 Some information, such as information on the reproductive cycle, 445
could potentially be obta ined through long-term monitoring via individual
446
440Carina Dennis, “Conservation at a distance: a gently way to age” (2006) Nature 442, p . 508 . 447
441AM, para . 5 .70 .
442Ryoko Zenitani, “Long-term trend of age at sexual maturity in Antarctic minke whales” (Dphil of
Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of Mari ne Science and Technology 2011), p . 25, Table 7
and Table 8 (based on Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPA between 1987/88 and 2004/05) 448
[Annex 204] .
443S . Ohsumi, S .Tanaka, and H . Kato , “A review of the studies on estimation of biological parameters
conducted under the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic 449
(JARPA)”, SC/M97/2, p . 2, 19, presented to the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and
Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (May 1997) .them provides quantitative information on stomach contents, which is 4 .75
important for evaluating the impact of a whale’s prey consumption on the whales requires the sampling of biopsies, biopsy sampling is not practicable
451
ecosystem. Non-lethal allometric techniques can only produce rough and in offshore areas, let alone in the
indirect estimates of food consumption, which are not reliable enough for use available technologies
as input data in ecosystem models, because the relationship between body ongoing JARPN II Programme, which was held in 2009 to review data and
length and food intake may fluctuate de pending on various environmental or results from the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
other conditions . It should be also noted that the accuracy of shipboard the North Pacific – Phase II in its first six years (2002-2007), explains its
452
estimates of whale body lengths of whales in the sea is low and that adds impracticability as follows:
uncertainty to estimated values by this method .
4 .73 As for the molecular analysis of faeces, the sampling efficiency of
faeces of Antarctic minke whales and the accuracy of prey species
identification through this method is far from reliable given the following
problems: a) the probability of encounters with the faeces of Antarctic minke
whale is so low that it is practically impossible to collect a sufficient amount
for scientific analysis; b) total amount of prey consumption and feeding time
cannot be estimated from studies of f aeces samples; c) it is impossible to
estimate the mixing proportion if more than two prey species are detected in
4 .76
faeces; and d) there is a risk of detecting the prey species consumed by the
methods as regards the research on diet composition and consumption rates
prey species eaten by the whales .
is that none of them gives quantitative information on diet, which is essential
4 .74 Regarding the analysis of carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios, the
453
most critical problem is that, as in th e case of faeces analysis, this technique
cannot provide quantitative information of the prey consumed. 454
450
See AM, para . 5 .68; Seth D . Newsom e, Mark T . Clementz and Paul L . Koch “Using stable isotope
biochemistry to study marine mammal ecology” (2010) 26 Marine Mammal Science, p . 510 .
451AM, para . 5 .67 .
452See below, para . 4 .78 . 455
174them provides quantitative information on stomach contents, which is 4 .75
important for evaluating the impact of a whale’s prey consumption on the whales requires the sampling of biopsies, biopsy sampling is not practicable
451
ecosystem. Non-lethal allometric techniques can only produce rough and in offshore areas, let alone in the
indirect estimates of food consumption, which are not reliable enough for use available technologies
as input data in ecosystem models, because the relationship between body ongoing JARPN II Programme, which was held in 2009 to review data and
length and food intake may fluctuate de pending on various environmental or results from the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
other conditions . It should be also noted that the accuracy of shipboard the North Pacific – Phase II in its first six years (2002-2007), explains its
452
estimates of whale body lengths of whales in the sea is low and that adds impracticability as follows:
uncertainty to estimated values by this method .
4 .73 As for the molecular analysis of faeces, the sampling efficiency of
faeces of Antarctic minke whales and the accuracy of prey species
identification through this method is far from reliable given the following
problems: a) the probability of encounters with the faeces of Antarctic minke
whale is so low that it is practically impossible to collect a sufficient amount
for scientific analysis; b) total amount of prey consumption and feeding time
cannot be estimated from studies of f aeces samples; c) it is impossible to
estimate the mixing proportion if more than two prey species are detected in
4 .76
faeces; and d) there is a risk of detecting the prey species consumed by the
methods as regards the research on diet composition and consumption rates
prey species eaten by the whales .
is that none of them gives quantitative information on diet, which is essential
4 .74 Regarding the analysis of carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios, the
453
most critical problem is that, as in th e case of faeces analysis, this technique
cannot provide quantitative information of the prey consumed. 454
450
See AM, para . 5 .68; Seth D . Newsom e, Mark T . Clementz and Paul L . Koch “Using stable isotope
biochemistry to study marine mammal ecology” (2010) 26 Marine Mammal Science, p . 510 .
451AM, para . 5 .67 .
452See below, para . 4 .78 . 455for such research . As the Report of the 2009 Expert Workshop on JARPN II and age requires lethal sampling. In addition, the accurate measure of the
states; body length of the whal
Furthermore, analyses of pollutants are conducted on prey species found in
“The primary rationale for stomach sampling, which requires
killing the animal, is the qualitative and quantitative information the stomach of the whales
on prey composition (e .g . species, age) and stomach fullness that it
provides, all of which are valuable when studying consumption
Photo 2: Analysis of mercury contained in muscle (source: Institute of Cetacean
and functional relationships betw een marine mammals and their Research) .
prey .… The Panel recognises that at present, certain data, primarily
456
stomach content data, are only available via lethal sampling .”
457
4 .77 As noted earlier , an indicator of environmental change (e .g . food
availability) is the examination of the blubber thickness of the whales .
Blubber works as energy storage, a nd blubber thickness is a good indicator
of nutritional conditions 458 . Because of its internal nature measurements of
blubber thickness require lethal sampling .
4 .79
5. Pollutants
skin or blubber obtained by biopsy samp ling . The impracticability of biopsy
4 .78 Analysis of pollutants in JARPA was based on internal tissues such
sampling on the Antarctic minke whale has, however, been explained
as liver, kidney, muscle and blubber samples obtained from the whales, above
which require the lethal sampling. The analysis of polluta nts needs to be
on JARPN II, pollutant analysis by bi opsy sampling “would not be possible
carried out taking into account the sex, reproductive status, body length and
for all contaminants”
age of the animals 459 . As explained above, information on reproductive status
460
456
“Report of the Expert Workshop to Review the Ongoing JARPN II Programme”, pp . 24, 26,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SC61docs/SC-61-Rep1 .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
457See above, para . 4 .48 .
458Christina H . Lockyer, L .C . McConnell, and T .D . Waters, “Body c ondition in terms of anatomical 461
and biochemical assessment of body fat in North Atlantic fin and sei whales” (1985) 6Can. J.
Zool, pp . 2335-2336; Anders Næss, Tore Haug and Einar M . Nilssen, “Seasonal variation in body
condition and muscular lipid contents in Northeast Atlantic minke whale Balaenoptera 462
459acutorostrata”, (1998) 83 Sarsia, pp . 216-217 . 463
Sayaka Aono, Shinsuke Tanabe, Yoshihiro Fujise , Hidehiro Kato, and Ryo Tatsukawa, “Persistent
organochlorines in minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) and their prey species from the
Antarctic and the North Pacific” (1998) 98 Environmental Pollution, pp . 85-87 .
176for such research . As the Report of the 2009 Expert Workshop on JARPN II and age requires lethal sampling. In addition, the accurate measure of the
states; body length of the whal
Furthermore, analyses of pollutants are conducted on prey species found in
“The primary rationale for stomach sampling, which requires
killing the animal, is the qualitative and quantitative information the stomach of the whales
on prey composition (e .g . species, age) and stomach fullness that it
provides, all of which are valuable when studying consumption
Photo 2: Analysis of mercury contained in muscle (source: Institute of Cetacean
and functional relationships betw een marine mammals and their Research) .
prey .… The Panel recognises that at present, certain data, primarily
456
stomach content data, are only available via lethal sampling .”
457
4 .77 As noted earlier , an indicator of environmental change (e .g . food
availability) is the examination of the blubber thickness of the whales .
Blubber works as energy storage, a nd blubber thickness is a good indicator
of nutritional conditions 458 . Because of its internal nature measurements of
blubber thickness require lethal sampling .
4 .79
5. Pollutants
skin or blubber obtained by biopsy samp ling . The impracticability of biopsy
4 .78 Analysis of pollutants in JARPA was based on internal tissues such
sampling on the Antarctic minke whale has, however, been explained
as liver, kidney, muscle and blubber samples obtained from the whales, above
which require the lethal sampling. The analysis of polluta nts needs to be
on JARPN II, pollutant analysis by bi opsy sampling “would not be possible
carried out taking into account the sex, reproductive status, body length and
for all contaminants”
age of the animals 459 . As explained above, information on reproductive status
460
456
“Report of the Expert Workshop to Review the Ongoing JARPN II Programme”, pp . 24, 26,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SC61docs/SC-61-Rep1 .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
457See above, para . 4 .48 .
458Christina H . Lockyer, L .C . McConnell, and T .D . Waters, “Body c ondition in terms of anatomical 461
and biochemical assessment of body fat in North Atlantic fin and sei whales” (1985) 6Can. J.
Zool, pp . 2335-2336; Anders Næss, Tore Haug and Einar M . Nilssen, “Seasonal variation in body
condition and muscular lipid contents in Northeast Atlantic minke whale Balaenoptera 462
459acutorostrata”, (1998) 83 Sarsia, pp . 216-217 . 463
Sayaka Aono, Shinsuke Tanabe, Yoshihiro Fujise , Hidehiro Kato, and Ryo Tatsukawa, “Persistent
organochlorines in minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ) and their prey species from the
Antarctic and the North Pacific” (1998) 98 Environmental Pollution, pp . 85-87 . and non-genetic techniques combined
4 .80 The Memorial of Australia conte nds that “[t]he efficacy of but sometimes cannot provide the required information on stock structure .
[non-lethal] techniques [to analyse the levels of pollutants] is demonstrated For example, if there are two stocks and these stocks have diverged only
by the major collaborative research initiative sponsored by the IWC, recently, the genetic analysis might not discriminate between them . In such
464
‘POLLUTION 2000+’” . However, the insufficiency of non-lethal cases, non-genetic approaches such as ecological markers could be more
techniques in this respect was pointed out by Mexico, which stated in the informative .
2009 IWC meeting that:
4 .83
“In view of the work being done in JARPN II on chemical
objectives of JARPA . If “Japan did not withdraw the programme or revise it
contaminants and noting that there is some evidence of a
relationship between chemical contamination and cetacean health, to use non-lethal means”
Mexico hoped that Japan c 465 ould become involved with thus far
POLLUTION 2000+ .”
466
4 .81 As indicated above , JARPN II uses lethal methods for pollutants
analyses .
1.
6. StockStructure 4 .84
4 .82 Stock structure study under JARPA was conducted by using both Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the
genetic and non-genetic methods . Th e non-genetic method involves Antarctic, submitted by the Government of Japan in March 1987, stated that
reference to morphometric characteristi cs and ecological markers (pollutant 825 minke whales and not more than 50 sperm whales would be sampled
level, parasite load, etc.), which require the lethal approach . Genetic analysis The sample size of minke whales was cal culated so that age-specific natural
can be carried out using biopsy sample s . However, the impracticability of mortality rates would be estimated afte r 8 years, taking in to account the fact
biopsy sampling in the Antarctic minke whale has already been explained that 0 .086 was the value for the natural mo rtality rate for the species used by
above . As noted by the Scientific Co mmittee in several whale assessments, 467
the best approach to elucidating stock structure is the use of several genetic
468
4642012 . 469
465AM, para . 5 .68 . 470
Chair’s Report of the 61st Annual Meeting, p . 33,
466<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/chair2009 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
See above, para . 4 .79 .
178 and non-genetic techniques combined
4 .80 The Memorial of Australia conte nds that “[t]he efficacy of but sometimes cannot provide the required information on stock structure .
[non-lethal] techniques [to analyse the levels of pollutants] is demonstrated For example, if there are two stocks and these stocks have diverged only
by the major collaborative research initiative sponsored by the IWC, recently, the genetic analysis might not discriminate between them . In such
464
‘POLLUTION 2000+’” . However, the insufficiency of non-lethal cases, non-genetic approaches such as ecological markers could be more
techniques in this respect was pointed out by Mexico, which stated in the informative .
2009 IWC meeting that:
4 .83
“In view of the work being done in JARPN II on chemical
objectives of JARPA . If “Japan did not withdraw the programme or revise it
contaminants and noting that there is some evidence of a
relationship between chemical contamination and cetacean health, to use non-lethal means”
Mexico hoped that Japan c 465 ould become involved with thus far
POLLUTION 2000+ .”
466
4 .81 As indicated above , JARPN II uses lethal methods for pollutants
analyses .
1.
6. StockStructure 4 .84
4 .82 Stock structure study under JARPA was conducted by using both Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the
genetic and non-genetic methods . Th e non-genetic method involves Antarctic, submitted by the Government of Japan in March 1987, stated that
reference to morphometric characteristi cs and ecological markers (pollutant 825 minke whales and not more than 50 sperm whales would be sampled
level, parasite load, etc.), which require the lethal approach . Genetic analysis The sample size of minke whales was cal culated so that age-specific natural
can be carried out using biopsy sample s . However, the impracticability of mortality rates would be estimated afte r 8 years, taking in to account the fact
biopsy sampling in the Antarctic minke whale has already been explained that 0 .086 was the value for the natural mo rtality rate for the species used by
above . As noted by the Scientific Co mmittee in several whale assessments, 467
the best approach to elucidating stock structure is the use of several genetic
468
4642012 . 469
465AM, para . 5 .68 . 470
Chair’s Report of the 61st Annual Meeting, p . 33,
466<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/chair2009 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
See above, para . 4 .79 .the Scientific Committee at that time 471 . seasons respectively
4 .85 After the original plan of JARPA was discussed at the 1987 annual 4 .87
meeting of the Scientific Committee, Japan, responding to comments offered
Season 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/911991/921992/93
at the meeting, submitted a research plan for a f easibility study on the Sample
number
JARPA programme, in which sperm whales were removed from the target (minke
whales)
species of lethal sampling .
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000
4 .86 During the research for the feasibility study in the 1987/89 and
1989/90 seasons, research take was conducted with a maximum sample size
of 300 minke whales (and no sperm whale) 472 . After the completion of the
feasibility study, the sample size of minke whales remained at 300 (with 10%
473
allowance) due to logistical reasons (research vessels etc .) until the 4 .88
1994/95 season . In order to secure the expected accuracy of natural mortality
considers that the sample size adopt
rates estimates with that sample size, the period for the full-scale research
appropriate:
474
was extended to 12-16 years , which was eventually confirmed later as 16
475
years . The sample size of minke whales was increased to 400 (with 10%
allowance) in response to the research area expansion to include Area III
East and Area VI West, which were introduced in the 1995/96 and 1996/97
471Ibid., pp . 9, 12 .
472Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem
in the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987), p . 10 [Annex 136] .
473 476
Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemi sphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), p .5
474[Annex 136] . 477
Ibid ., p . 7 . Taking fewer whales necessitates a longe r research period to achieve research purposes .
This explains why “taking far fewer whales than its [original] target in JARPA would not have
affected its purported analyses”, AM, para . 5 .75 .
475“Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit 478
Research on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997”, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 48, 1998, p . 378 [Annex 95] .
180the Scientific Committee at that time 471 . seasons respectively
4 .85 After the original plan of JARPA was discussed at the 1987 annual 4 .87
meeting of the Scientific Committee, Japan, responding to comments offered
Season 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/911991/921992/93
at the meeting, submitted a research plan for a f easibility study on the Sample
number
JARPA programme, in which sperm whales were removed from the target (minke
whales)
species of lethal sampling .
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000
4 .86 During the research for the feasibility study in the 1987/89 and
1989/90 seasons, research take was conducted with a maximum sample size
of 300 minke whales (and no sperm whale) 472 . After the completion of the
feasibility study, the sample size of minke whales remained at 300 (with 10%
473
allowance) due to logistical reasons (research vessels etc .) until the 4 .88
1994/95 season . In order to secure the expected accuracy of natural mortality
considers that the sample size adopt
rates estimates with that sample size, the period for the full-scale research
appropriate:
474
was extended to 12-16 years , which was eventually confirmed later as 16
475
years . The sample size of minke whales was increased to 400 (with 10%
allowance) in response to the research area expansion to include Area III
East and Area VI West, which were introduced in the 1995/96 and 1996/97
471Ibid., pp . 9, 12 .
472Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem
in the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987), p . 10 [Annex 136] .
473 476
Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction with Note for ‘The
Program for the Research on the Southern Hemi sphere Minke Whale and for the Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989), p .5
474[Annex 136] . 477
Ibid ., p . 7 . Taking fewer whales necessitates a longe r research period to achieve research purposes .
This explains why “taking far fewer whales than its [original] target in JARPA would not have
affected its purported analyses”, AM, para . 5 .75 .
475“Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit 478
Research on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997”, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 48, 1998, p . 378 [Annex 95] .2. Absence of Harms to the Whale Stocks that might be Caused by
Lethal Methods
4 .89 If a wild animal species or stoc k is endangered, lethal sampling
from that species or stock is in almost all cases inappropriate . However, that
was not the case with JARPA, since the estimated exploitable population size
of Antarctic minke whales was known to be in the hundreds of thousands
when JARPA began 479, and scientific calculation showed that a research take
of several hundreds of minke whales (less than 1% of the population size)
would not harm the status of the stock 480 . The abundance estimates obtained 4 .91
from JARPA indicates that no harm was caused to the whale stocks by the explicit objective of cont
JARPA activities using lethal methods 481 . assessment” by the Scientific Committee, the results were made available
primarily for the assessment and use by the Scientific Committee, rather than
for purely academic examination by the general community . JARPA’s most
Section 3. Research Output
important output is therefore not in the form of articles published in academic
journals but rather the series of scientific documents submitted to the
4 .90 JARPA, which the Memorial of Au stralia describes as an “abject
482 Scientific Committee with a view to
failure” , produced significant results vis-à-vis its objectives designed to
assessment” and “review” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule .
contribute to the “review” and the “co mprehensive assessment” envisaged in
Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, a nd the outcomes were made publicly
available so that the Commission could make the best use of the information .
A tremendous volume of data, together with analyses, was made available in
4 .92
the following ways:
479 procedure for the review of research proposals and of research results from
See above, para . 4 .45 . Antarctic minke whales are listed under Appendix ISee AM,ES (
para . 2 .117) . It is however to be noted that the proposal to transfer Antarctic minke whales from existing and completed permits issu ed under Article VIII of the ICRW
Appendix II to Appendix I was adopted by a majority (29-5-23) despite the CITES Secretariat’s
opposition . Secretariat of the CITES, Proceedings of the Fourth Mee ting of the Conference of the the past, such reviews had been im
Parties (1984), vol . 1, pp . 140-141 [Annex 128]; Secretariat of tProceedings of the
Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (1984), vol . 2, p . 1047 [Annex 129] . meetings or by holding intersessional
480Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 24, 26
[Annex 135] .
481T . Hakamada, K . Matsuoka, and S . Nishiwaki, “An update of Antarctic minke whales abundance 483
estimate based on JARPA data”, SC/D06/J6 (2006), pp . 10-11 [Annex 151] .
482AM, para . 5 .15 .
1822. Absence of Harms to the Whale Stocks that might be Caused by
Lethal Methods
4 .89 If a wild animal species or stoc k is endangered, lethal sampling
from that species or stock is in almost all cases inappropriate . However, that
was not the case with JARPA, since the estimated exploitable population size
of Antarctic minke whales was known to be in the hundreds of thousands
when JARPA began 479, and scientific calculation showed that a research take
of several hundreds of minke whales (less than 1% of the population size)
would not harm the status of the stock 480 . The abundance estimates obtained 4 .91
from JARPA indicates that no harm was caused to the whale stocks by the explicit objective of cont
JARPA activities using lethal methods 481 . assessment” by the Scientific Committee, the results were made available
primarily for the assessment and use by the Scientific Committee, rather than
for purely academic examination by the general community . JARPA’s most
Section 3. Research Output
important output is therefore not in the form of articles published in academic
journals but rather the series of scientific documents submitted to the
4 .90 JARPA, which the Memorial of Au stralia describes as an “abject
482 Scientific Committee with a view to
failure” , produced significant results vis-à-vis its objectives designed to
assessment” and “review” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule .
contribute to the “review” and the “co mprehensive assessment” envisaged in
Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, a nd the outcomes were made publicly
available so that the Commission could make the best use of the information .
A tremendous volume of data, together with analyses, was made available in
4 .92
the following ways:
479 procedure for the review of research proposals and of research results from
See above, para . 4 .45 . Antarctic minke whales are listed under Appendix ISee AM,ES (
para . 2 .117) . It is however to be noted that the proposal to transfer Antarctic minke whales from existing and completed permits issu ed under Article VIII of the ICRW
Appendix II to Appendix I was adopted by a majority (29-5-23) despite the CITES Secretariat’s
opposition . Secretariat of the CITES, Proceedings of the Fourth Mee ting of the Conference of the the past, such reviews had been im
Parties (1984), vol . 1, pp . 140-141 [Annex 128]; Secretariat of tProceedings of the
Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (1984), vol . 2, p . 1047 [Annex 129] . meetings or by holding intersessional
480Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 24, 26
[Annex 135] .
481T . Hakamada, K . Matsuoka, and S . Nishiwaki, “An update of Antarctic minke whales abundance 483
estimate based on JARPA data”, SC/D06/J6 (2006), pp . 10-11 [Annex 151] .
482AM, para . 5 .15 .open to participation by scientists from all Contracting Governments of the submitted to the 2005 and 2006 meetings, are also available for download at
IWC 484 . This past procedure thus applied to JARPA . the website of the Institute of Cetacean Research
4 .93 At the review meetings/workshops of research results, the scientists 1.
representing the State conducting the rese arch present their analyses of the 4 .96
data collected, and the data used for the analysis is also made available to the Mid-term Review WG, was held in Tokyo from 12-16 May 1997
485
scientists from other countries for their own use . The reports of the review meeting resulted from a proposal ma
meetings/workshops are submitted to the Scientific Committee for further Scientific Committee, and it was attende d by some 40 scientists from more
discussion . Review meetings are thus generally recognized as the than 10 countries, including the then Chairman of the Scientific Committee,
comprehensive and authoritative forum for discussion . John Bannister
and Barbuda, Dominica, Japan, Ne
4 .94 As for JARPA, three separate scientific reviews were held: an IWC Lucia, St . Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States
Intersessional Working Group to Revi ew Data and Results from Special not attend .
Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held in May 1997 (1997
IWC JARPA Mid-Term Review WG); a non-IWC JARPA Review Meeting 4 .97
called by the Government of Japan in January 2005 (2005 Japan JARPA the initial objectives of
Review Meeting); and, an IWC Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and question that have since emerged) and to attempt at assessing information
Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held content and potential of the available data”
in December 2006 (2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop) .
4 .98
4 .95 Reports of the three meetings as well as the scientific papers Scientific Committee at its m eeting in September-October 1997
submitted to the 1997 and 2006 IWC meetings can be obtained from the IWC report, the Mid-Tem Review WG closel y examined JARPA at its half-way
Secretariat . Reports of the three mee tings, as well the scientific papers
486
484“Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group”, Annex O2, Report of the 487
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 265-267 [Annex 108] .
485The new data access protocol was adopted in 2003 (“Report of the Data Availability Working
Group”, Annex T, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.6 (Suppl.), 2004 , 488
pp . 406-408 [Annex 99] .) Thus for the 2006 JARPA review workshop data was available to 489
490
interested SC members based on Procedure B of this protocol, and through the Data Availability 491
Group (DAG) . At the 1997 JARPA review workshop data were made avai lable to Scientific 492
Committee scientists through direct “negotiations” with the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) .
184open to participation by scientists from all Contracting Governments of the submitted to the 2005 and 2006 meetings, are also available for download at
IWC 484 . This past procedure thus applied to JARPA . the website of the Institute of Cetacean Research
4 .93 At the review meetings/workshops of research results, the scientists 1.
representing the State conducting the rese arch present their analyses of the 4 .96
data collected, and the data used for the analysis is also made available to the Mid-term Review WG, was held in Tokyo from 12-16 May 1997
485
scientists from other countries for their own use . The reports of the review meeting resulted from a proposal ma
meetings/workshops are submitted to the Scientific Committee for further Scientific Committee, and it was attende d by some 40 scientists from more
discussion . Review meetings are thus generally recognized as the than 10 countries, including the then Chairman of the Scientific Committee,
comprehensive and authoritative forum for discussion . John Bannister
and Barbuda, Dominica, Japan, Ne
4 .94 As for JARPA, three separate scientific reviews were held: an IWC Lucia, St . Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States
Intersessional Working Group to Revi ew Data and Results from Special not attend .
Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held in May 1997 (1997
IWC JARPA Mid-Term Review WG); a non-IWC JARPA Review Meeting 4 .97
called by the Government of Japan in January 2005 (2005 Japan JARPA the initial objectives of
Review Meeting); and, an IWC Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and question that have since emerged) and to attempt at assessing information
Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic held content and potential of the available data”
in December 2006 (2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop) .
4 .98
4 .95 Reports of the three meetings as well as the scientific papers Scientific Committee at its m eeting in September-October 1997
submitted to the 1997 and 2006 IWC meetings can be obtained from the IWC report, the Mid-Tem Review WG closel y examined JARPA at its half-way
Secretariat . Reports of the three mee tings, as well the scientific papers
486
484“Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group”, Annex O2, Report of the 487
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 265-267 [Annex 108] .
485The new data access protocol was adopted in 2003 (“Report of the Data Availability Working
Group”, Annex T, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.6 (Suppl.), 2004 , 488
pp . 406-408 [Annex 99] .) Thus for the 2006 JARPA review workshop data was available to 489
490
interested SC members based on Procedure B of this protocol, and through the Data Availability 491
Group (DAG) . At the 1997 JARPA review workshop data were made avai lable to Scientific 492
Committee scientists through direct “negotiations” with the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) .point . Its prudent and positive evaluations of JARPA will be mentioned JARPA”
below 493 . Committee were invited and that more than 40 participants from eight
countries, including Japan, as well as an observer representing the Scientific
2. The 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting Committee, the then Vice-chair Arne Bjørge, participated
4 .99 The IWC waited until 2006 to hold the final review workshop minutely examined JARPA and made
because it wanted to wait for the completion of the analysis of all of the data mentioned below
collected by JARPA 494 . On the other hand, in order to ensure the continuity
of data, JARPA II needed to commence seamlessly after the completion of 3.
JARPA . In view of the circumstances, the Government of Japan decided to 4 .102
495
host a review meeting before the commencement of JARPA II . The 2005 was held on 4-8 December 2006, in Tokyo, as the Scientific Committee had
Japan JARPA Review Meeting was held on 18-20 January 2005 . agreed in 2004 . The results of the me eting were recorded in its report
the report was submitted to the meeti ng of the Scientific Committee in 2007
4 .100 The Terms of Reference of the meeting were to review available at the 59th IWC Annual Meeting held in Anchorage, United States of Ameria
data and results from 17 years of JA RPA research (data from the final 18th as SC/59/Rep1 .
year were not yet available at the time of the meeting) in light of the
programme objectives, and to identify fu ture research needs on the basis of 4 .103
this review 496 . Japan had proposed the m eeting so that relevant 10 countries, including representatives of the IWC, su ch as Arne Bjørge, the
recommendations could be incorporated into the JARPA II research proposal then Chairman of the Scientific Committee, and Greg Donovan of the IWC
that was to be submitted for cons ideration at the 2005 meeting of the Secretariat . The countries represente d were Australia, Germany, Grenada,
Scientific Committee . Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, St . Lucia, and the
United States
4 .101 The Memorial of Australia contends that the Meeting “lacked the
independence that is integral to peer review” because “[of] the 39 participants
497
in the ‘review’, 31 were from Japan and most were directly engaged in
498
493See below, paras . 4 .116-4 .165 .
494“Report of the Scientific Committee”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.),2005 , p . 45 [Annex 499
103] . 500
495Ibid ., pp . 45-46 .
496“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 , p . 47 [Annex
501
106] .
186point . Its prudent and positive evaluations of JARPA will be mentioned JARPA”
below 493 . Committee were invited and that more than 40 participants from eight
countries, including Japan, as well as an observer representing the Scientific
2. The 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting Committee, the then Vice-chair Arne Bjørge, participated
4 .99 The IWC waited until 2006 to hold the final review workshop minutely examined JARPA and made
because it wanted to wait for the completion of the analysis of all of the data mentioned below
collected by JARPA 494 . On the other hand, in order to ensure the continuity
of data, JARPA II needed to commence seamlessly after the completion of 3.
JARPA . In view of the circumstances, the Government of Japan decided to 4 .102
495
host a review meeting before the commencement of JARPA II . The 2005 was held on 4-8 December 2006, in Tokyo, as the Scientific Committee had
Japan JARPA Review Meeting was held on 18-20 January 2005 . agreed in 2004 . The results of the me eting were recorded in its report
the report was submitted to the meeti ng of the Scientific Committee in 2007
4 .100 The Terms of Reference of the meeting were to review available at the 59th IWC Annual Meeting held in Anchorage, United States of Ameria
data and results from 17 years of JA RPA research (data from the final 18th as SC/59/Rep1 .
year were not yet available at the time of the meeting) in light of the
programme objectives, and to identify fu ture research needs on the basis of 4 .103
this review 496 . Japan had proposed the m eeting so that relevant 10 countries, including representatives of the IWC, su ch as Arne Bjørge, the
recommendations could be incorporated into the JARPA II research proposal then Chairman of the Scientific Committee, and Greg Donovan of the IWC
that was to be submitted for cons ideration at the 2005 meeting of the Secretariat . The countries represente d were Australia, Germany, Grenada,
Scientific Committee . Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, St . Lucia, and the
United States
4 .101 The Memorial of Australia contends that the Meeting “lacked the
independence that is integral to peer review” because “[of] the 39 participants
497
in the ‘review’, 31 were from Japan and most were directly engaged in
498
493See below, paras . 4 .116-4 .165 .
494“Report of the Scientific Committee”J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.),2005 , p . 45 [Annex 499
103] . 500
495Ibid ., pp . 45-46 .
496“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 , p . 47 [Annex
501
106] .4 .104 The objectives of the meeting were to evaluate: 4 .108
two-week meeting annually with scientists from IWC member countries as
(a) how well the initial and revised objectives of the research have
been met; well as invited experts . In 2011, for example, the annual meeting of the
(b) other contributions to important research needs; Scientific Committee had 113 particip
(c) the relationship of the research to relevant IWC resolutions and
discussion, including those dea ling with the Antarctic marine Contracting Governments, 42 experts as invited scientists, seven experts as
ecosystem, environmental changes and their impact on cetaceans observers from other international bodies (e .g . IUCN), and 15 local
and Committee reviews of special permit research; and
scientists
(d) the utility of the le502l techniques used by JARPA compared to
non-lethal techniques . discussions on submitted documents, and the authors are required to respond
to questions and criticisms from participants. Scientific Committee
4 .105 The report 503 and its positive evaluations of JARPA will be
discussions of submitted documents are recorded and published in the reports
mentioned below 504 .
of Scientific Committee meetings . This is nothing but a peer review process .
B. Documents Submitted to the Scientific Committee
4 .109
Committee is an effective and efficient way for Japan and scientists involved
4 .106 As required by Article VIII (3), a summary of research procedures in JARPA/JARPAII to receive feedback and suggestions from experts with a
and preliminary results from each year’s research cruise has been presented to variety of expertise in a timely manne
505
the Scientific Committee . delays in having papers published in peer reviewed journals . This has led to
195 documents related to JARPA/JARP A II being presented to annual and
4 .107 It must also be noted that the submission of documents to the intersessional meetings of the Scientific Committee and other meetings .
Scientific Committee is a transparent pr ocess that exposes analyses in the
documents to examination and critici sms by worldwide ex perts including 4 .110
scientists designated by anti-whaling countries and independent experts from Committee, which have been helpful to improve JARPA/JARPA II research .
the scientific community .
A summary of recommendations and suggestions from the 2006 IWC JARPA
Final Review Workshop, and the status of such recommendations are shown
in Appendix 3 of Annex O of the re port of the Scientific Committee 2007
502Ibid., p . 411 .
503Ibid., pp . 411-445 .
504See below, para . 4 .161 . 506
505They are made public and available for download at the website of the Institute of Cetacean
Research, <http://www .icrwhale .org/CruiseReportJARPA .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 507
1884 .104 The objectives of the meeting were to evaluate: 4 .108
two-week meeting annually with scientists from IWC member countries as
(a) how well the initial and revised objectives of the research have
been met; well as invited experts . In 2011, for example, the annual meeting of the
(b) other contributions to important research needs; Scientific Committee had 113 particip
(c) the relationship of the research to relevant IWC resolutions and
discussion, including those dea ling with the Antarctic marine Contracting Governments, 42 experts as invited scientists, seven experts as
ecosystem, environmental changes and their impact on cetaceans observers from other international bodies (e .g . IUCN), and 15 local
and Committee reviews of special permit research; and
scientists
(d) the utility of the le502l techniques used by JARPA compared to
non-lethal techniques . discussions on submitted documents, and the authors are required to respond
to questions and criticisms from participants. Scientific Committee
4 .105 The report 503 and its positive evaluations of JARPA will be
discussions of submitted documents are recorded and published in the reports
mentioned below 504 .
of Scientific Committee meetings . This is nothing but a peer review process .
B. Documents Submitted to the Scientific Committee
4 .109
Committee is an effective and efficient way for Japan and scientists involved
4 .106 As required by Article VIII (3), a summary of research procedures in JARPA/JARPAII to receive feedback and suggestions from experts with a
and preliminary results from each year’s research cruise has been presented to variety of expertise in a timely manne
505
the Scientific Committee . delays in having papers published in peer reviewed journals . This has led to
195 documents related to JARPA/JARP A II being presented to annual and
4 .107 It must also be noted that the submission of documents to the intersessional meetings of the Scientific Committee and other meetings .
Scientific Committee is a transparent pr ocess that exposes analyses in the
documents to examination and critici sms by worldwide ex perts including 4 .110
scientists designated by anti-whaling countries and independent experts from Committee, which have been helpful to improve JARPA/JARPA II research .
the scientific community .
A summary of recommendations and suggestions from the 2006 IWC JARPA
Final Review Workshop, and the status of such recommendations are shown
in Appendix 3 of Annex O of the re port of the Scientific Committee 2007
502Ibid., p . 411 .
503Ibid., pp . 411-445 .
504See below, para . 4 .161 . 506
505They are made public and available for download at the website of the Institute of Cetacean
Research, <http://www .icrwhale .org/CruiseReportJARPA .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 507The Appendix indicates that Japanese scientists have addressed or are
addressing most of the recommendations offered . For example, all the 4 .113
recommendations offered on abundance estimates of Antarctic minke and a document that includes a list of pape
humpback whales (13) were addressed; and as a result, a paper including the JARPA/JARPA II from 1988 through to 2009
new analyses on humpback whale was accepted for publication in a peer total of 195 documents were presented to annual an d intersessional meetings
reviewed journal 508 . of the Scientific Committee and other meetings (with an annual average of
8 .9 documents/year); 2)
4 .111 In 2008, the Scientific Commi ttee recommended that the peer-reviewed journals (with an annual average of 4 .9 pape rs/year); and 3) a
comparability of commercial and JARP A age data be investigated by total of 199 oral presentations were made at scientific symposia (with an
re-reading a sub-set of the commercial samples in an appropriate designed annual average of 9 .1 presentations/year), in the period 1988-2009
blind test 509 . Such a test was conducted and the Scientific Committee agreed then, there have been additions to each of these categories
that the work was completed successfully and that no more tests were
510
necessary . This clearly demonstrates that the submission of documents to 4 .114
the Scientific Committee is an effective peer review process and an efficient results” as regards JARPA (and JARPA II)
means by which to communicate scientific outputs . needs to be compared with the assessment collectively made by the Scientific
Committee in the Report of the 2006 IWC JAPRA Final Review Workshop:
C. Publication in Peer-reviewed Journals
4 .112 Results of JARPA have been published and presented on many
occasions in several different forms, including documents submitted to the
Scientific Committee; papers published in peer-reviewed journals; and oral 511
presentations at scientific workshops/symposia etc . 512
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008 , p . 349 [Annex
508112] .
Koji Matsuoka, Takashi Hakamada, Hiroshi Kiwada, Hiro to Murase, and Shigetoshi Nishiwaki,
“Abundance estimates and trends for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae ) in Antarctic
Areas IV and V based on JARPA sighting data”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (forthcoming) This
paper was originally submitted to the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop as part of a paper
SC/D06/J7, and then revised to reflect the recommendations offered at the Workshop . 513
509“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008 , p . 26 [Annex
111] . 514
510“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage 12 (Suppl.), 2011, p . 26 . 515
190The Appendix indicates that Japanese scientists have addressed or are
addressing most of the recommendations offered . For example, all the 4 .113
recommendations offered on abundance estimates of Antarctic minke and a document that includes a list of pape
humpback whales (13) were addressed; and as a result, a paper including the JARPA/JARPA II from 1988 through to 2009
new analyses on humpback whale was accepted for publication in a peer total of 195 documents were presented to annual an d intersessional meetings
reviewed journal 508 . of the Scientific Committee and other meetings (with an annual average of
8 .9 documents/year); 2)
4 .111 In 2008, the Scientific Commi ttee recommended that the peer-reviewed journals (with an annual average of 4 .9 pape rs/year); and 3) a
comparability of commercial and JARP A age data be investigated by total of 199 oral presentations were made at scientific symposia (with an
re-reading a sub-set of the commercial samples in an appropriate designed annual average of 9 .1 presentations/year), in the period 1988-2009
blind test 509 . Such a test was conducted and the Scientific Committee agreed then, there have been additions to each of these categories
that the work was completed successfully and that no more tests were
510
necessary . This clearly demonstrates that the submission of documents to 4 .114
the Scientific Committee is an effective peer review process and an efficient results” as regards JARPA (and JARPA II)
means by which to communicate scientific outputs . needs to be compared with the assessment collectively made by the Scientific
Committee in the Report of the 2006 IWC JAPRA Final Review Workshop:
C. Publication in Peer-reviewed Journals
4 .112 Results of JARPA have been published and presented on many
occasions in several different forms, including documents submitted to the
Scientific Committee; papers published in peer-reviewed journals; and oral 511
presentations at scientific workshops/symposia etc . 512
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008 , p . 349 [Annex
508112] .
Koji Matsuoka, Takashi Hakamada, Hiroshi Kiwada, Hiro to Murase, and Shigetoshi Nishiwaki,
“Abundance estimates and trends for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae ) in Antarctic
Areas IV and V based on JARPA sighting data”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (forthcoming) This
paper was originally submitted to the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop as part of a paper
SC/D06/J7, and then revised to reflect the recommendations offered at the Workshop . 513
509“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008 , p . 26 [Annex
111] . 514
510“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage 12 (Suppl.), 2011, p . 26 . 515 D. Data Sets Provided in Response to Requests under
the IWC’s Data Availability Agreement 4 .116
were established specifically for the purpose of collecting scientific data
4 .115 Data obtained by JARPA have been provided to members of the necessary for the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” of the status
Scientific Committee in accordance w ith the Scientific Committee data of whale resources in the Antarctic, and to assist the Scientific Committee in
access protocol 516 . For example, all the catch-at-age 517 and abundance data its work for the “establishment of…catch limits” in accordance with
concerning Antarctic minke whales pr oduced by JARPA were provided to Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule . The summary of JARPA results was
518
IWC Scientific Committee scientists for their VPA analyses . These presented in section II .1 of the Plan for JARPA II, submitted to the Scientific
analyses are ongoing and are very important for the work of the Scientif▯ic Committee in 2005
Committee 519 . Another example is that all genetic and morphometric data
concerning Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPA were provided to 4 .117
members of the Scientific Comm ittee for their analyses on dynamic JARPA, especially in relation to it
520
population segregation of Antarctic minke whales in the Antarctic . There explain how the outputs were evalua
are of course several other examples of JARPA data being provided for Committee . The following is based mostly on agreed reports of the
521
conducting studies important for the Scientific Committee work . Scientific Committee meetings, including reports of the review meetings and
workshop explained in the previous Section . The conclusions of the Scientific
Committee demonstrate without a doubt that JARPA is a scientific research
programme and that it has produced valuable scientific outputs .
on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] .
516“Report of Data Availability Working Group”, Annex T, Report of the Scientific CommitJ.e,
517Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004, pp . 406-408 [Annex 99] .
518“Catch-at-age” is a technical term referring to the age of the whale at the time of the capture .
M . Mori, and D .S . Butterworth, “Some modfication to the curren t ADAPT-VPA model for 1.
519Antarctic minke whales”, SC/60/IA13 (2008), pp . 1-5 .
“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004 , p . 22 [Annex 4 .118
97] .
520T . Schweder, T . Kitakado, N . Kanda, L .APastene and L . Walloe, “Dynamic population
segregation by genetic and morphometrics in Antarctic minke whales”, SC/63/IA7 (2011), pp . 1-20, was to estimate the average natural mortality rates for Antarctic minke
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SC63docs/SC-63-IA7 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 .
521E.g. Jeniffer Rock, Luis A . Pastene, Greg Kaufman, Paul Forestell, Koji Matsuoka and Judith 522
Allen, “A note on the East Australia Group V Stock humpback whale movement between feeding
and breeding areas based on photo-identification” J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, 301,
pp . 301-305 .
192 D. Data Sets Provided in Response to Requests under
the IWC’s Data Availability Agreement 4 .116
were established specifically for the purpose of collecting scientific data
4 .115 Data obtained by JARPA have been provided to members of the necessary for the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” of the status
Scientific Committee in accordance w ith the Scientific Committee data of whale resources in the Antarctic, and to assist the Scientific Committee in
access protocol 516 . For example, all the catch-at-age 517 and abundance data its work for the “establishment of…catch limits” in accordance with
concerning Antarctic minke whales pr oduced by JARPA were provided to Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule . The summary of JARPA results was
518
IWC Scientific Committee scientists for their VPA analyses . These presented in section II .1 of the Plan for JARPA II, submitted to the Scientific
analyses are ongoing and are very important for the work of the Scientif▯ic Committee in 2005
Committee 519 . Another example is that all genetic and morphometric data
concerning Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPA were provided to 4 .117
members of the Scientific Comm ittee for their analyses on dynamic JARPA, especially in relation to it
520
population segregation of Antarctic minke whales in the Antarctic . There explain how the outputs were evalua
are of course several other examples of JARPA data being provided for Committee . The following is based mostly on agreed reports of the
521
conducting studies important for the Scientific Committee work . Scientific Committee meetings, including reports of the review meetings and
workshop explained in the previous Section . The conclusions of the Scientific
Committee demonstrate without a doubt that JARPA is a scientific research
programme and that it has produced valuable scientific outputs .
on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] .
516“Report of Data Availability Working Group”, Annex T, Report of the Scientific CommitJ.e,
517Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004, pp . 406-408 [Annex 99] .
518“Catch-at-age” is a technical term referring to the age of the whale at the time of the capture .
M . Mori, and D .S . Butterworth, “Some modfication to the curren t ADAPT-VPA model for 1.
519Antarctic minke whales”, SC/60/IA13 (2008), pp . 1-5 .
“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004 , p . 22 [Annex 4 .118
97] .
520T . Schweder, T . Kitakado, N . Kanda, L .APastene and L . Walloe, “Dynamic population
segregation by genetic and morphometrics in Antarctic minke whales”, SC/63/IA7 (2011), pp . 1-20, was to estimate the average natural mortality rates for Antarctic minke
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SC63docs/SC-63-IA7 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 .
521E.g. Jeniffer Rock, Luis A . Pastene, Greg Kaufman, Paul Forestell, Koji Matsuoka and Judith 522
Allen, “A note on the East Australia Group V Stock humpback whale movement between feeding
and breeding areas based on photo-identification” J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, 301,
pp . 301-305 . 523
whales . Results of natural mortality rates estimation in JARPA were
524
presented by two different methods, i .e . the “Tanaka method” and the
“VPA method” 525 .The former was based on abundance and catch-at-age data
from JARPA . The latter was based on abundance data from JARPA and
526 4 .120
IDCR/SOWER and on catch-at-age data from JARPA and past
quote this in its Memorial
commercial whaling .
Natural mortality rates obtained by the Tanaka method:
- Eastern Indian Ocean Stock (I-Stock): 0 .038*
- Western South Pacific Ocean Stock (P-Stock): 0 .040
*A rate of 0 .038 means that 3 .8% of the population died every year from
Natural mortality rates obtained by the VPA method:
natural causes .
4 .119 The 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop agreed that the
Tanaka method used to derive the estimates was broadly valid 527 . It is true *A rate of 0 .056 means that 5 .6% of
that in the Reports, the following comments, quoted in the Memorial of
528
Australia , were made:
4 .121
method estimated natural mortality rate s with better precision, as mentioned
523See above, paras 4 .22-4 .25 .
524E . Tanaka, R . Zenitani, and Y . Fujise, “An Estimate of Average Natural Mortality Coefficient in in the conclusion of the report – again, Australia does not quote this part in its
Antarctic Minke Whales Using JARPA data”, SC/D06/J13, pp . 1-12, presented to the Intersessional
Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Memorial
Antarctic (December 2006) .
525
M . Mori, T . Kitakado and D .S . Butterworth, “Progress on application of ADAPT-VPA to minke
whales in Areas IV and V given updated information from IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys”,
SC/D06/J14, pp . 1-32, presented to the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from
Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (December 2006) .
526A former series of sighting cruises in the Antarctic organized by the Scientific Committee . IDCR:
International Decade of Cetacean Research (1978/79-1995/96); SOWER: Southern Ocean Whale 529
and Ecosystem Research (1996/97-2008/09) . Sighting data from those surveys were used to
527estimate abundance and trends in several whale species . 530
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 531
on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 423 [Annex 113] .
528AM, para . 5 .12 . The Memorial of Australia to mention that these comments were made by 532
“some members” and not by the Workshop itself . 533
194 523
whales . Results of natural mortality rates estimation in JARPA were
524
presented by two different methods, i .e . the “Tanaka method” and the
“VPA method” 525 .The former was based on abundance and catch-at-age data
from JARPA . The latter was based on abundance data from JARPA and
526 4 .120
IDCR/SOWER and on catch-at-age data from JARPA and past
quote this in its Memorial
commercial whaling .
Natural mortality rates obtained by the Tanaka method:
- Eastern Indian Ocean Stock (I-Stock): 0 .038*
- Western South Pacific Ocean Stock (P-Stock): 0 .040
*A rate of 0 .038 means that 3 .8% of the population died every year from
Natural mortality rates obtained by the VPA method:
natural causes .
4 .119 The 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop agreed that the
Tanaka method used to derive the estimates was broadly valid 527 . It is true *A rate of 0 .056 means that 5 .6% of
that in the Reports, the following comments, quoted in the Memorial of
528
Australia , were made:
4 .121
method estimated natural mortality rate s with better precision, as mentioned
523See above, paras 4 .22-4 .25 .
524E . Tanaka, R . Zenitani, and Y . Fujise, “An Estimate of Average Natural Mortality Coefficient in in the conclusion of the report – again, Australia does not quote this part in its
Antarctic Minke Whales Using JARPA data”, SC/D06/J13, pp . 1-12, presented to the Intersessional
Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Memorial
Antarctic (December 2006) .
525
M . Mori, T . Kitakado and D .S . Butterworth, “Progress on application of ADAPT-VPA to minke
whales in Areas IV and V given updated information from IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys”,
SC/D06/J14, pp . 1-32, presented to the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from
Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (December 2006) .
526A former series of sighting cruises in the Antarctic organized by the Scientific Committee . IDCR:
International Decade of Cetacean Research (1978/79-1995/96); SOWER: Southern Ocean Whale 529
and Ecosystem Research (1996/97-2008/09) . Sighting data from those surveys were used to
527estimate abundance and trends in several whale species . 530
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 531
on Minke Whale in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 423 [Annex 113] .
528AM, para . 5 .12 . The Memorial of Australia to mention that these comments were made by 532
“some members” and not by the Workshop itself . 533 but the confidence limits (from below zero to above 0 .10) spanned
such a wide range that the parame ter is still effectively unknown . 4 .125
The ADAPT-VPA provided estimates of natural mortality rates with
534
a CV of about 0.15 but these depend on the use of commercial JARPA provided information on a range of biological parameters in the
catch-at-age data, about which, as discussed above, there are some
535 Antarctic minke whale, which were cal culated on a biological stock basis:
problems .”
length at sexual maturity, age at sexual maturity, length at physical maturity,
4 .122 In general, an estimated value with a “CV (coefficient of variation) growth curve, percentage of matured females pregnant, foetal sex ratio and
of about 0 .15” is regarded as suffic iently precise in discussions in the mean litter size
Scientific Committee . Therefore, the conclusion of the Workshop means was no criticism of those estimates and no further recommendation for
that the natural mortality rates estimated by the VPA method can be used for analyses
management purposes, provided that the problems of “commercial species and are important for stock assessment (comprehensive assessment)
catch-at-age data” are solved . purposes .
4 .123 The Workshop noted that in order to accept the estimates of natural 4 .126
mortality rates obtained by the VP A method, experiments should be through time in response to environmen tal changes . For that reason JARPA
conducted to calibrate age data from two different sources, JARPA and examined the yearly changes of some parameters . Methods that involved
536
commercial whaling . both JARPA and commercial catch-at-age data could examine a longer time
span
4 .124 Such experiments were conducted subsequently under the guidance investigate the variation of these parameters in the 18-year period of the
of the Scientific Committee, which, at its 2010 annual meeting, reached an programme .
agreement that “no further experiments or analyses on age reading errors are
537 538
needed to resolve ageing related pr oblems raised in e .g . JARPA review” .
This means that the precision of the estimates of natural mortality rates based 539
on the VPA method has now been accepted .
540
534CV: Coefficient of variation = standard deviation/average value . 541
535“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 427 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] .
536Ibid ., p . 434
537“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011 , p . 26 [Annex
120] .
196 but the confidence limits (from below zero to above 0 .10) spanned
such a wide range that the parame ter is still effectively unknown . 4 .125
The ADAPT-VPA provided estimates of natural mortality rates with
534
a CV of about 0.15 but these depend on the use of commercial JARPA provided information on a range of biological parameters in the
catch-at-age data, about which, as discussed above, there are some
535 Antarctic minke whale, which were cal culated on a biological stock basis:
problems .”
length at sexual maturity, age at sexual maturity, length at physical maturity,
4 .122 In general, an estimated value with a “CV (coefficient of variation) growth curve, percentage of matured females pregnant, foetal sex ratio and
of about 0 .15” is regarded as suffic iently precise in discussions in the mean litter size
Scientific Committee . Therefore, the conclusion of the Workshop means was no criticism of those estimates and no further recommendation for
that the natural mortality rates estimated by the VPA method can be used for analyses
management purposes, provided that the problems of “commercial species and are important for stock assessment (comprehensive assessment)
catch-at-age data” are solved . purposes .
4 .123 The Workshop noted that in order to accept the estimates of natural 4 .126
mortality rates obtained by the VP A method, experiments should be through time in response to environmen tal changes . For that reason JARPA
conducted to calibrate age data from two different sources, JARPA and examined the yearly changes of some parameters . Methods that involved
536
commercial whaling . both JARPA and commercial catch-at-age data could examine a longer time
span
4 .124 Such experiments were conducted subsequently under the guidance investigate the variation of these parameters in the 18-year period of the
of the Scientific Committee, which, at its 2010 annual meeting, reached an programme .
agreement that “no further experiments or analyses on age reading errors are
537 538
needed to resolve ageing related pr oblems raised in e .g . JARPA review” .
This means that the precision of the estimates of natural mortality rates based 539
on the VPA method has now been accepted .
540
534CV: Coefficient of variation = standard deviation/average value . 541
535“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 427 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] .
536Ibid ., p . 434
537“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011 , p . 26 [Annex
120] . Group as recently as 2009”
4 .127 Regarding the latter, the JA RPA Final Review Workshop following reasons . First of all, there was no such agreement in the Working
recognized those accomplishments and recorded them in its report as follows: Group on MSY Rates in 1993
1) growth rates were apparently fairly constant; 2) pregnancy rate remained “conclusion” was reaffirmed in 2009 is equally incorrect: if estimates of
high with annual fluctuation; 3) the transition phase data suggested a possible MSYR from biological parameters for two stocks of Antarctic minke whales
small increase in the mean age at maturity over the JARPA period; and 4) the were considered to be of “low” reliability at the 2009 Intersessional
542
age at first ovulation showed a d ecrease, at least for the P-Stock . Again, Workshop on MSYR for Baleen Whales, that was because those estimates
this part of the Report of the Final Review Workshop is not quoted in the were “possibly confounded by changing K [carrying capacity] and
Memorial of Australia 543 . uncertainty about CAA [catch-at-age] data”
relation to the “uncertainty about CAA data”, that the Scientific Committee
Figure 4-4 . Changing of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales based on data agreed at its annual meeting in 2010, after examining the results of
from past commercial whaling and JARPA (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) . It
became younger from 12 years in 1945 to 7 year s in 1970, and then stable or slightly age-reading experiments,
getting older .
based on those results, that no further experiments or analyses on age reading
errors were needed
Committee itself casts doubts on the usef
JARPA regarding its Objective 1 .
2. Objective 2: Elucidation of th
Marine Ecosystem
4 .129
such as: 1) the daily prey consumption estimates of Antarctic minke whale,
4 .128 Australia alleges that “[a]s far back as 1993, [the Working Group
which ranged from 2 .6 to 5 .0 % of body weight; 2) the annual consumption
on MSY Rates] agreed that the es timation of MSYR from biological
parameters was ‘subject to large error” which made its application “usually
544
practically impossible .’” This conclusion was reaffirmed by the Working 545
546
542“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 547
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”,J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 548
543(Suppl.), 2008, p . 427 [Annex 113] .
See AM, para . 5 .12 .
198 Group as recently as 2009”
4 .127 Regarding the latter, the JA RPA Final Review Workshop following reasons . First of all, there was no such agreement in the Working
recognized those accomplishments and recorded them in its report as follows: Group on MSY Rates in 1993
1) growth rates were apparently fairly constant; 2) pregnancy rate remained “conclusion” was reaffirmed in 2009 is equally incorrect: if estimates of
high with annual fluctuation; 3) the transition phase data suggested a possible MSYR from biological parameters for two stocks of Antarctic minke whales
small increase in the mean age at maturity over the JARPA period; and 4) the were considered to be of “low” reliability at the 2009 Intersessional
542
age at first ovulation showed a d ecrease, at least for the P-Stock . Again, Workshop on MSYR for Baleen Whales, that was because those estimates
this part of the Report of the Final Review Workshop is not quoted in the were “possibly confounded by changing K [carrying capacity] and
Memorial of Australia 543 . uncertainty about CAA [catch-at-age] data”
relation to the “uncertainty about CAA data”, that the Scientific Committee
Figure 4-4 . Changing of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales based on data agreed at its annual meeting in 2010, after examining the results of
from past commercial whaling and JARPA (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) . It
became younger from 12 years in 1945 to 7 year s in 1970, and then stable or slightly age-reading experiments,
getting older .
based on those results, that no further experiments or analyses on age reading
errors were needed
Committee itself casts doubts on the usef
JARPA regarding its Objective 1 .
2. Objective 2: Elucidation of th
Marine Ecosystem
4 .129
such as: 1) the daily prey consumption estimates of Antarctic minke whale,
4 .128 Australia alleges that “[a]s far back as 1993, [the Working Group
which ranged from 2 .6 to 5 .0 % of body weight; 2) the annual consumption
on MSY Rates] agreed that the es timation of MSYR from biological
parameters was ‘subject to large error” which made its application “usually
544
practically impossible .’” This conclusion was reaffirmed by the Working 545
546
542“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 547
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”,J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 548
543(Suppl.), 2008, p . 427 [Annex 113] .
See AM, para . 5 .12 .of Antarctic krill from the 1999/2000 season to the 2004/05 season in Areas not previously known, and is useful for the ecosystem approach of whale
IV and V was calculated as being equivalent to 3-4 % and 21-35 % of the resource management
krill biomass respectively; and 3) blubber thickness had been decreasing over
549 Figure 4-5 . Decreasing trend in blubber thic
the JARPA period at -0 .0190 cm/year .
content weight (right) based on JARPA data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .130 Australia alleges that JARPA produced, in relation to its Objective
2, only “well-established and uncontrovers ial information” such as the fact
that 99% of the minke whale’s diet is krill and that the daily krill
consumption of minke whales, as a pe rcentage of their body weight, ranges
550
from 2 .7 to 5% . However, the results of the research on stomach contents
presented to the JARPA Final Review Workshop and published in a
551
peer-reviewed journal included far more information . For example, the
4 .131
daily and seasonal prey consumption of individual whales and the seasonal
in combination with othe r various results from JARPA including age at
prey consumption of whales in Areas IV and V were calculated for each sex
sexual maturity, growth curve, and pollutant (mercury) accumulation, the
and maturity stage 552 . Also the seasonal prey consumption and feeding
following hypothesis was proposed regarding changes in the Antarctic
impact on the krill resources of the Antarctic minke whales in those Areas
553 ecosystem in the 20th Century
was provided and evaluated . Other findings were also presented at the
JARPA Final Review Workshop 554 . This series of additional information was
549Kenji Konishi, Tsutomu Tamura, Ryoko Zenitani, Takeharu Bando, Hidehito Kato, Lars Walloe,
“Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale ( Balaenoptera bonaerensis ) in the
Southern Ocean” (2008) 31 Polar Biol., p . 1518 .
550AM, para . 5 .13 .
551
Tsutomu Tamura and Kenji Konishi, “Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke
whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean” (2009) 42 J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., pp . 4 .132
13-25 .
552Ibid.
553T . Tamura and K . Konishi, “Food habit and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whale
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in JARPA research area” SC/D06/J18, pp . 1-23, presented to the
Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke
Whales in the Antarctic (December 2006), 555
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/workshops/SCD06J18 .pdf> accessed 14 February 556
5542012 . 557
Ibid . See also T . Tamura, K . Konishi, S . Nishiwaki, K . Taki, T . Hayashi, and M . Naganobu,
“Comparison between stomach contents of Antarctic minke whale and krill sampled by RMT net in
the Ross Sea and Adjacent waters” SC/D06/J20, pp . 1-13, presented to the Intersessional Workshop
200of Antarctic krill from the 1999/2000 season to the 2004/05 season in Areas not previously known, and is useful for the ecosystem approach of whale
IV and V was calculated as being equivalent to 3-4 % and 21-35 % of the resource management
krill biomass respectively; and 3) blubber thickness had been decreasing over
549 Figure 4-5 . Decreasing trend in blubber thic
the JARPA period at -0 .0190 cm/year .
content weight (right) based on JARPA data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .130 Australia alleges that JARPA produced, in relation to its Objective
2, only “well-established and uncontrovers ial information” such as the fact
that 99% of the minke whale’s diet is krill and that the daily krill
consumption of minke whales, as a pe rcentage of their body weight, ranges
550
from 2 .7 to 5% . However, the results of the research on stomach contents
presented to the JARPA Final Review Workshop and published in a
551
peer-reviewed journal included far more information . For example, the
4 .131
daily and seasonal prey consumption of individual whales and the seasonal
in combination with othe r various results from JARPA including age at
prey consumption of whales in Areas IV and V were calculated for each sex
sexual maturity, growth curve, and pollutant (mercury) accumulation, the
and maturity stage 552 . Also the seasonal prey consumption and feeding
following hypothesis was proposed regarding changes in the Antarctic
impact on the krill resources of the Antarctic minke whales in those Areas
553 ecosystem in the 20th Century
was provided and evaluated . Other findings were also presented at the
JARPA Final Review Workshop 554 . This series of additional information was
549Kenji Konishi, Tsutomu Tamura, Ryoko Zenitani, Takeharu Bando, Hidehito Kato, Lars Walloe,
“Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale ( Balaenoptera bonaerensis ) in the
Southern Ocean” (2008) 31 Polar Biol., p . 1518 .
550AM, para . 5 .13 .
551
Tsutomu Tamura and Kenji Konishi, “Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke
whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean” (2009) 42 J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., pp . 4 .132
13-25 .
552Ibid.
553T . Tamura and K . Konishi, “Food habit and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whale
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in JARPA research area” SC/D06/J18, pp . 1-23, presented to the
Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke
Whales in the Antarctic (December 2006), 555
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/workshops/SCD06J18 .pdf> accessed 14 February 556
5542012 . 557
Ibid . See also T . Tamura, K . Konishi, S . Nishiwaki, K . Taki, T . Hayashi, and M . Naganobu,
“Comparison between stomach contents of Antarctic minke whale and krill sampled by RMT net in
the Ross Sea and Adjacent waters” SC/D06/J20, pp . 1-13, presented to the Intersessional Workshopdifferent views expressed on this hypothesis and the outputs on which it was
based; and some members criticized those outcomes, saying that, for example,
“this was simplistic and ignored many other components of the Antarctic
558 4 .133
marine ecosystem” . The Workshop then recommended improved analyses
demonstrated that JARPA outputs would
for various aspects of the outputs under this objective of JARPA 559 .
related researchers and activate scientific discussion within the framework of
However, in a part of th e report not quoted in the Memorial of Australia 560,
the Scientific Committee . In sessions of the Working Group on Ecosystem
the Workshop recognized th e potential of the data obtained by JARPA, and Modelling
expressed its anticipation that the potential would be realized in its
decline in mean blubber thickness
conclusions as follows:
18-year JARPA period in Areas IV and V
document submitted by an Australian scientist
“The Workshop agreed that it wo uld be valuable to have the
opportunity to review the trends summarised in SC/D06/J26 when Committee to conclude that the body condition indices were of potential
the recommended analysis had been conducted, in order to importance for its work and therefore r ecommended that further analyses be
formulate alternative hypotheses that set the observed changes in
the context of a broader suite of indicators from the Southern presented next year
Ocean .” 561
a constructive manner, to contribute to scientific progress on this matter .
“Finally, the Workshop agreed that the JARPA dataset provides a
valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role 4 .134
of whales within the marine ecosystem . With appropriate analyses,
this has the potential to make an important contribution to the and abundance were used as input parameters in the development of
Scientific Committee’s work in this regard, as well as the work of
other relevant bodies such as CCAMLR .” 562 ecosystem modelling
originally presented to the annual meeting of the Scientific Committee in
“The Committee welcomed the o ceanographic and krill-related
work undertaken since the 1997 Workshop . The Workshop also
agreed that considerable relevant data had been collected by the
563
564
558 565
559Ibid . See also AM, para . 5 .13 .
The work recommended by the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop was taken over to the
studies conducted under JARPA II . See below, para . 5 .18 .
560See AM, para . 5 .13 . 566
561“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 567
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 431 [Annex 113] . 568
562Ibid .
202different views expressed on this hypothesis and the outputs on which it was
based; and some members criticized those outcomes, saying that, for example,
“this was simplistic and ignored many other components of the Antarctic
558 4 .133
marine ecosystem” . The Workshop then recommended improved analyses
demonstrated that JARPA outputs would
for various aspects of the outputs under this objective of JARPA 559 .
related researchers and activate scientific discussion within the framework of
However, in a part of th e report not quoted in the Memorial of Australia 560,
the Scientific Committee . In sessions of the Working Group on Ecosystem
the Workshop recognized th e potential of the data obtained by JARPA, and Modelling
expressed its anticipation that the potential would be realized in its
decline in mean blubber thickness
conclusions as follows:
18-year JARPA period in Areas IV and V
document submitted by an Australian scientist
“The Workshop agreed that it wo uld be valuable to have the
opportunity to review the trends summarised in SC/D06/J26 when Committee to conclude that the body condition indices were of potential
the recommended analysis had been conducted, in order to importance for its work and therefore r ecommended that further analyses be
formulate alternative hypotheses that set the observed changes in
the context of a broader suite of indicators from the Southern presented next year
Ocean .” 561
a constructive manner, to contribute to scientific progress on this matter .
“Finally, the Workshop agreed that the JARPA dataset provides a
valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role 4 .134
of whales within the marine ecosystem . With appropriate analyses,
this has the potential to make an important contribution to the and abundance were used as input parameters in the development of
Scientific Committee’s work in this regard, as well as the work of
other relevant bodies such as CCAMLR .” 562 ecosystem modelling
originally presented to the annual meeting of the Scientific Committee in
“The Committee welcomed the o ceanographic and krill-related
work undertaken since the 1997 Workshop . The Workshop also
agreed that considerable relevant data had been collected by the
563
564
558 565
559Ibid . See also AM, para . 5 .13 .
The work recommended by the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review Workshop was taken over to the
studies conducted under JARPA II . See below, para . 5 .18 .
560See AM, para . 5 .13 . 566
561“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 567
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 431 [Annex 113] . 568
562Ibid . 569
2005 . The Scientific Committee recognized that investigations into
interactions between large whales and other species are important in its work 4 .137
570
and so welcomed contributions on this issue . Several comments and this objective were: 1) 113 blubbe
suggestions were offered by member s and an updated version of the analysis; 2) 1,072 liver tissue samples for heavy metal analysis; 3) 100
document was presented to the next Scientific Committee meeting 571 . stomach content samples of Antarctic minke whales for heavy metal analysis;
4) four air samples for organochlorine analysis; and 5) four sea water samples
4 .135 Some other ecosystem models are being developed, and data from for organochlorine analysis
JARPA and JARPA II will be used as input data . Results from JARPA II’s from the JARPA research area, and
first six-year research phase (2 005/06-2010/11) are expected for the observed by using XBT (eXpenda
Scientific Committee’s periodic revi ew on data and results, which is (Conductivity-Temperature-Depth profiler), XCTD (eXpendable CTD) and
scheduled in 2013/14 . Some of the models are the same as those used in the EPCS (Electronic Particle Counting and Sizing System) as follows: 1) 916
JARPN II programme, which have been pr esented and discussed at the past XBT surveys; 2) 915 XCTD surveys; 3) 499 CTD surveys; and 1,307 EPCS
572
Scientific Committee meetings . surveys
3. Objective 3: Elucidation of the Effect of Environmental Change on 4 .138
Cetaceans 1) levels of all trace el ements except Fe (iron) in the liver of 1,056 minke
4 .136 As indicated in Section 1 of this Chapter, this objective was added whales taken from Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW during the period from 1988/89
in response to resolutions adopt ed by the IWC on research on the to 2004/05 were overall low and signifi cantly lower than those in cetaceans
environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution 1994-13) and on the from the Northern Hemisphere, which co uld be taken as an indication that
promotion of research related to the conservation of large baleen whales in whale health was not affected; 2) a decrease in Hg (mercury) levels in the
the southern oceans (IWC Resolution 1994-12) ; and it is also related to the juvenile class (1-15 years old) oc
resolution on research on the environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution could be attributed to a decrease in food intake rates since the mid-1980s; and
1995-10) . 3) the levels of PCBs and DDTs in blubber of Antarctic minke whales were
569 one order of magnitude lower than those of other whales in the mid and low
“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 200pp . 132-133
570[Annex 107] . latitude areas of the No rthern Hemisphere, and it could be suggested that
571Ibid .
“Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns”, Annex K, Report of the 573
572Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 245-246 [Annex 110] .
“Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Modelling”, Annex K1, Report of the Scientific
Committee, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011), p . 7, <http://iwco ffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14
February 2012 . 574
204 569
2005 . The Scientific Committee recognized that investigations into
interactions between large whales and other species are important in its work 4 .137
570
and so welcomed contributions on this issue . Several comments and this objective were: 1) 113 blubbe
suggestions were offered by member s and an updated version of the analysis; 2) 1,072 liver tissue samples for heavy metal analysis; 3) 100
document was presented to the next Scientific Committee meeting 571 . stomach content samples of Antarctic minke whales for heavy metal analysis;
4) four air samples for organochlorine analysis; and 5) four sea water samples
4 .135 Some other ecosystem models are being developed, and data from for organochlorine analysis
JARPA and JARPA II will be used as input data . Results from JARPA II’s from the JARPA research area, and
first six-year research phase (2 005/06-2010/11) are expected for the observed by using XBT (eXpenda
Scientific Committee’s periodic revi ew on data and results, which is (Conductivity-Temperature-Depth profiler), XCTD (eXpendable CTD) and
scheduled in 2013/14 . Some of the models are the same as those used in the EPCS (Electronic Particle Counting and Sizing System) as follows: 1) 916
JARPN II programme, which have been pr esented and discussed at the past XBT surveys; 2) 915 XCTD surveys; 3) 499 CTD surveys; and 1,307 EPCS
572
Scientific Committee meetings . surveys
3. Objective 3: Elucidation of the Effect of Environmental Change on 4 .138
Cetaceans 1) levels of all trace el ements except Fe (iron) in the liver of 1,056 minke
4 .136 As indicated in Section 1 of this Chapter, this objective was added whales taken from Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW during the period from 1988/89
in response to resolutions adopt ed by the IWC on research on the to 2004/05 were overall low and signifi cantly lower than those in cetaceans
environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution 1994-13) and on the from the Northern Hemisphere, which co uld be taken as an indication that
promotion of research related to the conservation of large baleen whales in whale health was not affected; 2) a decrease in Hg (mercury) levels in the
the southern oceans (IWC Resolution 1994-12) ; and it is also related to the juvenile class (1-15 years old) oc
resolution on research on the environment and whale stocks (IWC Resolution could be attributed to a decrease in food intake rates since the mid-1980s; and
1995-10) . 3) the levels of PCBs and DDTs in blubber of Antarctic minke whales were
569 one order of magnitude lower than those of other whales in the mid and low
“Report of the Scientific CommitteeJ. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 200pp . 132-133
570[Annex 107] . latitude areas of the No rthern Hemisphere, and it could be suggested that
571Ibid .
“Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns”, Annex K, Report of the 573
572Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 245-246 [Annex 110] .
“Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Modelling”, Annex K1, Report of the Scientific
Committee, IWC/63/Rep1 (2011), p . 7, <http://iwco ffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14
February 2012 . 574such levels would not have an adverse effect on whale health 575 . 4 .140
not quoted in the Memorial of Australia
4 .139 These outcomes, after being discussed, were welcomed by the
JARPA Final Review Workshop, and recorded in its report as follows: 4. Objective 4: Elucidation of the Stock Structure of Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whales to Improve Stock Management
“The Workshop welcomed the presentation of the pollutant
4 .141
analyses at this Workshop, although there was some disagreement
over the implications of the results drawn by the authors (see Item whale stock structure was that the JARPA research area (i .e . IWC Antarctic
576
6 .3 .1 ) . The Workshop also welcomed the oceanographic work
presented, noting that in addition to its potential to assist in the Management Areas IV and V) was occ upied by different genetic stocks, but
ecosystem work, it also has the po tential to contribute to other there was little scientific evidence supporting such an assumption
environmental monitoring programmes in the Antarctic .” 577
4 .142
Figure 4-6 . Organochlorine levels in baleen whales (source: Institute of Cetacean
techniques were utilized to elucidate the stock structure of Antarctic minke
Research) . Data for Antarctic minke whale came from JARPA .
whales, and the following samples/information were collected and analysed:
1) liver, heart, muscle, kidney and skin tissues for genetic analyses; 2)
standard body length plus 19 additional body measurements for
morphometric analysis; 3) photographs
flippers for morphological studies; and
occurrence observed
4 .143
least two stocks of Antarctic minke whales present in the JARPA research
578
579
575Ibid ., pp . 431-432 .
576I.e ., Pollution .
577“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 580
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 (footnote added) .
206such levels would not have an adverse effect on whale health 575 . 4 .140
not quoted in the Memorial of Australia
4 .139 These outcomes, after being discussed, were welcomed by the
JARPA Final Review Workshop, and recorded in its report as follows: 4. Objective 4: Elucidation of the Stock Structure of Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whales to Improve Stock Management
“The Workshop welcomed the presentation of the pollutant
4 .141
analyses at this Workshop, although there was some disagreement
over the implications of the results drawn by the authors (see Item whale stock structure was that the JARPA research area (i .e . IWC Antarctic
576
6 .3 .1 ) . The Workshop also welcomed the oceanographic work
presented, noting that in addition to its potential to assist in the Management Areas IV and V) was occ upied by different genetic stocks, but
ecosystem work, it also has the po tential to contribute to other there was little scientific evidence supporting such an assumption
environmental monitoring programmes in the Antarctic .” 577
4 .142
Figure 4-6 . Organochlorine levels in baleen whales (source: Institute of Cetacean
techniques were utilized to elucidate the stock structure of Antarctic minke
Research) . Data for Antarctic minke whale came from JARPA .
whales, and the following samples/information were collected and analysed:
1) liver, heart, muscle, kidney and skin tissues for genetic analyses; 2)
standard body length plus 19 additional body measurements for
morphometric analysis; 3) photographs
flippers for morphological studies; and
occurrence observed
4 .143
least two stocks of Antarctic minke whales present in the JARPA research
578
579
575Ibid ., pp . 431-432 .
576I.e ., Pollution .
577“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 580
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 434 (footnote added) .area (namely I-Stock and P-Stock) 581 . The data also showed that the
distribution of these two stocks did not correspond to the current IWC
Management Areas, and that this has di rect implications for the conservation
582
and management of whale stocks .
Figure 4-7 . A new stock structure hypothesis of Antarctic minke whales led by JARPA 4 .145
genetic and morphometric data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .146
scientific job, and the Scientific
indicating that there are at least two st ocks of Antarctic minke whales in the
JARPA research area .
5.
4 .147
basis for any quantitative analyses under JARPA’s Objectives . The Memorial
4 .144 This accomplishment was appreciated by the JARPA Final Review of Australia claims that the Scientific Committee rejected Japan’s abundance
Workshop and recorded in the following part of its Report, again not quoted
estimates of whale species in the Southern Ocean, which were based on the
583
in the Memorial of Australia : data derived from sighting
besides the fact that one cannot find th e term “reject” in the Report quoted in
“The Workshop welcomed this revi ew, and with respect to stock
structure studies, recognised the very considerable amount of work 584
581
L .A . Pastene, “What do we know about the stock structure othe Antarctic mike whale? A
summary of studies and hypothesis” SC/D06/J12, presented to the Intersessional Workshop to
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic
(December 2006), p . 24 .
582“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 585
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 422 [Annex 113] .
583See AM, paras . 5 .12-5 .14 . 586
208area (namely I-Stock and P-Stock) 581 . The data also showed that the
distribution of these two stocks did not correspond to the current IWC
Management Areas, and that this has di rect implications for the conservation
582
and management of whale stocks .
Figure 4-7 . A new stock structure hypothesis of Antarctic minke whales led by JARPA 4 .145
genetic and morphometric data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .146
scientific job, and the Scientific
indicating that there are at least two st ocks of Antarctic minke whales in the
JARPA research area .
5.
4 .147
basis for any quantitative analyses under JARPA’s Objectives . The Memorial
4 .144 This accomplishment was appreciated by the JARPA Final Review of Australia claims that the Scientific Committee rejected Japan’s abundance
Workshop and recorded in the following part of its Report, again not quoted
estimates of whale species in the Southern Ocean, which were based on the
583
in the Memorial of Australia : data derived from sighting
besides the fact that one cannot find th e term “reject” in the Report quoted in
“The Workshop welcomed this revi ew, and with respect to stock
structure studies, recognised the very considerable amount of work 584
581
L .A . Pastene, “What do we know about the stock structure othe Antarctic mike whale? A
summary of studies and hypothesis” SC/D06/J12, presented to the Intersessional Workshop to
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic
(December 2006), p . 24 .
582“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research 585
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 422 [Annex 113] .
583See AM, paras . 5 .12-5 .14 . 586the Memorial of Australia 587, discussions at the JARPA Final Review
Workshop and afterwards indicate that the Scientific Committee positively
appreciated Japan’s abundance estimates . As for Antarctic minke whales, the
Workshop Report states, in a part not quoted in the Memorial of Australia: Figure 4-9 . Abundance trend of fin whales in Areas III East and IV (the Indian Ocean)
based on JARPAsighting data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
“[I]t is not surprising that the Workshop has not developed agreed
estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke whales in the
JARPA research area at the pres ent time; however, it recognises
that considerable progress has been made in addressing the issues
related to abundance and trends and provided the recommendations
given under Item 2 are followed, the Committee should soon be
588
able to agree estimates .”
Figure 4-8 . Abundance trend of Antarctic minke whales in Area IV based on JARPA
sighting survey data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
Figure 4-10 .Abundance trend of humpback whales inArea IV based on JARPAsighting
data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .148 As for humpback, fin and blue whales, the Report states, again in a
part not quoted in the Memorial of Australia:
587See SC/59/Rep1, p. 434 quoted in AM, para. 5.14, fn. 544.
588
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10 589
(Suppl.) 2008, p . 434 [Annex 113] .
210the Memorial of Australia 587, discussions at the JARPA Final Review
Workshop and afterwards indicate that the Scientific Committee positively
appreciated Japan’s abundance estimates . As for Antarctic minke whales, the
Workshop Report states, in a part not quoted in the Memorial of Australia: Figure 4-9 . Abundance trend of fin whales in Areas III East and IV (the Indian Ocean)
based on JARPAsighting data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
“[I]t is not surprising that the Workshop has not developed agreed
estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke whales in the
JARPA research area at the pres ent time; however, it recognises
that considerable progress has been made in addressing the issues
related to abundance and trends and provided the recommendations
given under Item 2 are followed, the Committee should soon be
588
able to agree estimates .”
Figure 4-8 . Abundance trend of Antarctic minke whales in Area IV based on JARPA
sighting survey data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
Figure 4-10 .Abundance trend of humpback whales inArea IV based on JARPAsighting
data (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
4 .148 As for humpback, fin and blue whales, the Report states, again in a
part not quoted in the Memorial of Australia:
587See SC/59/Rep1, p. 434 quoted in AM, para. 5.14, fn. 544.
588
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.10 589
(Suppl.) 2008, p . 434 [Annex 113] .Figure 4-11 . Sighting distribution of humpback whales during JARPAsighting survey
(source: Institute of Cetacean Research) . Red dots represent sightings and correspond to
the pre-determined survey cruise track-line .
4 .150
that the Scientific Committee carried out in 1990, as envisaged in Paragraph
10(e) of the Schedule
in-depth assessment of the Antarctic minke whale, which the Scientific
Committee has been conducting since 2000
4 .151
contributions made by JARPA . For this purpose, it quotes IWC Resolution
2007-1, which notes that “the [2006] Workshop agreed that none of the goals
of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA I programme
are not required for management under the RMP”
adopted 40-2-1 with 27 Contracting Governments refusing to participate in
the vote “as they believe
constructive to building bridges within the Commission”
4 .152
Resolution 2007-1, Norway, which voted against the draft resolution, stated:
4 .149 A paper on the abundance estimates of humpback whales,
reflecting the recommendations and suggestions offered at the JARPA Final
Review Workshop, was accepted by the Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, a peer-reviewed journal published by the IWC 590 . 591
592
590 593
Koji Matsuoka, Takashi Hakamada , Hiroshi Kiwada, Hiroto Murase and Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, 594
“Abundance estimates and trends for humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) in Antarctic
Areas IV and V based on JARPA sighting data” J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (forthcoming) [Annex
212Figure 4-11 . Sighting distribution of humpback whales during JARPAsighting survey
(source: Institute of Cetacean Research) . Red dots represent sightings and correspond to
the pre-determined survey cruise track-line .
4 .150
that the Scientific Committee carried out in 1990, as envisaged in Paragraph
10(e) of the Schedule
in-depth assessment of the Antarctic minke whale, which the Scientific
Committee has been conducting since 2000
4 .151
contributions made by JARPA . For this purpose, it quotes IWC Resolution
2007-1, which notes that “the [2006] Workshop agreed that none of the goals
of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA I programme
are not required for management under the RMP”
adopted 40-2-1 with 27 Contracting Governments refusing to participate in
the vote “as they believe
constructive to building bridges within the Commission”
4 .152
Resolution 2007-1, Norway, which voted against the draft resolution, stated:
4 .149 A paper on the abundance estimates of humpback whales,
reflecting the recommendations and suggestions offered at the JARPA Final
Review Workshop, was accepted by the Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management, a peer-reviewed journal published by the IWC 590 . 591
592
590 593
Koji Matsuoka, Takashi Hakamada , Hiroshi Kiwada, Hiroto Murase and Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, 594
“Abundance estimates and trends for humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) in Antarctic
Areas IV and V based on JARPA sighting data” J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (forthcoming) [Annex valuable science . This is not correct . JARPA has produced a large to look at the text of the relevant reports .
amount of valuable data and this was acknowledged by the JARPA
review meeting595d also can be found in the report of the Scientific
Committee .” 4 .157
meetings/workshop held in 1997, 2005 and 2006 . These three
4 .153 Saint Kitts and Nevis, which refused to participate in the vote, meetings/workshop expressed much appreciation of the outcomes of JARPA .
affirmed: In addition to the specific comments already quoted in the context of each
research objectives, they manifested the following overall evaluations . It is
“[R]emarks…have been made by some commissioners by calling
Japan’s research programme ‘so-called’ research…without giving important to note that these quotations represent statements agreed by the
recognition to the fact that over th e years this research programme
has provided significant inform ation that can let us better meeting participants rather than the views of a single or a few scientists .
understand… the nature and abundance of whale stocks, which we
are dealing with . Saint Kitts and Nevis cannot support this
596 1.
resolution . . .”
4 .158
4 .154 Morocco, which also refused to participate in the vote, declared:
“Nous sommes devant une situation où on est en train d’essayer de
pénaliser un pays, qui s’investit dans des programmes de recherche
qui sont de l’intérêt particulier pour l’évaluation et le suivi de
597
ressources baleinières .”
4 .159
4 .155 Dominica 598, Iceland, Saint Lucia, Guinea, Republic of Korea 599 meeting in September-October 1997. The following quotations are taken
also positively appreciated the scientif ic value of JARPA and criticized the from the report of that meeting .
draft resolution .
4 .156 There is thus an apparent difference among Contracting
Governments concerning the interp retation of reports of review
meetings/workshop on JARPA . The best way to find an appropriate answer is
595
596IWC Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 41] . 600
597Ibid.
Ibid.
598IWC Verbatim Record (16-20 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 40] .
599IWC Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 41] . 601
214 valuable science . This is not correct . JARPA has produced a large to look at the text of the relevant reports .
amount of valuable data and this was acknowledged by the JARPA
review meeting595d also can be found in the report of the Scientific
Committee .” 4 .157
meetings/workshop held in 1997, 2005 and 2006 . These three
4 .153 Saint Kitts and Nevis, which refused to participate in the vote, meetings/workshop expressed much appreciation of the outcomes of JARPA .
affirmed: In addition to the specific comments already quoted in the context of each
research objectives, they manifested the following overall evaluations . It is
“[R]emarks…have been made by some commissioners by calling
Japan’s research programme ‘so-called’ research…without giving important to note that these quotations represent statements agreed by the
recognition to the fact that over th e years this research programme
has provided significant inform ation that can let us better meeting participants rather than the views of a single or a few scientists .
understand… the nature and abundance of whale stocks, which we
are dealing with . Saint Kitts and Nevis cannot support this
596 1.
resolution . . .”
4 .158
4 .154 Morocco, which also refused to participate in the vote, declared:
“Nous sommes devant une situation où on est en train d’essayer de
pénaliser un pays, qui s’investit dans des programmes de recherche
qui sont de l’intérêt particulier pour l’évaluation et le suivi de
597
ressources baleinières .”
4 .159
4 .155 Dominica 598, Iceland, Saint Lucia, Guinea, Republic of Korea 599 meeting in September-October 1997. The following quotations are taken
also positively appreciated the scientif ic value of JARPA and criticized the from the report of that meeting .
draft resolution .
4 .156 There is thus an apparent difference among Contracting
Governments concerning the interp retation of reports of review
meetings/workshop on JARPA . The best way to find an appropriate answer is
595
596IWC Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 41] . 600
597Ibid.
Ibid.
598IWC Verbatim Record (16-20 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 40] .
599IWC Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] [Annex 41] . 601 achieving its objectives in term s of estimation of biological
parameters .” 602
“Most members were optimistic that the JARPA data, in
conjunction with the additiona l work planned, would allow
estimation of the biological parameters with reasonable levels of
603 3.
precision .”
4 .161
2. The 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting states:
4 .160 The report of the 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting states:
“[T]he meeting agreed that JA RPA work remains relevant for
providing data important for management (of whales) .” 604
“Overall, the meeting consider ed that JARPA had made good
progress in addressing its objectives [see Section 5] .” 605
“In conclusion, the meeting agreed that:
- JARPA has collected a very large and consistent data base
(Annexes D and E) over a 16-year period, which pr ovides a basis
for time series analyses relating whales to the Antarctic
environment and the beginning of an ecosystem approach to the
management of whale resources in the region;
- JARPA has contributed to the elucidation of biological parameters
of minke whales, and improved the understanding of Antarctic
marine ecosystem;
- JARPA has revealed that change s have occurred in the ecosystem
since the 1970’s, suggesting co mpetition among minke and other
large whales; and
- data obtained through this monitoring will contribute to the
development of ecosystem models, which are nece606ry for
ecosystem-based management of whales .”
602“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 103 [Annex 94] .
603Ibid . 607
604
“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 608
605(2005), p . 25 [Annex 102] . 609
606Ibid ., p . 15 .
“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6
216 achieving its objectives in term s of estimation of biological
parameters .” 602
“Most members were optimistic that the JARPA data, in
conjunction with the additiona l work planned, would allow
estimation of the biological parameters with reasonable levels of
603 3.
precision .”
4 .161
2. The 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting states:
4 .160 The report of the 2005 Japan JARPA Review Meeting states:
“[T]he meeting agreed that JA RPA work remains relevant for
providing data important for management (of whales) .” 604
“Overall, the meeting consider ed that JARPA had made good
progress in addressing its objectives [see Section 5] .” 605
“In conclusion, the meeting agreed that:
- JARPA has collected a very large and consistent data base
(Annexes D and E) over a 16-year period, which pr ovides a basis
for time series analyses relating whales to the Antarctic
environment and the beginning of an ecosystem approach to the
management of whale resources in the region;
- JARPA has contributed to the elucidation of biological parameters
of minke whales, and improved the understanding of Antarctic
marine ecosystem;
- JARPA has revealed that change s have occurred in the ecosystem
since the 1970’s, suggesting co mpetition among minke and other
large whales; and
- data obtained through this monitoring will contribute to the
development of ecosystem models, which are nece606ry for
ecosystem-based management of whales .”
602“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 103 [Annex 94] .
603Ibid . 607
604
“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 608
605(2005), p . 25 [Annex 102] . 609
606Ibid ., p . 15 .
“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O64. A Critical Analysis of IWC Resolutions Negative to JARPA Pre-Implementation Assessment; (ii) RMP Implementation process (including
4 .162 As indicated above, a majority in the Commission voted for several the Implementation Simulation Trials
resolutions affirming that JARPA “doe s not address critically important period); and (iii) Recommendation fo
610
research needs for the management of whaling in the Southern Ocean” . Committee (including the specific ations of the inputs to the
These resolutions seem to be influenced by the following statement agreed to Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA), a formula to calculate catch quotas, can be
by the Scientific Committee in 1997 and also adopted in the 2006 used only after all these steps are successfully completed .
Intersessional Workshop:
“The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for
management under the RMP, have the potential to improve
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the
following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible
scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2)
identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation
Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e .g . the temporal
component of stock structure) . Th e results of analyses of JARPA
data could be used in this wa y perhaps to increase the allowed
catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without
increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke
whales .” 611
4 .163 This is admittedly a prima facie ambiguous statement, as it says
that JARPA is “not required for management under the RMP”, while
emphasizing the usefulness of JARPA data . In order to clear up the ambiguity,
it is necessary to go back to the basic structure of the RMP .
612
4 .164 The Scientific Committee needs to take three steps – (i)
613
610See above, para . 4 .29 . E.g. “Resolution on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”,
Resolution 1997-5, <http://iwcoffice .org/mngs/resolutions/searchRes .htm> accessed 14
February 2012 . 614
611“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 433 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] .
2184. A Critical Analysis of IWC Resolutions Negative to JARPA Pre-Implementation Assessment; (ii) RMP Implementation process (including
4 .162 As indicated above, a majority in the Commission voted for several the Implementation Simulation Trials
resolutions affirming that JARPA “doe s not address critically important period); and (iii) Recommendation fo
610
research needs for the management of whaling in the Southern Ocean” . Committee (including the specific ations of the inputs to the
These resolutions seem to be influenced by the following statement agreed to Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA), a formula to calculate catch quotas, can be
by the Scientific Committee in 1997 and also adopted in the 2006 used only after all these steps are successfully completed .
Intersessional Workshop:
“The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for
management under the RMP, have the potential to improve
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the
following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible
scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2)
identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation
Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e .g . the temporal
component of stock structure) . Th e results of analyses of JARPA
data could be used in this wa y perhaps to increase the allowed
catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without
increasing depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke
whales .” 611
4 .163 This is admittedly a prima facie ambiguous statement, as it says
that JARPA is “not required for management under the RMP”, while
emphasizing the usefulness of JARPA data . In order to clear up the ambiguity,
it is necessary to go back to the basic structure of the RMP .
612
4 .164 The Scientific Committee needs to take three steps – (i)
613
610See above, para . 4 .29 . E.g. “Resolution on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”,
Resolution 1997-5, <http://iwcoffice .org/mngs/resolutions/searchRes .htm> accessed 14
February 2012 . 614
611“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Sp ecial Permit Research
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
(Suppl.), 2008, p . 433 (emphasis added) [Annex 113] . species-specific catch quota calculation formula, a large number of Figure 4-12 . Contribution of JARPA Data to the RMP Process .
computer simulations are c onducted on various hypotheses and
assumptions . For instance, if there are three stock structure
hypothesis, three estimated past catch scenarios and two Maximum
Sustainable Yield Rates (e .g . 1% and 4%), 18 simulation scenarios
(three times three times two) shall be tried . In reality, more
scenarios will be tried and hundreds of computer runs for each
scenario will be required. The results of ISTs will be assessed in
detail and only successful scenario s will survive the process to the
finalization of ISTs . The scientific whaling data are used in
identifying hypothesis, evaluating the relative plausibility of
various hypotheses, and conducting “reality check” of proposed
615
hypotheses .
(iii) Recommendation for implementation by the Scientific
Committee
After additional analysis of scientific data when necessary, the ISTs
will be finalized . The Scientific Committee will then make
recommendations to the Commission on the calculation of catch
quotas which could also include the need for additional research.
The ISTs which survived all these processes will become CLA . If
the Commission accepts the recommendations from the Scientific
Committee, the final input data (i .e . past catch records and
abundance estimates from sighting surveys) will be used to 4 .165
calculate catch quotas.
[are] not required for management under the RMP” only refers to the final
stage of the RMP when a CLA is finally built and used for calculating catch
quotas. The fact is that much scientific data obtained fr om both lethal and
non-lethal components of scientific whaling has been essential for
Pre-Implementation Assessment and RMP Implementation process (including
the ISTs), without which the RMP cannot function . For example, the data
obtained from scientific whaling have been extensiv ely used and are making
substantial contributions in the western North Pacific common minke whale
IST process
615“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Annex D, Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised 616
Management Procedure, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 94-96 [Annex 109] .
220 species-specific catch quota calculation formula, a large number of Figure 4-12 . Contribution of JARPA Data to the RMP Process .
computer simulations are c onducted on various hypotheses and
assumptions . For instance, if there are three stock structure
hypothesis, three estimated past catch scenarios and two Maximum
Sustainable Yield Rates (e .g . 1% and 4%), 18 simulation scenarios
(three times three times two) shall be tried . In reality, more
scenarios will be tried and hundreds of computer runs for each
scenario will be required. The results of ISTs will be assessed in
detail and only successful scenario s will survive the process to the
finalization of ISTs . The scientific whaling data are used in
identifying hypothesis, evaluating the relative plausibility of
various hypotheses, and conducting “reality check” of proposed
615
hypotheses .
(iii) Recommendation for implementation by the Scientific
Committee
After additional analysis of scientific data when necessary, the ISTs
will be finalized . The Scientific Committee will then make
recommendations to the Commission on the calculation of catch
quotas which could also include the need for additional research.
The ISTs which survived all these processes will become CLA . If
the Commission accepts the recommendations from the Scientific
Committee, the final input data (i .e . past catch records and
abundance estimates from sighting surveys) will be used to 4 .165
calculate catch quotas.
[are] not required for management under the RMP” only refers to the final
stage of the RMP when a CLA is finally built and used for calculating catch
quotas. The fact is that much scientific data obtained fr om both lethal and
non-lethal components of scientific whaling has been essential for
Pre-Implementation Assessment and RMP Implementation process (including
the ISTs), without which the RMP cannot function . For example, the data
obtained from scientific whaling have been extensiv ely used and are making
substantial contributions in the western North Pacific common minke whale
IST process
615“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Annex D, Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised 616
Management Procedure, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 94-96 [Annex 109] .process starts for the Antarctic minke whales, the JARPA/JARPA II data will
thus become essential for the management of whales . The full paragraph
from which the above quoted phrase comes from the Report of the 2006 4 .168
Intersessional Workshop explicitly recognizes the potential contributions of programme that was designed to contribu te, and in fact contributed, to the
JARPA to the improvement of management of minke whales . “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)
of the Schedule .
4 .166 As indicated in the present Section, the JARPA results have been
highly appreciated in the review m eetings/workshops . Strong support for the 4 .169
position that JARPA is providing valuable scientific results has also come considerations:
617
from prominent individuals as follows :
“The Japanese input into cetacean research in the Antarctic is
significant, and I would say cruc ial for the (IWC) Scientific
Committee” –Arne Bjørge, Institute of Marine Research, Oslo and, 618
at the time of the statement, Chair of the Scientific Committee .
“Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take,
and probably have the best whale science as a result .” -- David A .
Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U .S . 4 .170
Department of State 619 .
necessary to achieve these objectives . Japan does not doubt the usefulness of
4 .167 It is thus evident that JARPA’s outcomes are much appreciated in non-lethal methods, which it combines with lethal sampling to obtain data
the scientific community . necessary for achieving research objectives . However, the non-lethal methods
proposed as replacements for lethal sampling either do not produce
sufficiently accurate data necessary
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . practicable, as recognized by the Scientific Committee and various experts .
617See also above para . 4 .54 for further comments made by other experts .
618 Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007),
<http://news .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 207] .
619Joint Hearing on U .S . Leadership in the International Whaling Commission and H .R . 2455, the 4 .171
International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2009, before the Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Hu man Rights and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Asia, the contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” . JARPA’s
Pacific and the Global Environment of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congrss, Second Session (6 May 2010), Serial No . scientific contribution has been
111-95, p .29<http://www .hcfa .house .gov/111/56336 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 .
222process starts for the Antarctic minke whales, the JARPA/JARPA II data will
thus become essential for the management of whales . The full paragraph
from which the above quoted phrase comes from the Report of the 2006 4 .168
Intersessional Workshop explicitly recognizes the potential contributions of programme that was designed to contribu te, and in fact contributed, to the
JARPA to the improvement of management of minke whales . “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)
of the Schedule .
4 .166 As indicated in the present Section, the JARPA results have been
highly appreciated in the review m eetings/workshops . Strong support for the 4 .169
position that JARPA is providing valuable scientific results has also come considerations:
617
from prominent individuals as follows :
“The Japanese input into cetacean research in the Antarctic is
significant, and I would say cruc ial for the (IWC) Scientific
Committee” –Arne Bjørge, Institute of Marine Research, Oslo and, 618
at the time of the statement, Chair of the Scientific Committee .
“Japan does perform scientific research on the whales they take,
and probably have the best whale science as a result .” -- David A .
Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U .S . 4 .170
Department of State 619 .
necessary to achieve these objectives . Japan does not doubt the usefulness of
4 .167 It is thus evident that JARPA’s outcomes are much appreciated in non-lethal methods, which it combines with lethal sampling to obtain data
the scientific community . necessary for achieving research objectives . However, the non-lethal methods
proposed as replacements for lethal sampling either do not produce
sufficiently accurate data necessary
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . practicable, as recognized by the Scientific Committee and various experts .
617See also above para . 4 .54 for further comments made by other experts .
618 Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007),
<http://news .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 207] .
619Joint Hearing on U .S . Leadership in the International Whaling Commission and H .R . 2455, the 4 .171
International Whale Conservation and Protection Act of 2009, before the Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Hu man Rights and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Asia, the contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” . JARPA’s
Pacific and the Global Environment of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congrss, Second Session (6 May 2010), Serial No . scientific contribution has been
111-95, p .29<http://www .hcfa .house .gov/111/56336 .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 .meetings/workshop and prominent experts in the field .
5 .1
the basis of the results of JARPA (Section 1)
contributing to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged
in Paragraph 10(e) of the ICRW Schedule and to follow up on the findings of
JARPA indicating that significant changes in the Antarctic ecosystem are
taking place, it sets forth several concrete objectives
methods and sample sizes employed in JARPA II are al so limited to what is
scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives and designed so as not to
cause any harm to the whale stocks (Section 3) . The outcome of JARPAII
has been made publicly available so as to contribute to the “ review” and the
“comprehensive assessment ” as well as other work of the Scientific
Committee (Section 4) . Although the first review of JARPA II data and
results is scheduled in 2013- 2014, the Scientific Committee has already
recognized the scientific value of the data and samples obtained in JARPA II
(Section 5) . Contrary to what the Memorial of Australia suggests, JARPA II
is not dictated by economic or commercial purposes (Section 6) . The present
Chapter thus shows that JARPAII is a scientific research programme
5 .2
Government of Japan provides an executive summary of the present Chapter .
This summary is also to be understood in terms of the more detailed
620
224meetings/workshop and prominent experts in the field .
5 .1
the basis of the results of JARPA (Section 1)
contributing to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged
in Paragraph 10(e) of the ICRW Schedule and to follow up on the findings of
JARPA indicating that significant changes in the Antarctic ecosystem are
taking place, it sets forth several concrete objectives
methods and sample sizes employed in JARPA II are al so limited to what is
scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives and designed so as not to
cause any harm to the whale stocks (Section 3) . The outcome of JARPAII
has been made publicly available so as to contribute to the “ review” and the
“comprehensive assessment ” as well as other work of the Scientific
Committee (Section 4) . Although the first review of JARPA II data and
results is scheduled in 2013- 2014, the Scientific Committee has already
recognized the scientific value of the data and samples obtained in JARPA II
(Section 5) . Contrary to what the Memorial of Australia suggests, JARPA II
is not dictated by economic or commercial purposes (Section 6) . The present
Chapter thus shows that JARPAII is a scientific research programme
5 .2
Government of Japan provides an executive summary of the present Chapter .
This summary is also to be understood in terms of the more detailed
620exposition that follows . There are no citations in this summary: these will be
found in subsequent sections.
5 .3 This Chapter establishes that JARPA II has been and is conducted
“for purposes of scientific research ” by explaining the research needs that
JARPA II addresses, its objectives, research methods, research outputs and
preliminary evaluations .
5 .4 JARPA II was launched and has been conducted to collect
scientific data contributing to the “review” and the “ comprehensive 5 .6
assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule to the ICRW , and above objectives and, as was the case for JARPA, are also limited to what is
to follow up on the findings of JARPA indicating that significant changes in scientifically necessary . The research area is the same as that used in the later
the Antarctic ecosystem were taking place . The findings of JARPA revealed years of JARPA, but the area for research take was slightly narrowed
further scientific questions that would require further special permit whaling. because data from JARPA showed that sampling of Antarctic minke whales
Some of the scientific dev elopments, such as those on climate change, also in the area that excluded was of low scientific importance .
necessitated further special permit whalingof a different kind from JARPA .
5 .7
5 .5 JARPA II was designed and has been conducted to achieve the summer season with the first two seasons dedicated to feasibility studies . It is
following research objecti ves, established on the basis of scientific a long-term research program me structured to progress in six -year phases
considerations: and there is no specified termination date because its primary objective – to
monitor the Antarctic ecosystem
- Objective 1 (Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem) was set as the
research . While JARPA was designed to estimate its
first objective so as to understand how whales respond and adapt to
changes in the environment and the ecosystem structure . Such particular time, JARPA II has the purpose of detecting changes over time .
understanding is necessary to enable appropriate utiliz ation and
management of whale stocks .
- Objective 2 (Modelling competition among whale species and 5 .8
future management objectives) was established mainly because the
results of JARPA suggested the possibility of a major shift in the objectives of JARPA II . Non-lethal methods, such as satellite tagging, cannot
composition of baleen whales in the Antarctic . The goal of completely replace lethal sampling . Internal organs such as earplug s for age
constructing a competition model among whale species would
226exposition that follows . There are no citations in this summary: these will be
found in subsequent sections.
5 .3 This Chapter establishes that JARPA II has been and is conducted
“for purposes of scientific research ” by explaining the research needs that
JARPA II addresses, its objectives, research methods, research outputs and
preliminary evaluations .
5 .4 JARPA II was launched and has been conducted to collect
scientific data contributing to the “review” and the “ comprehensive 5 .6
assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule to the ICRW , and above objectives and, as was the case for JARPA, are also limited to what is
to follow up on the findings of JARPA indicating that significant changes in scientifically necessary . The research area is the same as that used in the later
the Antarctic ecosystem were taking place . The findings of JARPA revealed years of JARPA, but the area for research take was slightly narrowed
further scientific questions that would require further special permit whaling. because data from JARPA showed that sampling of Antarctic minke whales
Some of the scientific dev elopments, such as those on climate change, also in the area that excluded was of low scientific importance .
necessitated further special permit whalingof a different kind from JARPA .
5 .7
5 .5 JARPA II was designed and has been conducted to achieve the summer season with the first two seasons dedicated to feasibility studies . It is
following research objecti ves, established on the basis of scientific a long-term research program me structured to progress in six -year phases
considerations: and there is no specified termination date because its primary objective – to
monitor the Antarctic ecosystem
- Objective 1 (Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem) was set as the
research . While JARPA was designed to estimate its
first objective so as to understand how whales respond and adapt to
changes in the environment and the ecosystem structure . Such particular time, JARPA II has the purpose of detecting changes over time .
understanding is necessary to enable appropriate utiliz ation and
management of whale stocks .
- Objective 2 (Modelling competition among whale species and 5 .8
future management objectives) was established mainly because the
results of JARPA suggested the possibility of a major shift in the objectives of JARPA II . Non-lethal methods, such as satellite tagging, cannot
composition of baleen whales in the Antarctic . The goal of completely replace lethal sampling . Internal organs such as earplug s for age
constructing a competition model among whale species woulddetermination, ovaries and test es for sexual maturity determination and creation of a positive atmosphere for the negotiation to resolve the stalemate
dorsal vertebrae for physi cal maturity determination are essential for in the IWC (i .e . the Future of the IWC process) .
estimating trends in the target items for JARPA II objectives . Examination of
stomach contents and measurement of blubber thickness also require lethal 5 .12
sampling . first official review will not take place until 2013
agreement of the Scientific Committee . However, research outputs such as
5 .9 The Antarctic minke whale continues to be a target species of cruise reports and analytical papers have already been submitted to the
JARPA II . Humpback and f in whales were also to be sampled in order to Scientific Committee . Two peer -reviewed publications based on JARPA II
have a better management tool of more than one whale species by building samples and data are already available,
an ecosystem model . Other whale species, such as blue whales or Southern programme has been reviewed .
right whales, were excluded because of their low abundance .
5 .13
5 .10 The sample sizes of the target species of JARPA II are calculated Committee has already recognized the usefulness and value of some of the
following the established but complex statistical procedures . For example, data/samples of JARPA II . For example, in 2010 and 2011, the Scientific
after calculating the number of samples necessary to detect annual changes Committee recommended that up -to-date catch-at-age data from JARPA II
of each research item, such as age at maturity, pregnancy rate and blubber should be included in its SCAA (integrated statistical catch -at-age) analyses .
thickness, the sample size for minke whales was found to be 850 (with 10% Preliminary analyses have also proved that the samples of fin whales are
allowance), because the statistical conditions are satisfied for most of the useful for objectives of JARPA II .
research items with this number . A s in JARPA, JARPA II was carefully
designed not to harm whale stocks . 5 .14
Australia suggests, JARPA/JARPA II are not dictated by economic or
5 .11 The actual catches of Antarctic minke whales and fin whales under commercial purposes . They are designed on the basis of scientific
JARPA II fell significantly short of the o riginally planned number, primarily considerations to achieve scientific objectives through scientific methods .
because of a fire on board the research base vessel in 2007 and the annual
violent sabotage activities by an anti-whaling non-governmental organization . 5 .15
As for humpback whales, Japan decided to suspend their sampling in has been and is conducted “
response to a request from the Chair of the IWC, in order to contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)
228determination, ovaries and test es for sexual maturity determination and creation of a positive atmosphere for the negotiation to resolve the stalemate
dorsal vertebrae for physi cal maturity determination are essential for in the IWC (i .e . the Future of the IWC process) .
estimating trends in the target items for JARPA II objectives . Examination of
stomach contents and measurement of blubber thickness also require lethal 5 .12
sampling . first official review will not take place until 2013
agreement of the Scientific Committee . However, research outputs such as
5 .9 The Antarctic minke whale continues to be a target species of cruise reports and analytical papers have already been submitted to the
JARPA II . Humpback and f in whales were also to be sampled in order to Scientific Committee . Two peer -reviewed publications based on JARPA II
have a better management tool of more than one whale species by building samples and data are already available,
an ecosystem model . Other whale species, such as blue whales or Southern programme has been reviewed .
right whales, were excluded because of their low abundance .
5 .13
5 .10 The sample sizes of the target species of JARPA II are calculated Committee has already recognized the usefulness and value of some of the
following the established but complex statistical procedures . For example, data/samples of JARPA II . For example, in 2010 and 2011, the Scientific
after calculating the number of samples necessary to detect annual changes Committee recommended that up -to-date catch-at-age data from JARPA II
of each research item, such as age at maturity, pregnancy rate and blubber should be included in its SCAA (integrated statistical catch -at-age) analyses .
thickness, the sample size for minke whales was found to be 850 (with 10% Preliminary analyses have also proved that the samples of fin whales are
allowance), because the statistical conditions are satisfied for most of the useful for objectives of JARPA II .
research items with this number . A s in JARPA, JARPA II was carefully
designed not to harm whale stocks . 5 .14
Australia suggests, JARPA/JARPA II are not dictated by economic or
5 .11 The actual catches of Antarctic minke whales and fin whales under commercial purposes . They are designed on the basis of scientific
JARPA II fell significantly short of the o riginally planned number, primarily considerations to achieve scientific objectives through scientific methods .
because of a fire on board the research base vessel in 2007 and the annual
violent sabotage activities by an anti-whaling non-governmental organization . 5 .15
As for humpback whales, Japan decided to suspend their sampling in has been and is conducted “
response to a request from the Chair of the IWC, in order to contribute to the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 10(e)of the ICRW Schedule .
Section 1. Research Needs
5 .16 JARPAproduced a number of scientific findings, which the 2005
Japan JARPA Review Meeting and the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review
Workshop considered would contribute to a better management of whale
621
stocks in the Antarctic Ocean . At the same time, these findings revealed
scientific questions that would require further special permit whaling . In
addition, some of the scientific developments that had taken place since the
launch of JARPA, the most conspicuous example of which was a growing
concern about climate change, including global warming, necessitated
research whaling of a different kind from JARPA . Thus, JARPA II
commenced in 2005 to obtain further data necessary for scientific decisions
on the conservation and sustainable use of whale resources .
622 5 .18
5 .17 The Plan for JARPAII (the 2005 Plan) , submitted to the IWC by
623 Workshop have been extremely helpful to Japan in preparing and conducting
the Government of Japan in 2005 explains the research need in its section
III . 1 ., of which an extract is reproduced here: JARPA II . As summari zed in Appendix 3 of Annex O of the Report of the
Scientific Committee
“JARPA data have shown tha t the increase in minke whales has addressed or are addressing most of the recommendations
621See above, paras . 4 .160-4 .161 .
622Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the JapWhale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 624
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) [Annex
623150] .
JARPA II was launched after the 2005 Review M eeting called by the Government of Japan but
before the 2006 Final Review Workshop organized by the Scientific Committee . It should be noted 625
that the 2005 Review Meeting was open to any interested scientists and the report of that meeting
was submitted to the Scientific Committee (SC/57/O6) [Annex 102], and that it was important to
keep the consistency and continuity in data obtained in the research area (trend of different 626
parameters can be estimated by combining JARPA and JARPA II data) . Waiting for the S cientific
Committee review workshop had meant no survey in one or two years .
230of the ICRW Schedule .
Section 1. Research Needs
5 .16 JARPAproduced a number of scientific findings, which the 2005
Japan JARPA Review Meeting and the 2006 IWC JARPA Final Review
Workshop considered would contribute to a better management of whale
621
stocks in the Antarctic Ocean . At the same time, these findings revealed
scientific questions that would require further special permit whaling . In
addition, some of the scientific developments that had taken place since the
launch of JARPA, the most conspicuous example of which was a growing
concern about climate change, including global warming, necessitated
research whaling of a different kind from JARPA . Thus, JARPA II
commenced in 2005 to obtain further data necessary for scientific decisions
on the conservation and sustainable use of whale resources .
622 5 .18
5 .17 The Plan for JARPAII (the 2005 Plan) , submitted to the IWC by
623 Workshop have been extremely helpful to Japan in preparing and conducting
the Government of Japan in 2005 explains the research need in its section
III . 1 ., of which an extract is reproduced here: JARPA II . As summari zed in Appendix 3 of Annex O of the Report of the
Scientific Committee
“JARPA data have shown tha t the increase in minke whales has addressed or are addressing most of the recommendations
621See above, paras . 4 .160-4 .161 .
622Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the JapWhale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 624
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) [Annex
623150] .
JARPA II was launched after the 2005 Review M eeting called by the Government of Japan but
before the 2006 Final Review Workshop organized by the Scientific Committee . It should be noted 625
that the 2005 Review Meeting was open to any interested scientists and the report of that meeting
was submitted to the Scientific Committee (SC/57/O6) [Annex 102], and that it was important to
keep the consistency and continuity in data obtained in the research area (trend of different 626
parameters can be estimated by combining JARPA and JARPA II data) . Waiting for the S cientific
Committee review workshop had meant no survey in one or two years .5 .19 These research needs, which constitute the very basis of JARPA II,
are now elucidated more in detail in relation to specific research objectives . 5 .21
scientific objective s”
Section2. Objectives considerations on which JARPA I’Is research objectives are based
5 .20 The 2005 Plan sets forth JARPAII’s research objectives in detail . 627
Its structure is summarized as follows:
5 .22
“(1) Monitoring of theAntarctic ecosystem
first objective . The importance of ecosystem approaches to the management
(i) Monitoring of whale abundance trends and biological
parameters of whales has been recognized by the IWC, as mentioned earlier
(ii) Monitoring of krill abundance and the feeding ecology of
whales
(iii) Monitoring of the effects of contaminants on cetaceans 5 .23
(iv) Monitoring of cetacean habitat
(2) Modelling competition among whale species and future on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as follows:
management objectives complex of relationships of Antarctic marine living resources with each other
(i) Constructing a model of competition among whale species
(ii) New management objectives inclu ding the restoration of and with their physical environment ” (Article I, paragraph 3) . This concept,
the cetacean ecosystem which corresponds to a broadly accepted understanding of the
-Establishing future management objectives “ecosystem” in the scientific literature
-Estimating surplus production (and hence allowable
catch) by species , under some of the management used in the scientific arguments without being defined each time
objectives example, when JARPA/JARPA II data w ere used as input for a 2008 joint
-Contribute towards a multi-whale-species management
(3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure CCAMLR/IWC workshop, whose objective was to review input data
(4) Improving the management procedure forAntarctic minke
whale stocks 628
-Improvement of MSYR (maximum sustainable yield 629
rate) estimates for Antarctic minke whales
- Redefinition of appropriate managementAreas
-Incorporation of effects arising from the inter-species
relationships among the whale species .”
630
627Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 631
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC /57/O1 (2005), pp . 632
10-12[Annex 150] .
2325 .19 These research needs, which constitute the very basis of JARPA II,
are now elucidated more in detail in relation to specific research objectives . 5 .21
scientific objective s”
Section2. Objectives considerations on which JARPA I’Is research objectives are based
5 .20 The 2005 Plan sets forth JARPAII’s research objectives in detail . 627
Its structure is summarized as follows:
5 .22
“(1) Monitoring of theAntarctic ecosystem
first objective . The importance of ecosystem approaches to the management
(i) Monitoring of whale abundance trends and biological
parameters of whales has been recognized by the IWC, as mentioned earlier
(ii) Monitoring of krill abundance and the feeding ecology of
whales
(iii) Monitoring of the effects of contaminants on cetaceans 5 .23
(iv) Monitoring of cetacean habitat
(2) Modelling competition among whale species and future on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as follows:
management objectives complex of relationships of Antarctic marine living resources with each other
(i) Constructing a model of competition among whale species
(ii) New management objectives inclu ding the restoration of and with their physical environment ” (Article I, paragraph 3) . This concept,
the cetacean ecosystem which corresponds to a broadly accepted understanding of the
-Establishing future management objectives “ecosystem” in the scientific literature
-Estimating surplus production (and hence allowable
catch) by species , under some of the management used in the scientific arguments without being defined each time
objectives example, when JARPA/JARPA II data w ere used as input for a 2008 joint
-Contribute towards a multi-whale-species management
(3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure CCAMLR/IWC workshop, whose objective was to review input data
(4) Improving the management procedure forAntarctic minke
whale stocks 628
-Improvement of MSYR (maximum sustainable yield 629
rate) estimates for Antarctic minke whales
- Redefinition of appropriate managementAreas
-Incorporation of effects arising from the inter-species
relationships among the whale species .”
630
627Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 631
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC /57/O1 (2005), pp . 632
10-12[Annex 150] .required for ecosystem models being developed to provide management and monitoring the Antarctic e cosystem as its first objective
conservation advice on krill predators in the Antarctic marine ecosystem, the important considerations are summarized as follows:
workshop did not feel it necessary to provide a definition of “ Antarctic
marine ecosystem” 633 . The IWC, when it discusses issues relating to th e
Antarctic marine ecosystem and whale management, do es without defining
the term 634 .
Figure 5-1 . Simplified structure of the Antarctic ecosystem 63 .
5 .25
monitoring as follows, explaining how the data collected in JARPAII will be
636
637
638
639
5 .24 The 2005 Plan extensively elucidates why JARPA II sets forth
633
“Report of the Joint CCAMLR -IWC Workshop to Review Input Data for Antarctic Marine
Ecosystem Models”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl. 2), 2010, pp . 541-586 .
634See documents referred to in paras . 3 .100-102 .
635Beddington J R and May R M, “The harvesting of increasing species in a natural ecosystem” (1982) 640
247 (5) Scientific American, pp . 62-69 . 641
234required for ecosystem models being developed to provide management and monitoring the Antarctic e cosystem as its first objective
conservation advice on krill predators in the Antarctic marine ecosystem, the important considerations are summarized as follows:
workshop did not feel it necessary to provide a definition of “ Antarctic
marine ecosystem” 633 . The IWC, when it discusses issues relating to th e
Antarctic marine ecosystem and whale management, do es without defining
the term 634 .
Figure 5-1 . Simplified structure of the Antarctic ecosystem 63 .
5 .25
monitoring as follows, explaining how the data collected in JARPAII will be
636
637
638
639
5 .24 The 2005 Plan extensively elucidates why JARPA II sets forth
633
“Report of the Joint CCAMLR -IWC Workshop to Review Input Data for Antarctic Marine
Ecosystem Models”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl. 2), 2010, pp . 541-586 .
634See documents referred to in paras . 3 .100-102 .
635Beddington J R and May R M, “The harvesting of increasing species in a natural ecosystem” (1982) 640
247 (5) Scientific American, pp . 62-69 . 641 642
useful in understanding changes in theAntarctic ecosystem :
“1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem
…JARPA II will monitor the changes over the years of various
environmental variables, prey density and abundance, and
abundances and biological parameters of three baleen whales: the
Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales . The obtained data will
be indicators of changes in the Antarctic ecosystem , and the
observations and records will have a great significance in
themselves . Appropriate utilization and management of whale
stocks will become possible by understanding how whales respond
and adapt to changes in the environment and the ecosystem
structure… .
I) MONITORING OF WHALE ABUNDANCE TRENDS AND
BIOLOGICALPARAMETERS
JARPA II will monitor changes over the years in abundance by
mean of sighting surveys, and changes in recruitment, pregnancy 5 .26
rate, age at maturity and other biological parameters by s ampling
collected will be useful in understanding changes in the Antarctic ecosystem,
survey .
nor defines what it proposes to achieve pursuant to this objective
II) MONITORING OF KRILL ABUNDANCE AND THE
FEEDING ECOLOGY OF WHALES paragraphs of the 2005 Plan quoted above show that such allegations are
JARPAII will monitor the yearly amount of prey consumption and factually incorrect .
the change in blubber thickness of whales over the years .
Meso-scale surveys will be conducted, if possible, to investigate
prey distribution and abundance . Changes in the biological 5 .27
environment of whales will be monitored . biological parameters, in addition to stomach content and blubber thickness
III) MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS trend will be investigated using statistical methods . Temporal changes in
ON CETACEANS
The temporal and spatial behaviour of pollutants is global and they
become hig hly concentrated through the food web . By
investigating top predators including cetaceans, JARPA II will
elucidate the pattern of contaminant accumulation and the effects
of the toxins on them . Together with other data it should also give
an acc643te picture of global contamination and help predict future
trends … .
642Compare AM, para . 5 .42 . 644
643Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 645
236 642
useful in understanding changes in theAntarctic ecosystem :
“1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem
…JARPA II will monitor the changes over the years of various
environmental variables, prey density and abundance, and
abundances and biological parameters of three baleen whales: the
Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales . The obtained data will
be indicators of changes in the Antarctic ecosystem , and the
observations and records will have a great significance in
themselves . Appropriate utilization and management of whale
stocks will become possible by understanding how whales respond
and adapt to changes in the environment and the ecosystem
structure… .
I) MONITORING OF WHALE ABUNDANCE TRENDS AND
BIOLOGICALPARAMETERS
JARPA II will monitor changes over the years in abundance by
mean of sighting surveys, and changes in recruitment, pregnancy 5 .26
rate, age at maturity and other biological parameters by s ampling
collected will be useful in understanding changes in the Antarctic ecosystem,
survey .
nor defines what it proposes to achieve pursuant to this objective
II) MONITORING OF KRILL ABUNDANCE AND THE
FEEDING ECOLOGY OF WHALES paragraphs of the 2005 Plan quoted above show that such allegations are
JARPAII will monitor the yearly amount of prey consumption and factually incorrect .
the change in blubber thickness of whales over the years .
Meso-scale surveys will be conducted, if possible, to investigate
prey distribution and abundance . Changes in the biological 5 .27
environment of whales will be monitored . biological parameters, in addition to stomach content and blubber thickness
III) MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS trend will be investigated using statistical methods . Temporal changes in
ON CETACEANS
The temporal and spatial behaviour of pollutants is global and they
become hig hly concentrated through the food web . By
investigating top predators including cetaceans, JARPA II will
elucidate the pattern of contaminant accumulation and the effects
of the toxins on them . Together with other data it should also give
an acc643te picture of global contamination and help predict future
trends … .
642Compare AM, para . 5 .42 . 644
643Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 645those parameters have been demonstrated under the JARPA research and
they suggest changes in the ecosystem . Under the second objective,
ecosystem models will be developed and the outp ut of the models will allow
646
for an interpretation of the changes observed .
B. Objective 2: Modelling Competition among Whale Species and
Future Management Objectives
Figure 5- 2 . Modelling competition among whale species in the Antarctic (source:
Institute of Cetacean Research) .
5 .28 The scientific background for Objective 2 of JARPA II is also 647
explained in the 2005 Plan in detail . The most important elements are as
648
follows: 649
650
646Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program u nder
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) , pp . 14-17 .
238those parameters have been demonstrated under the JARPA research and
they suggest changes in the ecosystem . Under the second objective,
ecosystem models will be developed and the outp ut of the models will allow
646
for an interpretation of the changes observed .
B. Objective 2: Modelling Competition among Whale Species and
Future Management Objectives
Figure 5- 2 . Modelling competition among whale species in the Antarctic (source:
Institute of Cetacean Research) .
5 .28 The scientific background for Objective 2 of JARPA II is also 647
explained in the 2005 Plan in detail . The most important elements are as
648
follows: 649
650
646Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program u nder
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) , pp . 14-17 . expected of baleen whale populations competing for a dominant
single food resource, krill . Therefore, it is necessary for the IWC,
as well as its member countries, to 651elo p a management method
based on multi-species models .”
“[One] of the deficiencies of the current RMP is the zero catch
quota that it turns out when carrying capacity declines due to
competition among whale species . The decrease in abundance
caused by the competition is misinterpreted by the current RMP as
an over-hunting so that catches are set unnecessarily low . That part
needs also to be improved by the use of more realistic
multi-whale-species models .” 652
5 .29 It is also to be noted that the 2005 Review Meeti ng agreed that the
results obtained from JARPA provided clear support for the need to take
species-interaction (ecosystem) effects into account in understanding the
dynamics of the baleen whale species in the Antarctic ecosystem, and
predicting future trends in their abundance and population structure 653 .
5 .30 On the basis of these scientific considerations, the 2005 Plan sets
forth two concrete research objectives:
“I) CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF COMPETITION AMONG
5 .31
WHALE SPECIES 654
…We need to consider hypotheses related to this competition investigation of [the krill surplus] hypothesis is simply not achievable
and clarify the mechanism of resource fluctuation to be able to through Japan’s whaling”
the validity of the krill surplus hypothesis . W
651Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic ARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and incorporate data on other animals/fish that prey on krill in order to develop a
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 9 .
652Ibid ., p . 10 . “model of competition among whale species
653“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 hypotheses explaining changes in abundance of baleen whale species,
(2005), p . 15 .
654Several hypotheses and models are discussed in the Plan for JARPA II . Government of Japan, “Plan 655
for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New 656
Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 15 -16 and its Appendix 5 .
240 expected of baleen whale populations competing for a dominant
single food resource, krill . Therefore, it is necessary for the IWC,
as well as its member countries, to 651elo p a management method
based on multi-species models .”
“[One] of the deficiencies of the current RMP is the zero catch
quota that it turns out when carrying capacity declines due to
competition among whale species . The decrease in abundance
caused by the competition is misinterpreted by the current RMP as
an over-hunting so that catches are set unnecessarily low . That part
needs also to be improved by the use of more realistic
multi-whale-species models .” 652
5 .29 It is also to be noted that the 2005 Review Meeti ng agreed that the
results obtained from JARPA provided clear support for the need to take
species-interaction (ecosystem) effects into account in understanding the
dynamics of the baleen whale species in the Antarctic ecosystem, and
predicting future trends in their abundance and population structure 653 .
5 .30 On the basis of these scientific considerations, the 2005 Plan sets
forth two concrete research objectives:
“I) CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF COMPETITION AMONG
5 .31
WHALE SPECIES 654
…We need to consider hypotheses related to this competition investigation of [the krill surplus] hypothesis is simply not achievable
and clarify the mechanism of resource fluctuation to be able to through Japan’s whaling”
the validity of the krill surplus hypothesis . W
651Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic ARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and incorporate data on other animals/fish that prey on krill in order to develop a
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 9 .
652Ibid ., p . 10 . “model of competition among whale species
653“Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 hypotheses explaining changes in abundance of baleen whale species,
(2005), p . 15 .
654Several hypotheses and models are discussed in the Plan for JARPA II . Government of Japan, “Plan 655
for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New 656
Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 15 -16 and its Appendix 5 . 657
including the krill surplus hypothesis . Australia’s allegations that JARPA
II is not designed or not conducted to verify the validity of the krill surplus
658
hypothesis are thus beside the point .
Figure 5-3 . Conceptual chart on the input, output and goal of the ecosystem models
under JARPA II (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
5 .33
follows:
C. Objective 3: Elucidation of Temporal and Spatial Changes in
Stock Structure
5 .34
5 .32 The scientific background for this research objective is provided in
and last research objective as follows:
the 2005 Plan as follows:
659
657Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 660
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 11, 15 .
658AM, para . 5 .59 .
242 657
including the krill surplus hypothesis . Australia’s allegations that JARPA
II is not designed or not conducted to verify the validity of the krill surplus
658
hypothesis are thus beside the point .
Figure 5-3 . Conceptual chart on the input, output and goal of the ecosystem models
under JARPA II (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
5 .33
follows:
C. Objective 3: Elucidation of Temporal and Spatial Changes in
Stock Structure
5 .34
5 .32 The scientific background for this research objective is provided in
and last research objective as follows:
the 2005 Plan as follows:
659
657Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 660
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 11, 15 .
658AM, para . 5 .59 . “Although the IWC Scientific Committee completed the Revised
Management Procedure for the regulation of commercial whaling
661
in 1992 (IWC, 1993 ), with the exception of operations carried
out by Norway that has lodged an objection, whaling based on the
RMP has not been resumed to this day . The RMP is overly
concerned with the protection of whale stocks and thus too
conservative in terms of rational utilization of resources . Stock
hypotheses, tuning levels, MSYR and other parameters are chosen
unduly conservatively because of argued uncertainties in biological
understanding .… It is therefore of primary importance to conduct
research that will reduce the range of uncertainties in such factors,
as is the aim of JARPA II .” 662
“We need better estimation of the MSYR in order to respond to
any concerns over the implementation of the RMP and to improve
its likely deficiencies concerning inefficient utilization of whale
resources . Currently, RMP Small Areas for minke whales in the
5 .36
Antarctic have been established as longitudinal sectors of 10°, but
at the very least, we need to redefine appropriate Small Area proposes to improve the RMP or replace it entirely ”
according to information on stock structure .” 663
above paragraphs quoted from the 2005 Plan that JARPA II is intended to
5 .35 On the basis of these scientific considerations, the 2005 Pla n sets collect data and information to improve the RMP .
forth Objective 4 as follows: Memorial of Australia claims that “ the Scientific Committee examined and
satisfactorily resolved the very issues that Japan now proposes to address”
“4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke However, the MSYR of interest for management established upon a
whale stocks
multi-species model may be different from that established upon a single
JARPA II research objectives will ultimately lead to the species model . The Scientific Committee has in fact considered possible
improvement of the whale stock management procedures . In other multi-species effect s (such as time -varying carrying capacity) on the
words, the first objective will provide information on biological
parameters (such as MSYR) necessary for managing the stocks performance of the CLA , which currently uses single
more efficiently under a revised RMP, the second will lead to models
examining a multi- species management model for the future and
661“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Reint. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp . 5-62, and pp . 664
146-152, Annex H [Annex 89, 90] . 665
662Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research P rogram under 666
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 8-9 .
663Ibid ., p . 10 . 667
244 “Although the IWC Scientific Committee completed the Revised
Management Procedure for the regulation of commercial whaling
661
in 1992 (IWC, 1993 ), with the exception of operations carried
out by Norway that has lodged an objection, whaling based on the
RMP has not been resumed to this day . The RMP is overly
concerned with the protection of whale stocks and thus too
conservative in terms of rational utilization of resources . Stock
hypotheses, tuning levels, MSYR and other parameters are chosen
unduly conservatively because of argued uncertainties in biological
understanding .… It is therefore of primary importance to conduct
research that will reduce the range of uncertainties in such factors,
as is the aim of JARPA II .” 662
“We need better estimation of the MSYR in order to respond to
any concerns over the implementation of the RMP and to improve
its likely deficiencies concerning inefficient utilization of whale
resources . Currently, RMP Small Areas for minke whales in the
5 .36
Antarctic have been established as longitudinal sectors of 10°, but
at the very least, we need to redefine appropriate Small Area proposes to improve the RMP or replace it entirely ”
according to information on stock structure .” 663
above paragraphs quoted from the 2005 Plan that JARPA II is intended to
5 .35 On the basis of these scientific considerations, the 2005 Pla n sets collect data and information to improve the RMP .
forth Objective 4 as follows: Memorial of Australia claims that “ the Scientific Committee examined and
satisfactorily resolved the very issues that Japan now proposes to address”
“4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke However, the MSYR of interest for management established upon a
whale stocks
multi-species model may be different from that established upon a single
JARPA II research objectives will ultimately lead to the species model . The Scientific Committee has in fact considered possible
improvement of the whale stock management procedures . In other multi-species effect s (such as time -varying carrying capacity) on the
words, the first objective will provide information on biological
parameters (such as MSYR) necessary for managing the stocks performance of the CLA , which currently uses single
more efficiently under a revised RMP, the second will lead to models
examining a multi- species management model for the future and
661“Report of the Scientific Committee”, Reint. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp . 5-62, and pp . 664
146-152, Annex H [Annex 89, 90] . 665
662Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research P rogram under 666
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 8-9 .
663Ibid ., p . 10 . 667multi-species operating models 668 . Analyses conducted under Objective 4 are than 10 percent of the whole latitude range . This indicated that sampling of
relevant to this exercise . Antarctic mink e whales in this latitudinal band was of low scientific
importance .
5 .37 Australia further contends that “Japan has given no identification
669
that it intends to make a proposal for revising the RMP ” . It is however 5 .39
clear from the above quotes that Japan does intend to propose revisions to too small
improve the RMP . Detailed and intensive analyses are currently underwa y, JARPA II is considered, it is important to bear in mind that it is a scientific
following the first six-year research phase that ended in 2011 . research programme for pursuing the realization of sustainable use of whale
resources in the Antarctic . As quoted above, JARPA II conducts research on
Section 3. Details of the Research Project the Antarctic ecosystem because “ [a]ppropriate utilization and management
of whale stocks will become possible by understanding how whales respond
A. Research Area and adapt to changes in the environment and the ecosystem structure
This explains why it covers Areas III East, IV, V and VI West, which are
5 .38 The research area for JARPAII is the same as the later years regarded as potential whaling grounds, rather than the whole Antarctic
670
(1995/96-2004/05) of JARPA, i .e ., Areas III East, IV, V and VI West . The Ocean .
area between 35 °E-175°E and the area between 130 °E-145°W are to be
surveyed alternately each season, which means the area between 5 .40
130°E-175°E is to be surveyed every year . However, under JARPA II, the stressed the importance of obtaining samples from the breeding areas
area for the research take was slightly narrowed from south of 60°S to south must be noted however that the locations of breeding grounds of the
of 62°S 671 . The area was slightly modified because sighting data from Antarctic minke whales are unknown, except in waters off Brazil
JARPA showed that the density index of Antarctic minke whale was low in case, research under the JARPA demonstrated that the analyses of samples in
the latitudinal band between 60°S and 62°S 672, the area which covered less the feeding grounds are informative of the stock structure of Antarctic minke
Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 3-4, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/
668SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20D%20-%20RMP .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 124] . 673
669Ibid . 674
670AM, para . 5 .46 . 675
671See Figure 4-1 .
Research take of fin whales is to be conducted in Areas III East + IV (south of 62°S) and Areas V +
VI West (south of 62°S) alternately each season, and that of humpback whales is to be conducted in 676
672Area IV (south of 62°S) and Area V (south of 62°S) al ternately each season .
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
246multi-species operating models 668 . Analyses conducted under Objective 4 are than 10 percent of the whole latitude range . This indicated that sampling of
relevant to this exercise . Antarctic mink e whales in this latitudinal band was of low scientific
importance .
5 .37 Australia further contends that “Japan has given no identification
669
that it intends to make a proposal for revising the RMP ” . It is however 5 .39
clear from the above quotes that Japan does intend to propose revisions to too small
improve the RMP . Detailed and intensive analyses are currently underwa y, JARPA II is considered, it is important to bear in mind that it is a scientific
following the first six-year research phase that ended in 2011 . research programme for pursuing the realization of sustainable use of whale
resources in the Antarctic . As quoted above, JARPA II conducts research on
Section 3. Details of the Research Project the Antarctic ecosystem because “ [a]ppropriate utilization and management
of whale stocks will become possible by understanding how whales respond
A. Research Area and adapt to changes in the environment and the ecosystem structure
This explains why it covers Areas III East, IV, V and VI West, which are
5 .38 The research area for JARPAII is the same as the later years regarded as potential whaling grounds, rather than the whole Antarctic
670
(1995/96-2004/05) of JARPA, i .e ., Areas III East, IV, V and VI West . The Ocean .
area between 35 °E-175°E and the area between 130 °E-145°W are to be
surveyed alternately each season, which means the area between 5 .40
130°E-175°E is to be surveyed every year . However, under JARPA II, the stressed the importance of obtaining samples from the breeding areas
area for the research take was slightly narrowed from south of 60°S to south must be noted however that the locations of breeding grounds of the
of 62°S 671 . The area was slightly modified because sighting data from Antarctic minke whales are unknown, except in waters off Brazil
JARPA showed that the density index of Antarctic minke whale was low in case, research under the JARPA demonstrated that the analyses of samples in
the latitudinal band between 60°S and 62°S 672, the area which covered less the feeding grounds are informative of the stock structure of Antarctic minke
Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 3-4, <http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/
668SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20D%20-%20RMP .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 124] . 673
669Ibid . 674
670AM, para . 5 .46 . 675
671See Figure 4-1 .
Research take of fin whales is to be conducted in Areas III East + IV (south of 62°S) and Areas V +
VI West (south of 62°S) alternately each season, and that of humpback whales is to be conducted in 676
672Area IV (south of 62°S) and Area V (south of 62°S) al ternately each season .
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 677
whale . thickness for a whale species at a particular time period or for a particular
year class (cohort), JARPA II ha s the purpose of detecting changes over a
B. Research Period period of time for such items as age at maturity and blubber thickness
5 .41 JARPA II started from the 2005/06 austral summer season . The 5 .43
first two seasons (2005/06 and 2006/07) were dedicated to feasibility studies programme needs to detect changes over a period of t ime, at least two data
in order to examine the practicability and appropriateness of sighting points (on a time basis) is needed . Furthermore, a third data point adds
methods in the enlarged area and sampling procedures given the increased substantial certainty to the detection of an increasing or decreasing trend .
678
sample size and additional species . Since the species targets of JARPA II JARPA II thus adopts three data points . As research is carried out in two
included bigger whales, methods for catching, flensing and taking biological research areas alternately, six years are needed .
679
measurements of large body-sized whales were also tested . The full-scale
JARPA II started from the 2007/08 season 680 . 5 .44
on the basis of its six-year term research phases
5 .42 JARPA II is a long-term research programme and has no specified data from the six -year phases, revisions of the program me will be mad e as
termination date because its primary objective ( i.e. monitoring the Antarctic appropriate based primarily on IWC reviews
ecosystem) requires a continuing programme of research . The necessity of
continuous research is explicitly stated in Article VIII (4) of the ICRW ,
which provides that “continuous collection and analysis of biological data …
are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale
fisheries” 681 . It is also to be noted that, while JARPA was designed to 682
estimate such items as age, age at maturity, pregnancy rate, and blubber
683
677L . A . Pastene, “What do we know about the stock structure of the Antarctic minke whale? A
summary of studies and hypotheses”, SC/D06/J12, Report of the Intersessional Workshop to
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 1 0 (Suppl.), 2008; “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, p . 58 [Annex 111] .
678Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 19 .
679Ibid . 684
680Ibid ., p . 13 .
681Emphasis added . Compare AM, para . 5 .42: “JARPA II has no defined endpoint .”
248 677
whale . thickness for a whale species at a particular time period or for a particular
year class (cohort), JARPA II ha s the purpose of detecting changes over a
B. Research Period period of time for such items as age at maturity and blubber thickness
5 .41 JARPA II started from the 2005/06 austral summer season . The 5 .43
first two seasons (2005/06 and 2006/07) were dedicated to feasibility studies programme needs to detect changes over a period of t ime, at least two data
in order to examine the practicability and appropriateness of sighting points (on a time basis) is needed . Furthermore, a third data point adds
methods in the enlarged area and sampling procedures given the increased substantial certainty to the detection of an increasing or decreasing trend .
678
sample size and additional species . Since the species targets of JARPA II JARPA II thus adopts three data points . As research is carried out in two
included bigger whales, methods for catching, flensing and taking biological research areas alternately, six years are needed .
679
measurements of large body-sized whales were also tested . The full-scale
JARPA II started from the 2007/08 season 680 . 5 .44
on the basis of its six-year term research phases
5 .42 JARPA II is a long-term research programme and has no specified data from the six -year phases, revisions of the program me will be mad e as
termination date because its primary objective ( i.e. monitoring the Antarctic appropriate based primarily on IWC reviews
ecosystem) requires a continuing programme of research . The necessity of
continuous research is explicitly stated in Article VIII (4) of the ICRW ,
which provides that “continuous collection and analysis of biological data …
are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale
fisheries” 681 . It is also to be noted that, while JARPA was designed to 682
estimate such items as age, age at maturity, pregnancy rate, and blubber
683
677L . A . Pastene, “What do we know about the stock structure of the Antarctic minke whale? A
summary of studies and hypotheses”, SC/D06/J12, Report of the Intersessional Workshop to
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 1 0 (Suppl.), 2008; “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, p . 58 [Annex 111] .
678Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 19 .
679Ibid . 684
680Ibid ., p . 13 .
681Emphasis added . Compare AM, para . 5 .42: “JARPA II has no defined endpoint .” C. Research Item s and Methods ecosystem models (Objective 2 of JARPAII) .
1. Necessity of Lethal Sampling 5 .48
5 .45 JARPA II effectivelycombines sighting and sampling methods, as with JARPA II do not require the information collected from Japan’s lethal
explained in the 2005 Plan 685 . The research item s and methods for the take”
JARPA II being basically the same as those employed for JARPA, the on the kind of models to be used . T he experience in JARPN II suggests that
explanation for the necessity of lethal sampling provided regarding the most typical input data would be qualitative and quantitative information
JARPA 686 also applies to JARPA II . on diet consumption, abundance of pred ators and prey species , and some
biological parameters . Information on the functional response (the intake rate
5 .46 Therefore, the question is not whether lethal research is allowed of a consumer as a function of food density) is also very important for the
under the ICRW (which it clearly is: s ee Article VIII), but whether lethal models . The accomplishment of the first six
research is necessary to achieve the objectives of JARPA II . shows that the information collected from lethal sampling
useful to construct a model of competition among whale species proposed
5 .47 Lethal research is indispensable in JARPA II . Internal organs such and this applies also to JARPAII
as earplugs for age determination , ovaries and test es for sexual maturity
determination, and dorsal vertebrae for physical maturity determination are 5 .49
essential for estimating trends in ages at sexual and physical maturity 687, obtained by non-lethal methods . It is true that the 2009 Report of the Expert
pregnancy rate 688, and temporal trends in recruitments based on VPA Workshop on JARPN II mentions “the increasing success of satellite tagging
analyses (Objective 1 of JARPA II); detailed measurements of blubber programmes for several whale species ”
thickness are important to estimate trend in body conditions 689 (Objective 1 Memorial of Australia refers to
of JARPA II), quantitative information on stomach content to investigate (SORP), which “ employs modern non -lethal methods ”
temporal trends in this parameter 690 (Objective 1 of JARPA II) . Information investigators involved in SORP themselves admitted, as late as in 2011, that:
on stomach contents is used as input parameter for the development of
685
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 691
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 692
686Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 14 .
687See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 693
688See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 694
689See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 .
690See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 695
See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 .
250 C. Research Item s and Methods ecosystem models (Objective 2 of JARPAII) .
1. Necessity of Lethal Sampling 5 .48
5 .45 JARPA II effectivelycombines sighting and sampling methods, as with JARPA II do not require the information collected from Japan’s lethal
explained in the 2005 Plan 685 . The research item s and methods for the take”
JARPA II being basically the same as those employed for JARPA, the on the kind of models to be used . T he experience in JARPN II suggests that
explanation for the necessity of lethal sampling provided regarding the most typical input data would be qualitative and quantitative information
JARPA 686 also applies to JARPA II . on diet consumption, abundance of pred ators and prey species , and some
biological parameters . Information on the functional response (the intake rate
5 .46 Therefore, the question is not whether lethal research is allowed of a consumer as a function of food density) is also very important for the
under the ICRW (which it clearly is: s ee Article VIII), but whether lethal models . The accomplishment of the first six
research is necessary to achieve the objectives of JARPA II . shows that the information collected from lethal sampling
useful to construct a model of competition among whale species proposed
5 .47 Lethal research is indispensable in JARPA II . Internal organs such and this applies also to JARPAII
as earplugs for age determination , ovaries and test es for sexual maturity
determination, and dorsal vertebrae for physical maturity determination are 5 .49
essential for estimating trends in ages at sexual and physical maturity 687, obtained by non-lethal methods . It is true that the 2009 Report of the Expert
pregnancy rate 688, and temporal trends in recruitments based on VPA Workshop on JARPN II mentions “the increasing success of satellite tagging
analyses (Objective 1 of JARPA II); detailed measurements of blubber programmes for several whale species ”
thickness are important to estimate trend in body conditions 689 (Objective 1 Memorial of Australia refers to
of JARPA II), quantitative information on stomach content to investigate (SORP), which “ employs modern non -lethal methods ”
temporal trends in this parameter 690 (Objective 1 of JARPA II) . Information investigators involved in SORP themselves admitted, as late as in 2011, that:
on stomach contents is used as input parameter for the development of
685
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 691
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 692
686Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 14 .
687See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 693
688See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 694
689See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 .
690See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . 695
See above, paras . 4 .46-4 .83 . “[T]he area to the south of Australia and the South Pacific was such as habitats, behaviour and size, are totally different from those of
difficult for logistic operations and, while they were hopeful of
whales, research methods applied to them do not necessarily apply to whales .
future tagging opportunities on the feeding grounds [= the south of
Australia and the South Pacific], these were uncertain” 696 .
5 .52
5 .50 The attachment of satellite tags is even less practical regarding
sampling under JARPA II . The status of data and samples obtained by
faster swimming whale species such as the minke whales . Although it is less
JARPA II was reported to the Scientific Committee
difficult regarding species like humpback or right whales 697, which are easier
meeting held in Tromsø, Norway
to approach – note however that the SORP investigators delivered the
statement just quoted regarding humpback whales – the number of tags that
2. Scientific Basis of the Targeted Species and the Sample Size
can be attached is not sufficiently large for population-level analyses even in
(1) Targeted Species
these species 698 .
5 .53
the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks
5 .51 The Memorial of Australia refers to CEMP to try to convince the
most abundant species in the Antarctic is a potential target of future
Court that lethal methods are unnecessary for JARPA II . Acc ording to
commercial whaling there . Sampling Antarctic minke whales is thus
Australia, “CEMP studies krill and a range of krill -dependent species . . . .
indispensable to achieve JARPA II’s objectives .
Scientists in CEMP use over 20 different non- lethal standardised
699
methods .” However, target species of CEMP are penguins, flying birds,
700 5 .54
seals and non krill-dependent species . Since their biological characteristics,
be sampled under JARPAII as follows:
696Statement delivered by the investigators participating in the SORP project, “Report of the Scientific
Committee” (30 May – 11 June 2011) IWC/63/Rep1, p . 64,
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . In addition, one of the
articles quoted in Professor Mangel’s Assessment (AM, Appendix 2, pa ra . 5 .34) to support the
usefulness of satellite tags (Mate et al ., “The evolution of satellite-monitored radio tags for large
whales: One laboratory’s experience” (2007) 54 Deep -Sea Research II, p . 235) says that “[m]ost of
our tagging projects have taken place within 30 km from shore” . The experience of this research is
697thus not valuable for cases of oceanic-offshore markings, as it is the case of JARPA II .
Mate et al . (fn 77, pp . 224-227) refers to tags deployed on blue, fin, humpback, gray, right and
sperm whales but not minke whales. The other two articles quoted in Professor Mangel’s
Assessment (AM, Appendix 2, para . 5 .34) say nothing about the practicability of the attachment of 701
698tags .
N . Gales, M .C . Double, S . Robinson, C . Jenner, M . Jenner, E . Ki ng, J . Gedamke, D . Paton and B .
Raymon, “Satellite tracking of southbound East Australian humpback whales ( Megaptera
novaeangliae): challenging the feast or famine model for migrating whales”, SC/61/SH17,
699presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (June 200 9) .
700AM, para . 5 .61 . 702
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, CCAMLR Ecosystem
252 “[T]he area to the south of Australia and the South Pacific was such as habitats, behaviour and size, are totally different from those of
difficult for logistic operations and, while they were hopeful of
whales, research methods applied to them do not necessarily apply to whales .
future tagging opportunities on the feeding grounds [= the south of
Australia and the South Pacific], these were uncertain” 696 .
5 .52
5 .50 The attachment of satellite tags is even less practical regarding
sampling under JARPA II . The status of data and samples obtained by
faster swimming whale species such as the minke whales . Although it is less
JARPA II was reported to the Scientific Committee
difficult regarding species like humpback or right whales 697, which are easier
meeting held in Tromsø, Norway
to approach – note however that the SORP investigators delivered the
statement just quoted regarding humpback whales – the number of tags that
2. Scientific Basis of the Targeted Species and the Sample Size
can be attached is not sufficiently large for population-level analyses even in
(1) Targeted Species
these species 698 .
5 .53
the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks
5 .51 The Memorial of Australia refers to CEMP to try to convince the
most abundant species in the Antarctic is a potential target of future
Court that lethal methods are unnecessary for JARPA II . Acc ording to
commercial whaling there . Sampling Antarctic minke whales is thus
Australia, “CEMP studies krill and a range of krill -dependent species . . . .
indispensable to achieve JARPA II’s objectives .
Scientists in CEMP use over 20 different non- lethal standardised
699
methods .” However, target species of CEMP are penguins, flying birds,
700 5 .54
seals and non krill-dependent species . Since their biological characteristics,
be sampled under JARPAII as follows:
696Statement delivered by the investigators participating in the SORP project, “Report of the Scientific
Committee” (30 May – 11 June 2011) IWC/63/Rep1, p . 64,
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . In addition, one of the
articles quoted in Professor Mangel’s Assessment (AM, Appendix 2, pa ra . 5 .34) to support the
usefulness of satellite tags (Mate et al ., “The evolution of satellite-monitored radio tags for large
whales: One laboratory’s experience” (2007) 54 Deep -Sea Research II, p . 235) says that “[m]ost of
our tagging projects have taken place within 30 km from shore” . The experience of this research is
697thus not valuable for cases of oceanic-offshore markings, as it is the case of JARPA II .
Mate et al . (fn 77, pp . 224-227) refers to tags deployed on blue, fin, humpback, gray, right and
sperm whales but not minke whales. The other two articles quoted in Professor Mangel’s
Assessment (AM, Appendix 2, para . 5 .34) say nothing about the practicability of the attachment of 701
698tags .
N . Gales, M .C . Double, S . Robinson, C . Jenner, M . Jenner, E . Ki ng, J . Gedamke, D . Paton and B .
Raymon, “Satellite tracking of southbound East Australian humpback whales ( Megaptera
novaeangliae): challenging the feast or famine model for migrating whales”, SC/61/SH17,
699presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (June 200 9) .
700AM, para . 5 .61 . 702
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, CCAMLR Ecosystem 5 .56
To this end, there is a need to: a) to monitor cetaceans and various
to competition with other whale species, including humpback and fin whales
environmental factors in their habitats (population trend, biological
parameters such as age at maturity, krill abundance, oceanographic in particular, recovery of humpback whales of Breeding-Stock D may soon
environment, etc .); b) to construct a competition model among
whale species, verifying various hypotheses based on the data slow as they approach their pristine level, and fin whales are increasing
obtained by past JARPAand through future monitoring, and c) to By contrast, in Area V, there is less evidence of negative impacts of
establish future management objectives . For instance, it may be
possible and desirable, through selective harvesting, to accelerate competition on minke whales at present, si
the recovery of blue and fin whales toward the [stock levels of the] Breeding-Stock E are at relatively lesser proportion of their pristine
early days when the blue and fin whales were the dominant species .
Sustainable use of these resources as a management objective abundance than in Area IV . It is however likely that together with fin whales
would be assisted by models that investigate the effects of takes of humpback whales in this area will continue to increase
one species of whales on another . possible comparisons across species and Areas are expected to provide
It is essential for the construction of such models to obtain data not important potential insight into whale dynamics, and consequently
only of the Antarctic minke but also humpback and fin whales appropriate management actions for sustainable utilization
through the research programs . There is a need to build an
ecosystem model, taking due account of the competition for krill
among whale species, based on the monitoring data obtained and (2) Sample Size
other information, while utilizing data from CCAMLR c oncerning
other krill predators .” 703 (i) Antarctic Minke Whales
5 .57
5 .55 Sampling of minke, humpback and fin whales in two Areas
which the sample size of minke whales is set at 850 ± 10%
indicated above 704 also provides an important opportunity to gain insight into
detailed scientific explanation is provided in its Appendi
the dynamics of whale and inter -species competition through comparative
Australia’s allegations that “Japan has never provided a co herent scientific
analysis . It was regarded as neither important nor appropriate to include other
whale species, such as blue whales or Southern right whales, because of their
very low abundance (biomass), in th e light of Objective 1 of JARPA II 705
(Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem) as well as the conservation of those
depleted species .
706
707
703Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 708
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
704Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 9-10 . 709
See above, paras . 5 .38-5 .40 .
254 5 .56
To this end, there is a need to: a) to monitor cetaceans and various
to competition with other whale species, including humpback and fin whales
environmental factors in their habitats (population trend, biological
parameters such as age at maturity, krill abundance, oceanographic in particular, recovery of humpback whales of Breeding-Stock D may soon
environment, etc .); b) to construct a competition model among
whale species, verifying various hypotheses based on the data slow as they approach their pristine level, and fin whales are increasing
obtained by past JARPAand through future monitoring, and c) to By contrast, in Area V, there is less evidence of negative impacts of
establish future management objectives . For instance, it may be
possible and desirable, through selective harvesting, to accelerate competition on minke whales at present, si
the recovery of blue and fin whales toward the [stock levels of the] Breeding-Stock E are at relatively lesser proportion of their pristine
early days when the blue and fin whales were the dominant species .
Sustainable use of these resources as a management objective abundance than in Area IV . It is however likely that together with fin whales
would be assisted by models that investigate the effects of takes of humpback whales in this area will continue to increase
one species of whales on another . possible comparisons across species and Areas are expected to provide
It is essential for the construction of such models to obtain data not important potential insight into whale dynamics, and consequently
only of the Antarctic minke but also humpback and fin whales appropriate management actions for sustainable utilization
through the research programs . There is a need to build an
ecosystem model, taking due account of the competition for krill
among whale species, based on the monitoring data obtained and (2) Sample Size
other information, while utilizing data from CCAMLR c oncerning
other krill predators .” 703 (i) Antarctic Minke Whales
5 .57
5 .55 Sampling of minke, humpback and fin whales in two Areas
which the sample size of minke whales is set at 850 ± 10%
indicated above 704 also provides an important opportunity to gain insight into
detailed scientific explanation is provided in its Appendi
the dynamics of whale and inter -species competition through comparative
Australia’s allegations that “Japan has never provided a co herent scientific
analysis . It was regarded as neither important nor appropriate to include other
whale species, such as blue whales or Southern right whales, because of their
very low abundance (biomass), in th e light of Objective 1 of JARPA II 705
(Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem) as well as the conservation of those
depleted species .
706
707
703Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 708
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
704Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 9-10 . 709
See above, paras . 5 .38-5 .40 . 710
rationale for its sample size ” or that “[t] he process for setting sample
sizes in JARPA II ‘ is not based on solid statistical reasoning or analyses of 5 .60
711
the accuracy required to meet objectives’” , need to be evaluated in light of research item, a few examples regarding minke
the detailed scie ntific and statistical explanations provided in the above below . While these are some of the most important research items for the
documents submitted by Japan to the Scientific Committee . The following scientific objectives of JARPA II, they do not represent the whole spectrum
paragraphs explain only very basic considerations . of the research . Afull scientific explanation is provided in the 2005 Plan
and itsAppendices 6-8 .
(a) Basic Principles
5 .58 It is possible to construct a very basic table of the required sample (b) Example:Age at Maturity
sizes by using only three factors: size of the population subject to research, 5 .61
the maximum margin of errors and a confidence interval (i .e . a specified which the sample size of minke whales is set at 850 ± 10%
probability that the value of a parameter lies within a calculated range) 712 . If detailed scientific explanation is provided in its Appendix 6 “Sample sizes of
this table is used for the case of minke whales in JARPA II (suppose Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
population size: 761,000 (IWC 1990); margin of errors: 3 .5%; and examination of yearly trend in biological parameters” . By way of illustration,
confidence interval: 95%), the required sample size would be 783 . the following explan ation will show succinctly how sample size is
determined as regards research on the age at sexual maturity .
5 .59 The sample size calculation for research whaling follows the
established statistical procedures but is far more complex than the simple 5 .62
model shown in the previous paragraph because research whaling is designed nutritional conditions . When changes of the age at maturity for a whole
to collect multiple data for analysis . Under JARPA II, more than 100 data whale stock or species are detected, either an increasing trend or a decreasing
items and biological samp les are collected from each and every whale one, changes in the marine ecosystem including the whale habitat as well as
713
sampled . For each data item, the degree of data dispersion, required in the relationship among different whale species are suspected .
accuracy for analysis, and other data characteristics are different .
710AM, para . 5 .72 .
711AM, para . 5 .77 . 714
712 The Research Advisors, “Sample size table from the Research Advisors”,
<http://research-advisors .com/tools/SampleSize .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 205 ] . The 715
table is established using the formula by Robert Krejcie and Daryle W . Morgan in their 1970 article
“Determining Sample Size for Research Activities” (1970) 30 Educational and Psychological
713Measurement, pp . 607-610 . 716
See above, paras . 5 .45-5 .52 .
256 710
rationale for its sample size ” or that “[t] he process for setting sample
sizes in JARPA II ‘ is not based on solid statistical reasoning or analyses of 5 .60
711
the accuracy required to meet objectives’” , need to be evaluated in light of research item, a few examples regarding minke
the detailed scie ntific and statistical explanations provided in the above below . While these are some of the most important research items for the
documents submitted by Japan to the Scientific Committee . The following scientific objectives of JARPA II, they do not represent the whole spectrum
paragraphs explain only very basic considerations . of the research . Afull scientific explanation is provided in the 2005 Plan
and itsAppendices 6-8 .
(a) Basic Principles
5 .58 It is possible to construct a very basic table of the required sample (b) Example:Age at Maturity
sizes by using only three factors: size of the population subject to research, 5 .61
the maximum margin of errors and a confidence interval (i .e . a specified which the sample size of minke whales is set at 850 ± 10%
probability that the value of a parameter lies within a calculated range) 712 . If detailed scientific explanation is provided in its Appendix 6 “Sample sizes of
this table is used for the case of minke whales in JARPA II (suppose Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
population size: 761,000 (IWC 1990); margin of errors: 3 .5%; and examination of yearly trend in biological parameters” . By way of illustration,
confidence interval: 95%), the required sample size would be 783 . the following explan ation will show succinctly how sample size is
determined as regards research on the age at sexual maturity .
5 .59 The sample size calculation for research whaling follows the
established statistical procedures but is far more complex than the simple 5 .62
model shown in the previous paragraph because research whaling is designed nutritional conditions . When changes of the age at maturity for a whole
to collect multiple data for analysis . Under JARPA II, more than 100 data whale stock or species are detected, either an increasing trend or a decreasing
items and biological samp les are collected from each and every whale one, changes in the marine ecosystem including the whale habitat as well as
713
sampled . For each data item, the degree of data dispersion, required in the relationship among different whale species are suspected .
accuracy for analysis, and other data characteristics are different .
710AM, para . 5 .72 .
711AM, para . 5 .77 . 714
712 The Research Advisors, “Sample size table from the Research Advisors”,
<http://research-advisors .com/tools/SampleSize .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 205 ] . The 715
table is established using the formula by Robert Krejcie and Daryle W . Morgan in their 1970 article
“Determining Sample Size for Research Activities” (1970) 30 Educational and Psychological
713Measurement, pp . 607-610 . 716
See above, paras . 5 .45-5 .52 .5 .63 In the case of Antarctic minke whales, their habitat and food (e.g. years 2000 and 2001) is the minimum data requirement to compare a
availability were greatly improved as a result of the over -harvest of other change . However, it is highly uncertain to suggest a trend from only two data
species of whales ( e.g . blue whales, humpback whales, and f in whales) points . Three data points adds substantial certainty to the detection of an
717
during the heyday of commercial whaling . As a result, minke whales increasing or decreasing trend . As JARPA II covers two research areas
became mature earlier . It was estimated that their age at maturity had alternately, six years would be needed to obtain three data points (i .e . years)
decreased (i .e . matured at a younger age) by 0 .2 years annually during the from both research areas . This six year period is used to calculate the sample
718
days of commercial whaling . It is also understood that the decreasing size .
trend of their age at maturity had come to equilibrium from the cohorts born
in 1970 as the number of minke whales had increased to reach the carrying 5 .66
719
capacity of theAntarctic marine ecosystem . of changes in the age at maturity of minke whales, conditions were
established as follows .
5 .64 While the age at maturity of minke whales had decreased by 0 .2
years annually in the past, it is expected that the increase in this biological
parameter, if it happens in relation to the observed increase in the number of
whales of other species, would be more gradual than the past decrease of the
720
age at maturity . Therefore, the JARPA II research plan i s designed to 5 .67
detect an annual change of 0 .1 years in age atmaturity . calculating sample siz e produces 1,288 samples per year as the necessary
sample size
5 .65 Furthermore, if change is happening in the Antarctic marine
year, the sample size is594 .
ecosystem, it is desirable to find it as promptly as possible . Two data points
717Y . Fujise, H . Hatanaka, and S . Ohsumi, “What has happened to the Antarctic minke whale stocks? (c) Example: Pregnancy Rate
– An interprepation of results from JARPA” (2006) SC/D06/J26, p . 15, presented to the JARPA
Review Meeting (December 2006) . 5 .68
718Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special P ermit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and days of commercial whaling and reached its equilibrium around 1970, it is
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 17 -18 .
719See also Figure 4-4 . 721
720Ibid .
Takeharu Bando, Takashi Hakamada, Ryoko Zenitani, Yoshih iro Fujise, Eiji Tanaka and Hidehiro
Kato, “Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
examination of yearly trend in biological parameters”, Appendix 6, Plan for the Second Phase of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for 722
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 65-66 .
2585 .63 In the case of Antarctic minke whales, their habitat and food (e.g. years 2000 and 2001) is the minimum data requirement to compare a
availability were greatly improved as a result of the over -harvest of other change . However, it is highly uncertain to suggest a trend from only two data
species of whales ( e.g . blue whales, humpback whales, and f in whales) points . Three data points adds substantial certainty to the detection of an
717
during the heyday of commercial whaling . As a result, minke whales increasing or decreasing trend . As JARPA II covers two research areas
became mature earlier . It was estimated that their age at maturity had alternately, six years would be needed to obtain three data points (i .e . years)
decreased (i .e . matured at a younger age) by 0 .2 years annually during the from both research areas . This six year period is used to calculate the sample
718
days of commercial whaling . It is also understood that the decreasing size .
trend of their age at maturity had come to equilibrium from the cohorts born
in 1970 as the number of minke whales had increased to reach the carrying 5 .66
719
capacity of theAntarctic marine ecosystem . of changes in the age at maturity of minke whales, conditions were
established as follows .
5 .64 While the age at maturity of minke whales had decreased by 0 .2
years annually in the past, it is expected that the increase in this biological
parameter, if it happens in relation to the observed increase in the number of
whales of other species, would be more gradual than the past decrease of the
720
age at maturity . Therefore, the JARPA II research plan i s designed to 5 .67
detect an annual change of 0 .1 years in age atmaturity . calculating sample siz e produces 1,288 samples per year as the necessary
sample size
5 .65 Furthermore, if change is happening in the Antarctic marine
year, the sample size is594 .
ecosystem, it is desirable to find it as promptly as possible . Two data points
717Y . Fujise, H . Hatanaka, and S . Ohsumi, “What has happened to the Antarctic minke whale stocks? (c) Example: Pregnancy Rate
– An interprepation of results from JARPA” (2006) SC/D06/J26, p . 15, presented to the JARPA
Review Meeting (December 2006) . 5 .68
718Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special P ermit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and days of commercial whaling and reached its equilibrium around 1970, it is
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 17 -18 .
719See also Figure 4-4 . 721
720Ibid .
Takeharu Bando, Takashi Hakamada, Ryoko Zenitani, Yoshih iro Fujise, Eiji Tanaka and Hidehiro
Kato, “Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
examination of yearly trend in biological parameters”, Appendix 6, Plan for the Second Phase of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for 722
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), pp . 65-66 .expected to stay at the equilibrium or start decreasing because of competition somewhere between 594 and 1617 per year . If the minimum size of 594 is
with other whale species . The analysis of the past JARPAdata shows that the adopted, the research on blubber thickness, which requires 818 to 971
current pregnancy rate of mature female Antarctic minke whales is morethan samples per year will be compromised . Conversely, if the maximum siz e of
723
90% . If the pregnancy rate is changing, the change would be gradual like 1,617 is adopted, statistically more than enough samples would be provided
the case of the age at maturity and decreasing (i .e . a negative change) . The for all of the research items except pregnancy rate . For most of the research
expected rate of change at the beginning is between minus 1 .0% and minus items, the necessary sample size is something over 800 per year . 800 per year
724
1 .5% annually . The necessary sample size to detect this level of change, is insufficient for the research on age at maturity to detect an annual change
calculated by a similar statistical method as in the case of age at maturity, is by 0 .1 years but sufficient to detect an annual change by 0 .15 years .
from 663 (to detect a rate of change at minus 1 .5%) to 1,617 (to detect a rate
of change at minus 1 .0%) samples per year .
Figure 5-4 . Necessary annual sample sizes for respective research items under JARPAII,
which was calculated by the established statistical procedures (source: Institute of
(d) Blubber Thickness Cetacean Research) .
5 .69 From the analysis of the past JARPAdata, it is necessary to be able
to detect an annual change of 0 .5mm in blubber thickness in order to find
changes in six years 72 . The established statistical formula provides a range
of the necessary sample size from 818 to 971 . The sample size is indicated as
a range because the required sample size based on the pregnant female data
is 818 while that of mature males is 971 .
(e) Determined Sample Size
5 .70 The range of th e scientifically necessary sample size is thus
723Takeharu Bando, Takashi Hakamada, Ryoko Zenitani, Yoshihiro Fujise, Eiji Tanaka and Hidehiro
Kato, “Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
examination of yearly trend in biological parameters”, Appendix 6, Plan for the Second Phase of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in te Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005) .
724Ibid .
725Kenji Konishi, Takashi Hakamada and Tsutomu Tamura, “Sample size of Antarctic minke whale
for the purpose of monitoring yearly trend of blubber thickness”, Appendix 7, Plan for the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 75 .
260expected to stay at the equilibrium or start decreasing because of competition somewhere between 594 and 1617 per year . If the minimum size of 594 is
with other whale species . The analysis of the past JARPAdata shows that the adopted, the research on blubber thickness, which requires 818 to 971
current pregnancy rate of mature female Antarctic minke whales is morethan samples per year will be compromised . Conversely, if the maximum siz e of
723
90% . If the pregnancy rate is changing, the change would be gradual like 1,617 is adopted, statistically more than enough samples would be provided
the case of the age at maturity and decreasing (i .e . a negative change) . The for all of the research items except pregnancy rate . For most of the research
expected rate of change at the beginning is between minus 1 .0% and minus items, the necessary sample size is something over 800 per year . 800 per year
724
1 .5% annually . The necessary sample size to detect this level of change, is insufficient for the research on age at maturity to detect an annual change
calculated by a similar statistical method as in the case of age at maturity, is by 0 .1 years but sufficient to detect an annual change by 0 .15 years .
from 663 (to detect a rate of change at minus 1 .5%) to 1,617 (to detect a rate
of change at minus 1 .0%) samples per year .
Figure 5-4 . Necessary annual sample sizes for respective research items under JARPAII,
which was calculated by the established statistical procedures (source: Institute of
(d) Blubber Thickness Cetacean Research) .
5 .69 From the analysis of the past JARPAdata, it is necessary to be able
to detect an annual change of 0 .5mm in blubber thickness in order to find
changes in six years 72 . The established statistical formula provides a range
of the necessary sample size from 818 to 971 . The sample size is indicated as
a range because the required sample size based on the pregnant female data
is 818 while that of mature males is 971 .
(e) Determined Sample Size
5 .70 The range of th e scientifically necessary sample size is thus
723Takeharu Bando, Takashi Hakamada, Ryoko Zenitani, Yoshihiro Fujise, Eiji Tanaka and Hidehiro
Kato, “Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical
examination of yearly trend in biological parameters”, Appendix 6, Plan for the Second Phase of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in te Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005) .
724Ibid .
725Kenji Konishi, Takashi Hakamada and Tsutomu Tamura, “Sample size of Antarctic minke whale
for the purpose of monitoring yearly trend of blubber thickness”, Appendix 7, Plan for the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for
Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 75 .5 .71 850 was finally adopted as the JA RPA II sample size for minke years of research to achieve the required sample sizes before the research
whales because the statistical conditions are satisfied for most of the research objectives can be met: although JARPA II envisages a periodic review at the
items . Furthermore, the compromised accuracy for some of the research end of each of six-year periods, periodic reviews risk delay .
items will be mitigated because such analysis as the changes in the Antarctic
marine ecosystem and the competition among different whale species are 5 .74
conducted by comprehensively integrating many different data and analyses . seriousness and the dangers of violent sabotage activities of the SSCS , but
also gone so far as to allege that Japan is using the SSCS as some sort of a
(f)Actual Catches cover-up for Japan intentionally reducing the number of whales taken for
5 .72 The numbers of actually sampled Antarctic minke whales under lethal sampling
JARPA II are as follows: conducted annually are a real threat to the safety of Japan ’s research vessels
and crew, and they seriously undermine legitimate scientific research and
Season 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 safe navigation .
Sample 853 505 551 679 506 170
number
5 .75
the SSCS, rammed into two
5 .73 The number of samples that have been obtained from the JARPA
Yushin-Maru No. 2 and No.3
II programme is significantly smaller than originally planned because of the
violent actions such as throwing bottles containing butyric acid at
fire onboard the research base vessel the Nissin -Maru (the 2006/2007
research vessels during the 2008/2009 research season. Again on 6 February
season) and the violent sabotage activities by an anti-whaling
non-governmental organization 726 . The IWC took account of “ dangerous 2010, the Bob Barker , another SSCS ship now registered also in the
actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Netherlands
Ocean directed against Japanese vessels ” and repeatedly called upon the port stern
SSCS “to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea” 727 . jet-ski to approach a different Japanese vessel, the Shonan-
The extent t o which these smaller numbers might affect the output of climbed up and onto the deck after cutting through the anti-boarding net with
scientific research is currently being evaluated in the context of the analyses
728
on JARPA II . The most likely effect is that it will take several additional 729
730
726As for Australia’s allegation that there are “other” reasons, seeAM, Chapter 6, Section 6, 1 ., B . (3) .
727“Resolution on Safety at Sea” Resolution 2011-2, 731
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2011 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
2625 .71 850 was finally adopted as the JA RPA II sample size for minke years of research to achieve the required sample sizes before the research
whales because the statistical conditions are satisfied for most of the research objectives can be met: although JARPA II envisages a periodic review at the
items . Furthermore, the compromised accuracy for some of the research end of each of six-year periods, periodic reviews risk delay .
items will be mitigated because such analysis as the changes in the Antarctic
marine ecosystem and the competition among different whale species are 5 .74
conducted by comprehensively integrating many different data and analyses . seriousness and the dangers of violent sabotage activities of the SSCS , but
also gone so far as to allege that Japan is using the SSCS as some sort of a
(f)Actual Catches cover-up for Japan intentionally reducing the number of whales taken for
5 .72 The numbers of actually sampled Antarctic minke whales under lethal sampling
JARPA II are as follows: conducted annually are a real threat to the safety of Japan ’s research vessels
and crew, and they seriously undermine legitimate scientific research and
Season 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 safe navigation .
Sample 853 505 551 679 506 170
number
5 .75
the SSCS, rammed into two
5 .73 The number of samples that have been obtained from the JARPA
Yushin-Maru No. 2 and No.3
II programme is significantly smaller than originally planned because of the
violent actions such as throwing bottles containing butyric acid at
fire onboard the research base vessel the Nissin -Maru (the 2006/2007
research vessels during the 2008/2009 research season. Again on 6 February
season) and the violent sabotage activities by an anti-whaling
non-governmental organization 726 . The IWC took account of “ dangerous 2010, the Bob Barker , another SSCS ship now registered also in the
actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Netherlands
Ocean directed against Japanese vessels ” and repeatedly called upon the port stern
SSCS “to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea” 727 . jet-ski to approach a different Japanese vessel, the Shonan-
The extent t o which these smaller numbers might affect the output of climbed up and onto the deck after cutting through the anti-boarding net with
scientific research is currently being evaluated in the context of the analyses
728
on JARPA II . The most likely effect is that it will take several additional 729
730
726As for Australia’s allegation that there are “other” reasons, seeAM, Chapter 6, Section 6, 1 ., B . (3) .
727“Resolution on Safety at Sea” Resolution 2011-2, 731
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2011 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .his knife . He was held in custody on board the ship and was taken to Japan, resolution was adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the
732
until he was arrested by the Japan Coast Guard on 12 March 2010 . International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2010
Withdrawal of the Shonan-Maru No.2 from the fleet was necessary for crime indications that the international community
scene investigation by the Japan Coast Guard, but it had to be done at a cost seriousness of the dangers caused by the SSCS . Japan has been urging the
of significant reduction in capabilities of the research fleet, and as a result , concerned governments, including the Government of Australia, to take
not only did the actual whale samples taken f all far short of the number necessary and effective measures in accordance with these resolutions and
needed to attain the research objectives stipulated in the JARPA II research with the relevant rules of inte rnational law, so that the safety of Japanese
plan, but the incident also impeded other research activities such as the crew members is protected, and so that the integrity of the rule of law at sea
sighting surveys to estimate abundance . is upheld .
5 .76 In recent years, the SSCS ’s violence has seen a significant (ii) Humpback and Fin Whales
escalation. The SSCS has been employing new equipment such as laser 5 .78
beams and high-power gas launcher s to shoot glass bottles, and they have following the same approach as the one adopted as regards minke whales .
increased the number of their vessels . It was because the violence had The 2005 Plan also furnishes preci se scientific reasons for which the annual
become so intense that, for the first time since JARPAbegan , it was decided sample sizes of humpback and
that the research operation of the 2010/11 season was to be cut short on 18 planed sample sizes during the feasibility study in the first two seasons
February 2011, to protect the lives of the crew members . This of course was (2005/2006-2006/2007) were 0 for humpback and 10 for fin whales .
a significant set-back in the research .
5 .79
5 .77 Such unlawful acts of violence must be condemned with all JARPA II are as follows .
seriousness . In fact, resolutions and a statement condemning such acts of
violence have been adopted by consensus at the Annual or Intersessional
733 734 735 736 735
Meetings of the IWC in 2006 , 2007 , 2008 and 2011 . A similar
732Japan Coast Guard Annual Report 2010, p . 8,
<http://www .kaiho .mlit .go .jp/info/books/report2010/html/topics/p008_06 .html> accessed 14 736
February 2012 [in Japanese] .
733“Resolution on the Safety of Vessels Engaged in Whaling and Whale Research-related Activities”, 737
Resolution 2006-2 <http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2006 .htm> accessed 14 738
734February 2012 .
“Resolution on Safety at Sea and Protection of the Environment”, Resolution 2007-2,
264his knife . He was held in custody on board the ship and was taken to Japan, resolution was adopted by the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the
732
until he was arrested by the Japan Coast Guard on 12 March 2010 . International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2010
Withdrawal of the Shonan-Maru No.2 from the fleet was necessary for crime indications that the international community
scene investigation by the Japan Coast Guard, but it had to be done at a cost seriousness of the dangers caused by the SSCS . Japan has been urging the
of significant reduction in capabilities of the research fleet, and as a result , concerned governments, including the Government of Australia, to take
not only did the actual whale samples taken f all far short of the number necessary and effective measures in accordance with these resolutions and
needed to attain the research objectives stipulated in the JARPA II research with the relevant rules of inte rnational law, so that the safety of Japanese
plan, but the incident also impeded other research activities such as the crew members is protected, and so that the integrity of the rule of law at sea
sighting surveys to estimate abundance . is upheld .
5 .76 In recent years, the SSCS ’s violence has seen a significant (ii) Humpback and Fin Whales
escalation. The SSCS has been employing new equipment such as laser 5 .78
beams and high-power gas launcher s to shoot glass bottles, and they have following the same approach as the one adopted as regards minke whales .
increased the number of their vessels . It was because the violence had The 2005 Plan also furnishes preci se scientific reasons for which the annual
become so intense that, for the first time since JARPAbegan , it was decided sample sizes of humpback and
that the research operation of the 2010/11 season was to be cut short on 18 planed sample sizes during the feasibility study in the first two seasons
February 2011, to protect the lives of the crew members . This of course was (2005/2006-2006/2007) were 0 for humpback and 10 for fin whales .
a significant set-back in the research .
5 .79
5 .77 Such unlawful acts of violence must be condemned with all JARPA II are as follows .
seriousness . In fact, resolutions and a statement condemning such acts of
violence have been adopted by consensus at the Annual or Intersessional
733 734 735 736 735
Meetings of the IWC in 2006 , 2007 , 2008 and 2011 . A similar
732Japan Coast Guard Annual Report 2010, p . 8,
<http://www .kaiho .mlit .go .jp/info/books/report2010/html/topics/p008_06 .html> accessed 14 736
February 2012 [in Japanese] .
733“Resolution on the Safety of Vessels Engaged in Whaling and Whale Research-related Activities”, 737
Resolution 2006-2 <http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2006 .htm> accessed 14 738
734February 2012 .
“Resolution on Safety at Sea and Protection of the Environment”, Resolution 2007-2, by Japanese officials that it considers show that the sample size planned in
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 JARPA IIis not based on scientific considerations . All these statements need
Season
/06 /07 /08 /09 /10 /11 however to be understood in context . For example, Minister Akamatsu’s
Sample humpback
0 0 0 0 0 0 statement on 9 March 2010
number fin
10 3 0 1 1 2 concerning the Future of the IWC, in which Contracting Governments
concerned discussed the possibility of “ peacemaking” through compromises
5 .80 The difference in number of sampled fin whales between the
from both pro- and anti-whaling sides . During this period, Japan had to pay
targeted 50 and actual 0 -2 is explained by the violent sabotage activity of
utmost attention not to pre-empt Japan’s flexibility in the Future of the IWC
anti-whaling non- governmental organi zations and some logistical reasons negotiations
(i .e . limitation of Nisshin -Maru’s facility to pull up larger animals
onboard) 739 . As for humpback whales, the Government of Japan decided to (3) Absence ofHarms to the Whale Stocks that might be Caused by
suspend their sampling in response to a request from the then Chair of the Lethal Methods
IWC, William Hogarth of the United States in order to contribute to the 5 .82
creation of a positive atmosphere for the negotiations to resolve the stalemate
740
in the IWC (i .e . the Future of the IWC process) that were initiated at the
741
2007 Annual Meeting of the Commission . However, the JARPA II
research plan remains unchanged . Here also, the extent to which these
smaller (or inexistent) numbers might affect scientific output of the research
742
is currently being evaluated in the context of the analyses on JARPAII . 743
(iii) Statements Delivered by Japanese Officials Regarding t he Sample
Size
5 .81 The Memorial of Australia quotes fragments of statements made
744
739Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009” SC/61/O3 (2009), p . 4,
presented to the Scientific Committee (May 2009) .
740Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Masahiko Koumura, Friday, December 21, 2007, 745
6:35 p .m ., <http://www .mofa .go .jp/announce/fm_press/2007/12/1221-2 .html > accessed 14
February 2012 .
741Chair’s Report of the 59th Annual Meeting, pp . 26-31,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/chair2007 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
266 by Japanese officials that it considers show that the sample size planned in
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 JARPA IIis not based on scientific considerations . All these statements need
Season
/06 /07 /08 /09 /10 /11 however to be understood in context . For example, Minister Akamatsu’s
Sample humpback
0 0 0 0 0 0 statement on 9 March 2010
number fin
10 3 0 1 1 2 concerning the Future of the IWC, in which Contracting Governments
concerned discussed the possibility of “ peacemaking” through compromises
5 .80 The difference in number of sampled fin whales between the
from both pro- and anti-whaling sides . During this period, Japan had to pay
targeted 50 and actual 0 -2 is explained by the violent sabotage activity of
utmost attention not to pre-empt Japan’s flexibility in the Future of the IWC
anti-whaling non- governmental organi zations and some logistical reasons negotiations
(i .e . limitation of Nisshin -Maru’s facility to pull up larger animals
onboard) 739 . As for humpback whales, the Government of Japan decided to (3) Absence ofHarms to the Whale Stocks that might be Caused by
suspend their sampling in response to a request from the then Chair of the Lethal Methods
IWC, William Hogarth of the United States in order to contribute to the 5 .82
creation of a positive atmosphere for the negotiations to resolve the stalemate
740
in the IWC (i .e . the Future of the IWC process) that were initiated at the
741
2007 Annual Meeting of the Commission . However, the JARPA II
research plan remains unchanged . Here also, the extent to which these
smaller (or inexistent) numbers might affect scientific output of the research
742
is currently being evaluated in the context of the analyses on JARPAII . 743
(iii) Statements Delivered by Japanese Officials Regarding t he Sample
Size
5 .81 The Memorial of Australia quotes fragments of statements made
744
739Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009” SC/61/O3 (2009), p . 4,
presented to the Scientific Committee (May 2009) .
740Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Masahiko Koumura, Friday, December 21, 2007, 745
6:35 p .m ., <http://www .mofa .go .jp/announce/fm_press/2007/12/1221-2 .html > accessed 14
February 2012 .
741Chair’s Report of the 59th Annual Meeting, pp . 26-31,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/chair2007 .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . Butterworth 746, the effect of take of 50 animals on the stock was as follows:
examined . The results showed that the take of 50 animals per year
hardly delays 747 their recovery to the pristine level (Appendix 9) .
The abundance estimate of fin whales (Appendix 1) does not cover
their entire range and is therefore greatly underestimated . The
planned sample size is fifty animals each year, which comes to
twenty-five a year from each stock which is less than 1% of the
underestimated abundance . Therefore it is considered to have no
748
adverse effect on the stocks… .”
5 .83 As for Antarctic minke whales, Australia alleges that the
“uncertainty” concerning its abundance “clearly warrants a precautionary
749
approach .” The basis of this allegation is that “ [w]hile estimates typically
place the number of minke whales in the Southern Ocean at between 300,000
and 500,000 individuals, the Commission has repeatedly expressed concern
that minke whales may be ‘appreciably lower ’ in abundance than
750
estimated” .
5 .85
5 .84 It is true that IWC Resolutions repeatedly stated that the abundance possibility that Antarctic minke whales might be fewer than 760,000 for the
of Antarctic minke whales m ight be “appreciably lower” – but lower than whole Antarctic Ocean . The 2005 Plan, for its part, assumed two scenarios:
which estimate? The resolutions quoted in the Memorial of Australia 751 state (1) 192,653 in I -stock (Eastern Indian Ocean stock) and 212,258 in P -stock
(Western South Pacific stock), thus 404,911 in total, and; (2) 228,349 in
Allows for Mixing on the Feeding Grounds and Taking Account of the Most Recent Abundance
Estimates from JARPA”, JA/J05/JR19, pp . 9, 20-22, presented to the JARPA Review meeting, I-stock and 95,116 in P -stock, thus 323,465 in total
January 2005 [Annex 101] .
746S .J . Johnston & D . Butterworth, see above, fn 745 . conservative estimates, the 2005 Plan concluded that “
747The scenario of taking 50 animals every two years and that of no catch have basically the same
effect on the trajectory of the populations in that the populations will still recovering (growing) to negative effect on the minke whale stocks .”
the pristine level . See Takashi Hakamada, “Effect on the stock of the catches during JARPA II”,
Appendix . 9, Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of
New Management Objectives for Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 83 . 752
748Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 753
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 754
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 19 .
749AM, para . 5 .99 .
750Ibid., para . 5 .98 .
751Ibid., fn . 716 (para . 5 .98) . 755
268 Butterworth 746, the effect of take of 50 animals on the stock was as follows:
examined . The results showed that the take of 50 animals per year
hardly delays 747 their recovery to the pristine level (Appendix 9) .
The abundance estimate of fin whales (Appendix 1) does not cover
their entire range and is therefore greatly underestimated . The
planned sample size is fifty animals each year, which comes to
twenty-five a year from each stock which is less than 1% of the
underestimated abundance . Therefore it is considered to have no
748
adverse effect on the stocks… .”
5 .83 As for Antarctic minke whales, Australia alleges that the
“uncertainty” concerning its abundance “clearly warrants a precautionary
749
approach .” The basis of this allegation is that “ [w]hile estimates typically
place the number of minke whales in the Southern Ocean at between 300,000
and 500,000 individuals, the Commission has repeatedly expressed concern
that minke whales may be ‘appreciably lower ’ in abundance than
750
estimated” .
5 .85
5 .84 It is true that IWC Resolutions repeatedly stated that the abundance possibility that Antarctic minke whales might be fewer than 760,000 for the
of Antarctic minke whales m ight be “appreciably lower” – but lower than whole Antarctic Ocean . The 2005 Plan, for its part, assumed two scenarios:
which estimate? The resolutions quoted in the Memorial of Australia 751 state (1) 192,653 in I -stock (Eastern Indian Ocean stock) and 212,258 in P -stock
(Western South Pacific stock), thus 404,911 in total, and; (2) 228,349 in
Allows for Mixing on the Feeding Grounds and Taking Account of the Most Recent Abundance
Estimates from JARPA”, JA/J05/JR19, pp . 9, 20-22, presented to the JARPA Review meeting, I-stock and 95,116 in P -stock, thus 323,465 in total
January 2005 [Annex 101] .
746S .J . Johnston & D . Butterworth, see above, fn 745 . conservative estimates, the 2005 Plan concluded that “
747The scenario of taking 50 animals every two years and that of no catch have basically the same
effect on the trajectory of the populations in that the populations will still recovering (growing) to negative effect on the minke whale stocks .”
the pristine level . See Takashi Hakamada, “Effect on the stock of the catches during JARPA II”,
Appendix . 9, Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of
New Management Objectives for Whale Resources, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 83 . 752
748Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under 753
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and 754
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005), p . 19 .
749AM, para . 5 .99 .
750Ibid., para . 5 .98 .
751Ibid., fn . 716 (para . 5 .98) . 755 has just been indicated, scientific data and information on the basis of which
5 .86 The Memorial of Australia contends in this context that “ Japan it considers that the take of 50 animals per year hardly delays their recovery
fails to even mention the literature on the Allee effect i n its JARPA II to the pristine level .
756
proposal” . It is because the Allee effect is simply irrelevant that the 2005
Plan does not mention it . The Allee effect usually applies to a school and not 5 .89
to a stock as a whole; it is only when the stock in question is extremely small to challenge the abundance estimate on the basis of which the 2005 Plan was
757
that the effect may possibly apply to it . As indicated in the paragraph established
above, the stocks of minke whales that are the subject of JARPA II are
sufficiently large even on the basis of a considerably conservative estimation . 5 .90
Tim Flannery, anAustralian environmental expert, stated in 2007 that:
5 .87 As for humpback whales, Australia c laims that “ Japan’s
calculations are flawed ” because “Japan relies on its own abundance
estimates from JARPA, which were roundly rejected by the Scientific
758
Committee” . Two remarks are warranted in this respect . First, as
759
mentioned above , the Scientific Committee did not “reject” the abundance
estimates made under JARPA . Secondly and more significantly, the part of
the report of the 2006 Workshop quoted by the Memorial of Australia
760
concerns Antarctic minke whales : why refer to it when discussing the
abundance estimate of humpback whales? 5 .91
papers
5 .88 It is true that Resolution 2005-1 states that “even small takes [of
762
humpback whales] coul d have a detrimental effect on the recovery and 763
survival of such populations ” 761 . While this resolution, adopted by 30-27-1 764
votes, is based on no scientific data, the 2005 JARPA II Plan furnished, as
756
757AM, para . 5 .103 .
758Brian Dennis, “Allee effects in stochastic populations” (2002) 96Oikos 389, pp . 389-401 .
759AM, para . 5 .100 .
760See above, 4 .147 .
761See AM, para . 5 .14, fn . 544 .
See AM, para . 5 .102 .
270 has just been indicated, scientific data and information on the basis of which
5 .86 The Memorial of Australia contends in this context that “ Japan it considers that the take of 50 animals per year hardly delays their recovery
fails to even mention the literature on the Allee effect i n its JARPA II to the pristine level .
756
proposal” . It is because the Allee effect is simply irrelevant that the 2005
Plan does not mention it . The Allee effect usually applies to a school and not 5 .89
to a stock as a whole; it is only when the stock in question is extremely small to challenge the abundance estimate on the basis of which the 2005 Plan was
757
that the effect may possibly apply to it . As indicated in the paragraph established
above, the stocks of minke whales that are the subject of JARPA II are
sufficiently large even on the basis of a considerably conservative estimation . 5 .90
Tim Flannery, anAustralian environmental expert, stated in 2007 that:
5 .87 As for humpback whales, Australia c laims that “ Japan’s
calculations are flawed ” because “Japan relies on its own abundance
estimates from JARPA, which were roundly rejected by the Scientific
758
Committee” . Two remarks are warranted in this respect . First, as
759
mentioned above , the Scientific Committee did not “reject” the abundance
estimates made under JARPA . Secondly and more significantly, the part of
the report of the 2006 Workshop quoted by the Memorial of Australia
760
concerns Antarctic minke whales : why refer to it when discussing the
abundance estimate of humpback whales? 5 .91
papers
5 .88 It is true that Resolution 2005-1 states that “even small takes [of
762
humpback whales] coul d have a detrimental effect on the recovery and 763
survival of such populations ” 761 . While this resolution, adopted by 30-27-1 764
votes, is based on no scientific data, the 2005 JARPA II Plan furnished, as
756
757AM, para . 5 .103 .
758Brian Dennis, “Allee effects in stochastic populations” (2002) 96Oikos 389, pp . 389-401 .
759AM, para . 5 .100 .
760See above, 4 .147 .
761See AM, para . 5 .14, fn . 544 .
See AM, para . 5 .102 .Scientific Committee for its annual meetings from 2006 to 2011 . cruise reports, as follows .
5 .92 Since JARPA II started f rom the 2005/06 season, the end of the 1. Cruise Reports
first six-year phase (including two -year feasibility study) was in 2010/11 . 5 .93
However, the first periodic review of the program me, under the IWC’s new and catch distribution, and on biological segregation (sex and reproductive
procedure for review of scientific research proposals and research r esults status) of whales sampled in the research area . These results are useful to
from existing and completed permits , agreed to in 2008, (“ Process for the understand the interaction among whale species in the Antarctic under
Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Objective 2 of JARPA II, “Modelling competition among whale species and
766
Completed Permits”) , is scheduled to take place in 2013/14 because the future management objectives”, and are also important for understanding the
final review of the Icelandic special permit research program me was changes in the abundance and distribution of the three whale species by
767
postponed until 2012/13 . While intensive data analyses , including research area and year, which is related to Objective 1 of JARPA II
construction of ecosystem models, in accordance with the objectives of (Monitoring of Ecosystem) .
JARPA II are being done, their results have not yet been fully documented .
However, some interesting information has already been revealed in several 5 .94
is growing rapidly and is the dominant species together with
765Cruise reports <http://www .icrwhale .org/CruiseReportJARPA .html> accessed 14 February 2012:
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al“Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale minke whale
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2005/2006
-Feasibility study -”, SC/58/O7 (May -June 2006), pp . 1- 21, presented to the Scientific West for example is higher than that of the Antarctic minke whale in recent
Committee .
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the second phase of the Japane se Whale Research surveys
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2006/2007 –feasibility study-,”
SC/59/O4, presented to the Scientific Committee (May 2007) . an effect on the distribution of Antarctic minke whale s in summer in these
- Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whesearch
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4, Areas . For example in 2007/08 the sighting and sampling survey revealed
presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2008) .
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale that mature female Antarctic minke whales were con
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009”,
SC/61/O3, presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2009) . polynya and that they were segregated from humpback whales which were
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic – second phase (JARPA II) in 2009/10”, SC/62/O3, presented
to the Scientific Committee (May 2010) . 768
- Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2010/2011”, SC/63/O 1,
presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2011) .
766“Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and
Completed Permits”, Annex P, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean. Res. Manage. 11
(Suppl.), 2009, pp . 398-401 [Annex 116] .
767 “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (30 May - 11 June 2011), p . 61 , 769
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
272Scientific Committee for its annual meetings from 2006 to 2011 . cruise reports, as follows .
5 .92 Since JARPA II started f rom the 2005/06 season, the end of the 1. Cruise Reports
first six-year phase (including two -year feasibility study) was in 2010/11 . 5 .93
However, the first periodic review of the program me, under the IWC’s new and catch distribution, and on biological segregation (sex and reproductive
procedure for review of scientific research proposals and research r esults status) of whales sampled in the research area . These results are useful to
from existing and completed permits , agreed to in 2008, (“ Process for the understand the interaction among whale species in the Antarctic under
Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Objective 2 of JARPA II, “Modelling competition among whale species and
766
Completed Permits”) , is scheduled to take place in 2013/14 because the future management objectives”, and are also important for understanding the
final review of the Icelandic special permit research program me was changes in the abundance and distribution of the three whale species by
767
postponed until 2012/13 . While intensive data analyses , including research area and year, which is related to Objective 1 of JARPA II
construction of ecosystem models, in accordance with the objectives of (Monitoring of Ecosystem) .
JARPA II are being done, their results have not yet been fully documented .
However, some interesting information has already been revealed in several 5 .94
is growing rapidly and is the dominant species together with
765Cruise reports <http://www .icrwhale .org/CruiseReportJARPA .html> accessed 14 February 2012:
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al“Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale minke whale
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2005/2006
-Feasibility study -”, SC/58/O7 (May -June 2006), pp . 1- 21, presented to the Scientific West for example is higher than that of the Antarctic minke whale in recent
Committee .
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the second phase of the Japane se Whale Research surveys
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2006/2007 –feasibility study-,”
SC/59/O4, presented to the Scientific Committee (May 2007) . an effect on the distribution of Antarctic minke whale s in summer in these
- Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whesearch
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4, Areas . For example in 2007/08 the sighting and sampling survey revealed
presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2008) .
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale that mature female Antarctic minke whales were con
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009”,
SC/61/O3, presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2009) . polynya and that they were segregated from humpback whales which were
- Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic – second phase (JARPA II) in 2009/10”, SC/62/O3, presented
to the Scientific Committee (May 2010) . 768
- Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2010/2011”, SC/63/O 1,
presented to the Scientific Committee (June 2011) .
766“Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and
Completed Permits”, Annex P, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean. Res. Manage. 11
(Suppl.), 2009, pp . 398-401 [Annex 116] .
767 “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (30 May - 11 June 2011), p . 61 , 769
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .distributed outside . The results support the hypothesis that many Antarctic
minke whales, especially mature females, are distributed in the ice- free area
770
beyond the ice-edge where research vessels could not enter .
770Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4 (June 2008), p .
19 .
274distributed outside . The results support the hypothesis that many Antarctic
minke whales, especially mature females, are distributed in the ice- free area Figure 5-5 . Distribution of sightings of Antarctic minke whales (upper) and humpback
whales (lower) in Areas III East and IV during the 2009/10 JARPA II research cruise
770 Sightings of humpback whales in
beyond the ice-edge where research vessels could not enter . whales, and that would mean that the abundance of humpback whales in this Area is
increasing .
770 Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
771
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4 (June 2008), p .
19 .Figure 5-6: Spatial distributions of humpback and Antarctic minke whales based on the
2007/08 JARPA II sighting survey data . Expanding humpback whales pushing 772arctic
minke whales into polynyas (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) .
5 .95 In Areas V and VI West, as in Areas III East and IV, the Antarctic
minke whale is segregated sexually with its distr ibution depending on their
sex and reproductive status . They were segregated from the humpback and
fin whales in the research area . The Antarctic minke whale is the dominant
species in these Areas 773 , and humpback whales are less abundant than in
Areas III East and IV . This observation support s the view that humpback
whales of the Breeding-Stock E are increasing but at a slow rate in
772
Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4 (June 2008), p .
19 (modified) .
773Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the second phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2006/2007 –feasibility study -,”
SC/59/O4 (May 2007), p . 9; Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009”
SC/61/O3 (2009), p .11; Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese
Whale Res earch Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2010/2011”,
SC/63/O1 (June 2011), p . 10 .
276Figure 5-6: Spatial distributions of humpback and Antarctic minke whales based on the comparison to Breeding-Stock D . Fin whales were widely distributed in the
2007/08 JARPA II sighting survey data . Expanding humpback whales pu772ng Antarctic
minke whales into polynyas (source: Institute of Cetacean Research) . northern and southern strata of these Areas and large schools were observed
in Area V .
2. Other Analytical Papers
5 .96
ecology and body weight of fin whales sampled during the first two JARPA
II surveys . The p rey species in the stomach contents of fin
Antarctic krill . This is direct evidence that Antarctic minke and fin whales
consume the same prey species, at least in some regions of the Antarctic .
Biomass estimations are important for the construction of ecosystem models .
The relationship between body weight and length of 11 fin whales samples in
the first two surveys was examined . Results suggested that the body weight
of the fin whales from recent JARPA II surveys is heavier than those
previously reported in 1950’s and this suggests that new data from JARPA II
5 .95 In Areas V and VI West, as in Areas III East and IV, the Antarctic
is valuable for ecosystem modelling exercise, which is Objective 2 of JARPA
minke whale is segregated sexually with its distr ibution depending on their
II .
sex and reproductive status . They were segregated from the humpback and
fin whales in the research area . The Antarctic minke whale is the dominant
773 5 .97
species in these Areas , and humpback whales are less abundant than in
Areas III East and IV . This observation support s the view that humpback JARPA II research area . Within the 2005/06 season a whale first sighted in
Area III at position 65º49S, 63º00E on 12 January
whales of the Breeding-Stock E are increasing but at a slow rate in
Area IV at position 65º44S, 76º31E on 1 Feb
772 between the first and second sightings was 334n .miles and the average
Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2007/2008”, SC/60/O4 (June 2008), p . distance per day was 17n .miles . Results from this ana
773Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise report of the second phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2006/20–feasibility study -,” understand distribution and movement of large whales and then they are
SC/59/O4 (May 2007), p . 9; Shigetoshi Nishiwaki, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2008/2009” relevant to Objective 1 of JARPAII (Monitoring of the Ecosystem) .
SC/61/O3 (2009), p .11; Hajime Ishikawa, et al, “Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese
Whale Res earch Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 2010/2011”,
SC/63/O1 (June 2011), p . 10 .5 .98 These results reported in various documents that Japan has already
submitted to the Scientific Committee indicate that special permit whaling
under JARPA II is already producing data relevant to its research objectives .
B. Publications in Peer -reviewed Journals
5 .99 Most of the effort has been made to have the JARPA research
published, as most of the analyses (some including suggestions from the
Scientific Committee) have been completed for that program me . However,
some peer-reviewed papers on whale morphology and ph ysiology based on
JARPA II samples are already available 774 . A larger number of peer-reviewed
publications from JARPA II are expected once the program me has been
reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2013/14 . In addition , several oral
presentations based on JARPA II samples and data have been made at
scientific symposia 775 .
774
Noriaki Ono, Takeshi Yamaguchi, Hajime Ishikawa, Mitsue Arakawa, Naohiko Takahashi,
Tetsunori Saikawa and Tatsuo Shimada, “Morphological varieties of the Purkinje fiber network in
mammalian hearts, as revealed by light and electron microscopy” (2009) 72 Arch. Histol. Cytol.
139, pp . 139-149; Hiroki Nagai, Toshihiro Mogoe, Hajime Ishikawa, Shinichi Hochi, Seiji Ohsumi
and Yutaka Fukui, “Follicle size-dependent changes in follicular fluid components and oocyte
diameter in Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis)” (2007) 53 Journal of
Reproduction and Development 1265, pp . 1265-1272 .
775Four relevant oral presentations have been delivered so far .
- T . Shimada, T . Yamaguchi, H . Kai, T . Yoshihara, M . Segawa, S . Kato, H . Kawazato and H .
Ishikawa, “Why can the whale dive deeply? -Histological characteristics -”, Third Conference of
U .S .-Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology, and H yperbaric Medicine (3rd
New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
- T . Shimada and H . Ishikawa, “Functional Morphology of the Whale skins”, Third Conference of
U .S .-Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology, and Hyperbaric Medicine (3rd
New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
- T . Shimada, T . Yamaguchi, M . Segawa and H . Ishikawa, “Functional Morphology of the Whale
Hearts”, Third Conference of U .S . -Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology,
and Hyperbaric Medicine (3rd New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
These three presentations are listed in T . Miyashita, L .A . Pastene and H . Kato, “Progress report on
cetacean research, April 2008 to March 2009, with statistical data for the calendar year 2008 or the
season 2008/09”, SC/61/ProgRepJapan, pre sented to the Scientific Committee, p .33 ,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/2009progreports/SC -61-ProgRepJapan revised .pdf
> accessed 14 February 2012 .
2785 .98 These results reported in various documents that Japan has already
submitted to the Scientific Committee indicate that special permit whaling
under JARPA II is already producing data relevant to its research objectives .
5 .100
B. Publications in Peer -reviewed Journals review of research results every six years; however, the Scientific Committee
agreed that the JARPA II review would be postponed to begin in September
5 .99 Most of the effort has been made to have the JARPA research 2013
published, as most of the analyses (some including suggestions from the in the years between periodic reviews; rather it will merely note short annual
Scientific Committee) have been completed for that program me . However, reports provided by those undertaking the permit research
some peer-reviewed papers on whale morphology and ph ysiology based on
JARPA II samples are already available 774 . A larger number of peer-reviewed 5 .101
publications from JARPA II are expected once the program me has been the usefulness and value of some of the data/samples . For example, at its
reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2013/14 . In addition , several oral meeting in 2011, and in regard to the JARPA II sighting surveys, the
presentations based on JARPA II samples and data have been made at Scientific Committee “expresses regret that such actions (violent actions
scientific symposia 775 . from an anti-whaling NGO) had prevented the sighting survey from being
conducted as planned . Following the end of the IDCR/SOWER programme
774
Noriaki Ono, Takeshi Yamaguchi, Hajime Ishikawa, Mitsue Arakawa, Naohiko Takahashi, in 2009, these surveys now provide the only dedicated cetacean sighting data
Tetsunori Saikawa and Tatsuo Shimada, “Morphological varieties of the Purkinje fiber network in
mammalian hearts, as revealed by light and electron microscopy” (2009) 72 Arch. Histol. Cytol.
139, pp . 139-149; Hiroki Nagai, Toshihiro Mogoe, Hajime Ishikawa, Shinichi Hochi, Seiji Ohsumi
and Yutaka Fukui, “Follicle size-dependent changes in follicular fluid components and oocyte
diameter in Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis)” (2007) 53 Journal of
Reproduction and Development 1265, pp . 1265-1272 .
775Four relevant oral presentations have been delivered so far .
- T . Shimada, T . Yamaguchi, H . Kai, T . Yoshihara, M . Segawa, S . Kato, H . Kawazato and H .
Ishikawa, “Why can the whale dive deeply? -Histological characteristics -”, Third Conference of
U .S .-Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology, and H yperbaric Medicine (3rd
New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
- T . Shimada and H . Ishikawa, “Functional Morphology of the Whale skins”, Third Conference of
U .S .-Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology, and Hyperbaric Medicine (3rd
New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
- T . Shimada, T . Yamaguchi, M . Segawa and H . Ishikawa, “Functional Morphology of the Whale 776
Hearts”, Third Conference of U .S . -Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology & Technology,
and Hyperbaric Medicine (3rd New UJNR) (Oita, November 2008) .
These three presentations are listed in T . Miyashita, L .A . Pastene and H . Kato, “Progress report on
cetacean research, April 2008 to March 2009, with statistical data for the calendar year 2008 or the 777
season 2008/09”, SC/61/ProgRepJapan, pre sented to the Scientific Committee, p .33 ,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/2009progreports/SC -61-ProgRepJapan revised .pdf 778
> accessed 14 February 2012 . 779
in this region and are extremely valuable to the work of the Committee” .
5 .102 Another example is the importance the Scientific Committee is
giving to age data of Antarctic mink e whales obtained during JARPA II .
During its 2010 and 2011 annual meetings the Scientific Committee
recommended that up -to-date catch-at-age data from JARPA II should be
780
included in its SCAA (integrated statistical catch-at-age) analyses .
5 .103 Preliminary analyses have also proved that the samples of fin
whales are useful for the objectives of JARPA II . The analysis of the body
length/weight relationship suggested that the body weight of fin whales from
JARPA II surveys is heavier than those previously reported in the 1950s and
this suggest that new data obtained from JARPA II is valuable for ecosystem
modelling exercises 781 .
Section 6. JARPA/JARPA II are Not Dictated by
Economic or Commercial Purposes
5 .104 Australia alleges that “ science is not Japan ’s real purpose in
undertaking ‘scientific’ whaling” and that “ economic interests drive the
conduct of Japan’s ‘research’, dictating the use of lethal methods and driving
779 “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, (30 May - 11 June 2011), p . 34 ,
<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 (emphasis added) .
780“Report of the Scientific Committee ”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011 (30 May- 11
June 2010), p . 26; “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (30 May - 11 June 2011), p .
26, <http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 122] .
781Government of Japan (Compiled by Y . Fujise, L .A . Pastene, H . Hatanaka, S . Ohsumi and T .
Miyashita), “Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility Study of the Second Phase of the
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)” SC/59/O3
(May 2007) [Annex 153] .
280in this region and are extremely valuable to the work of the Committee” . 779 key participants to maximise revenue ” .
Japan contravenes the commercial whaling moratorium .
5 .102 Another example is the importance the Scientific Committee is
giving to age data of Antarctic mink e whales obtained during JARPA II . 5 .105
During its 2010 and 2011 annual meetings the Scientific Committee (1 .) and describes fundamental difference
recommended that up -to-date catch-at-age data from JARPA II should be commercial purposes and scientific purposes (2 .) .
included in its SCAA (integrated statistical catch-at-age) analyses 780 .
5 .103 Preliminary analyses have also proved that the samples of fin
whales are useful for the objectives of JARPA II . The analysis of the body 5 .106
length/weight relationship suggested that the body weight of fin whales from model” designed “to ensure the maintenance of the industry
JARPA II surveys is heavier than those previously reported in the 1950s and whaling capacity and to provide retirement opportunities for senior
this suggest that new data obtained from JARPA II is valuable for ecosystem Government bureaucrats”
modelling exercises 781 . To prove this hypothesis, Australia indicates three “facts”:
Section 6. JARPA/JARPA II are Not Dictated by
Economic or Commercial Purposes
5 .104 Australia alleges that “ science is not Japan ’s real purpose in
undertaking ‘scientific’ whaling” and that “ economic interests drive the
5 .107
conduct of Japan’s ‘research’, dictating the use of lethal methods and driving
research cost of JARPA/JARPA II has been funded by revenue from the sale
of whale meat by-products in conformity with Article VIII (2) of the ICRW .
779
“Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, (30 May - 11 June 2011), p . 34 ,
780<http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 (emphasis added) . 782
“Report of the Scientific Committee ”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011 (30 May- 11 783
June 2010), p . 26; “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1 (30 May - 11 June 2011), p . 784
78126, <http://iwcoffice .org/sci_com/screport .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 122] . 785
Government of Japan (Compiled by Y . Fujise, L .A . Pastene, H . Hatanaka, S . Ohsumi and T . 786
Miyashita), “Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility Study of the Second Phase of the 787
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)” SC/59/O3 788
(May 2007) [Annex 153] .As for the second and third points, Japan does not accept Australia ’s
allegations .
5 .108 Before elaborating Japan’s position regarding these three issues, it
is convenient to explain succinctly how Japan ’s scientific whaling is
structured in legal and institutional terms .
1. Basic Structure of RIF
5 .109 The framewo rk within which JARPA/JARPA II have been
designed and implemented is called the Research Implementation
Framework (RIF) . The Government of Japan, the Institute of Cetacean
Research (ICR) and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd . collaborate in RIF .
Figure 5-7 . Government of Japan, ICR and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd . in the RIF .
282As for the second and third points, Japan does not accept Australia ’s
allegations . (1) Government of Japan
5 .110
5 .108 Before elaborating Japan’s position regarding these three issues, it Government of the ICRW, to ensure that every special permit whaling
is convenient to explain succinctly how Japan ’s scientific whaling is activity is conducted in conformit y with the ICRW as well as other
structured in legal and institutional terms . applicable international and domestic law .
1. Basic Structure of RIF 5 .111
5 .109 The framewo rk within which JARPA/JARPA II have been of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), is the part of
designed and implemented is called the Research Implementation the government tasked with ensuring the proper conservation and
Framework (RIF) . The Government of Japan, the Institute of Cetacean management of fisheries resources, securing the stable supply of fishery
Research (ICR) and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd . collaborate in RIF . products, development of fishing industry and the welfare of
Since whaling is part of fisheries in Japanese law, the
Figure 5-7 . Government of Japan, ICR and Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd . in the RIF . role in policy-making regardingwhaling .
5 .112
the FAJ conducts a technical and legal examination . If the application is
confirmed to have no problem, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries issues a special p ermit in accordance with relevant provisions of
the Fisheries Law
ICRW . The permit sets forth restrictions and conditions for research
activities in accordance with applicable Japanese l
well as the relevant provisions of ICRW . The FAJ also sends government
officers aboard research vessels to monitor research activities .
789
790(2) Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR)
5 .113 The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is a foundation
791
established in 1987 as a “public-benefit corporation” in accordance with
792
Japan’s Civil Code . It has conducted JARPA/JARPAII and other cetacean
researches (including non-lethal researches) . Its staff includes scientists and
researchers with diffe rent expertise to be sent aboard research vessels to
collect and analyse proper scientific samples and data and to report to the
FAJ and the IWC scientific findings obtained on the basis of such analyses .
The ICR also sends scientists to the Scientific Committee for scientific
discussions .
5 .114 The objective of the ICR is specified in Article 3 of the Act of
793
Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean Research as follows:
“The objective of this research institute is to contribute to
appropriate management and use of fishery resources by
conducting experiments/researches and surveys on cetaceans and
other marine mammals, as well as examination s on the
international situation regarding cetaceans and other marine
mammals .”
5 .115 Activities of the ICR are specified in Article 4 of the Act:
“To accomplish the objective specified in the preceding A rticle,
this research institute conducts the following activities:
791The ICR is a successor to the Whale Research I nstitute, established in 1947 . A new institution was
needed to cope with a new situation following Japan’s drop of opposition to the moratorium on
commercial whaling . Since the moratorium on commercial whaling was based on a lack of
scientific information required to manage whale resources, it was necessary to have an institution
specialized to obtain such scientific information .
792Following an amendment of relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the legal status of the
“public-benefit corporations” is in a transitional state and such corporations, including the ICR, will
be transformed into a corporation of a new category by 2013 .
793The Institute of Cetacean Research, Act of Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean Research (30
October 1987) (As amended 20 October 1999) [Annex 137] .
284(2) Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR)
5 .113 The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) is a foundation
established in 1987 791 as a “public-benefit corporation” in accordance with
Japan’s Civil Code 792 . It has conducted JARPA/JARPAII and other cetacean
researches (including non-lethal researches) . Its staff includes scientists and
researchers with diffe rent expertise to be sent aboard research vessels to
collect and analyse proper scientific samples and data and to report to the
FAJ and the IWC scientific findings obtained on the basis of such analyses . (3) Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd.
The ICR also sends scientists to the Scientific Committee for scientific 5 .116
discussions . established in accordance with the Commercial Code of Japan
owns ships and employs ship crews for cetacean researches and operates the
5 .114 The objective of the ICR is specified in Article 3 of the Act of research cruises under charter contract with the ICR . It also sells the
793
Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean Research as follows: by-product from the whale researches in accordance with sales consignment
contracts with the ICR .
“The objective of this research institute is to contribute to
appropriate management and use of fishery resources by
conducting experiments/researches and surveys on cetaceans and 5 .117
other marine mammals, as well as examination s on the which used to be engaged in commercial whaling, was dissolved in 1987,
international situation regarding cetaceans and other marine
mammals .” when Japan suspended commercial whaling . The same year, Kyodo Senpaku
Kaisha, Ltd . was established as a company whose works include: research on
5 .115 Activities of the ICR are specified in Article 4 of the Act:
whales and other fishery resources; marine transport and rental of vessels;
“To accomplish the objective specified in the preceding A rticle, processing and buying/selling of whale products .
this research institute conducts the following activities: ship crews from Kyodo Hogei, Ltd . Since it is the only organi zation that has
a fleet and ship crew capable of whale research in the Antarctic Ocean, the
791The ICR is a successor to the Whale Research I nstitute, established in 1947 . A new institution was
needed to cope with a new situation following Japan’s drop of opposition to the moratorium on ICR has maintained a charter contract with Kyodo Senpaku
commercial whaling . Since the moratorium on commercial whaling was based on a lack of
scientific information required to manage whale resources, it was necessary to have an institution regarding whale research .
792specialized to obtain such scientific information .
“public-benefit corporations” is in a transitional state and such corporations, including the ICR, will
be transformed into a corporation of a new category by 2013 .
793The Institute of Cetacean Research, Act of Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean Research (30
October 1987) (As amended 20 October 1999) [Annex 137] . 7942. RIF is Structured for Scientific Purposes
(1) Lethal Sampling is Employed in JARPA/JARPA II to Achieve
Scientific Objectives
5 .118 Australia argues that JARPA/J ARPA II adopt scientifically
unnecessary lethal methods because whale meat can be obtained only by
lethal methods 795 . The scientific necessity of lethal sampling in
JARPA/JARPA II has been so extensively explained in the present and
796
previous Chapters that there is no need to repeat it here .
5 .119 The fact, which Japan has never denied, that the sale of whale meat,
lawful under the ICRW, partly funded JARPA/JARPA II has nothing to do
with the question whether JARPA/JARPA II’s objectives are genuinely
scientific . Plenty of scientific research programmes all over the world are
partly financed by the sale of by -products derived from the programmes
themselves .
(2) The Number of Whales to be Sampled is Determined by Scientific
Considerations
5 .120 Australia also argues that the number of whales to be sampled is
“driven by the economic interests of key participants in Japan’ s pelagic
whaling industry” 797 . The scientific considerations that determine the number
of whales to be sampled have been so comprehensively discussed in the
present and previous Chapters 798 that there is no need to go back to them
here .
795AM, paras . 3 .75-3 .79 .
796See above, paras 4 .55-4 .83, 5 .82-5 .90 .
797AM, paras . 3 .83 .
798See above, paras . 4 .84-4 .88, 5 .53-5 .81 .
286(3) The Sale of Whale Meat By-products is Conducted in Conformity
with Article VIII(2) of the ICRW
5 .121 Australia qualifies JARPA/JARPA II as a “business model” 799 and
alleges that JARPA/JARPA II ’s fundamental purpose is not scientific
research at all .800 It is a “business model” because, according to Australia,
“the revenue from the sale of whale meat by-products largely funds ongoing
801
whaling operations” .
5 .122 Article VIII(2) of the ICRW provides that:
“Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as
practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in
accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the
permit was granted .”
5 .123 Curiously enough, Austral ia, while it mentions this paragraph en
802
passant in a Chapter in which it deals with a different question , avoids
discussing its applicability to the sale of whale meat under RIF when it
alleges JARPA/JARPA II constitute a “business model ” . The clear text
prevents Australia from referring to it: ac cording to this paragraph, the
Contracting Governments are under an obligation to “process” “[a]ny
whales taken ” and to ensure that “ the proceeds … be dealt with in
accordance with directions issued by the Governm ent by which the permit
was granted” .
5 .124 Whales taken in JARPA/JARPA II have been “ so far as
799AM, para . 3 .72
800AM, para . 3 .119 .
801AM, para . 3 .72 .
802AM, para . 4 .1 .
287practicable” “processed” and sold, and “the proceeds” have been “dealt with
in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit
was granted ”, i .e ., the Government of Japan . The sale of whale meat
by-products under RIF is thus in full conformity with Article VIII(2) of the
ICRW .
5 .125 The following paragraphs provide details of the scheme which
ensures the application of Article VIII(2) to whale meat by-products obtained
in JARPA/JARPAII .
1 . Whales taken in JARPA/JARPA II are processed and sold in accordance
803
with Articles 12 and 13 of the Code for Special Research Programs
of the I CR, which was approved by an order from the Minister of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 804 .
2 . Upon completion of every special permit whaling programme, the ICR
makes an application to the Director -General of the Fisheries Agency
(DGFAJ) for his/her approval to process and sell whale products
derived from the program me (Article 13(2) of the Code) . The DGFAJ,
in order to verify whether or not unlawfully harvested or imported
products are mixed, examines the items in the application including:
yield of products by species; planned yield of products to be sold by
species; and method of selling; and gives the ICR approval as
appropriate (Article 13(1) of the Code) .
3 . Proceeds obtained through the sales of whale products are to be
allocated to cover expenditures associated with conducting special
permit whaling programmes (Article 14 of the Code) .
5 .126 The sale of whale meat, by -products derived from the research
803
The Institute of Cetacean Research, Code for Special Research Programs (24 November 1988) (As
804Nourinsuisanshou-Shirei-63-Suikai-Dai-3427-Gou [Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, F orestry
and Fisheries 63 Suikai No . 3427 (24 November 1988)] [Annex 139] ;
Nourinsuisanshou-Shirei-21-Suikan-Dai-165-Gou [Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries 21 Suikan No . 165 (16 April 2009)] [Annex 154] .
288activities under JARPA/JARPA II, is thus in conformity with Article VIII(2)
of the ICRW .
B. The D ifference Between Whaling Operations for Commercial
Purposes and Scientific Research Purposes
5 .127 When Australia alleges that JARPA II is commercial whaling, its
principal argument is based on the following syllogism:
- [T]here are only three categories of whaling under the ICRW
regime: scientific, aboriginal and commercial;
- JARPA II is neither scientific nor aboriginal wh805ng;
- therefore, JARPA II is commercial whaling .
It is clear from the present Chapter that JARPA II is scientific whaling under
the ICRW . The minor premise thus being invalid, the syllogism fails, without
discussing the validity of the major premise .
5 .128 Australia’s alternative argument is that JARPA II ’s commercial
purpose can be discerned from its design, architecture and structure 806 . Since
this argument 807 is essentially identical to the one concerning t he “business
model” –for example, Australia again avoids examining the clear text of
Article VIII(2) of the ICRW– it is not necessary here to repeat what has been
said in the previous part of the present Section .
5 .129 However, it is useful here to explain how commercial whaling is
different from scientific whaling, in order to clearly illustrate that JARPA II
805AM, para . 6 .6 .
806AM, para . 6 .7 .
807AM, paras . 6 .8-6 .23 .
289is not commercial whaling .
5 .130 Whaling operations for commercial and scientific research
purposes are different in a number of significant aspects , including: the areas
of operation, the target species and number taken, the individual animals
taken, the information/data to be obtained, the tissue samples collected, the
personnel involved and the manner in which proceeds are dealt with .
1. Areas of Operation and Trackline
5 .131 Commercial whaling operations are only roughly planned
beforehand and would be changed depending on the actual distribution of the
2. Target Species and the Number of Whales Taken
target species . They tend to be conducted without a predetermined vessel
5 .133
trackline and only in areas where the density of target species is high enough .
have been set based on scientific advice and only species of high commercial
value would be targeted, whereas in research whaling species of less or no
5 .132 In contrast, scientific research whaling operations are planned in
commercial value such as sperm whales may be targeted in numbers
detail beforehand in accordance with the objectives of the research and would
scientifically calculated as the lowest number required to obtain statistically
not be changed unless absolutely necessary (e .g . in case of severe weather or
meaningful results dependent on the research objectives .
violent sabotage activities) . JARPA/JARPA II special permit whaling follows
scientifically determined tracklines 808 and covers broad areas in accordance
3. Selection of Individual Whales Taken
with the objectives of the research , including areas where the density of the
5 .134
target species is low .
commercial efficiency so that larger animals tend to make up a majority of
the catch . In research whaling, individual animals taken are based on random
sampling procedures .
808
See Figure 4-2 .
2902. Target Species and the Number of Whales Taken
5 .133 In commercial whaling only stocks for which risk averse quotas
have been set based on scientific advice and only species of high commercial
value would be targeted, whereas in research whaling species of less or no
commercial value such as sperm whales may be targeted in numbers
scientifically calculated as the lowest number required to obtain statistically
meaningful results dependent on the research objectives .
3. Selection of Individual Whales Taken
5 .134 In commercial whaling animals to be taken are selected based on
commercial efficiency so that larger animals tend to make up a majority of
the catch . In research whaling, individual animals taken are based on random
sampling procedures .
291 objectives of the research, such as body weight, body proportion, thickness of
blubber, and weight and composition of stomach contents
5. Tissue Samples Collected
5 .136
under current IWC regulations . In contrast to this for scientific research
whaling operations a variety of tissue samples are to be collected in
accordance with the objectives of the research, such as ovary, test es, foetus,
earplug, blood plasma and other tissues for monitoring of pollutants .
6. Personnel Involved
5 .137
the captain, navigation officers, engineers, radio operators, gunners, factory
workers, deckhands, and others . For scientific research whaling operations
besides the ordinary crew of the whaling research base vessel s, a number of
scientists/researchers and technicians are on board the research base vessels .
Japan also places officials of the Fisheries Agency on research
used in the special permit whaling .
4. Information/Data to be Obtained 7. Manner in which Proceeds are Dealt with
5 .138
5 .135 In commercial whaling operations, only basic information/data are
the proceeds other than those relating
to be obtained, such as time and location of taking, species, body length, sex,
special permit whaling operations, Article VIII(2) of the ICRW provides that
whether lactating (if female), length and sex of foetus (if present), ki lling
method used, and number of whales struck but lost 809 . Research whaling the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the
requires a variety of additional information/data in accordance with the Government by which the permit was grante
809
The minimum information required for commercial whaling operation are specified in Paragraphs 810
23-29, Schedule, ICRW, including Schedule Appendix A [Annex 6] .
292objectives of the research, such as body weight, body proportion, thickness of
810
blubber, and weight and composition of stomach contents .
5. Tissue Samples Collected
5 .136 For commercial whaling operations no tissue samples are required
under current IWC regulations . In contrast to this for scientific research
whaling operations a variety of tissue samples are to be collected in
accordance with the objectives of the research, such as ovary, test es, foetus,
earplug, blood plasma and other tissues for monitoring of pollutants .
6. Personnel Involved
5 .137 Ordinary crew of whaling vessels for commercial whaling includes
the captain, navigation officers, engineers, radio operators, gunners, factory
workers, deckhands, and others . For scientific research whaling operations ,
besides the ordinary crew of the whaling research base vessel s, a number of
scientists/researchers and technicians are on board the research base vessels .
Japan also places officials of the Fisheries Agency on research base vessel
used in the special permit whaling .
7. Manner in which Proceeds are Dealt with
5 .138 For commercial operations there are no restriction s on the use of
the proceeds other than those relating to CITES regulation of trade . For
special permit whaling operations, Article VIII(2) of the ICRW provides that
the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the
Government by which the permit was grante d . As already explained in
810
See Chapter 4, Section 2, D; Chapter 5, Section 3, C (JARPA II) .
293detail811, in the case of Japan ’s special permit whaling programs, the
proceeds are to be used to fund the cost of the following years’ special permit
whaling activities . This means that there are no profits resulting from the
special permit whaling .
Conclusion
5 .139 The present Chapter has established that JARPA II is a research
programme launched and conducted to collect scientific data to contribute to
the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph
10(e) of the ICRW Schedule and to follow up on the findings of JARPA
indicating that significant changes in the Antarctic ecosystem were taking
place .
5 .140 JARPA II is designed and has been conducted to achieve the
following research objecti ves, established on the basis of scientific
considerations:
- Objective 1: Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
- Objective 2: Modelling competition among whale species and
future management objectives;
- Objective 3: Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock
structure; and
- Objective 4: Improving the management procedure for Antarctic
minke whale stocks .
811
See above, paras . 5 .121-5 .126 .
294 811
detail , in the case of Japan ’s special permit whaling programs, the 5 .141
proceeds are to be used to fund the cost of the following years’ special permit scientifically necessary . Although Australia alleges that lethal methods a
whaling activities . This means that there are no profits resulting from the not necessary to achieve JARPA ’s objectives, non- lethal methods cannot
special permit whaling . completely replace lethal sampling, as explained in the present Chapter as
well as in Chapter 4 . Furthermore, the examples on which Australia relies to
Conclusion “prove” that lethal methods
impracticability of non -lethal methods (SORP) or has nothing to do with
5 .139 The present Chapter has established that JARPA II is a research whale research (CEMP) .
programme launched and conducted to collect scientific data to contribute to
the “review” and the “comprehensive assessment” envisaged in Paragraph 5 .142
10(e) of the ICRW Schedule and to follow up on the findings of JARPA JARPA II has already produced a number of results, the
indicating that significant changes in the Antarctic ecosystem were taking which has been recognized by the Scientific Committee .
place .
5 .143
5 .140 JARPA II is designed and has been conducted to achieve the not dictated by economic or commercial purposes . It is designed on the basis
following research objecti ves, established on the basis of scientific of scientific considerations to achieve scientific objectives through scientific
considerations: methods, and has been in fact conducted as such .
- Objective 1: Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
- Objective 2: Modelling competition among whale species and
future management objectives;
- Objective 3: Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock
structure; and
- Objective 4: Improving the management procedure for Antarctic
minke whale stocks .
811See above, paras . 5 .121-5 .126 . PART III
THE LAW PART III
THE LAW INTRODUCTION: APPLICABLE LAW
III .1 As recalled in Chapter 1 812, the case of which the Court has been
seised by Australia is expressly limited by the Applicant itself to Japan’s
alleged failure to comply with its obligations under the ICRW 813 .
III .2 As far as other sources of law are concerned, Japan accepts
Australia’s view that they are a priori inapplicable to the case and cannot
constitute bases for adjudication . This applies in particular to the Convention
on International Trade in Endan gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
814 815
(CITES) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) referred
816
to in paragraph 1 .9 of Australia’s Memorial . The same holds true for the
“other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals a nd
the marine environment ” incumbent upon Japan, to which paragraph 2 of
Australia’s Application refers . It must be noted that Australia does not
invoke other conventions autonomously but rather refers to them from the
817
perspective of systemic interpretation .
812See above, Introduction, paras . 4-10 and paras . 1 .6-1 .10 .
813See AM, para . 1 .8 . In the next para . 1 .9, Australia claims that it “reserves the right to seek remedies
from the Court in relation to a breach of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)” . As shown above (paras . 1 .7-1 . 8), Australia has not
such a “right” .
814 Convention on Internati onal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(entered into
force 1 July 1975) 993 UNTS 243 .
815 Convention on Biological Diversity (entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79 .
816 See also Application, para . 38 .
817 AM, paras . 4 .81-4 .86 . INTRODUCTION: APPLICABLE LAW
III .1 As recalled in Chapter 1 812, the case of which the Court has been
seised by Australia is expressly limited by the Applicant itself to Japan’s
alleged failure to comply with its obligations under the ICRW 813 .
III .2 As far as other sources of law are concerned, Japan accepts
Australia’s view that they are a priori inapplicable to the case and cannot
constitute bases for adjudication . This applies in particular to the Convention
on International Trade in Endan gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
814 815
(CITES) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) referred
816
to in paragraph 1 .9 of Australia’s Memorial . The same holds true for the
“other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals a nd
the marine environment ” incumbent upon Japan, to which paragraph 2 of
Australia’s Application refers . It must be noted that Australia does not
invoke other conventions autonomously but rather refers to them from the
817
perspective of systemic interpretation .
812See above, Introduction, paras . 4-10 and paras . 1 .6-1 .10 .
813See AM, para . 1 .8 . In the next para . 1 .9, Australia claims that it “reserves the right to seek remedies
from the Court in relation to a breach of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’)” . As shown above (paras . 1 .7-1 . 8), Australia has not
such a “right” .
814 Convention on Internati onal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flor(entered into
force 1 July 1975) 993 UNTS 243 .
815 Convention on Biological Diversity (entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79 .
816 See also Application, para . 38 .
817 AM, paras . 4 .81-4 .86 .
297 818
III .3 In the same vein, principles such as the precautionary approach conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit”, “[n]otwithstanding
819 820
or the principle of good faith are not (and cannot be) invoked anything contained in” the ICRW .
independently, but only for the purposes of interpreting and applying Article
VIII and in so far as permissible under the law of treaties . III .6
analysed in detail in Chapter 7 . Suffice it to note at this stage that the rules
III .4 Part III of Australia’s Memorial, entitled “ The Law”, refers solely applying to special permits under Article VIII have something in common
to what is called by the Applicant “The Article VIII Exception” . Japan agrees with “self-contained regimes”
that the only applicable law in the case put before the Court is indeed Article a meaning – in that they consist exclusively of the rules included in Article
VIII of the ICRW . Therefore, the matter put before the Court is a matter of VIII notwithstanding all the other rules provided for in the Convention . It
interpretation of the Convention and, more precisely of Article VIII and of can be seen as a “special treaty regime” included in a more comprehensive
its application to the JARPA II programme . However, having recogni zed set of treaty rules –from which it derogates .
this, Australia overlooks that it is indeed Article VIII that governs the
legality of JARPA II . By using the “secondary” instruments adopted by the III .7
Convention organs with a view to contradicting the obvious interpretation of from the outset: while paying lip service to the text of Article VIII itself,
this Article, it inverts the natural hierarchy between the relevant instruments . Australia’s Memorial puts much weight upon secondary instruments
supposed to clarify the meaning of Article VIII or to restrict the rights of the
III .5 With respect to applicable law, the most significant points to be Contracting Governments under Article VIII .
made are that:
(i) this case exclusively relates to the application of Article VIII of the III .8
ICRW; and this provision . In particular, it confuses the role of the Convention itself
(ii) by virtue of the terms of paragraph 1 of this provision, the granting of (which is the primary rule in the relations between the Contracting
special permits by Contracting Governments is “exempt from the Governments) and the secondary instruments adopted in application of the
operation of” the ICRW and, leaving aside some procedural obligations,
821See SS “Wimbledon”, Judgme nts, 1923, P.C.I.J.,
is subject only to “ such restrictions as to number and …to such other Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment
“Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of
International Law ”, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission,
A/CN .4/L .682, 2006, paras . 111-185 .
818AM, paras . 4 .87-4 .90 . international :cours général de droit international public (2000)” (2002) 297
819AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63 . pp .428-437; Bruno Simma and Dirk Pulkowski, “ Leges speciales and Self-contained Regimes” , J .
820See Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Crawford, A . Pellet and S . Olleson , The law of international responsibility (OUP 2010) pp . 139-
Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p . 105, para . 94 . 163 .
298 818
III .3 In the same vein, principles such as the precautionary approach conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit”, “[n]otwithstanding
819 820
or the principle of good faith are not (and cannot be) invoked anything contained in” the ICRW .
independently, but only for the purposes of interpreting and applying Article
VIII and in so far as permissible under the law of treaties . III .6
analysed in detail in Chapter 7 . Suffice it to note at this stage that the rules
III .4 Part III of Australia’s Memorial, entitled “ The Law”, refers solely applying to special permits under Article VIII have something in common
to what is called by the Applicant “The Article VIII Exception” . Japan agrees with “self-contained regimes”
that the only applicable law in the case put before the Court is indeed Article a meaning – in that they consist exclusively of the rules included in Article
VIII of the ICRW . Therefore, the matter put before the Court is a matter of VIII notwithstanding all the other rules provided for in the Convention . It
interpretation of the Convention and, more precisely of Article VIII and of can be seen as a “special treaty regime” included in a more comprehensive
its application to the JARPA II programme . However, having recogni zed set of treaty rules –from which it derogates .
this, Australia overlooks that it is indeed Article VIII that governs the
legality of JARPA II . By using the “secondary” instruments adopted by the III .7
Convention organs with a view to contradicting the obvious interpretation of from the outset: while paying lip service to the text of Article VIII itself,
this Article, it inverts the natural hierarchy between the relevant instruments . Australia’s Memorial puts much weight upon secondary instruments
supposed to clarify the meaning of Article VIII or to restrict the rights of the
III .5 With respect to applicable law, the most significant points to be Contracting Governments under Article VIII .
made are that:
(i) this case exclusively relates to the application of Article VIII of the III .8
ICRW; and this provision . In particular, it confuses the role of the Convention itself
(ii) by virtue of the terms of paragraph 1 of this provision, the granting of (which is the primary rule in the relations between the Contracting
special permits by Contracting Governments is “exempt from the Governments) and the secondary instruments adopted in application of the
operation of” the ICRW and, leaving aside some procedural obligations,
821See SS “Wimbledon”, Judgme nts, 1923, P.C.I.J.,
is subject only to “ such restrictions as to number and …to such other Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment
“Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from Diversification and Expansion of
International Law ”, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission,
A/CN .4/L .682, 2006, paras . 111-185 .
818AM, paras . 4 .87-4 .90 . international :cours général de droit international public (2000)” (2002) 297
819AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63 . pp .428-437; Bruno Simma and Dirk Pulkowski, “ Leges speciales and Self-contained Regimes” , J .
820See Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Crawford, A . Pellet and S . Olleson , The law of international responsibility (OUP 2010) pp . 139-
Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p . 105, para . 94 . 163 .Convention . Moreover, among these second ary instruments, Australia relies is aimed at creating the (erroneou
indiscriminately on amendments to the Schedule on the one hand and on interpretation could be just a pretext for elevating secondary instruments
other secondary instruments on the other hand – probably in the hope that the the level of applicable law, independently of any issue of interpretation .
binding character of the former will contaminate the latter . This is legally
wrong – even though there is a common element: both kinds of instruments – III .11
amendments to the Schedule and “resolutions ” or “recommendations” of the conformity with Article V of the Convention as “necessary to carry out the
IWC and of the other organs of the ICRW – being adopted on the basis of the objectives and purposes of ” the ICRW is different in that “ [s]ubject to any
Convention, must comply with its provisions and, in particular, cannot reservation that may be made by a Contracting Government to the ICRW,
modify its object and purpose . amendments to the Schedule form part of the ICR
binding”
III .9 All these instruments are secondary insofar as they are, by their two important caveats:
origin, unilateral in nature, being texts voted by the IWC on the basis of the - first, it goes without saying that these amendments must be adopted in
Convention . But there is an essential difference: while the amendments to the conformity with the Convention and cannot change its object and pur pose
Schedule modify the regulations for those Contracting Governments which (which is explained in Chapter 6);
do not object to them, t he instruments belonging to the second category are - second, the Schedule and its amendment do not apply to special permit
simply hortatory texts of general scope (the IWC guidelines on spec ial whaling since they are part of the Convention
permits addressed to the Scientific Committee and resolutions addressed to object of Article VIII to exempt it from its application .
States on the same subject -matter) or recommendations addressed by the
Commission to individual States, in particular to Japan .
III .12
amendments to the Schedule as being the applicable law, Part IV, dealing
III .10 Australia’s approach to the interpretation of Article VIII is not with the alle ged “Japan’s Breaches of International Law ”, refers to the
only methodologically flawed, but also misleading, since it actually purports Commercial Whaling Moratorium
to substitute for the clear rights and obligations resulting from Article VIII a
the Factory Ship Moratorium
series of “soft obligations” that have no conventional basis and were simply
stated in a number of IWC resolutions, having as such no binding power and 822
823 AM, para . 1 .2 .
certainly not that of modifying the Convention . As will be shown in more integral part thereof” .“This Convention includes the Schedule attached thereto which forms a
824 AM, Chapter 6, Section I .
details in Chapter 8 , Australia’s heavy reliance upon secondary instruments 825 AM, Chapter 6, Section II .
826 AM, Chapter 6, Section III .
300Convention . Moreover, among these second ary instruments, Australia relies is aimed at creating the (erroneou
indiscriminately on amendments to the Schedule on the one hand and on interpretation could be just a pretext for elevating secondary instruments
other secondary instruments on the other hand – probably in the hope that the the level of applicable law, independently of any issue of interpretation .
binding character of the former will contaminate the latter . This is legally
wrong – even though there is a common element: both kinds of instruments – III .11
amendments to the Schedule and “resolutions ” or “recommendations” of the conformity with Article V of the Convention as “necessary to carry out the
IWC and of the other organs of the ICRW – being adopted on the basis of the objectives and purposes of ” the ICRW is different in that “ [s]ubject to any
Convention, must comply with its provisions and, in particular, cannot reservation that may be made by a Contracting Government to the ICRW,
modify its object and purpose . amendments to the Schedule form part of the ICR
binding”
III .9 All these instruments are secondary insofar as they are, by their two important caveats:
origin, unilateral in nature, being texts voted by the IWC on the basis of the - first, it goes without saying that these amendments must be adopted in
Convention . But there is an essential difference: while the amendments to the conformity with the Convention and cannot change its object and pur pose
Schedule modify the regulations for those Contracting Governments which (which is explained in Chapter 6);
do not object to them, t he instruments belonging to the second category are - second, the Schedule and its amendment do not apply to special permit
simply hortatory texts of general scope (the IWC guidelines on spec ial whaling since they are part of the Convention
permits addressed to the Scientific Committee and resolutions addressed to object of Article VIII to exempt it from its application .
States on the same subject -matter) or recommendations addressed by the
Commission to individual States, in particular to Japan .
III .12
amendments to the Schedule as being the applicable law, Part IV, dealing
III .10 Australia’s approach to the interpretation of Article VIII is not with the alle ged “Japan’s Breaches of International Law ”, refers to the
only methodologically flawed, but also misleading, since it actually purports Commercial Whaling Moratorium
to substitute for the clear rights and obligations resulting from Article VIII a
the Factory Ship Moratorium
series of “soft obligations” that have no conventional basis and were simply
stated in a number of IWC resolutions, having as such no binding power and 822
823 AM, para . 1 .2 .
certainly not that of modifying the Convention . As will be shown in more integral part thereof” .“This Convention includes the Schedule attached thereto which forms a
824 AM, Chapter 6, Section I .
details in Chapter 8 , Australia’s heavy reliance upon secondary instruments 825 AM, Chapter 6, Section II .
826 AM, Chapter 6, Section III .responsibility . All three “decisions” 827 are formally embodied in
amendments to the ICRW Schedule . It follows from Australia’s presentation
that the application of these amendme nts is ancillary and triggered by the
828
inapplicability of Article VIII of the Convention to JARPA II . While not
III .14
necessarily sharing Australia’s perception of the relations between Article
829 unacceptable revision of Article VIII under the guise of interpretation, a path
VIII and the amendments to the Schedule , and even less its conclusi on
that the Court has always refused to follow:
relating to the lack of conformity of JARPA II with Article VIII, Japan notes
that, if a special permit programme meets the requirements of Article VIII,
the issue of its compatibility with the three Schedule amendments referred to
by Australia does not arise .
III .15
It seems to accept that Article VIII, on its own terms, exempts special
III .13 In line with this autonomous invocation of the Schedule
permits from the operation of the ICRW . This does not prevent it from
amendments as a basis for assessing the international legality of the JARPA
seeking by all means to neutraliz e this provision, however crucial in the
II programme, Australia equally refers to them, as well as to Paragraph 30 of
830 present case:
the Schedule , as instruments relevan t for the interpretation of Article
831 - it pretends that it has been amended by subsequent instruments lacking
VIII . The same role is attributed by the Applicant to the IWC’s
832 833 binding force;
guidelines and recommendations . It is nonetheless apparent that
- contradicting the previous argument, it alleges that Article VIII
Australia wrongly appreciates both the relevance and the impact of these
instruments upon the interpretation of Article VIII, since the proposed result interpreted in conformity with those non-binding instruments or Schedule
is contrary to the obvious meaning of these provisions on their own terms . amendments which only apply to commercial whaling;
And the Court has constantly expressed its reluctance to override the clear - it adds arbitrary criteria that it says scientific research programmes must
meaning of a text: meet but which are not part of Article VIII; and,
827 - it finally attempts to take refuge behind the uncertain notion of abuse of
Art . III uses the term “decisions” for all acts of the Commission, binding and non- binding alike . It
thus refers to Schedule amendments that are in principle binding (Article V) and to rights (thus acknowledging that Japan can invoke its rights in the present
recommendations (Article VI) and other type of resolutions, having no binding effecalsoSee
828below, paras . 8 .58-8 .59 . case) .
829 AM, paras . 6 .2, 6 .6, 6 .26 .
830 See below, paras . 8 .15-8 .56 . 834
831 See text in AM, Annex 1, p . 11; see AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .24 . Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter),
832 AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .24, 4 .52-4 .56 . 835Advisory Opinion, 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p . 63 .
833 AM, paras . 4 .25-4 .29, 4 .110-4 .414 . Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Second Phase, Advisory
AM, paras . 4 .67-4 .80 . Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p . 229.
302responsibility . All three “decisions” 827 are formally embodied in
amendments to the ICRW Schedule . It follows from Australia’s presentation
that the application of these amendme nts is ancillary and triggered by the
828
inapplicability of Article VIII of the Convention to JARPA II . While not
III .14
necessarily sharing Australia’s perception of the relations between Article
829 unacceptable revision of Article VIII under the guise of interpretation, a path
VIII and the amendments to the Schedule , and even less its conclusi on
that the Court has always refused to follow:
relating to the lack of conformity of JARPA II with Article VIII, Japan notes
that, if a special permit programme meets the requirements of Article VIII,
the issue of its compatibility with the three Schedule amendments referred to
by Australia does not arise .
III .15
It seems to accept that Article VIII, on its own terms, exempts special
III .13 In line with this autonomous invocation of the Schedule
permits from the operation of the ICRW . This does not prevent it from
amendments as a basis for assessing the international legality of the JARPA
seeking by all means to neutraliz e this provision, however crucial in the
II programme, Australia equally refers to them, as well as to Paragraph 30 of
830 present case:
the Schedule , as instruments relevan t for the interpretation of Article
831 - it pretends that it has been amended by subsequent instruments lacking
VIII . The same role is attributed by the Applicant to the IWC’s
832 833 binding force;
guidelines and recommendations . It is nonetheless apparent that
- contradicting the previous argument, it alleges that Article VIII
Australia wrongly appreciates both the relevance and the impact of these
instruments upon the interpretation of Article VIII, since the proposed result interpreted in conformity with those non-binding instruments or Schedule
is contrary to the obvious meaning of these provisions on their own terms . amendments which only apply to commercial whaling;
And the Court has constantly expressed its reluctance to override the clear - it adds arbitrary criteria that it says scientific research programmes must
meaning of a text: meet but which are not part of Article VIII; and,
827 - it finally attempts to take refuge behind the uncertain notion of abuse of
Art . III uses the term “decisions” for all acts of the Commission, binding and non- binding alike . It
thus refers to Schedule amendments that are in principle binding (Article V) and to rights (thus acknowledging that Japan can invoke its rights in the present
recommendations (Article VI) and other type of resolutions, having no binding effecalsoSee
828below, paras . 8 .58-8 .59 . case) .
829 AM, paras . 6 .2, 6 .6, 6 .26 .
830 See below, paras . 8 .15-8 .56 . 834
831 See text in AM, Annex 1, p . 11; see AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .24 . Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter),
832 AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .24, 4 .52-4 .56 . 835Advisory Opinion, 1948, I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948, p . 63 .
833 AM, paras . 4 .25-4 .29, 4 .110-4 .414 . Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Second Phase, Advisory
AM, paras . 4 .67-4 .80 . Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p . 229.III .16 The present Part will set out the rules applicable to the present
case . To this effect, it is divided into three Chapters . Chapter 6 discusses the
object and purpose of the ICRW, which is sustainable use of whale resources,
6 .1
as a correct understanding of the object and purpose of the Convention is
object and purpose of the ICRW and its predecessors was the conservation of
necessary for the proper interpretation of Article VIII of the ICRW; Chapter
7 analyses Article VIII in some detail and offers an interpretation of this whale stocks in order to make possible the orderly development of the
whaling industry . This Chapter explains the significance of that object and
provision which conforms to the usual rules of interpretation; and C hapter 8
purpose in the context of the principles governing the interpretation of the
considers the status of the secondary instruments so heavily relied upon by
ICRW, as a preliminary to the discussion of
Australia .
Article VIII in the next chapter .
6 .2
level of exploitation and consequent depletion of whale stocks, and also
more general environmental concern over the taking of whales
not correct to suggest, as Australia tries to do, that the object and purpose of
the ICRW has shifted towards securing the preservation of whales, or that
conservation cannot coexist with commercial whaling .
6 .3
to the last paragraph of its
Governments had “decided to conclude a convention to provide for the
proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly
836
AM, para . 1 .2 .
304III .16 The present Part will set out the rules applicable to the present
case . To this effect, it is divided into three Chapters . Chapter 6 discusses the
object and purpose of the ICRW, which is sustainable use of whale resources,
6 .1
as a correct understanding of the object and purpose of the Convention is
object and purpose of the ICRW and its predecessors was the conservation of
necessary for the proper interpretation of Article VIII of the ICRW; Chapter
7 analyses Article VIII in some detail and offers an interpretation of this whale stocks in order to make possible the orderly development of the
whaling industry . This Chapter explains the significance of that object and
provision which conforms to the usual rules of interpretation; and C hapter 8
purpose in the context of the principles governing the interpretation of the
considers the status of the secondary instruments so heavily relied upon by
ICRW, as a preliminary to the discussion of
Australia .
Article VIII in the next chapter .
6 .2
level of exploitation and consequent depletion of whale stocks, and also
more general environmental concern over the taking of whales
not correct to suggest, as Australia tries to do, that the object and purpose of
the ICRW has shifted towards securing the preservation of whales, or that
conservation cannot coexist with commercial whaling .
6 .3
to the last paragraph of its
Governments had “decided to conclude a convention to provide for the
proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly
836
AM, para . 1 .2 .development of the whaling industry ” . Australia contends that through the provisions”
use of the conjunction “and thus ” the “orderly development” of the whaling in the Oil Platforms case
industry is made contingent upon the proper and effective conservation of indicate that the drafters intended specifically, as they considered to be the
whale stocks 837 . However, as is apparent from the travaux préparatoires customary practice, to explain the purposes and objectives of the Convention
described in Chapter 2 , that contention distorts the wording and in the Preamble
misrepresents the history of Article VIII of the ICRW . Orderly development interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the
of the whaling industry is not a contingent possibility, which may or may not great natural resources represented by the whale stocks
come about as a by -product of the achievement of the goal of the premise is that whales are resources .
conservation of whales . The “ conservation of whale stocks ” was the means
to achieve the goal of the “ orderly development of the whaling industry ” . 6 .6
Conservation is intended to make the development of industrial whaling “essential to protect all species of whales from f
possible and the ICRW aims to secure the sustainable use of whales .
Preamble continues by:
6 .4 Indeed, Australia does not deny the wording of the ICRW
Preamble, or what the wording signifies . Australia explicitly concedes that
“[a]t the time of the conclusion of the Convention, the ICRW’s objective –
the conservation and recovery of all whale stocks – was seen as a means to
838
achieve the orderly development of the whaling industry .” Australia
6 .7
contends that the object and purpose of the ICRW has changed ; but it is
indisputable that there has been no formal amendment to the Convention, transition of whale stocks from their state as it was at the time of drafting in
and no change in the wording of the Preamble . 1946 to the ideal state . The shortages of food and fats following World War
II required that the process of this transition
continue catching whales for their resource value and, on the other hand, the
6 .5 It has been noted that “ [t]he preamble is a principal and natural
source from which indications can be gathered of a treaty’s objects and
839
purposes even though the preamble does not contain substantive
840
837AM, para . 2 .19 . 841
838AM, para . 2 .98 (emphasis added) . 842
306development of the whaling industry ” . Australia contends that through the provisions”
use of the conjunction “and thus ” the “orderly development” of the whaling in the Oil Platforms case
industry is made contingent upon the proper and effective conservation of indicate that the drafters intended specifically, as they considered to be the
whale stocks 837 . However, as is apparent from the travaux préparatoires customary practice, to explain the purposes and objectives of the Convention
described in Chapter 2 , that contention distorts the wording and in the Preamble
misrepresents the history of Article VIII of the ICRW . Orderly development interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the
of the whaling industry is not a contingent possibility, which may or may not great natural resources represented by the whale stocks
come about as a by -product of the achievement of the goal of the premise is that whales are resources .
conservation of whales . The “ conservation of whale stocks ” was the means
to achieve the goal of the “ orderly development of the whaling industry ” . 6 .6
Conservation is intended to make the development of industrial whaling “essential to protect all species of whales from f
possible and the ICRW aims to secure the sustainable use of whales .
Preamble continues by:
6 .4 Indeed, Australia does not deny the wording of the ICRW
Preamble, or what the wording signifies . Australia explicitly concedes that
“[a]t the time of the conclusion of the Convention, the ICRW’s objective –
the conservation and recovery of all whale stocks – was seen as a means to
838
achieve the orderly development of the whaling industry .” Australia
6 .7
contends that the object and purpose of the ICRW has changed ; but it is
indisputable that there has been no formal amendment to the Convention, transition of whale stocks from their state as it was at the time of drafting in
and no change in the wording of the Preamble . 1946 to the ideal state . The shortages of food and fats following World War
II required that the process of this transition
continue catching whales for their resource value and, on the other hand, the
6 .5 It has been noted that “ [t]he preamble is a principal and natural
source from which indications can be gathered of a treaty’s objects and
839
purposes even though the preamble does not contain substantive
840
837AM, para . 2 .19 . 841
838AM, para . 2 .98 (emphasis added) . 842rapid increase in whale stocks . The Preamble then states the need to limit aim explicitly for the purpose of securing the prosperity of the whaling
certain whaling operations in order to achieve this aim: industry.
“Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the
optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without 6 .10
causing wide-spread economic and nutritional distress; Chapter 2
principles were expressly adopted as the basis for the ICRW as intended by
Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives,
whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to the drafters , was very clearly conceived as a resource management
sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to
certain species of whales now depleted in numbers” . convention and not as a preservation
continuation of this tradition, as the final paragraph in its
6 .8 The approach to the achievement of this balance between the need clear . This paragraph explains the reason for concluding the ICRW:
to continue catching whales and the need to increase whale stocks was
spelled out in the next paragraph of the Preamble:
“Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the
whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and
development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles 6 .11
embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the final aim of the ICRW . Australia tries
Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on June 8, 1937 and the
protocols to that Agreement signed in London on June 24, 1938 Preamble, arguing that conservation is the first objective of the ICRW, and
and November 26, 1945” .
the orderly development of the whaling industry as secondary objective
6 .9 The reference to the 1937 Agreement is notable . As explained in relying on and flowing from the first . But that is not what the ICRW says . It
adds nothing to the strength of Australia’s argument to say that “th rough use
Chapter 2 843, the 1937 Agreement was itself envisaged as a resource
of the conjunction ‘and thus’ in the final paragraph of the preamble, the
management agreement, emphasizing the importance of conserving whale
‘orderly development’ of the whaling industry is expressly made contingent
stock as a means to maintain the whaling industry . Its Preamble referred to
upon the proper and effective conservation of whale stocks .”
the desire of the contracting parties “ to secure the prosperity of the whaling
industry and, for that purpose, to maintain the stock of whales”; and no other do not express that at al
aim was set out in the Preamble . The clause in the P reamble to the 1937 conservation is the way in which the orderly development of the whaling
Agreement is perfectly clear: the maintenance of stocks was adopted as an 844
845
843 846
See above, paras . 2 .11-2 .22 .
308rapid increase in whale stocks . The Preamble then states the need to limit aim explicitly for the purpose of securing the prosperity of the whaling
certain whaling operations in order to achieve this aim: industry.
“Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the
optimum level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without 6 .10
causing wide-spread economic and nutritional distress; Chapter 2
principles were expressly adopted as the basis for the ICRW as intended by
Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives,
whaling operations should be confined to those species best able to the drafters , was very clearly conceived as a resource management
sustain exploitation in order to give an interval for recovery to
certain species of whales now depleted in numbers” . convention and not as a preservation
continuation of this tradition, as the final paragraph in its
6 .8 The approach to the achievement of this balance between the need clear . This paragraph explains the reason for concluding the ICRW:
to continue catching whales and the need to increase whale stocks was
spelled out in the next paragraph of the Preamble:
“Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the
whale fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and
development of whale stocks on the basis of the principles 6 .11
embodied in the provisions of the International Agreement for the final aim of the ICRW . Australia tries
Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on June 8, 1937 and the
protocols to that Agreement signed in London on June 24, 1938 Preamble, arguing that conservation is the first objective of the ICRW, and
and November 26, 1945” .
the orderly development of the whaling industry as secondary objective
6 .9 The reference to the 1937 Agreement is notable . As explained in relying on and flowing from the first . But that is not what the ICRW says . It
adds nothing to the strength of Australia’s argument to say that “th rough use
Chapter 2 843, the 1937 Agreement was itself envisaged as a resource
of the conjunction ‘and thus’ in the final paragraph of the preamble, the
management agreement, emphasizing the importance of conserving whale
‘orderly development’ of the whaling industry is expressly made contingent
stock as a means to maintain the whaling industry . Its Preamble referred to
upon the proper and effective conservation of whale stocks .”
the desire of the contracting parties “ to secure the prosperity of the whaling
industry and, for that purpose, to maintain the stock of whales”; and no other do not express that at al
aim was set out in the Preamble . The clause in the P reamble to the 1937 conservation is the way in which the orderly development of the whaling
Agreement is perfectly clear: the maintenance of stocks was adopted as an 844
845
843 846
See above, paras . 2 .11-2 .22 .industry is to be made possible . Whale stocks will be conserved, “and thus” “conservation” as though it is int erchangeable with “preservation” . Since
or “in this way” or “in the way just indicated” the orderly development of the “conservation of natural resources” is an almost universally accepted concept,
whaling industry will be made possible . the picture is created of a confrontation between the conservation of whales
and whaling, as if they are incompatible . But that is simply
6 .12 The ICRW does not focus upon the limitation or prohibition of established definition of “conservation” is very different from that suggested
whale catches for its own sake or for the sake of biological diversity or of by Australia, as is explained below .
animal protection, or upon any other aim, worthy as any o f those aims might
be . To regard the ICRW as a wildlife preservation measure is to ignore its 6 .15
object and purpose as set out in its P reamble . There is no basis upon which the exploitation of whales . The ICRW is not at all unusual in pursuing the
any anti-whaling bias or presumption can be read into the ICRW . aim of conservation in order to secure the sustainable use of natural
resources . The provisions of other environmental treaties adopt the same
6 .13 Neither the object and purpose nor the nature of the ICRW has approach . It is of central importance in this case that the approach that these
changed since its adoption in 1946 . A s Switzerland correctly explained in treaties have in common is clearly understood, and accordingly the following
2002: paragraphs illustrate that approach by reference to the texts of some of the
treaties .
“La Convention internationale du 2 décembre 1946 pour la
réglementation de la chasse à la baleine n ’est pas uniquement un
instrument de protection des baleines: son objectif est de rendre 6 .16
possible l ’exploitation durable des peuplements baleiniers . La
(CBD), to which Australia refers in its Memorial
convention ne protège les baleines que dans la mesure où la
protection permet aux peuplements baleiniers de se reconstituer et conservation as its sole aim, and it very clearly
ainsi ‘d’augmenter le nombre des baleines pouvant être capturées’
(citation du préambule de la convention) .” 847 exploitation and use of biological resources . Article 1 of the CBD states that:
Section 2. Conservation and Exploitation are Not Contradictory
6 .14 The Memorial of Australia extensively uses the term
847 6 .17
Conseil fédéral suisse, “Résponse aux questions déposées par M. Aeschbacher Ruedi” (Conseiller
national, 20 février 2002),
<http://www .parlament .ch/f/suche/pages/geschaefte .aspx?gesch_id=20013754> accessed 14 848
February 2012 [Annex196] .
310industry is to be made possible . Whale stocks will be conserved, “and thus” “conservation” as though it is int erchangeable with “preservation” . Since
or “in this way” or “in the way just indicated” the orderly development of the “conservation of natural resources” is an almost universally accepted concept,
whaling industry will be made possible . the picture is created of a confrontation between the conservation of whales
and whaling, as if they are incompatible . But that is simply
6 .12 The ICRW does not focus upon the limitation or prohibition of established definition of “conservation” is very different from that suggested
whale catches for its own sake or for the sake of biological diversity or of by Australia, as is explained below .
animal protection, or upon any other aim, worthy as any o f those aims might
be . To regard the ICRW as a wildlife preservation measure is to ignore its 6 .15
object and purpose as set out in its P reamble . There is no basis upon which the exploitation of whales . The ICRW is not at all unusual in pursuing the
any anti-whaling bias or presumption can be read into the ICRW . aim of conservation in order to secure the sustainable use of natural
resources . The provisions of other environmental treaties adopt the same
6 .13 Neither the object and purpose nor the nature of the ICRW has approach . It is of central importance in this case that the approach that these
changed since its adoption in 1946 . A s Switzerland correctly explained in treaties have in common is clearly understood, and accordingly the following
2002: paragraphs illustrate that approach by reference to the texts of some of the
treaties .
“La Convention internationale du 2 décembre 1946 pour la
réglementation de la chasse à la baleine n ’est pas uniquement un
instrument de protection des baleines: son objectif est de rendre 6 .16
possible l ’exploitation durable des peuplements baleiniers . La
(CBD), to which Australia refers in its Memorial
convention ne protège les baleines que dans la mesure où la
protection permet aux peuplements baleiniers de se reconstituer et conservation as its sole aim, and it very clearly
ainsi ‘d’augmenter le nombre des baleines pouvant être capturées’
(citation du préambule de la convention) .” 847 exploitation and use of biological resources . Article 1 of the CBD states that:
Section 2. Conservation and Exploitation are Not Contradictory
6 .14 The Memorial of Australia extensively uses the term
847 6 .17
Conseil fédéral suisse, “Résponse aux questions déposées par M. Aeschbacher Ruedi” (Conseiller
national, 20 février 2002),
<http://www .parlament .ch/f/suche/pages/geschaefte .aspx?gesch_id=20013754> accessed 14 848
February 2012 [Annex196] .greater incentives to conserve biological resources where they are used and which recognize that:
have a direct benefit to society . In this way, the CBD seeks to contribute to
the long -term conservation of biological diversity and to sustainable
development . Thus, it places obligations on Contracting Parties to co-operate
and take various measures for the “conservation and sustainable use ” of
“biological diversity ” or “biological resources ” 849 . Moreover, in the
objectives of the CBD , the drafters differentiated between the conservation
of biological diversity on the one hand and the “ sustainable use of its
850
components” on the other . This language leaves no doubt that the C BD
permits the use of biological resources in a manner which “avoid[s] or 6 .20
851
minimize[s] adverse impacts on biological diversity” . behind the CBD is a matter of practical necessity . The notion of sustainable
use does not set a specific rate at whi ch species may be exploited and, as
6 .18 “Use” includes both commercial exploitation and use for the
explained by one commentary on the CBD
purposes of scientific research . The CBD expressly calls upon the
components of biological diversity and the ever increasing external demands
Contracting Parties to “[e]ndeavour to provide the conditions needed for
placed on them by human use, most notably driven by population growth and
compatibility between present uses and the conservation of biological
852 patterns of over -consumption will require the contours to be continuously
diversity and the sustainable use of its components” ; and in relation to use evaluated and re-defined over time”
for scientific research, Article 12(b) of the CBD specifically requires the and levels of utiliz ation are sustainable will depend on the status of the
Contracting Parties to “ [p]romote and encourage research which contributes species and the demands upon it at any particular time .
to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity . . .”
6 .21
6 .19 The concept of sustainable use has been further developed by the reflected in the principle of adaptive management . The link between
Conference of the Parties to the CBD . In 2004, the Parties adopted the Addis sustainable use and adaptive management is described by the Secretariat to
Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
853
849CBD, Arts . 5, 6, 7, 8(c)(g)(i)(j), 10, 11, 12(c), 13(b) .
850CBD, Art . 1 .
851CBD, Art . 10(b) . 854
852CBD, Art . 8(i) .
312greater incentives to conserve biological resources where they are used and which recognize that:
have a direct benefit to society . In this way, the CBD seeks to contribute to
the long -term conservation of biological diversity and to sustainable
development . Thus, it places obligations on Contracting Parties to co-operate
and take various measures for the “conservation and sustainable use ” of
“biological diversity ” or “biological resources ” 849 . Moreover, in the
objectives of the CBD , the drafters differentiated between the conservation
of biological diversity on the one hand and the “ sustainable use of its
850
components” on the other . This language leaves no doubt that the C BD
permits the use of biological resources in a manner which “avoid[s] or 6 .20
851
minimize[s] adverse impacts on biological diversity” . behind the CBD is a matter of practical necessity . The notion of sustainable
use does not set a specific rate at whi ch species may be exploited and, as
6 .18 “Use” includes both commercial exploitation and use for the
explained by one commentary on the CBD
purposes of scientific research . The CBD expressly calls upon the
components of biological diversity and the ever increasing external demands
Contracting Parties to “[e]ndeavour to provide the conditions needed for
placed on them by human use, most notably driven by population growth and
compatibility between present uses and the conservation of biological
852 patterns of over -consumption will require the contours to be continuously
diversity and the sustainable use of its components” ; and in relation to use evaluated and re-defined over time”
for scientific research, Article 12(b) of the CBD specifically requires the and levels of utiliz ation are sustainable will depend on the status of the
Contracting Parties to “ [p]romote and encourage research which contributes species and the demands upon it at any particular time .
to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity . . .”
6 .21
6 .19 The concept of sustainable use has been further developed by the reflected in the principle of adaptive management . The link between
Conference of the Parties to the CBD . In 2004, the Parties adopted the Addis sustainable use and adaptive management is described by the Secretariat to
Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
853
849CBD, Arts . 5, 6, 7, 8(c)(g)(i)(j), 10, 11, 12(c), 13(b) .
850CBD, Art . 1 .
851CBD, Art . 10(b) . 854
852CBD, Art . 8(i) .the CBD in the following way:
6 .23
“Sustainable use is not a fixed state, but rather the consequence of
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
balancing an array of factors, which vary according to the context
of the use . In addition, sustainability of uses cannot be expressed explicitly provides that coastal States and other States shall cooperate “with a
with certainty, but rather as a probability that may have to change
855 view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum
if the conditions in which management is taking place change .”
utilization of” those highly migratory species which are listed in Annex I of
6 .22 Since the level of exploitation will depend on the conservation the UNCLOS . Seven families of cetaceans are included in Annex I:
status of the species in question, it follows that the measures adopted to Physeteridae (Sperm whales); Baleanopteridae (Rorquals, including blue
promote sustainable use of biological resources should be adjusted according whales, humpback whales, and minke whales); Baleanidea (Bowhead whales
to the information available about a species, bearing in mind the and right whales); Escrichtiidae (Grey whales); Monodontidae (Beluga and
precautionary approach . This understanding of sustainable use permits a narwhal); Ziphiidae (Beaked whales); and Delp hinidae (Dolphins, killer
spectrum of possible measures ranging from full commercial exploitation, to whales, pilot whales and relatives) . All species included in the JARPA II
giving a stock fully protected status . “ Protection” appears in Article 8 of the programme are included in the UNCLOS Annex I list; and their optimum
856
CBD , but the Convention does not require protected status to be either utilization is the objective set by the UNCLOS .
absolute or permanent . The on-going responsibility of a Contracting Party to
monitor the status of biol ogical diversity means that a species which was 6 .24
once threatened may be subject to exploitation in the future once the Japan and Australia , is another example of a treaty concerning marine
857
population has recovered to a level which would permit sustainable use . resources which adopts a similar approach . The Agreement makes specific
The Commercial Whaling Moratorium currently in force and the JARP A II provision for “
scientific research program me are instances of the application of this measures”
approach 858 . management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, requiring States
to maintain or restore harvested populations to a level which will produce the
855“Extract from the Note by the Executive Secretary on Sustainable Use Prepared for the Ninth
Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological A dvice
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/9)”, Annex I, Decision VII/12, Conference of the Parties to the
856Convention on Biological Diversity, Seventh Ordinary Meeting (2004) , para . 11 . 859
857Art . 8 deals with in situ conservation .
Art . 7 requires Contracting Parties to monitor biological diversity and to identify, inter alia, species 860
858which are threatened .
Detailed explanation provided in (re Mor atorium) Joji Morishita and Dan Goodman, “The IWC
moratorium on c ommercial Whaling was not a value judgement and was not intended as a
permanent prohibition” (2011) , 1(2) Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 301, 861
pp . 303-304 [Annex 203] . (re JARPA II) Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the
314the CBD in the following way:
6 .23
“Sustainable use is not a fixed state, but rather the consequence of
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
balancing an array of factors, which vary according to the context
of the use . In addition, sustainability of uses cannot be expressed explicitly provides that coastal States and other States shall cooperate “with a
with certainty, but rather as a probability that may have to change
855 view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum
if the conditions in which management is taking place change .”
utilization of” those highly migratory species which are listed in Annex I of
6 .22 Since the level of exploitation will depend on the conservation the UNCLOS . Seven families of cetaceans are included in Annex I:
status of the species in question, it follows that the measures adopted to Physeteridae (Sperm whales); Baleanopteridae (Rorquals, including blue
promote sustainable use of biological resources should be adjusted according whales, humpback whales, and minke whales); Baleanidea (Bowhead whales
to the information available about a species, bearing in mind the and right whales); Escrichtiidae (Grey whales); Monodontidae (Beluga and
precautionary approach . This understanding of sustainable use permits a narwhal); Ziphiidae (Beaked whales); and Delp hinidae (Dolphins, killer
spectrum of possible measures ranging from full commercial exploitation, to whales, pilot whales and relatives) . All species included in the JARPA II
giving a stock fully protected status . “ Protection” appears in Article 8 of the programme are included in the UNCLOS Annex I list; and their optimum
856
CBD , but the Convention does not require protected status to be either utilization is the objective set by the UNCLOS .
absolute or permanent . The on-going responsibility of a Contracting Party to
monitor the status of biol ogical diversity means that a species which was 6 .24
once threatened may be subject to exploitation in the future once the Japan and Australia , is another example of a treaty concerning marine
857
population has recovered to a level which would permit sustainable use . resources which adopts a similar approach . The Agreement makes specific
The Commercial Whaling Moratorium currently in force and the JARP A II provision for “
scientific research program me are instances of the application of this measures”
approach 858 . management of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks, requiring States
to maintain or restore harvested populations to a level which will produce the
855“Extract from the Note by the Executive Secretary on Sustainable Use Prepared for the Ninth
Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological A dvice
(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/9)”, Annex I, Decision VII/12, Conference of the Parties to the
856Convention on Biological Diversity, Seventh Ordinary Meeting (2004) , para . 11 . 859
857Art . 8 deals with in situ conservation .
Art . 7 requires Contracting Parties to monitor biological diversity and to identify, inter alia, species 860
858which are threatened .
Detailed explanation provided in (re Mor atorium) Joji Morishita and Dan Goodman, “The IWC
moratorium on c ommercial Whaling was not a value judgement and was not intended as a
permanent prohibition” (2011) , 1(2) Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 301, 861
pp . 303-304 [Annex 203] . (re JARPA II) Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the 862
Maximum Sustainable Yield ( MSY) , as qualified by relevant concept of the MSY found in Article 61(3) of the UNCLOS and in the 1995
863
environmental and economic factors . Here, too, it is evident that there is UN Fish Stocks Agreement . The key difference between the CCAMLR and
no incompatibility between conservation and exploitation . these other instruments is that there is no need to take into account economic
factors when setting the total allowable catch. The consequence is a different
approach to the conservation and management of living resources covered by
6 .25 The same is true of the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of
864 the CCAMLR . Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that the exploitation
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) . The C CAMLR
of these resources is permitted, provided that the relevant populations are not
recognizes that the Antarctic region is a fragile ecosystem which requires
over-exploited .
special protection, and applies to all marine living resources of the area south
of 60 degrees South latitude and to marine living resources of the area
between that latitude and the Antarctic convergence which form part of the 6 .28
Antarctic marine ecosystem. Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), concluded in 1973 for “
protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation
through international trade ”
6 .26 The objective of the CCAMLR is the “conservation of Antarctic
865 element of the Convention . CITES Resol
marine living resources ” , but it does not prohibit the taking of marine
“[a]lthough CITES does not have a definition of sustainable use, the case
living resources in the Antarctic . Conservation under the CCAMLR is
866 studies show that the elements of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines
understood as “ rational use ” and all conservation and management
for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity that are generally relevant to CITES
measures taken by the Commission established by the C CAMLR are based
on principles designed to ensure “ stable recruitment ” to harvested are either already implicit in the language of CITES or are promoted by
populations of the resources in question 867 . CITES”
6 .29
6 .27 The target of preventing a decrease in harvested populations to
mandate one level of protection for all species: rather, it differentiates
levels below those which ensure stable recruitment is very similar to the
between species, depending on the level of the threat posed to them by
862See above, paras . 3 .16-3 .18 . international trade . Species “threatened with extinction which are or may be
863See UN Fish Stocks Agreement, Art . 5(b) .
864Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Res(entered into force 4 April
1982) 1329 UNTS 47 .
865CCAMLR, Art . II(1) .
866CCAMLR, Art . II(2) . 868
867CCAMLR, Art . II(3)(a) . 869
316 862
Maximum Sustainable Yield ( MSY) , as qualified by relevant concept of the MSY found in Article 61(3) of the UNCLOS and in the 1995
863
environmental and economic factors . Here, too, it is evident that there is UN Fish Stocks Agreement . The key difference between the CCAMLR and
no incompatibility between conservation and exploitation . these other instruments is that there is no need to take into account economic
factors when setting the total allowable catch. The consequence is a different
approach to the conservation and management of living resources covered by
6 .25 The same is true of the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of
864 the CCAMLR . Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that the exploitation
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) . The C CAMLR
of these resources is permitted, provided that the relevant populations are not
recognizes that the Antarctic region is a fragile ecosystem which requires
over-exploited .
special protection, and applies to all marine living resources of the area south
of 60 degrees South latitude and to marine living resources of the area
between that latitude and the Antarctic convergence which form part of the 6 .28
Antarctic marine ecosystem. Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), concluded in 1973 for “
protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation
through international trade ”
6 .26 The objective of the CCAMLR is the “conservation of Antarctic
865 element of the Convention . CITES Resol
marine living resources ” , but it does not prohibit the taking of marine
“[a]lthough CITES does not have a definition of sustainable use, the case
living resources in the Antarctic . Conservation under the CCAMLR is
866 studies show that the elements of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines
understood as “ rational use ” and all conservation and management
for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity that are generally relevant to CITES
measures taken by the Commission established by the C CAMLR are based
on principles designed to ensure “ stable recruitment ” to harvested are either already implicit in the language of CITES or are promoted by
populations of the resources in question 867 . CITES”
6 .29
6 .27 The target of preventing a decrease in harvested populations to
mandate one level of protection for all species: rather, it differentiates
levels below those which ensure stable recruitment is very similar to the
between species, depending on the level of the threat posed to them by
862See above, paras . 3 .16-3 .18 . international trade . Species “threatened with extinction which are or may be
863See UN Fish Stocks Agreement, Art . 5(b) .
864Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Res(entered into force 4 April
1982) 1329 UNTS 47 .
865CCAMLR, Art . II(1) .
866CCAMLR, Art . II(2) . 868
867CCAMLR, Art . II(3)(a) . 869affected by trade” should be listed in Appendix I 870 and these species will refer to the objects of their protection not in terms of sustainable use but in
receive the greatest level of protection . Appendix I species may only be terms of the need to preserve them from danger of extinction, in partic ular as
traded if import and export permits have been issued by the States of import a result of man-made threats .
and States of export . In deciding whether to issue these permits, Contracting
States must be satisfied, inter alia , that trade will not be detrimental to the 6 .32
survival of the species, that the specimen was not obtained in contravention Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western
of national laws of that State , and that the specimen is not to be used for Hemisphere was adopted with the following Preamble:
primarily commercial purpose s 871 . In other words, even the most strictly
protected species, threatened with extinction, may be exploited provided that
the trade in them will not threaten the survival of the species . CITES also
expressly permits Contracting States to make reservations which enable them
to continue trading in certain species , even when those species are listed in
Appendix I 87 .
6 .30 As these examples show, there is no contradiction between
conservation and utiliz ation . The objective of sustainable use of whale
resources of the ICRW is in line with modern environmental treaty practice .
Section 3. The Object and Purpose of the ICRW
Contrasted with that of Other Treaties
6 .33
des oiseaux was adopted, with a Preamble which read thus:
6 .31 There is a further point to be made . The object and purpose of the
ICRW, clearly evident from its Preamble and consistent with modern
practice in conservation treaties, is pu t into sharper focus when it is
contrasted with the language of wildlife preservation . Those conventions
870
871See CITES, Art . III . 873
872See CITES, Art . XV(3) .
318affected by trade” should be listed in Appendix I 870 and these species will refer to the objects of their protection not in terms of sustainable use but in
receive the greatest level of protection . Appendix I species may only be terms of the need to preserve them from danger of extinction, in partic ular as
traded if import and export permits have been issued by the States of import a result of man-made threats .
and States of export . In deciding whether to issue these permits, Contracting
States must be satisfied, inter alia , that trade will not be detrimental to the 6 .32
survival of the species, that the specimen was not obtained in contravention Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation in the Western
of national laws of that State , and that the specimen is not to be used for Hemisphere was adopted with the following Preamble:
primarily commercial purpose s 871 . In other words, even the most strictly
protected species, threatened with extinction, may be exploited provided that
the trade in them will not threaten the survival of the species . CITES also
expressly permits Contracting States to make reservations which enable them
to continue trading in certain species , even when those species are listed in
Appendix I 87 .
6 .30 As these examples show, there is no contradiction between
conservation and utiliz ation . The objective of sustainable use of whale
resources of the ICRW is in line with modern environmental treaty practice .
Section 3. The Object and Purpose of the ICRW
Contrasted with that of Other Treaties
6 .33
des oiseaux was adopted, with a Preamble which read thus:
6 .31 There is a further point to be made . The object and purpose of the
ICRW, clearly evident from its Preamble and consistent with modern
practice in conservation treaties, is pu t into sharper focus when it is
contrasted with the language of wildlife preservation . Those conventions
870
871See CITES, Art . III . 873
872See CITES, Art . XV(3) . la nature et de l’économie propre à chaque nation, tous les oiseaux
doivent, en principe, être protégés,
ont reconnu la nécessité de modifier la Convention Internationale
pour la Protection des Oiseaux Utiles à l’Agriculture signée à
Paris le 19 mars 1902, et sont convenu des dispositions
suivantes” 874. 7 .1
the present dispute is the question whether JARPA II has been carried out in
Article 1 of that Convention stipulated that “[l]a présente Convention a pour
conformity with Article VIII
objet la protection des oiseaux vivant à l’état sauvage” . Applicant State to show why Japan’s authorization of special permit whaling
violates Article VIII of the ICRW, which reads as follows:
6 .34 States understood well how to draft a convention on wildlife
preservation . The language appropriate to such conventions was used when
States wished to use it . That language was not used in other conventions,
such as the ICRW, whose object and purpose was not the preservation and
protection of wildlife as such but rather the management of natural resources,
including plants and animals, so as to secure their sustainable use .
Conclusion
6 .35 This Chapter has shown that it is clear that the object and purpose
of the ICRW is the orderly development of the whaling industry through
proper conservation of whale stocks . Protection of whales is indeed provided
for in the Convention, but it is not an objective per se : it is an appropriate
means to insure a sustainable whaling . Sound conservation is the instrument
by which industrial whaling is to be developed . The objective of sustainable
use of whale resources of the ICRW is in line with modern environmental
treaty practice .
874
Convention international e pour la protection de(entered into force 17 January 1963) , 875
638 UNTS 185 .
320 la nature et de l’économie propre à chaque nation, tous les oiseaux
doivent, en principe, être protégés,
ont reconnu la nécessité de modifier la Convention Internationale
pour la Protection des Oiseaux Utiles à l’Agriculture signée à
Paris le 19 mars 1902, et sont convenu des dispositions
suivantes” 874. 7 .1
the present dispute is the question whether JARPA II has been carried out in
Article 1 of that Convention stipulated that “[l]a présente Convention a pour
conformity with Article VIII
objet la protection des oiseaux vivant à l’état sauvage” . Applicant State to show why Japan’s authorization of special permit whaling
violates Article VIII of the ICRW, which reads as follows:
6 .34 States understood well how to draft a convention on wildlife
preservation . The language appropriate to such conventions was used when
States wished to use it . That language was not used in other conventions,
such as the ICRW, whose object and purpose was not the preservation and
protection of wildlife as such but rather the management of natural resources,
including plants and animals, so as to secure their sustainable use .
Conclusion
6 .35 This Chapter has shown that it is clear that the object and purpose
of the ICRW is the orderly development of the whaling industry through
proper conservation of whale stocks . Protection of whales is indeed provided
for in the Convention, but it is not an objective per se : it is an appropriate
means to insure a sustainable whaling . Sound conservation is the instrument
by which industrial whaling is to be developed . The objective of sustainable
use of whale resources of the ICRW is in line with modern environmental
treaty practice .
874
Convention international e pour la protection de(entered into force 17 January 1963) , 875
638 UNTS 185 . 4 . Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of
biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships
and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive
management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments
will take all practicable measures to obtain such data . ”
7 .2 Australia’s arguments are contrary to the clear wo rding of Article
VIII and are heavily dependent on Australia’s own interpretation of the
object and purpose of the ICRW . The present Chapter therefore addresses the
question of the interpretation of Article VIII and sets out the plain meaning
of the Article . 7 .5
ICRW that are of primary relevance in this case; and it is apparent
7 .3 It is trite law that the interpretation of treaties must follow the rules
reading Article VIII that there is no obstacle to interpreting it by giving its
reflected in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties words their natural and ordinary meaning in their context and in the light of
876 877
(VCLT) , to which both Japan and Australia are parties . the treaty’s object and purpose .
7 .4 The Court has emphasi zed that the basic rule of interpretation is 7 .6
that the words of the treaty must be given their natural and ordinary meaning
annexes . Article 31(2) of the VCLT also include
in the context in which they occur . In its decision in the case of the Arbitral
connection with the treaty within the “context” to be taken into account; but
Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea -Bissau v Senegal) 878, the Court quoted a
there are no such ancillary agreements bearing upon the context of the
passage from its Advisory Opinion in the Conditions of Admission case:
relevant provisions in the pre
Preamble to the Convention and the Final Act of the Conference at which it
“‘[T]he first duty of a tribunal which is called upon to interpret and
apply the provisions of a treaty, is to endeavour to give effect to was adopted, that constitute
them in their natural and ordinary meaning in the co ntext in which
contextual material also indicates the object and purpose of the ICRW .
876
See, e .g ., Avena and O ther Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United Statica), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2004, p . 48, para . 83 . See also, to similar effect, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and
Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysi a), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp . 645 -646, para . 37; Legal 7 .7
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Terr, Advisory
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, pp . 36-38, paras . 42-46 .o-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) , There it was shown that the objective of the ICRW is the sustainable use of
877Australia acceded to the VCLTon 13 June 1974, and Japan did so on 2 July 1981 .
878 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, Judgment , I.C.J. Reports 1991, p . 69, para . 48 . 879
322 4 . Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of
biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships
and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive
management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments
will take all practicable measures to obtain such data . ”
7 .2 Australia’s arguments are contrary to the clear wo rding of Article
VIII and are heavily dependent on Australia’s own interpretation of the
object and purpose of the ICRW . The present Chapter therefore addresses the
question of the interpretation of Article VIII and sets out the plain meaning
of the Article . 7 .5
ICRW that are of primary relevance in this case; and it is apparent
7 .3 It is trite law that the interpretation of treaties must follow the rules
reading Article VIII that there is no obstacle to interpreting it by giving its
reflected in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties words their natural and ordinary meaning in their context and in the light of
876 877
(VCLT) , to which both Japan and Australia are parties . the treaty’s object and purpose .
7 .4 The Court has emphasi zed that the basic rule of interpretation is 7 .6
that the words of the treaty must be given their natural and ordinary meaning
annexes . Article 31(2) of the VCLT also include
in the context in which they occur . In its decision in the case of the Arbitral
connection with the treaty within the “context” to be taken into account; but
Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea -Bissau v Senegal) 878, the Court quoted a
there are no such ancillary agreements bearing upon the context of the
passage from its Advisory Opinion in the Conditions of Admission case:
relevant provisions in the pre
Preamble to the Convention and the Final Act of the Conference at which it
“‘[T]he first duty of a tribunal which is called upon to interpret and
apply the provisions of a treaty, is to endeavour to give effect to was adopted, that constitute
them in their natural and ordinary meaning in the co ntext in which
contextual material also indicates the object and purpose of the ICRW .
876
See, e .g ., Avena and O ther Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United Statica), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2004, p . 48, para . 83 . See also, to similar effect, Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and
Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysi a), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp . 645 -646, para . 37; Legal 7 .7
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Terr, Advisory
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, pp . 36-38, paras . 42-46 .o-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) , There it was shown that the objective of the ICRW is the sustainable use of
877Australia acceded to the VCLTon 13 June 1974, and Japan did so on 2 July 1981 .
878 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, Judgment , I.C.J. Reports 1991, p . 69, para . 48 . 879whale resources . Neither the prevention of whaling nor the restriction of beyond the scope of the ICRW, that is in question here .
whaling is an object and purpose of the ICRW: restrictions on whaling serve
the object and purpose of the ICRW only insofar as they are instruments for 7 .10
the achievement of the sustainable use of whales . deliberate decision that the ICRW deliberately makes no provision for
collective decisions on any research program
A. The “natural and ordinary meaning”: Article VIII(1) Gives the authorization of such programmes . The decision on authorization is taken by
Contracting Government Discretion Regarding the Grant of Special each Contracting Government acting independently .
Permits to its Nationals and the Conditions Attached to Them
7 .11
7 .8 Article VIII addresses the question of how and by whom the authorization of the killing, taking, and treating of whales is “subject to such
collection of data is to be organized . Article VIII(1) permits each Contracting restrictions as to number a
Government to authoriz e its nationals “ to kill, take , and treat whales for Contracting Government thinks fit
purposes of scientific research ” . The opening words of Article VIII Government is competent and has discretion to set the conditions; and under
(“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention”) make clear that the ICRW no- one else is given any right to overturn those conditions
the provisions of Article VIII are free -standing and not to be read down by although proposed permits “ shall be reviewed and commented on by the
reference to any other provision of the ICRW . Further, Article VIII(1) does Scientific Committee at Annual Meetings when possible”
not stipulate that special permit whaling is permitted as an exception under
the ICRW to the more general provisions on whaling: on the contrary, it 7 .12
stipulates that special permit whaling is “ exempt from the operation of this power, spelled out in Ar ticle VIII(1), to revoke it at any time ; but under the
Convention” . Special permit whaling under Article VIII is entirely outside ICRW no-one else is given the right to revoke an authorization .
the scope of the ICRW . It is not regulated by or under the ICRW , except by
Article VIII itself880 .
7 .9 Under ICRW Article VIII(1) it is the right of each Contracting
Government to authorize its nationals to engage in special permit whaling . It 7 .13
is the exercise of this right, which is expressly stated in Article VIII(1) to lie
881
880 882
Also Paragraph 30 of the Schedule prescribes procedural requirements.
324whale resources . Neither the prevention of whaling nor the restriction of beyond the scope of the ICRW, that is in question here .
whaling is an object and purpose of the ICRW: restrictions on whaling serve
the object and purpose of the ICRW only insofar as they are instruments for 7 .10
the achievement of the sustainable use of whales . deliberate decision that the ICRW deliberately makes no provision for
collective decisions on any research program
A. The “natural and ordinary meaning”: Article VIII(1) Gives the authorization of such programmes . The decision on authorization is taken by
Contracting Government Discretion Regarding the Grant of Special each Contracting Government acting independently .
Permits to its Nationals and the Conditions Attached to Them
7 .11
7 .8 Article VIII addresses the question of how and by whom the authorization of the killing, taking, and treating of whales is “subject to such
collection of data is to be organized . Article VIII(1) permits each Contracting restrictions as to number a
Government to authoriz e its nationals “ to kill, take , and treat whales for Contracting Government thinks fit
purposes of scientific research ” . The opening words of Article VIII Government is competent and has discretion to set the conditions; and under
(“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention”) make clear that the ICRW no- one else is given any right to overturn those conditions
the provisions of Article VIII are free -standing and not to be read down by although proposed permits “ shall be reviewed and commented on by the
reference to any other provision of the ICRW . Further, Article VIII(1) does Scientific Committee at Annual Meetings when possible”
not stipulate that special permit whaling is permitted as an exception under
the ICRW to the more general provisions on whaling: on the contrary, it 7 .12
stipulates that special permit whaling is “ exempt from the operation of this power, spelled out in Ar ticle VIII(1), to revoke it at any time ; but under the
Convention” . Special permit whaling under Article VIII is entirely outside ICRW no-one else is given the right to revoke an authorization .
the scope of the ICRW . It is not regulated by or under the ICRW , except by
Article VIII itself880 .
7 .9 Under ICRW Article VIII(1) it is the right of each Contracting
Government to authorize its nationals to engage in special permit whaling . It 7 .13
is the exercise of this right, which is expressly stated in Article VIII(1) to lie
881
880 882
Also Paragraph 30 of the Schedule prescribes procedural requirements.whaling in accordance with the authorizations by special permits . irrelevant . That is why Part II has explained how JARPA/JARPA II was/is
conducted “for purpose s of scientific research ” . An implementation of
7 .14 This exemption follows the practice prior to 1946 of exempting “special permit whaling” should be consistent with the object and purpose of
special permit whaling from the operation of international treaties on the ICRW, and an arbitrary or capricious designation of a whaling expedition
whaling 883 . Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement , upon w hich Article VIII of as a scientific expedition entitled to authoriz ation by a special permit might
the ICRW was based, provided that: be challenged on the basis that it lies outside Article VIII . But once it is
determined that a whaling expedition is a special permit whaling expedition
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, any
contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special authorized by a Contracting Government, the ICRW is no longer relevant to
permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for questions of the legality of the expedition . No other State or body is given
purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to
number and subject to such other conditions as the contracting the power to impose restrictions or conditions upon the exercise by a
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking and treating of Contracting Government of its right to authori ze special permit whaling . No
whales in accordance with the terms in force under this Article
shall be exempt from the operation of this Agreement.” 884 other State or body is given the power to overturn decisions t
Contracting Government in exercise of its right to authorize special permit
7 .15 The effect of ICRW Article VIII(1) in this respect is quite clear. whaling .
Special permit whaling is “ exempt from the operation of [the] Convention” .
In other words, the ICRW does not regulate special permit whaling: indeed,
except for Article VIII itself, the ICRW does not apply to special permit
885
whaling . Special permit whaling cannot be assessed against any criteria in
the ICRW .
7 .17
7 .16 Japan does not seek to argue that the question whether a particular object and purpose of the right to collect scientific data . It appears at the end
expedition to kill, take , and treat whales is or is not a “ special permit of the Article, in paragraph 4:
whaling” expedition is itself a question to which the ICRW is entirely
883Cf ., Agreement between the Governments of Norway, Denmark and Sweden concerning Measures
for the Protection of Stocks of Deep Sea Prawns, European Lobsters, Norway Lobsters and Crabs,
1952, Art . 5: “The provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to fishery research conducted by, or
884with the consent of, the public authorities .”
885Though, as was noted above in para . 2 .46, the Scientific Committee may review and comment upon
proposed special permits: Schedule, Paragraph 30 .
326whaling in accordance with the authorizations by special permits . irrelevant . That is why Part II has explained how JARPA/JARPA II was/is
conducted “for purpose s of scientific research ” . An implementation of
7 .14 This exemption follows the practice prior to 1946 of exempting “special permit whaling” should be consistent with the object and purpose of
special permit whaling from the operation of international treaties on the ICRW, and an arbitrary or capricious designation of a whaling expedition
whaling 883 . Article 10 of the 1937 Agreement , upon w hich Article VIII of as a scientific expedition entitled to authoriz ation by a special permit might
the ICRW was based, provided that: be challenged on the basis that it lies outside Article VIII . But once it is
determined that a whaling expedition is a special permit whaling expedition
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, any
contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special authorized by a Contracting Government, the ICRW is no longer relevant to
permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for questions of the legality of the expedition . No other State or body is given
purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to
number and subject to such other conditions as the contracting the power to impose restrictions or conditions upon the exercise by a
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking and treating of Contracting Government of its right to authori ze special permit whaling . No
whales in accordance with the terms in force under this Article
shall be exempt from the operation of this Agreement.” 884 other State or body is given the power to overturn decisions t
Contracting Government in exercise of its right to authorize special permit
7 .15 The effect of ICRW Article VIII(1) in this respect is quite clear. whaling .
Special permit whaling is “ exempt from the operation of [the] Convention” .
In other words, the ICRW does not regulate special permit whaling: indeed,
except for Article VIII itself, the ICRW does not apply to special permit
885
whaling . Special permit whaling cannot be assessed against any criteria in
the ICRW .
7 .17
7 .16 Japan does not seek to argue that the question whether a particular object and purpose of the right to collect scientific data . It appears at the end
expedition to kill, take , and treat whales is or is not a “ special permit of the Article, in paragraph 4:
whaling” expedition is itself a question to which the ICRW is entirely
883Cf ., Agreement between the Governments of Norway, Denmark and Sweden concerning Measures
for the Protection of Stocks of Deep Sea Prawns, European Lobsters, Norway Lobsters and Crabs,
1952, Art . 5: “The provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to fishery research conducted by, or
884with the consent of, the public authorities .”
885Though, as was noted above in para . 2 .46, the Scientific Committee may review and comment upon
proposed special permits: Schedule, Paragraph 30 .7 .18 That paragraph, which had no parallel in the 1937 Agreement upon modified . There can be no doubt as to the recognition of the need for
Article 10 of which Article VIII was based, recognizes the indispensability scientific research as one of the basic and permanent elements of the ICRW
of data collection to the aim of “ sound and constructive management of the regime .
whale fisheries” . This paragraph is focused upon factory ships and land
stations; but the point is general . Scientific research is not an activity that is 7 .22
merely tolerated, alongside the other provisions of the ICRW . It is declared straightforward . It follows from the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article
to be an integral and essential part of the ICRW scheme . VIII in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the
Convention .
7 .19 Moreover, Article VIII(4) emphasi zes the need for the continuity
of data co llection . This points to an elementary proposition c oncerning
scientific research . The need for continuous, long -term research is well -
established, and was explained in Part II .
7 .23
7 .20 It will be noted t hat Article VIII(4) refers to “ whale fisheries” in (Article 31(3)(a)) or “subsequent practice” (Article 31(3)(b)) might be taken
the plural . Whales are (rightly) not regarded as a single stock . The need is for into account together with the context when interpreting a treaty . As is
data relating to the various different whale stocks – and for data to establish shown in Chapter 8, there has been no such agreement or practice as is
what are the identities and boundaries of the different stocks . contemplated by VCLT Article 31(3) .
principles of international environmental law might be thought relevant
7 .21 The need for continuous, long-term research is not merely a matter under VCLT Article 31(3)(c), they plainly support the reading of ICRW
of scientific discipline and proficiency . It is recogni zed as a matter of law . Article VIII explicated above and offer no grounds for reading a different
The Contracting Governments of the ICRW are bound by the Convention to meaning into its plain words .
take all practicable measures to obtain biological data in connection with the
operations of factory ships; and, as a necessary corollary of the obligation Section 2. The Same Interpretation would Result from Examination of
under Article VIII (4), the Contracting Governments are also obliged to
recognize the propriety of the continuous collection of such data . This point
is explicit in the text of Article VIII, which in the ICRW scheme will always 7 .24
sit alongside the provisions of the Schedule, no matter how the Schedule is is ambiguous or absurd or unreasonable . There is no need to go beyond the
3287 .18 That paragraph, which had no parallel in the 1937 Agreement upon modified . There can be no doubt as to the recognition of the need for
Article 10 of which Article VIII was based, recognizes the indispensability scientific research as one of the basic and permanent elements of the ICRW
of data collection to the aim of “ sound and constructive management of the regime .
whale fisheries” . This paragraph is focused upon factory ships and land
stations; but the point is general . Scientific research is not an activity that is 7 .22
merely tolerated, alongside the other provisions of the ICRW . It is declared straightforward . It follows from the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article
to be an integral and essential part of the ICRW scheme . VIII in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the
Convention .
7 .19 Moreover, Article VIII(4) emphasi zes the need for the continuity
of data co llection . This points to an elementary proposition c oncerning
scientific research . The need for continuous, long -term research is well -
established, and was explained in Part II .
7 .23
7 .20 It will be noted t hat Article VIII(4) refers to “ whale fisheries” in (Article 31(3)(a)) or “subsequent practice” (Article 31(3)(b)) might be taken
the plural . Whales are (rightly) not regarded as a single stock . The need is for into account together with the context when interpreting a treaty . As is
data relating to the various different whale stocks – and for data to establish shown in Chapter 8, there has been no such agreement or practice as is
what are the identities and boundaries of the different stocks . contemplated by VCLT Article 31(3) .
principles of international environmental law might be thought relevant
7 .21 The need for continuous, long-term research is not merely a matter under VCLT Article 31(3)(c), they plainly support the reading of ICRW
of scientific discipline and proficiency . It is recogni zed as a matter of law . Article VIII explicated above and offer no grounds for reading a different
The Contracting Governments of the ICRW are bound by the Convention to meaning into its plain words .
take all practicable measures to obtain biological data in connection with the
operations of factory ships; and, as a necessary corollary of the obligation Section 2. The Same Interpretation would Result from Examination of
under Article VIII (4), the Contracting Governments are also obliged to
recognize the propriety of the continuous collection of such data . This point
is explicit in the text of Article VIII, which in the ICRW scheme will always 7 .24
sit alongside the provisions of the Schedule, no matter how the Schedule is is ambiguous or absurd or unreasonable . There is no need to go beyond theplain words of Article VIII in order to interpret it . There is accordingly accepted without debate by the Conference .
neither any need nor any justification to have recourse to the supplementary
means of interpretation set out in VCLT Article 32 . In the words of the Court,
“[i]f the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make sense in
their context, that is an end of the matter ”86 . It is therefore only for the sake nations of the world in safeguarding
of completeness that Japan will proceed to demonstrate that the interpretation for future generations the great
natural resources represented by the the great natural resources
is wholly borne out by an examination of the travaux préparatoires of the whale fisheries;
ICRW .
whaling has seen overfishing of one
area after another and of one kind of area after another and of one
7 .25 The fact that the ICRW was conceived as an agreement relating to
whale after another to such a degree
the management of resources, rather than as an agreement concerned with that many whale fisheries may never
conservation per se , is evident from its drafting . The initial draft of the recover and that the few productive
887 whaling areas now remaining are
ICRW, prepared by the United States and dated 29 October 1946 , set out rapidly being depleted, making it
in the Preamble a view of the object and purpose of the Convention that was essential that all kinds of whales be
not materially different from that adopted in the final text . protected from future depletion;
in some areas
7 .26 The changes that were made were for t he most part stylistic . For natural increases if whaling is
example, in the second paragraph of the Preamble the proposed reference to
properly regulated, and that increases regulated, and that increases in the
“one kind of whale after another ” was changed in the final text to “one in the size of whale stocks will
permit increases in the number of
species of whale after another ” . More significant changes tended to
whales which may be captured
strengthen emphasis upon the aim of developing the whaling industry and without endangering that
achieving the optimum utili zation of whale stocks, as appears from a resource
comparison of the two texts (with sig nificant changes emphasi sed) set out
common interest to restore the whale common interest to
below . All of the changes were proposed by the Drafti ng Committee 888 and stocks as rapidly as possible without
causing widespread economic and
nutritional distress
886Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1991, pp . 69-70, para . 48 .
888United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention”, IWC/3 (29 October 1946) pp . 1-3 [Annex 14] .
See “Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention Recommended by the 889
Drafting Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946), pp . 1-3 [Annex 24] .
330plain words of Article VIII in order to interpret it . There is accordingly accepted without debate by the Conference .
neither any need nor any justification to have recourse to the supplementary
means of interpretation set out in VCLT Article 32 . In the words of the Court,
“[i]f the relevant words in their natural and ordinary meaning make sense in
their context, that is an end of the matter ”86 . It is therefore only for the sake nations of the world in safeguarding
of completeness that Japan will proceed to demonstrate that the interpretation for future generations the great
natural resources represented by the the great natural resources
is wholly borne out by an examination of the travaux préparatoires of the whale fisheries;
ICRW .
whaling has seen overfishing of one
area after another and of one kind of area after another and of one
7 .25 The fact that the ICRW was conceived as an agreement relating to
whale after another to such a degree
the management of resources, rather than as an agreement concerned with that many whale fisheries may never
conservation per se , is evident from its drafting . The initial draft of the recover and that the few productive
887 whaling areas now remaining are
ICRW, prepared by the United States and dated 29 October 1946 , set out rapidly being depleted, making it
in the Preamble a view of the object and purpose of the Convention that was essential that all kinds of whales be
not materially different from that adopted in the final text . protected from future depletion;
in some areas
7 .26 The changes that were made were for t he most part stylistic . For natural increases if whaling is
example, in the second paragraph of the Preamble the proposed reference to
properly regulated, and that increases regulated, and that increases in the
“one kind of whale after another ” was changed in the final text to “one in the size of whale stocks will
permit increases in the number of
species of whale after another ” . More significant changes tended to
whales which may be captured
strengthen emphasis upon the aim of developing the whaling industry and without endangering that
achieving the optimum utili zation of whale stocks, as appears from a resource
comparison of the two texts (with sig nificant changes emphasi sed) set out
common interest to restore the whale common interest to
below . All of the changes were proposed by the Drafti ng Committee 888and stocks as rapidly as possible without
causing widespread economic and
nutritional distress
886Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1991, pp . 69-70, para . 48 .
888United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention”, IWC/3 (29 October 1946) pp . 1-3 [Annex 14] .
See “Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention Recommended by the 889
Drafting Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946), pp . 1-3 [Annex 24] .ultimate objective should be to nutritional distress; 7 .27
achieve and to maintain the stocks at
final text of Article VIII shows that there was no material change in the text
a level which will permit a sustained
capture of the maximum number of during its passage through the Conference . Again, the changes resulted from
whales recommendations of the Drafting Committee
Recognizing that in the course of Recognizing that in the course of without debate by the Conference
restoring the stocks whaling achieving these objectives, whaling
operations should be confined to operations should be confined to
certain species to give an interval of those species best able to sustain
recovery to the kinds of whales now exploitation in order to give an
depleted in numbers interval for recovery to certain (1) Notwithstanding anything
species of whales now depleted in contained in t he present Convention contained in this Convention,
numbers; and Schedule ,
Government may grant to any of its
Desiring to establish a permanent Desiring to establish a system of
system of management for the whale international regulation for the nationals a special permit authorizing permit authorizing that national to
fisheries to assure proper and whale fisheries to ensure proper that national to kill, take and treat
whales for purposes of scientific
effective conservation and and effec tive conservation and
development of whale stocks on the development of whale stocks on the research subject to such restrictions
basis of the principles embodied in basis of the principles embodied in as to number and sub
other conditions as the contracting
the provisions of the International the provisions of the International
Agreement for the Regulation of Agreement for the Regulation of Government thinks fit, and the
Whaling signed in London on June 8, Whaling signed in London on June killing, taking, and treating of whales
in accordance with the provisions of
1937 and t he protocols to that 8, 1937 and the protocols to that
Agreement signed in London on Agreement signed in London on this article shall be exempt from the
June 24, 1938, February 7, 1944, June 24, 1938 and November 26, operation of the present Convention
and Schedule . Each contra
October 5, 1945, November 26, 1945; and
1945, and March 15, 1946 ; and Government shall report to the
Having decided to conclude a Having decided to conclude a Commission all such authorizations
which it has granted . Each
convention to provide for the orderly convention to provide for the
conservation and development of the proper conservation of whale stocks contracting Government may at any
whale fisheries ; and thus make possible the orderly time revoke any such special permit
which it has granted .
development of the whaling
industry;
890
891
332ultimate objective should be to nutritional distress; 7 .27
achieve and to maintain the stocks at
final text of Article VIII shows that there was no material change in the text
a level which will permit a sustained
capture of the maximum number of during its passage through the Conference . Again, the changes resulted from
whales recommendations of the Drafting Committee
Recognizing that in the course of Recognizing that in the course of without debate by the Conference
restoring the stocks whaling achieving these objectives, whaling
operations should be confined to operations should be confined to
certain species to give an interval of those species best able to sustain
recovery to the kinds of whales now exploitation in order to give an
depleted in numbers interval for recovery to certain (1) Notwithstanding anything
species of whales now depleted in contained in t he present Convention contained in this Convention,
numbers; and Schedule ,
Government may grant to any of its
Desiring to establish a permanent Desiring to establish a system of
system of management for the whale international regulation for the nationals a special permit authorizing permit authorizing that national to
fisheries to assure proper and whale fisheries to ensure proper that national to kill, take and treat
whales for purposes of scientific
effective conservation and and effec tive conservation and
development of whale stocks on the development of whale stocks on the research subject to such restrictions
basis of the principles embodied in basis of the principles embodied in as to number and sub
other conditions as the contracting
the provisions of the International the provisions of the International
Agreement for the Regulation of Agreement for the Regulation of Government thinks fit, and the
Whaling signed in London on June 8, Whaling signed in London on June killing, taking, and treating of whales
in accordance with the provisions of
1937 and t he protocols to that 8, 1937 and the protocols to that
Agreement signed in London on Agreement signed in London on this article shall be exempt from the
June 24, 1938, February 7, 1944, June 24, 1938 and November 26, operation of the present
and Schedule . Each contra
October 5, 1945, November 26, 1945; and
1945, and March 15, 1946; and Government shall report to the
Having decided to conclude a Having decided to conclude a Commission all such authorizations
which it has granted . Each
convention to provide for the orderly convention to provide for the
conservation and development of the proper conservation of whale stocks contracting Government may at any
whale fisheries ; and thus make possible the orderly time revoke any such special permit
which it has granted .
development of the whaling
industry;
890
891 892
[No equivalent in US proposal. ] (2) Any whales taken under these
special permits shall so far as
practicable be processed and the 7 .28
proceeds shall be dealt with in and the final ICRW text to the drafting of the Preamble and Article VIII is
accordance with directions issued not fortuitous . An examination of the travaux préparatoires reveals that the
by the Government by which the approach was not questioned at any stage of the 1946 Conference .
permit was granted .
(2) The contracting Governments (3) Each Contracting Government
shall report to the Commission, shall transmit to such body as may 7 .29
insofar as practicable, and at be designated by the Commission,
to which attention should be drawn .
intervals of not more than one year, in so far as practicable, and at
scientific information collected with intervals of not more than one year,
respect to whales and whaling, scientific information available to 7 .30
including the results of research that Government with respect to source of natural resources was repeatedly affirmed .
893
conducted pursuant to Article III whales and whaling, including the
and to the preceding paragraph . results of research conducted
pursuant to paragrap h 1 of this 7 .31
Article and to Article IV . spoke of “ the great task s of fostering and developing this common
(3) Recognizing that continuous (4) Recognizing that continuous
resource”
collection and analysis of biological collection and analysis of biological
data in connection with the data in connection with the an immensely important source of food supply conserved for all time for the
operations of factory ships and land operations of factory ships and land benefit of both the producer and the consumer in all parts of the world”
stations are indispensable to sound stations are indispensable to sound They referred to the whaling industries as “extremely important industries in
and constructive management of the and constructive management of
which an enormous amount of money is sunk and …producing very vital
whale fi sheries, the contracting the whale fisheries, the Contracting
Governments shall take all Governments will take all commodities, oil among other things ” and said that “we must look after the
practicable measures to obtain such practicable measures to obtain such whaling industries”
data . data .
mankind”
892
See the debates at the Conference recorded iMinutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20(21
November 1946), pp . 10-11 [Annex 18]; “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 7 .32
1946), pp . 4-5 [Annex 20]; “Report of the Committee on Penalties ”, IWC/45 (27 November 1946),
p . 2 [Annex 22]; “ Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention
893Art . III in the U nited States proposal provided for the planning and recommendation by the 894
Commission of “studies and investigations relating to whales and whaling to be undertaken by the 895
appropriate agencies of the contracting Governments, or by other public or private agencies, 896
establishments or organizations” . 897
334 892
[No equivalent in US proposal. ] (2) Any whales taken under these
special permits shall so far as
practicable be processed and the 7 .28
proceeds shall be dealt with in and the final ICRW text to the drafting of the Preamble and Article VIII is
accordance with directions issued not fortuitous . An examination of the travaux préparatoires reveals that the
by the Government by which the approach was not questioned at any stage of the 1946 Conference .
permit was granted .
(2) The contracting Governments (3) Each Contracting Government
shall report to the Commission, shall transmit to such body as may 7 .29
insofar as practicable, and at be designated by the Commission,
to which attention should be drawn .
intervals of not more than one year, in so far as practicable, and at
scientific information collected with intervals of not more than one year,
respect to whales and whaling, scientific information available to 7 .30
including the results of research that Government with respect to source of natural resources was repeatedly affirmed .
893
conducted pursuant to Article III whales and whaling, including the
and to the preceding paragraph . results of research conducted
pursuant to paragrap h 1 of this 7 .31
Article and to Article IV . spoke of “ the great task s of fostering and developing this common
(3) Recognizing that continuous (4) Recognizing that continuous
resource”
collection and analysis of biological collection and analysis of biological
data in connection with the data in connection with the an immensely important source of food supply conserved for all time for the
operations of factory ships and land operations of factory ships and land benefit of both the producer and the consumer in all parts of the world”
stations are indispensable to sound stations are indispensable to sound They referred to the whaling industries as “extremely important industries in
and constructive management of the and constructive management of
which an enormous amount of money is sunk and …producing very vital
whale fi sheries, the contracting the whale fisheries, the Contracting
Governments shall take all Governments will take all commodities, oil among other things ” and said that “we must look after the
practicable measures to obtain such practicable measures to obtain such whaling industries”
data . data .
mankind”
892
See the debates at the Conference recorded iMinutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20(21
November 1946), pp . 10-11 [Annex 18]; “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 7 .32
1946), pp . 4-5 [Annex 20]; “Report of the Committee on Penalties ”, IWC/45 (27 November 1946),
p . 2 [Annex 22]; “ Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention
893Art . III in the U nited States proposal provided for the planning and recommendation by the 894
Commission of “studies and investigations relating to whales and whaling to be undertaken by the 895
appropriate agencies of the contracting Governments, or by other public or private agencies, 896
establishments or organizations” . 897Article V(1) of the ICRW is no exception . It was introduced by the Chairman Schedule were taken up”
“not only as a conservation measure, but to assure recognition of the relation to the Pacific halibut fishery: “
principle of a sanctuary” 898 among the measures that the IWC might adopt . done to manage this resource, we had to learn a great deal more about it t han
Article V(2) stipulates, however, that all such measures must be “necessary we then knew”
to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide
for the conservation, development , and opt imum utilization of the whale 7 .34
resources”, and must “take into consideration the interests of the consumers importance of obtaining continuous runs of data over a period of time . One
899
of whale products and the whaling industry” . Furthermore, such measures referred to the envisaged catch limit on pelag ic whaling south of 40 degrees
would in any event bind only Contracting Governments that had not objected South latitude, saying:
900
to them : the establishment of a sanctuary is a very different matter from a
general ban on whaling . The principle of a sanctuary is that it offers a place
of temporary respite . There is no suggestion that a whale enjoys immunity
from capture once it leaves a sanctuary .
7 .33 Second, the importance of scientific research and the continuous
collection of biological data was repeatedly affirmed . One speaker said that
7 .35
“[t]here is perhaps no area of biology in which we know so little as we do in
up this definite figure or limit …and continue that limit for a few years, we
the case of life in the seas and oceans of the world” 901; another “indicated
will have no statistical basis on which to determine how many whales there
that the [IWC] would have need for all of the biological information it could
are or the condition of the whale stock”
obtain from all possible sources, in order that it might take such information
another delegate, who said “it is quite necessary in order to get some good
into consideration at the time amendments to the various provisions of the
information on the whale stock that there should be a certain fixed number
and even for a certain period, which should be fixed in order that we can get
898 “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 1946), p . 29 [Annex 20] .
899This point was made and developed in a paper by Professor William T Burke of the University of
Washington, Seattle, submitted by Japan to the IWC: “ The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation
of the Southern Ocean sanctuary”, IWC/50/37(1998), p . 316 [Annex 147] .
900See ICRW, Art . V(3) . 902
901“Address by the Honorable C . Girard Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the United States 903
Department of the Interior at a Dinner in Honor of the Delegates to the International Whaling
Conference”, IWC/42 (26 November 1946), p . 4 [Annex 21] . The speaker was the Hon . C . Girard
Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the US Department of the Interior, addressing a dinner in honour 905
of delegates .
336Article V(1) of the ICRW is no exception . It was introduced by the Chairman Schedule were taken up”
“not only as a conservation measure, but to assure recognition of the relation to the Pacific halibut fishery: “
principle of a sanctuary” 898 among the measures that the IWC might adopt . done to manage this resource, we had to learn a great deal more about it t han
Article V(2) stipulates, however, that all such measures must be “necessary we then knew”
to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide
for the conservation, development , and opt imum utilization of the whale 7 .34
resources”, and must “take into consideration the interests of the consumers importance of obtaining continuous runs of data over a period of time . One
899
of whale products and the whaling industry” . Furthermore, such measures referred to the envisaged catch limit on pelag ic whaling south of 40 degrees
would in any event bind only Contracting Governments that had not objected South latitude, saying:
900
to them : the establishment of a sanctuary is a very different matter from a
general ban on whaling . The principle of a sanctuary is that it offers a place
of temporary respite . There is no suggestion that a whale enjoys immunity
from capture once it leaves a sanctuary .
7 .33 Second, the importance of scientific research and the continuous
collection of biological data was repeatedly affirmed . One speaker said that
7 .35
“[t]here is perhaps no area of biology in which we know so little as we do in
up this definite figure or limit …and continue that limit for a few years, we
the case of life in the seas and oceans of the world” 901; another “indicated
will have no statistical basis on which to determine how many whales there
that the [IWC] would have need for all of the biological information it could
are or the condition of the whale stock”
obtain from all possible sources, in order that it might take such information
another delegate, who said “it is quite necessary in order to get some good
into consideration at the time amendments to the various provisions of the
information on the whale stock that there should be a certain fixed number
and even for a certain period, which should be fixed in order that we can get
898 “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 1946), p . 29 [Annex 20] .
899This point was made and developed in a paper by Professor William T Burke of the University of
Washington, Seattle, submitted by Japan to the IWC: “ The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation
of the Southern Ocean sanctuary”, IWC/50/37(1998), p . 316 [Annex 147] .
900See ICRW, Art . V(3) . 902
901“Address by the Honorable C . Girard Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the United States 903
Department of the Interior at a Dinner in Honor of the Delegates to the International Whaling
Conference”, IWC/42 (26 November 1946), p . 4 [Annex 21] . The speaker was the Hon . C . Girard
Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the US Department of the Interior, addressing a dinner in honour 905
of delegates . 906
the necessary statistical data” .
7 .36 The reference in I CRW Article VIII(4) to indispensability of the
“continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the
operations of factory ships and land stations” reflected a clear understanding
articulated by delegates at the Conference .
7 .40
7 .37 Third, it was clearly understood that the IWC would not itself included in the Final Act of the C
Recommendation VIII which stated that “
conduct that scientific research and data collection . That was a matter that
becomes available concerning the migration routes and seasons in localities
was deliberately left to the Contracting Governments and others acting under
where land stations are maintained and operated, specific annual open
their authority .
periods for whaling should be prescribed instead of the regulation included
7 .38 That understanding was voiced at the beginning of the C onference in the Schedule as paragraph 10”
by a delegate of the United States, who said that there were being set up:
7 .41
“[T]oo many research organizations, so that in drafting this Contracting Gover nment that was proposing to authorize special permit
proposal we tried to safeguard it against the setting up of another
organization for which we would have to request appropriations whaling to consult with the IWC before doing so, that suggestion was
for research work . We tried to draft this proposal in such a way as
rejected .
to leave the carrying on of research to the existing organizations or
to any new research group that any gov907ment cared to sponsor in
any part of the whaling industry .” 7 .42
relation to the draft of ICRW Article VIII and the provision for
7 .39 The Chairman, a delegate of the United S tates, confirmed that
permits, said:
view, saying:
“[I]t is not our intention or our belief that this commission [sc ., the
IWC] would usurp any of the previous prerogatives, let us say, of
these various scientific organizations that have been engaged in
research on whales . We certainly do not want to interfere with
906 908
907Ibid ., p . 31 [Annex 20] . 909
“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November1946), p . 28 [Annex 17] .
338 906
the necessary statistical data” .
7 .36 The reference in I CRW Article VIII(4) to indispensability of the
“continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the
operations of factory ships and land stations” reflected a clear understanding
articulated by delegates at the Conference .
7 .40
7 .37 Third, it was clearly understood that the IWC would not itself included in the Final Act of the C
Recommendation VIII which stated that “
conduct that scientific research and data collection . That was a matter that
becomes available concerning the migration routes and seasons in localities
was deliberately left to the Contracting Governments and others acting under
where land stations are maintained and operated, specific annual open
their authority .
periods for whaling should be prescribed instead of the regulation included
7 .38 That understanding was voiced at the beginning of the C onference in the Schedule as paragraph 10”
by a delegate of the United States, who said that there were being set up:
7 .41
“[T]oo many research organizations, so that in drafting this Contracting Gover nment that was proposing to authorize special permit
proposal we tried to safeguard it against the setting up of another
organization for which we would have to request appropriations whaling to consult with the IWC before doing so, that suggestion was
for research work . We tried to draft this proposal in such a way as
rejected .
to leave the carrying on of research to the existing organizations or
to any new research group that any gov907ment cared to sponsor in
any part of the whaling industry .” 7 .42
relation to the draft of ICRW Article VIII and the provision for
7 .39 The Chairman, a delegate of the United S tates, confirmed that
permits, said:
view, saying:
“[I]t is not our intention or our belief that this commission [sc ., the
IWC] would usurp any of the previous prerogatives, let us say, of
these various scientific organizations that have been engaged in
research on whales . We certainly do not want to interfere with
906 908
907Ibid ., p . 31 [Annex 20] . 909
“Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November1946), p . 28 [Annex 17] . consultation with the commission, and not independently of it .” 910
operation of this Convention”
recognizes that the continuous collection and analysis of biological data in
7 .43 The ICRW leaves the organi zation and approval of research and connection with whaling is indispensable to the sound and constructive
special permit whaling to Contracting Governments, as the U nited States management of whale fisheries .
proposal had intended . Neither authori zation by, nor consultation with, the
IWC or any other Contracting Government is required by Article VIII of the
ICRW as a precondition for special permit whaling .
7 .44 These points reinforce the point that ICRW Article VIII means,
and was intended to mean, what its words plainly say . Contracting
Governments may authorize special permit whaling within their discretion .
Conclusion
7 .45 This Chapter has addressed the meaning of Article VIII of the
ICRW, pointing out that its express terms are clear and unambiguous, and
consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention . Article VIII
911
recognizes, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention” , the
right of each Contracting Government to authorize special permit whaling, to
set the conditions for such whaling, and to revoke permits that it has granted .
No other State or body is given the power to impose restrictions or
conditions upon the exercise by a Contracting Government of this right . No
other State or body is given the power to overturn decisions taken by a
Contracting Government in exercise of this right . Once authorized as special
permit whaling, the whaling thus authorized is explicitly “ exempt from the
910“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946), p . 11 [Annex18] .
911Emphasis added . 912
340 consultation with the commission, and not independently of it .” 910
operation of this Convention”
recognizes that the continuous collection and analysis of biological data in
7 .43 The ICRW leaves the organi zation and approval of research and connection with whaling is indispensable to the sound and constructive
special permit whaling to Contracting Governments, as the U nited States management of whale fisheries .
proposal had intended . Neither authori zation by, nor consultation with, the
IWC or any other Contracting Government is required by Article VIII of the
ICRW as a precondition for special permit whaling .
7 .44 These points reinforce the point that ICRW Article VIII means,
and was intended to mean, what its words plainly say . Contracting
Governments may authorize special permit whaling within their discretion .
Conclusion
7 .45 This Chapter has addressed the meaning of Article VIII of the
ICRW, pointing out that its express terms are clear and unambiguous, and
consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention . Article VIII
911
recognizes, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention” , the
right of each Contracting Government to authorize special permit whaling, to
set the conditions for such whaling, and to revoke permits that it has granted .
No other State or body is given the power to impose restrictions or
conditions upon the exercise by a Contracting Government of this right . No
other State or body is given the power to overturn decisions taken by a
Contracting Government in exercise of this right . Once authorized as special
permit whaling, the whaling thus authorized is explicitly “ exempt from the
910“Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946), p . 11 [Annex18] .
911Emphasis added . 912 CHAPTER 8 the canons of interpretation established under the VCLT
THE LEGAL STATUS OF IWC SECONDARY invoking the IWC secondary instruments, actually purports to displace the
clear meaning of Article VIII of the
INSTRUMENTS
supposedly derived from the resolutions, whereas, most of the time, these
instruments either do not say what Australia wants
8 .1 Australia’s strategy in the Memorial is to suggest that a dynamic
interpreted by Australia contra legem in a way incompatible with the plain
interpretation of the provisions of the ICRW has led to the creation of new meaning of Article VIII itself .
obligations for the Contracting Governments and especially to the reduction
of their sovereign powers under Article VIII . This alleged new meaning of
8 .4
Article VIII, quite at odds with a natural understanding of the text, has been
meaning of Article VIII when interpreted from the perspective of the general
triggered, in Australia’s view, by a number of IWC “decisions” . law on interpretation of treaties, the present C
analysing the legal status of
8 .2 The IWC was establi shed by the ICRW and endow ed with
establishing their real meaning and scope . This Chapter firstly considers the
regulatory and recommendatory powers in order to give effect to the
legal value of these secondary instruments, which is misleadingly presented
objectives of the Convention, as stated in the Preamble . A clear distinction by Australia (Section 1) , and the context in which they
must nonetheless be established between the different types of “decisions” 913
Secondly, it explains Japan’s cons istent attitude towards these resolutions
the IWC can make, that is between the Schedule amendment mechanism
(Section 2), placing particular emphasis upon Japan’s good faith
under Article V , and the more general power to make recommendations
consideration of secondary instruments, with whose content it did not always
under Article VI . Whereas the former are intended to be binding, the latter agree (Section 3) .
are merely invitations addressed to the Contracting Governments to consider
a particular course of action, the Contracting Governments remaining free to
accept or reject those invitations .
8 .3 Although the secondary instruments put forward by Australia are
not invoked as an autonomous basis for adjudication, they are part of
Australia’s strategy for interpreting Article VIII . This strategy is at odds with
91Article III uses the term “decisions” for all acts of the Commission, binding and non- binding alike .
It thus refers to Schedule amendments that are in principle binding (Article V) and to
recommendations (Article VI) and other type of resolutions which have no binding effect .
342 CHAPTER 8 the canons of interpretation established under the VCLT
THE LEGAL STATUS OF IWC SECONDARY invoking the IWC secondary instruments, actually purports to displace the
clear meaning of Article VIII of the
INSTRUMENTS
supposedly derived from the resolutions, whereas, most of the time, these
instruments either do not say what Australia wants
8 .1 Australia’s strategy in the Memorial is to suggest that a dynamic
interpreted by Australia contra legem in a way incompatible with the plain
interpretation of the provisions of the ICRW has led to the creation of new meaning of Article VIII itself .
obligations for the Contracting Governments and especially to the reduction
of their sovereign powers under Article VIII . This alleged new meaning of
8 .4
Article VIII, quite at odds with a natural understanding of the text, has been
meaning of Article VIII when interpreted from the perspective of the general
triggered, in Australia’s view, by a number of IWC “decisions” . law on interpretation of treaties, the present C
analysing the legal status of
8 .2 The IWC was establi shed by the ICRW and endow ed with
establishing their real meaning and scope . This Chapter firstly considers the
regulatory and recommendatory powers in order to give effect to the
legal value of these secondary instruments, which is misleadingly presented
objectives of the Convention, as stated in the Preamble . A clear distinction by Australia (Section 1) , and the context in which they
must nonetheless be established between the different types of “decisions” 913
Secondly, it explains Japan’s cons istent attitude towards these resolutions
the IWC can make, that is between the Schedule amendment mechanism
(Section 2), placing particular emphasis upon Japan’s good faith
under Article V , and the more general power to make recommendations
consideration of secondary instruments, with whose content it did not always
under Article VI . Whereas the former are intended to be binding, the latter agree (Section 3) .
are merely invitations addressed to the Contracting Governments to consider
a particular course of action, the Contracting Governments remaining free to
accept or reject those invitations .
8 .3 Although the secondary instruments put forward by Australia are
not invoked as an autonomous basis for adjudication, they are part of
Australia’s strategy for interpreting Article VIII . This strategy is at odds with
91Article III uses the term “decisions” for all acts of the Commission, binding and non- binding alike .
It thus refers to Schedule amendments that are in principle binding (Article V) and to
recommendations (Article VI) and other type of resolutions which have no binding effect . Section 1. Australia’s Misuse of IWC Secondary Instruments there is a major shortcoming in Australia’s analysis, in that it attributes to the
for the Purposes of Interpretation Commission exclusive authority to (re)define the object and purpose of the
Convention by exercising its power to amend the Schedule
8 .5 Relying on Article 31 of the VCLT 914, Australia invokes I WC IWC must respect the object and purpose of the Convention: it has no power
secondary instruments, binding and non- binding instruments alike, as a to redefine it . Moreover, in Australia’s presentation, the IWC’s power covers
means for interpreting Article VIII on several accounts: the granting of special permits , whereas Japan will show that
- by endowing them with the power of authoritatively defining (or reserves the granting o f such permits to the Contracting Governments,
redefining) the object and purpose of the ICRW; this is especially the subject only to the “conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit” .
915
case, in Australia’s presentation, for the Schedule amendments ;
- by considering them as amending the text of Article VIII through 8 .7
subsequent practice of the parties: this is the case, in Australia’s regulatory body
presentation, for Paragraph 30 of the Schedule as well as for the IWC from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with
guidelines for the review of scientific permit proposals 916 or for the respect to the conservation and utili zation of whale resources ”– but these
IWC recommendations 917; amendments must be “ such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and
- by invoking them as the relevant context for the interpretation of purposes of this Convention” (
Article VIII: this is the case, in Australia’s presentation, for the recommendations “which relate to whales or whaling”
moratoria on commercial whaling and on factory ships and on the condition that they also relate to “
918
Southern Ocean Sanctuary . Convention” (Article VI) . The Commission is an organ established under the
ICRW, and as such subject to the provisions of the Convention . Its regulatory
and recommendatory activity must be in conformity with the object and
A. Australia’s Reliance upon Secondary Instruments for Determining
the Object and Purpose of the ICRW is Misplaced purpose of the Convention
general philosophy .
8 .6 Australia considers that the creation of the IWC is of the utmost
importance for the determination of the object and purpose of the ICRW . But 8 .8
Commission in the general scheme of the Convention leads Australia, while
914AM, paras . 4 .33-4 .43 .
915AM, paras . 4 .51, 4 .70-4 .80 .
916AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .31 . 919
917AM, paras . 4 .65-4 .69 . 920
918AM, paras . 4 .53-4 .56 . 921
344 Section 1. Australia’s Misuse of IWC Secondary Instruments there is a major shortcoming in Australia’s analysis, in that it attributes to the
for the Purposes of Interpretation Commission exclusive authority to (re)define the object and purpose of the
Convention by exercising its power to amend the Schedule
8 .5 Relying on Article 31 of the VCLT 914, Australia invokes I WC IWC must respect the object and purpose of the Convention: it has no power
secondary instruments, binding and non- binding instruments alike, as a to redefine it . Moreover, in Australia’s presentation, the IWC’s power covers
means for interpreting Article VIII on several accounts: the granting of special permits , whereas Japan will show that
- by endowing them with the power of authoritatively defining (or reserves the granting o f such permits to the Contracting Governments,
redefining) the object and purpose of the ICRW; this is especially the subject only to the “conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit” .
915
case, in Australia’s presentation, for the Schedule amendments ;
- by considering them as amending the text of Article VIII through 8 .7
subsequent practice of the parties: this is the case, in Australia’s regulatory body
presentation, for Paragraph 30 of the Schedule as well as for the IWC from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with
guidelines for the review of scientific permit proposals 916 or for the respect to the conservation and utili zation of whale resources ”– but these
IWC recommendations 917; amendments must be “ such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and
- by invoking them as the relevant context for the interpretation of purposes of this Convention” (
Article VIII: this is the case, in Australia’s presentation, for the recommendations “which relate to whales or whaling”
moratoria on commercial whaling and on factory ships and on the condition that they also relate to “
918
Southern Ocean Sanctuary . Convention” (Article VI) . The Commission is an organ established under the
ICRW, and as such subject to the provisions of the Convention . Its regulatory
and recommendatory activity must be in conformity with the object and
A. Australia’s Reliance upon Secondary Instruments for Determining
the Object and Purpose of the ICRW is Misplaced purpose of the Convention
general philosophy .
8 .6 Australia considers that the creation of the IWC is of the utmost
importance for the determination of the object and purpose of the ICRW . But 8 .8
Commission in the general scheme of the Convention leads Australia, while
914AM, paras . 4 .33-4 .43 .
915AM, paras . 4 .51, 4 .70-4 .80 .
916AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .31 . 919
917AM, paras . 4 .65-4 .69 . 920
918AM, paras . 4 .53-4 .56 . 921formally accepting that the object and purpose of the Convention remained subsidiary in that Contracting Governments retain discretionary powers to
unchanged 922, to imply that Schedule amendments, and in particular the determine not only the conditions under which special permits are to be
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling, have actually modified its purpose, by granted, but also when this should be done and, last but not least, the power
forbidding any form of whaling unless expressly authori zed by the to issue them without any interference from the Commission
Commission . The Convention would thus become a preservation convention,
as opposed to its initial conservation purpose . Moreover, this would finally 8 .11
impose upon Contracting Governments the obligation to seek approval from that it preserves the Contracting Governments’ power of appreciation when
the Commission when granting special permits on the basis of Article VIII, a special permits are granted . This is apparent in the opening words of this
restriction on the parties’ sovereignty which is in direct contradiction with the Article: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this
text of Article VIII and finds no legal basis in the Convention . Contracting Government may grant
phraseology underlines that Contracting Governments’ power of appreciation
8 .9 However, a Contracting Government, or the Court , cannot lightly under Article VIII is preserved not only substantially
ignore the purposes expressly stated in the P reamble of the Convention and obligations contained in the Convention and in the Schedule do not apply to
substitute for them other objectives: special permit whaling – but also instrumentally – the Commission’s powers
under the Convention do not restrict the right of a Contracting Government to
“The purposes and objects of this Conventi on were stated in its
Preamble … In these circumstances, the Court can not adopt a grant special permits . This is also confirmed by the very f
construction by implication of the provisions of the …which would according to which “the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance
go beyond the scope of its declared purposes and objects . Further,
this contention would involve radical changes and additions to the with the provisions of this Article [VIII] shall be exempt from the operation
provisions of the Convention .” 923 of this Convention .”
8 .10 Contrary to Australia’s assumption, in establishing a convention for
8 .12
the regulation of whaling, the Contracting Governments have not delegated
Contracting Governments and the IWC organs could be established in the
to the Commission the exclusive authority to determine how this object and
application of Article VIII . But it does mean that the rights of the Contracting
purpose should be interpreted and achieved . As regards the interpretation and
Governments under this provision cannot be diminished by any such
application of Article VIII, the role of the Commission is all the more procedure .
922
923Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment, I.C.J.p .ports 1952, 924
196 . 925
346formally accepting that the object and purpose of the Convention remained subsidiary in that Contracting Governments retain discretionary powers to
unchanged 922, to imply that Schedule amendments, and in particular the determine not only the conditions under which special permits are to be
Moratorium on Commercial Whaling, have actually modified its purpose, by granted, but also when this should be done and, last but not least, the power
forbidding any form of whaling unless expressly authori zed by the to issue them without any interference from the Commission
Commission . The Convention would thus become a preservation convention,
as opposed to its initial conservation purpose . Moreover, this would finally 8 .11
impose upon Contracting Governments the obligation to seek approval from that it preserves the Contracting Governments’ power of appreciation when
the Commission when granting special permits on the basis of Article VIII, a special permits are granted . This is apparent in the opening words of this
restriction on the parties’ sovereignty which is in direct contradiction with the Article: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this
text of Article VIII and finds no legal basis in the Convention . Contracting Government may grant
phraseology underlines that Contracting Governments’ power of appreciation
8 .9 However, a Contracting Government, or the Court , cannot lightly under Article VIII is preserved not only substantially
ignore the purposes expressly stated in the P reamble of the Convention and obligations contained in the Convention and in the Schedule do not apply to
substitute for them other objectives: special permit whaling – but also instrumentally – the Commission’s powers
under the Convention do not restrict the right of a Contracting Government to
“The purposes and objects of this Conventi on were stated in its
Preamble … In these circumstances, the Court can not adopt a grant special permits . This is also confirmed by the very f
construction by implication of the provisions of the …which would according to which “the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance
go beyond the scope of its declared purposes and objects . Further,
this contention would involve radical changes and additions to the with the provisions of this Article [VIII] shall be exempt from the operation
provisions of the Convention .” 923 of this Convention .”
8 .10 Contrary to Australia’s assumption, in establishing a convention for
8 .12
the regulation of whaling, the Contracting Governments have not delegated
Contracting Governments and the IWC organs could be established in the
to the Commission the exclusive authority to determine how this object and
application of Article VIII . But it does mean that the rights of the Contracting
purpose should be interpreted and achieved . As regards the interpretation and
Governments under this provision cannot be diminished by any such
application of Article VIII, the role of the Commission is all the more procedure .
922
923Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment, I.C.J.p .ports 1952, 924
196 . 9258 .13 It is true that, when exercising rights under Article VIII, the
Contracting Governments must act in furtherance of the Convention’s object
and purpose and take the Commission’s views into consideration .
Nevertheless their assessment is not in any way controlled by the
Commission . It follows that, even if the Commission expresses doubts about 8 .15
the results or the methods involved in a scientific program me, its views into account:
cannot override those of the Contracting Governments granting the special
permit . As long as the program me aims at contrib uting to the realization of
the object and purpose of the Convention – that is to ensure sustainable
whaling through the conservation of the whales stocks – and respects the
926
other conditions established by Article VIII – as JARPA II does – it falls
within the scope of Article VIII and it is lawful . 8 .16
(b) of Article 31(3)
8 .14 Australia is therefore wrong in stating that the ICRW provides for a secondary legislation in supposed support of its interpretation of Article VIII .
system “involving an institution (the IWC) having oversight of special The Court has explicitly acknowledged the relevance of these instruments for
permits issued by Contracting Governments, with the authority to deter mine the interpretation of treaty provisions
the proper scope and application of the special permit whaling exception purpose must meet the requirements established in Article 31(3) of the
927
under Article VIII .” This preposterous interpretation of Article VIII, which Vienna Convention . But the instruments put forward by Australia do not
clearly goes against the text itself, cannot find support in the secondary qualify as subsequent agreements, nor as subsequent practice. A distinction
legislation invoked by Australia . must be made between these two supplementary means of interpretation .
However, neither of them supports Australia’s interpretation of Article VIII .
928
929
926See above, Part II, and Chapter 9 below .
927AM, para . 4 .19 .
3488 .13 It is true that, when exercising rights under Article VIII, the
Contracting Governments must act in furtherance of the Convention’s object
and purpose and take the Commission’s views into consideration .
Nevertheless their assessment is not in any way controlled by the
Commission . It follows that, even if the Commission expresses doubts about 8 .15
the results or the methods involved in a scientific program me, its views into account:
cannot override those of the Contracting Governments granting the special
permit . As long as the program me aims at contrib uting to the realization of
the object and purpose of the Convention – that is to ensure sustainable
whaling through the conservation of the whales stocks – and respects the
926
other conditions established by Article VIII – as JARPA II does – it falls
within the scope of Article VIII and it is lawful . 8 .16
(b) of Article 31(3)
8 .14 Australia is therefore wrong in stating that the ICRW provides for a secondary legislation in supposed support of its interpretation of Article VIII .
system “involving an institution (the IWC) having oversight of special The Court has explicitly acknowledged the relevance of these instruments for
permits issued by Contracting Governments, with the authority to deter mine the interpretation of treaty provisions
the proper scope and application of the special permit whaling exception purpose must meet the requirements established in Article 31(3) of the
927
under Article VIII .” This preposterous interpretation of Article VIII, which Vienna Convention . But the instruments put forward by Australia do not
clearly goes against the text itself, cannot find support in the secondary qualify as subsequent agreements, nor as subsequent practice. A distinction
legislation invoked by Australia . must be made between these two supplementary means of interpretation .
However, neither of them supports Australia’s interpretation of Article VIII .
928
929
926See above, Part II, and Chapter 9 below .
927AM, para . 4 .19 .1. Secondary Instruments are N ot Subsequent Agreements within the
Meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention
8 .17 Two arguments lie at the heart of Australia’s heavy reliance upon
the IWC secondary instruments: the Commission would have the power
- first, to establish criteria to be applied by the Contracting Governments
8 .19
when granting special permits under Article VIII;
form of review or authori zation by the Commission of the special permits
- second, to verify whether these criteria were met by a particular scientific
930 granted under Article VIII . Thus, paragraph 4 .30 of the Memorial concludes
programme . that:
For this purpose, Australia puts much weight on Paragraph 30 of the
Schedule and on the IWC guidelines for the review of special permits 93 .
(1) Australia Misconceives the Scope of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule
8 .18 The amendment adopted in 1979 as Paragraph 30 of the Schedule
and invoked by Australia states:
8 .20
“30 . A Contracting Government sha ll provide the Secretary to the
discretionary powers the Contracting Governments enjoy under Article VIII
International Whaling Commission with proposed scientific have turned into a form of controlled power with the adoption of this
permits before they are issued and in sufficient time to allow the
Scientific Committee to review and comment on them . The Schedule amendment . Its
proposed permits should specify:
recognized to the
(a) objectives of the research; Commission itself. But in order to do so, Paragraph 30 should qualify as
(b) number, sex, size and stock of the animals to be taken;
(c) opportunities for participation in the research by scientists subsequent agreement, which it is not.
of other nations; and
(d) possible effect on conservation of stock . 8 .21
Proposed permits shall be reviewed and commented on by the was in 1966 draft Article 27 of the VCLT suggest that the agreement referred
Scientific Committee at Annual Meetings when possible . When
permits would be granted prior to the next Annual Meeting, the to in this provision is of the nature of a treaty, and it must be agreed between
930
931See AM, para . 4 .24; paras . 4 .28-4 .29 . 932
AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .29 .
3501. Secondary Instruments are N ot Subsequent Agreements within the
Meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention
8 .17 Two arguments lie at the heart of Australia’s heavy reliance upon
the IWC secondary instruments: the Commission would have the power
- first, to establish criteria to be applied by the Contracting Governments
8 .19
when granting special permits under Article VIII;
form of review or authori zation by the Commission of the special permits
- second, to verify whether these criteria were met by a particular scientific
930 granted under Article VIII . Thus, paragraph 4 .30 of the Memorial concludes
programme . that:
For this purpose, Australia puts much weight on Paragraph 30 of the
Schedule and on the IWC guidelines for the review of special permits 93 .
(1) Australia Misconceives the Scope of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule
8 .18 The amendment adopted in 1979 as Paragraph 30 of the Schedule
and invoked by Australia states:
8 .20
“30 . A Contracting Government sha ll provide the Secretary to the
discretionary powers the Contracting Governments enjoy under Article VIII
International Whaling Commission with proposed scientific have turned into a form of controlled power with the adoption of this
permits before they are issued and in sufficient time to allow the
Scientific Committee to review and comment on them . The Schedule amendment . Its
proposed permits should specify:
recognized to the
(a) objectives of the research; Commission itself. But in order to do so, Paragraph 30 should qualify as
(b) number, sex, size and stock of the animals to be taken;
(c) opportunities for participation in the research by scientists subsequent agreement, which it is not.
of other nations; and
(d) possible effect on conservation of stock . 8 .21
Proposed permits shall be reviewed and commented on by the was in 1966 draft Article 27 of the VCLT suggest that the agreement referred
Scientific Committee at Annual Meetings when possible . When
permits would be granted prior to the next Annual Meeting, the to in this provision is of the nature of a treaty, and it must be agreed between
930
931See AM, para . 4 .24; paras . 4 .28-4 .29 . 932
AM, paras . 4 .20-4 .29 .the Parties that the scope of this instrument is to p rovide for an authentic amendments to any of the eleven articles of the Convention . Article V has
interpretation of the provision to which it relates: established a procedure for the amendment of the de tailed regulations found
in the Schedule, while amendment of other provisions must be achieved
“Paragraph 3(a) specifies as a further authentic element of
interpretation to be taken into account together with the context through a separate agreement, as exemplified by the 1956 Protocol to the
any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the ICRW
interpretation of the treaty. A question of fact may sometimes arise
as to whether an understanding reached during the negotiations
concerning the meaning of a provision was or was not intended to 8 .23
constitute an agreed basis for its interpretation . But it is well settled by virtue of an amendment to the Schedule is further demonstrated by the
that when an agreement as to the interpretation of a provision is
established as having been reached before or at the time of the conditions established by Article V(3) for the entry into force of
conclusion of the treaty, it is to be regarded as forming part of the
treaty . . . . Similarly, an agreemen t as to the interpretation of a amendments: they enter into force ninety days after notification to the
provision reached after the conclusion of the treaty represents an Contracting Governments, unless a Contracting Government
authentic interpretation by the parties which must be read into the
treaty for purposes of its interpretation .” 933 objection, in which case it is not bound by the amendment . It thus
that amendments create binding obligations except with regard to Contracting
8 .22 Both Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and the guidelines in relation to Governments that exclude their effect in accordance with established
special permits, adopted after the conclusion of the Convention, are unilateral procedures .
acts of the Commission . As such, they can hardly claim to provide for an
authentic interpretation of the Convention, since the Contracting 8 .24
Governments and the IWC are two distinct bodies . The acts of the 2 of this Counter-Memorial
Commission do not necessarily represent the common will of the Contracting the IWC to prescribing “technical” regulations in pursuance of the object and
Governments of the ICRW . It is significant that these instruments are adopted purpose of the Convention and did not grant a legislative role to the
by majority: a simple majority for recommendatory texts and three-fourths of Commission . The S chedule amendments are rules that identify the specific
the members voting in the case of binding instruments, that is for measures needed to carry out the object and purpose of the ICRW, when they
934
amendments to the Schedule . Of course, Paragraph 30 of the Schedule is are technically required on the basis of scientific findings; but they do not
binding upon the Contracting Governments, by virtue of Article V of the (and cannot) define new and different objectives .
Convention . But acts of the Commission, taken on this basis and following
the procedure established therein, are amendments to the Schedule and not
933Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol . II, p . 221, para . 14 . 935
934See ICRW, Art . III . 936
352the Parties that the scope of this instrument is to p rovide for an authentic amendments to any of the eleven articles of the Convention . Article V has
interpretation of the provision to which it relates: established a procedure for the amendment of the de tailed regulations found
in the Schedule, while amendment of other provisions must be achieved
“Paragraph 3(a) specifies as a further authentic element of
interpretation to be taken into account together with the context through a separate agreement, as exemplified by the 1956 Protocol to the
any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the ICRW
interpretation of the treaty. A question of fact may sometimes arise
as to whether an understanding reached during the negotiations
concerning the meaning of a provision was or was not intended to 8 .23
constitute an agreed basis for its interpretation . But it is well settled by virtue of an amendment to the Schedule is further demonstrated by the
that when an agreement as to the interpretation of a provision is
established as having been reached before or at the time of the conditions established by Article V(3) for the entry into force of
conclusion of the treaty, it is to be regarded as forming part of the
treaty . . . . Similarly, an agreemen t as to the interpretation of a amendments: they enter into force ninety days after notification to the
provision reached after the conclusion of the treaty represents an Contracting Governments, unless a Contracting Government
authentic interpretation by the parties which must be read into the
treaty for purposes of its interpretation .” 933 objection, in which case it is not bound by the amendment . It thus
that amendments create binding obligations except with regard to Contracting
8 .22 Both Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and the guidelines in relation to Governments that exclude their effect in accordance with established
special permits, adopted after the conclusion of the Convention, are unilateral procedures .
acts of the Commission . As such, they can hardly claim to provide for an
authentic interpretation of the Convention, since the Contracting 8 .24
Governments and the IWC are two distinct bodies . The acts of the 2 of this Counter-Memorial
Commission do not necessarily represent the common will of the Contracting the IWC to prescribing “technical” regulations in pursuance of the object and
Governments of the ICRW . It is significant that these instruments are adopted purpose of the Convention and did not grant a legislative role to the
by majority: a simple majority for recommendatory texts and three-fourths of Commission . The S chedule amendments are rules that identify the specific
the members voting in the case of binding instruments, that is for measures needed to carry out the object and purpose of the ICRW, when they
934
amendments to the Schedule . Of course, Paragraph 30 of the Schedule is are technically required on the basis of scientific findings; but they do not
binding upon the Contracting Governments, by virtue of Article V of the (and cannot) define new and different objectives .
Convention . But acts of the Commission, taken on this basis and following
the procedure established therein, are amendments to the Schedule and not
933Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol . II, p . 221, para . 14 . 935
934See ICRW, Art . III . 9368 .25 If amendments purport ing to restrict the rights the Contracting 8 .27
Governments enjoy by virtue of the Convention were given legal effect by to special permits:
the process of interpretation, it would become immaterial whether a
Contracting Government made or did not make an objection to the
amendment . In either case it would be bound by the provisions of the ICRW,
as re-interpreted . Obligations excluded by the front door of objection would
nonetheless return and become effective through the back door of
interpretation . (2) Australia Distorts the Meaning of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and
of Related Instruments
8 .26 Sir Derek Bowett’s legal opinion, requested by the IWC before 8 .28
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule was adopted and to which Australia makes Contracting Governments to notify the Secretariat of the IWC and, through it,
937
reference , states clearly that amendments to the Schedule cannot purport to the Scientific Committee and the Commission, of any special permits they
restrict Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII: propose to grant . It also specifies four types of information that the
notification must contain, listed as points (a) to (d) . On this basis the
“It is also important to emphasize what the amendment could not
Scientific Committee can review and comment on the proposed permits . On
do . The amendment must be so drafted as not to derogate from the
rights of contracting Governments under the Convention . Article its plain reading, Paragraph 30 does not introduce any criteria for assessing
VIII makes clear that the decision to grant a special permit rests
with the contracting Governments . The function of the Scientific the legality of special permits nor does it create a procedure for this purpose .
Committee must therefore be retained as one of ‘review and While it is true that the Contracting Government must provide the required
comment’ (Rule F). There can be no question of the Scientific information prior to the issuance of special permits, it is nowhere stated in
Committee assuming a power to authorise or disallow a permit .
Even the fixing of the number of whales to be taken, and any other this paragraph of the Schedule (nor anywhere else in the C onvention or the
conditions, rests in the discretion of the C ontracting Governments
Schedule) that the Scientific Committee (or the Commission) must or can
(‘as the Contracting Government thinks fit’), so that the most the
Scientific Committee can do is to comment on these conditions, authorize them, nor that it can subsequently assess their legality .
and this by way of reports and recommendation to the Commission
as Rule J .3 recognizes .”938
8 .29
cooperation between the Contracting Governments and the organs of the
937 ICRW . Prior to its introduction the granting of special permits was
938AM, para . 4 .66 .
Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to Supll Data Stipulated”, IWC/31/9 , p . 4 939
(emphasis added) [Annex 78].
3548 .25 If amendments purport ing to restrict the rights the Contracting 8 .27
Governments enjoy by virtue of the Convention were given legal effect by to special permits:
the process of interpretation, it would become immaterial whether a
Contracting Government made or did not make an objection to the
amendment . In either case it would be bound by the provisions of the ICRW,
as re-interpreted . Obligations excluded by the front door of objection would
nonetheless return and become effective through the back door of
interpretation . (2) Australia Distorts the Meaning of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and
of Related Instruments
8 .26 Sir Derek Bowett’s legal opinion, requested by the IWC before 8 .28
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule was adopted and to which Australia makes Contracting Governments to notify the Secretariat of the IWC and, through it,
937
reference , states clearly that amendments to the Schedule cannot purport to the Scientific Committee and the Commission, of any special permits they
restrict Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII: propose to grant . It also specifies four types of information that the
notification must contain, listed as points (a) to (d) . On this basis the
“It is also important to emphasize what the amendment could not
Scientific Committee can review and comment on the proposed permits . On
do . The amendment must be so drafted as not to derogate from the
rights of contracting Governments under the Convention . Article its plain reading, Paragraph 30 does not introduce any criteria for assessing
VIII makes clear that the decision to grant a special permit rests
with the contracting Governments . The function of the Scientific the legality of special permits nor does it create a procedure for this purpose .
Committee must therefore be retained as one of ‘review and While it is true that the Contracting Government must provide the required
comment’ (Rule F). There can be no question of the Scientific information prior to the issuance of special permits, it is nowhere stated in
Committee assuming a power to authorise or disallow a permit .
Even the fixing of the number of whales to be taken, and any other this paragraph of the Schedule (nor anywhere else in the C onvention or the
conditions, rests in the discretion of the C ontracting Governments
Schedule) that the Scientific Committee (or the Commission) must or can
(‘as the Contracting Government thinks fit’), so that the most the
Scientific Committee can do is to comment on these conditions, authorize them, nor that it can subsequently assess their legality .
and this by way of reports and recommendation to the Commission
as Rule J .3 recognizes .”938
8 .29
cooperation between the Contracting Governments and the organs of the
937 ICRW . Prior to its introduction the granting of special permits was
938AM, para . 4 .66 .
Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to Supll Data Stipulated”, IWC/31/9 , p . 4 939
(emphasis added) [Annex 78].completely outside the scope of the Convention . Paragraph 30 gives the 8 .31
Scientific Committee power only to “ review and comment on” proposed concerned, Paragraph 30 sets out a list of items that should be included in
permits . In accordance with the ordinary meaning of these words, this proposed permits which are reviewed by the Committee: these include “ the
provision does not envisage a process of prior approval by the IWC based on objectives of the research”, the “number, sex, size and stock of the animals to
criteria which it determines . The issuance of special permits remains a matter be taken”, and the “possible effect on conservation of the stock .”
for the Contracting Governments to decide, not the Scientific Committee , nor basis, the Scientific Committee and the Commission have developed a series
the IWC . It is also evident from the wording of Paragraph 30 that it envisages of texts for the review of the proposed special permits and of the research
that scientific resea rch will require a number of animals to be taken . It is results . These instruments, adopted first as internal documents of the
impossible to read this provision as empowering the Scientific Committee or Scientific Committee
the IWC to disallow special permit whaling, nor does it imply any restriction annexes to some of its annual reports, as well as the various resolutions of the
on the numbers of whales taken or the necessit y of lethal methods . Commission requiring the Scientific Committee to adapt the guidelines to the
Australia’s reading of Paragraph 30 is wholly inconsistent with the language wishes of the Commission, are unable, as a matter of law, to amend Article
used . VIII of the Convention . They are recommendatory texts that cannot prevail
over the terms of Article VIII, nor add to the Contracting Governments
8 .30 It is thus clear that Paragraph 30 obligations can only be treaty obligations, nor reduce the rights they derive from this provision .
apprehended in terms of a procedural obligation to notify the ICRW organs
of the proposed s cientific permits . To reiterate, although the Scientific 8 .32
Committee has the power to review and comment on these permits , recommend the use of non-lethal methods to undertake research under Article
Paragraph 30 does not endow it with any competence to authorize or disallow VIII
special permits . This reading of Paragraph 30 is underlined in Bowett’s criteria for the assessment of the legality of special permits . They
opinion, requested by the IWC prior to the introduction of this amendment: suggest a course of action, which the Contracting Governments are not bound
“There can be no question of the Scientific Committee assuming a power to to follow
authorise or disallow a permit .” 940 in purely recommendatory terms:
941
942
940Derek Bowett, “Legal Opinion on Schedule Provision for Prior Review of Scientific Permits and 943
Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to Supplll Data Stip ulated”, IWC/31/9, p . 4
(emphasis added) [Annex 78] . See also above, para . 8 .26 . 944
356completely outside the scope of the Convention . Paragraph 30 gives the 8 .31
Scientific Committee power only to “ review and comment on” proposed concerned, Paragraph 30 sets out a list of items that should be included in
permits . In accordance with the ordinary meaning of these words, this proposed permits which are reviewed by the Committee: these include “ the
provision does not envisage a process of prior approval by the IWC based on objectives of the research”, the “number, sex, size and stock of the animals to
criteria which it determines . The issuance of special permits remains a matter be taken”, and the “possible effect on conservation of the stock .”
for the Contracting Governments to decide, not the Scientific Committee , nor basis, the Scientific Committee and the Commission have developed a series
the IWC . It is also evident from the wording of Paragraph 30 that it envisages of texts for the review of the proposed special permits and of the research
that scientific resea rch will require a number of animals to be taken . It is results . These instruments, adopted first as internal documents of the
impossible to read this provision as empowering the Scientific Committee or Scientific Committee
the IWC to disallow special permit whaling, nor does it imply any restriction annexes to some of its annual reports, as well as the various resolutions of the
on the numbers of whales taken or the necessit y of lethal methods . Commission requiring the Scientific Committee to adapt the guidelines to the
Australia’s reading of Paragraph 30 is wholly inconsistent with the language wishes of the Commission, are unable, as a matter of law, to amend Article
used . VIII of the Convention . They are recommendatory texts that cannot prevail
over the terms of Article VIII, nor add to the Contracting Governments
8 .30 It is thus clear that Paragraph 30 obligations can only be treaty obligations, nor reduce the rights they derive from this provision .
apprehended in terms of a procedural obligation to notify the ICRW organs
of the proposed s cientific permits . To reiterate, although the Scientific 8 .32
Committee has the power to review and comment on these permits , recommend the use of non-lethal methods to undertake research under Article
Paragraph 30 does not endow it with any competence to authorize or disallow VIII
special permits . This reading of Paragraph 30 is underlined in Bowett’s criteria for the assessment of the legality of special permits . They
opinion, requested by the IWC prior to the introduction of this amendment: suggest a course of action, which the Contracting Governments are not bound
“There can be no question of the Scientific Committee assuming a power to to follow
authorise or disallow a permit .” 940 in purely recommendatory terms:
941
942
940Derek Bowett, “Legal Opinion on Schedule Provision for Prior Review of Scientific Permits and 943
Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to Supplll Data Stip ulated”, IWC/31/9, p . 4
(emphasis added) [Annex 78] . See also above, para . 8 .26 . 944 “The Commission … invites Contracting Governments … to take
account of … guidelines of the Scientific Committee .” 945
“The Commission … recommends … Contracting Governments …
should also take account of guidelines drawn up by the Scientific
Committee .” 946
(3) Discussions within the IWC Highlight the Lack of Agreement for a
8 .34
Revision of Article VIII
8 .33 It is no mystery that a number of anti-whaling members of the for special permit whaling to be suppressed
IWC, having gained the numerical majority in the Commission, thus control authorization of the IWC -
the decision -making process and attempt to present the resolutions as officials . Thus, a statement of the then United States Commissioner before a
instruments creating obligations for Contracting Governments granting committee of the U nited States House of Representatives, William Hogarth,
underlines that:
special permits . The ultimate purpose of a number of anti -whaling countries
of the IWC is to “phase-out” the right to conduct s pecial permit whali ng
using lethal methods . However, considering the wording of Article VIII, it
was clear even to the proponents of the abolition of special permit whaling
that this cannot be done without a revision of the Convention – which is
clearly presented as such (a future aim) in various Chairman’s Reports:
“Several of these [ Contracting Governments] also re-iterated their
view that a code of conduct [on special permit whaling] is not
acceptable to them and that the only acceptable approach is to
amend the Con947tion and phase -out special permit catches
altogether .”
945See “Resolution on Scientific Permits” , Appendix 2, Chairman’s Report of the-Seventh
Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p .26 (emphasis added) .
946“Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research”, Appen dix 2, Chairman’s Report of the 948
Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p . 25 (AM, Annex 43) (emphasis
added) . 949
947Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2006, p . 23 (emphasis added) [Annex 65] .
358 “The Commission … invites Contracting Governments … to take
account of … guidelines of the Scientific Committee .” 945
“The Commission … recommends … Contracting Governments …
should also take account of guidelines drawn up by the Scientific
Committee .” 946
(3) Discussions within the IWC Highlight the Lack of Agreement for a
8 .34
Revision of Article VIII
8 .33 It is no mystery that a number of anti-whaling members of the for special permit whaling to be suppressed
IWC, having gained the numerical majority in the Commission, thus control authorization of the IWC -
the decision -making process and attempt to present the resolutions as officials . Thus, a statement of the then United States Commissioner before a
instruments creating obligations for Contracting Governments granting committee of the U nited States House of Representatives, William Hogarth,
underlines that:
special permits . The ultimate purpose of a number of anti -whaling countries
of the IWC is to “phase-out” the right to conduct s pecial permit whali ng
using lethal methods . However, considering the wording of Article VIII, it
was clear even to the proponents of the abolition of special permit whaling
that this cannot be done without a revision of the Convention – which is
clearly presented as such (a future aim) in various Chairman’s Reports:
“Several of these [ Contracting Governments] also re-iterated their
view that a code of conduct [on special permit whaling] is not
acceptable to them and that the only acceptable approach is to
amend the Con947tion and phase -out special permit catches
altogether .”
945See “Resolution on Scientific Permits” , Appendix 2, Chairman’s Report of the-Seventh
Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p .26 (emphasis added) .
946“Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research”, Appen dix 2, Chairman’s Report of the 948
Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p . 25 (AM, Annex 43) (emphasis
added) . 949
947Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2006, p . 23 (emphasis added) [Annex 65] .8 .35 A number of anti -whaling countries of the IWC thus repeatedly
presented proposals to submit special permits to the authori zation of the
IWC . These attempts to subject the special permit procedure to special
conditions must be read within the larger context of the desire of anti-whaling
States of the IWC to abolish special permit whaling . Australia’s position in
this regard was repeated openly in the Commission: 8 .36
of the Contracting Governments concerned – which were clearly conscious
“Australia be lieved that the Convention had been brought in to
replace unilateral action with the protection of whales through that they did not reflect the law in force . And Australia’s various proposals to
international regulation . It therefore considered scientific permit that effect, as reflected in a document submitted to the IWC in 2009
whaling to be contrary to this purpose as it is not subject to
international control .” 950 far from consensual
such a decision would run against a right granted under the Convention and
“Australia noted its full commitment to the reform of the IWC but that the anti- whaling States’ insistence on phasing out special permits was
noted that unilateral special permit whaling was severely testing the
Australian public who wished to see it brought to an end . It not a constructive attitude in the negotiations on the Future of IWC:
expressed disappointment that the SWG had not engaged seriously
on resolving the special permit whaling issue which has been the
most controversial issue within the IWC for many years . In this
context it made reference to the paper it had tabled (IWC/61/9) in
which it proposed that IWC members agree on a principle-based
approach to all scientific research under the authority of the
Commission . In this approach, Governments should commit to
activities only when authorised by the Commission . To implement
such a process, Australia noted that three steps would be required:
(1) a consensus -based approach to determining key knowledge
gaps, priorities for research that address these gaps in a practical
and outcome -focused manner, and mechanisms by which that
research will be delivered; (2) a process for assessing all science 951
activities against the approach outlined in (1); and (3) a mechanism
for the Commission to reach a decision on outcomes and 952
recommendations derived from (1) and (2), i.e. countries would
agree not to undertake scientific activities without Commission
approval. Australia indicated that the details of this process would
need to be developed co -operatively by IWC members and agreed 953
950Chair’s Report of the 59th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Intenational Whaling 954
Commission 2007, p . 40 (explaining vote on JARPA) [Annex 66] .
3608 .35 A number of anti -whaling countries of the IWC thus repeatedly
presented proposals to submit special permits to the authori zation of the
IWC . These attempts to subject the special permit procedure to special
conditions must be read within the larger context of the desire of anti-whaling
States of the IWC to abolish special permit whaling . Australia’s position in
this regard was repeated openly in the Commission: 8 .36
of the Contracting Governments concerned – which were clearly conscious
“Australia be lieved that the Convention had been brought in to
replace unilateral action with the protection of whales through that they did not reflect the law in force . And Australia’s various proposals to
international regulation . It therefore considered scientific permit that effect, as reflected in a document submitted to the IWC in 2009
whaling to be contrary to this purpose as it is not subject to
international control .” 950 far from consensual
such a decision would run against a right granted under the Convention and
“Australia noted its full commitment to the reform of the IWC but that the anti- whaling States’ insistence on phasing out special permits was
noted that unilateral special permit whaling was severely testing the
Australian public who wished to see it brought to an end . It not a constructive attitude in the negotiations on the Future of IWC:
expressed disappointment that the SWG had not engaged seriously
on resolving the special permit whaling issue which has been the
most controversial issue within the IWC for many years . In this
context it made reference to the paper it had tabled (IWC/61/9) in
which it proposed that IWC members agree on a principle-based
approach to all scientific research under the authority of the
Commission . In this approach, Governments should commit to
activities only when authorised by the Commission . To implement
such a process, Australia noted that three steps would be required:
(1) a consensus -based approach to determining key knowledge
gaps, priorities for research that address these gaps in a practical
and outcome -focused manner, and mechanisms by which that
research will be delivered; (2) a process for assessing all science 951
activities against the approach outlined in (1); and (3) a mechanism
for the Commission to reach a decision on outcomes and 952
recommendations derived from (1) and (2), i.e. countries would
agree not to undertake scientific activities without Commission
approval. Australia indicated that the details of this process would
need to be developed co -operatively by IWC members and agreed 953
950Chair’s Report of the 59th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Intenational Whaling 954
Commission 2007, p . 40 (explaining vote on JARPA) [Annex 66] .8 .37 Japan, and other Contracting Governments, opposed this attempt to Any other interpretation would be incompatible with the clear text of the
submit special permit to the authorization of the Commission: Convention .
“However, [Japan] expressed its concern over recent comments 8 .39
calling for the curtailing or cessation of special permit whaling,
recalling the initial agreement when the ‘future’ process began on seems self-evident: it is only if and insofar as these resolutions do not purport
the need for compromise . It suggested that all partie s needed to
to restrict Contracting Governments ’ rights under Article VIII that they
decide on where they can compromise . For Japan, it considered
special permit whaling a right under the Convention . Nevertheless, survive the test of validity
it believed it had indicated willingness to compromise on these
activities and would not obstruct the creation of a South Atlantic
sanctuary . Japan supported the notion of a 5- year interim 8 .40
arrangement so as to be able to make progress, but believed that the
insistence to phase out special permit whaling could destroy the these resolutions . Thus, in 1996, in support of the propos
process . Iceland, Norway and the Republic of Korea also expressed Special Permit Catches by Japan
concerns regarding proposals put forward in relation to special stated:
permit whaling . Norway stressed the importance of those involved
in discussions in having the political mandate to compromise .” 955
“Several countries expressed concern regardi ng the principle
proposed by Australia that the proposed methods, scope and
objectives of a research programme should require the approval of
the Commission,956lieving that this would require a change to the
Convention .” 8 .41
the sponsors’ mind, the resolutions cannot be understood as means to restrict
8 .38 Australia’s attempt to portray th e guidelines and resolutions as
Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII . Their legal scope was
setting forth legally binding conditions and to endow the Commission with
meant to be mere exhortations:
the power to check the fulfilment of such conditions is clearly at odds with
the Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII . The Paragraph 30 957
procedure can only be analysed as a notification procedure, obliging
Contracting Governments to transmit scientific information, and enabling the
Scientific Committee to comment upon . In the same spirit, the guidelines and
the resolutions related to the is suance of special permits are mere invitations .
958
955Ibid . (emphasis added .)
956Ibid., p . 11 (emphasis added .) 959
3628 .37 Japan, and other Contracting Governments, opposed this attempt to Any other interpretation would be incompatible with the clear text of the
submit special permit to the authorization of the Commission: Convention .
“However, [Japan] expressed its concern over recent comments 8 .39
calling for the curtailing or cessation of special permit whaling,
recalling the initial agreement when the ‘future’ process began on seems self-evident: it is only if and insofar as these resolutions do not purport
the need for compromise . It suggested that all partie s needed to
to restrict Contracting Governments ’ rights under Article VIII that they
decide on where they can compromise . For Japan, it considered
special permit whaling a right under the Convention . Nevertheless, survive the test of validity
it believed it had indicated willingness to compromise on these
activities and would not obstruct the creation of a South Atlantic
sanctuary . Japan supported the notion of a 5- year interim 8 .40
arrangement so as to be able to make progress, but believed that the
insistence to phase out special permit whaling could destroy the these resolutions . Thus, in 1996, in support of the propos
process . Iceland, Norway and the Republic of Korea also expressed Special Permit Catches by Japan
concerns regarding proposals put forward in relation to special stated:
permit whaling . Norway stressed the importance of those involved
in discussions in having the political mandate to compromise .” 955
“Several countries expressed concern regardi ng the principle
proposed by Australia that the proposed methods, scope and
objectives of a research programme should require the approval of
the Commission,956lieving that this would require a change to the
Convention .” 8 .41
the sponsors’ mind, the resolutions cannot be understood as means to restrict
8 .38 Australia’s attempt to portray th e guidelines and resolutions as
Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII . Their legal scope was
setting forth legally binding conditions and to endow the Commission with
meant to be mere exhortations:
the power to check the fulfilment of such conditions is clearly at odds with
the Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII . The Paragraph 30 957
procedure can only be analysed as a notification procedure, obliging
Contracting Governments to transmit scientific information, and enabling the
Scientific Committee to comment upon . In the same spirit, the guidelines and
the resolutions related to the is suance of special permits are mere invitations .
958
955Ibid . (emphasis added .)
956Ibid., p . 11 (emphasis added .) 959 As will be further detailed
“Mr . Chairman, we note that Japan has expressed doubts about the
legality of the Resolution as adopted by the Commission last year by many Contracting Governments .
and in relation to the decision to establish the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary . In drafting this Resolution we have endeavoured to take
account of the Japanese concerns . However, I must stress that we 2.
do not consider this to be a legal argument . We do recognise the Meaning of Article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention
960
provisions of Article VIII of the Convention .” 8 .43
well as other Contracting Governments’ comments
8 .42 Since the prospects for the lawful establishment of a procedure for
The sections of the Memorial devoted to subsequent practice rely nonetheless
authorization of special permits appeared close to zero, the anti -whaling
mainly upon the resolutions addressed by the IWC to individual Contracting
countries enjoying the majority in the Commission engaged in a process of a
Governments
posteriori condemnation . Resolutions on specifi c s pecial permits then
appeared as the expression of approval or disapproval by the Commission .
This was apparent already in 1987, when after long discussions on the 8 .44
Resolution on Scientific Research Programmes (the Appendix 1 resolution), means for interpretation . The concept is not defined in the VCLT , either with
Japan’s proposed permits were said not to meet the guidelines and not to respect to the type of practice concerned, or to the authors whose practice
comply with the procedure, and it was therefore requested to withdraw would be relevant, or for the effects (confirming or modifying the natural
meaning) .
them 961 . However, the voting conditions for this resolution, where the
conclusions of the Scientific Committee were presented to th e Plenary in a
8 .45
biased and distorted way , were immediately condemned by the Contracting
subsequent practice can have the effect either of confirming the terms of a
Governments that voted against:
treaty or of modifying them:
“Japan pointed out that a number of the points expounded by the
UK were arguable, and the only way to reduce uncertainty in
knowledge of the stocks is by carrying out research . It noted that
out of 16 countries consistently voting for these resolutions, 7 did
not attend the Scientific Committee, and other 7 did not submit
Progress Report on research .” 962
963
960Ibid., p . 173 [Annex 37] . 964
961See UK comments and the proposed resolution,Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual 965
Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988, p . 14 . 966
962Ibid ., p . 14 . Japan was seconded by the Republic of Korea, Norway, Iceland, and the USSR . 967
364 As will be further detailed
“Mr . Chairman, we note that Japan has expressed doubts about the
legality of the Resolution as adopted by the Commission last year by many Contracting Governments .
and in relation to the decision to establish the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary . In drafting this Resolution we have endeavoured to take
account of the Japanese concerns . However, I must stress that we 2.
do not consider this to be a legal argument . We do recognise the Meaning of Article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention
960
provisions of Article VIII of the Convention .” 8 .43
well as other Contracting Governments’ comments
8 .42 Since the prospects for the lawful establishment of a procedure for
The sections of the Memorial devoted to subsequent practice rely nonetheless
authorization of special permits appeared close to zero, the anti -whaling
mainly upon the resolutions addressed by the IWC to individual Contracting
countries enjoying the majority in the Commission engaged in a process of a
Governments
posteriori condemnation . Resolutions on specifi c s pecial permits then
appeared as the expression of approval or disapproval by the Commission .
This was apparent already in 1987, when after long discussions on the 8 .44
Resolution on Scientific Research Programmes (the Appendix 1 resolution), means for interpretation . The concept is not defined in the VCLT , either with
Japan’s proposed permits were said not to meet the guidelines and not to respect to the type of practice concerned, or to the authors whose practice
comply with the procedure, and it was therefore requested to withdraw would be relevant, or for the effects (confirming or modifying the natural
meaning) .
them 961 . However, the voting conditions for this resolution, where the
conclusions of the Scientific Committee were presented to th e Plenary in a
8 .45
biased and distorted way , were immediately condemned by the Contracting
subsequent practice can have the effect either of confirming the terms of a
Governments that voted against:
treaty or of modifying them:
“Japan pointed out that a number of the points expounded by the
UK were arguable, and the only way to reduce uncertainty in
knowledge of the stocks is by carrying out research . It noted that
out of 16 countries consistently voting for these resolutions, 7 did
not attend the Scientific Committee, and other 7 did not submit
Progress Report on research .” 962
963
960Ibid., p . 173 [Annex 37] . 964
961See UK comments and the proposed resolution,Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual 965
Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988, p . 14 . 966
962Ibid ., p . 14 . Japan was seconded by the Republic of Korea, Norway, Iceland, and the USSR . 967 consent of the parties to the application of the treaty in a manner consensus is the preferred
different from that laid down in certain of its provisions, may have
968 instruments
the effect of modifying the treaty .”
bitterly contested votes . And it must be noted that it is not only Japan that
8 .46 At the same time, the ILC made clear that modifying practice votes against these resolutions, since the majority is often small and does not
amounts to amending the treaty and has to be submitted to the conditions reflect all the trends in the Commission .
provided for that purpose:
8 .49
“Although the line may sometimes be blurred between
interpretation and amendment of a treaty through subsequent multilateral treaty could qualify as subsequent practice (so-called institutional
practice, legally the processes are distinct . Accordingly, the effect practice) is far from self -evident . Australia seems to presume that it must
of subsequent practice in amending a treaty is dealt with in the necessarily receive an affirmative answer, simply referring to the Certain
present article as a case of modification of treaties .” 969
Expenses case
8 .47 However, the conditions for practice to modify a treaty are was called upon to define the powers of the UN
stringent, since the agreements of the p arties (either express or tacit) is practice of this organ being certainly relevant for that purpose
necessary: so in the present case, where it is not the powers of the IWC that are before
the Court, but rather the obligations of the Contracting Governments under
“In formulating the rule in this way the Commission [ILC] intended
the ICRW, and especially under Article VIII . Thus, only their practice is
to indicate that the subsequent practice, even if every party might
not itself have actively participated in the practice, must be such as relevant in this context . The resolutions can only be relevant insofar as they
to es tablish the agreement of the parties as a whole to the
970 are reflected in the practice of all the concerned Contracting Governments .
modification in question.”
8 .48 Thus, insofar as practice is invoked for the purposes of modifying 8 .50
treaty provisions, it can only be relevant for that purpose if the agreement of are not able to constitute practice if they are not mirrored by acts of the
all the parties to the treaty, either explicit or implicit, can be established . Such
971
is obviously not the case of the secondary instruments invoked by Australia:
far from being adopted by consensus, the resolutions relied upon by the
Applicant called for recurrent reiteration of e ntrenched positions . While
972
968Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol . II, p . 236, para . 1 . 973
970Ibid. 974
Ibid., para . 2 .
366 consent of the parties to the application of the treaty in a manner consensus is the preferred
different from that laid down in certain of its provisions, may have
968 instruments
the effect of modifying the treaty .”
bitterly contested votes . And it must be noted that it is not only Japan that
8 .46 At the same time, the ILC made clear that modifying practice votes against these resolutions, since the majority is often small and does not
amounts to amending the treaty and has to be submitted to the conditions reflect all the trends in the Commission .
provided for that purpose:
8 .49
“Although the line may sometimes be blurred between
interpretation and amendment of a treaty through subsequent multilateral treaty could qualify as subsequent practice (so-called institutional
practice, legally the processes are distinct . Accordingly, the effect practice) is far from self -evident . Australia seems to presume that it must
of subsequent practice in amending a treaty is dealt with in the necessarily receive an affirmative answer, simply referring to the Certain
present article as a case of modification of treaties .” 969
Expenses case
8 .47 However, the conditions for practice to modify a treaty are was called upon to define the powers of the UN
stringent, since the agreements of the p arties (either express or tacit) is practice of this organ being certainly relevant for that purpose
necessary: so in the present case, where it is not the powers of the IWC that are before
the Court, but rather the obligations of the Contracting Governments under
“In formulating the rule in this way the Commission [ILC] intended
the ICRW, and especially under Article VIII . Thus, only their practice is
to indicate that the subsequent practice, even if every party might
not itself have actively participated in the practice, must be such as relevant in this context . The resolutions can only be relevant insofar as they
to es tablish the agreement of the parties as a whole to the
970 are reflected in the practice of all the concerned Contracting Governments .
modification in question.”
8 .48 Thus, insofar as practice is invoked for the purposes of modifying 8 .50
treaty provisions, it can only be relevant for that purpose if the agreement of are not able to constitute practice if they are not mirrored by acts of the
all the parties to the treaty, either explicit or implicit, can be established . Such
971
is obviously not the case of the secondary instruments invoked by Australia:
far from being adopted by consensus, the resolutions relied upon by the
Applicant called for recurrent reiteration of e ntrenched positions . While
972
968Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966, Vol . II, p . 236, para . 1 . 973
970Ibid. 974
Ibid., para . 2 .Contracting Governments . The best they can do is to propose a certain contradicting it – and this is also shown by the fact that, at one and the same
interpretation of Article VIII that would ultimately amount to practice if time, the Applicant introduces the same instruments as having modified the
Contracting Governments adopt it . The WTO Appellate Body thus defined Convention, which would indeed be the case if they were considered as
subsequent practice as: binding. In reality, the effect Australia devotes to subsequent practice is to
modify the express terms of Article VIII, depriving a Contracting
“[C]oncordant, common and consistent sequence of acts or Government of the power to decide on the granting of special permits as well
pronouncements which is sufficient to establish a discernible
pattern implying the agreement of the parties (to a treaty) regarding as the means best suited to achieve the objectives it determined for a
975
its interpretation .” scientific programme . Thus, when the Applicant bases itself on resolutions,
which either presuppose that the selling of the products resulting from special
8 .51 The resolutions Australia is referring to do not fulfil the condition
permit whaling render this whaling commercial
of being a “concordant, common and consistent sequence of . . .
Government the use of lethal methods
pronouncements” . Moreover, Contracting Gover nments’ practice under
Article VIII does not follow the pattern that Australia claims that has (or even obligations) expressly granted to the
emerged in respect of the application of Article VIII 976 . under Article VIII have been superseded by non-binding instruments adopted
by the IWC . Insofar as Australia invokes these resolutions to set aside rights
8 .52 Australia’s reference to the Certain Expenses cases is unconvincing expressly preserved by the ICRW, they cannot qualify as a means of
interpretation of the latter .
for one further reason: the Court concluded that “the practice of the
Organization is entirely consistent with the plain meaning of the text .” 977 Had
this not been the case, the question of the ultra vires character of General
Assembly resolutions would have been raised .
8 .54
8 .53 However, Australia do es not invoke subsequent practice for the
undermine the conservation agenda of the IWC . Australia claims that the
purpose of confirming the natural meaning of Article VIII, but rather for
Factory Ship Moratorium, the Moratorium on Commercial Whaling and the
975Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be considered as context relevant for the
Chicken Cuts (27 September 2005) WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, para. 256, quoting the
Appellate Body Report in the Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II case . interpretation of Article VIII
976Ray Gambell, “The International Whaling Commission and the Contemporary Whaling Debate” in
Twiss J .R . and Reeves R . (eds), Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (Smithsonian
Institution Press 1999) pp . 179-198 . 978
977 Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Cha, Advisory 979
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p . 160 . 980
368Contracting Governments . The best they can do is to propose a certain contradicting it – and this is also shown by the fact that, at one and the same
interpretation of Article VIII that would ultimately amount to practice if time, the Applicant introduces the same instruments as having modified the
Contracting Governments adopt it . The WTO Appellate Body thus defined Convention, which would indeed be the case if they were considered as
subsequent practice as: binding. In reality, the effect Australia devotes to subsequent practice is to
modify the express terms of Article VIII, depriving a Contracting
“[C]oncordant, common and consistent sequence of acts or Government of the power to decide on the granting of special permits as well
pronouncements which is sufficient to establish a discernible
pattern implying the agreement of the parties (to a treaty) regarding as the means best suited to achieve the objectives it determined for a
975
its interpretation .” scientific programme . Thus, when the Applicant bases itself on resolutions,
which either presuppose that the selling of the products resulting from special
8 .51 The resolutions Australia is referring to do not fulfil the condition
permit whaling render this whaling commercial
of being a “concordant, common and consistent sequence of . . .
Government the use of lethal methods
pronouncements” . Moreover, Contracting Gover nments’ practice under
Article VIII does not follow the pattern that Australia claims that has (or even obligations) expressly granted to the
emerged in respect of the application of Article VIII 976 . under Article VIII have been superseded by non-binding instruments adopted
by the IWC . Insofar as Australia invokes these resolutions to set aside rights
8 .52 Australia’s reference to the Certain Expenses cases is unconvincing expressly preserved by the ICRW, they cannot qualify as a means of
interpretation of the latter .
for one further reason: the Court concluded that “the practice of the
Organization is entirely consistent with the plain meaning of the text .” 977 Had
this not been the case, the question of the ultra vires character of General
Assembly resolutions would have been raised .
8 .54
8 .53 However, Australia do es not invoke subsequent practice for the
undermine the conservation agenda of the IWC . Australia claims that the
purpose of confirming the natural meaning of Article VIII, but rather for
Factory Ship Moratorium, the Moratorium on Commercial Whaling and the
975Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be considered as context relevant for the
Chicken Cuts (27 September 2005) WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, para. 256, quoting the
Appellate Body Report in the Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II case . interpretation of Article VIII
976Ray Gambell, “The International Whaling Commission and the Contemporary Whaling Debate” in
Twiss J .R . and Reeves R . (eds), Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (Smithsonian
Institution Press 1999) pp . 179-198 . 978
977 Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Cha, Advisory 979
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p . 160 . 980are self-contradictory, since it clearly admits that the provisions of these cannot be used to restrict rights that the Contracting Governments enjoy by
Schedule amendments apply only if JARPA II does not qualify as a scientific virtue of Article VIII
programme . The application of Article VIII and the application of the three
Schedule amendments are, in Australia’s contention, mutually exclusive . It is
then difficult to understand how t hey could, at the same time, be mutually
informative for the purposes of interpretation .
8 .57
8 .55 For a text to be considered as part of the relevant context for particular, Paragraph 30 on the review of the special permits, the Moratorium
interpretation of a provision, it must have been intended by the Parties to the on Commercial Whaling, the Factory Ship Moratorium, the Southern Ocean
Treaty or, at least, by its author to fix the meaning of that provision . As the Sanctuary), along with the IWC guidelines and recommendations in order to
ILC explained in its commentary to what has become Article 31(2) of the prove that Japan would be in violation of the ICRW .
VCLT:
8 .58
“The principle on which this provision is based is that a unilateral
document cannot be regarded as forming part of the ‘context’ out from the outset: while the amendments, being binding, are in principle
within the meaning of article 27 unless not only was it made in
amenable to judicial adjudication, such is not the case
connexion with the conclusion of the treaty but its relation to the instruments, which cannot create binding obligations by themselves .
treaty was accepted in the same manner by the other parties . On the
other hand, the fact that these two classes of documents are
recognized in paragraph 2 as forming part of the ‘context’ does not
8 .59
mean that they are necessarily to be considered as an integral part
of the treaty . Whether they are an actual part o981he treaty depends Paragraph 30, concerning the prior review of the special permits granted
on the intention of the parties in each case .”
under Article VIII of the Convention, is applicable . As will further be seen
Japan has fully complied with its provisions . The three other amendments are
8 .56 The three amendments to the Schedule relied upon by Australia all
not applicable to special permit whaling . Were they applicable, this would
relate to commercial whaling and they were never intended to apply to
first entail an unlawful limitation of the Contracting Governments ’ power of
whaling under special permit and thus to change, or to qualify, or to throw
light on the meaning of Artic le VIII . Therefore, as established above, they appreciation under Article VIII . Second, taken on their own terms,
Paragraphs 7(b) and 10(e) of the Schedule only purport to apply to
982
981 983
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966 , Vol . II, p . 221, para . 13 (emphasis added) .
370are self-contradictory, since it clearly admits that the provisions of these cannot be used to restrict rights that the Contracting Governments enjoy by
Schedule amendments apply only if JARPA II does not qualify as a scientific virtue of Article VIII
programme . The application of Article VIII and the application of the three
Schedule amendments are, in Australia’s contention, mutually exclusive . It is
then difficult to understand how t hey could, at the same time, be mutually
informative for the purposes of interpretation .
8 .57
8 .55 For a text to be considered as part of the relevant context for particular, Paragraph 30 on the review of the special permits, the Moratorium
interpretation of a provision, it must have been intended by the Parties to the on Commercial Whaling, the Factory Ship Moratorium, the Southern Ocean
Treaty or, at least, by its author to fix the meaning of that provision . As the Sanctuary), along with the IWC guidelines and recommendations in order to
ILC explained in its commentary to what has become Article 31(2) of the prove that Japan would be in violation of the ICRW .
VCLT:
8 .58
“The principle on which this provision is based is that a unilateral
document cannot be regarded as forming part of the ‘context’ out from the outset: while the amendments, being binding, are in principle
within the meaning of article 27 unless not only was it made in
amenable to judicial adjudication, such is not the case
connexion with the conclusion of the treaty but its relation to the instruments, which cannot create binding obligations by themselves .
treaty was accepted in the same manner by the other parties . On the
other hand, the fact that these two classes of documents are
recognized in paragraph 2 as forming part of the ‘context’ does not
8 .59
mean that they are necessarily to be considered as an integral part
of the treaty . Whether they are an actual part o981he treaty depends Paragraph 30, concerning the prior review of the special permits granted
on the intention of the parties in each case .”
under Article VIII of the Convention, is applicable . As will further be seen
Japan has fully complied with its provisions . The three other amendments are
8 .56 The three amendments to the Schedule relied upon by Australia all
not applicable to special permit whaling . Were they applicable, this would
relate to commercial whaling and they were never intended to apply to
first entail an unlawful limitation of the Contracting Governments ’ power of
whaling under special permit and thus to change, or to qualify, or to throw
light on the meaning of Artic le VIII . Therefore, as established above, they appreciation under Article VIII . Second, taken on their own terms,
Paragraphs 7(b) and 10(e) of the Schedule only purport to apply to
982
981 983
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966 , Vol . II, p . 221, para . 13 (emphasis added) . 984
commercial whaling . Japan has amply demonstrated that JARPA II is a
programme of special permit whaling, respecting the conditions set out by
Article VIII . It follows that these Schedule amendments are de jure non 8 .62
985
applicable . instruments . Resolutions and guidelines have no more binding effect than the
resolutions of the UN General Ass embly . And, with all due respect, they
8 .60 In respect of the soft law instruments (guidelines and certainly carry less political weight .
recommendations), they clearly do not (and cannot), whatever their names,
986
create binding obligations . Article VI of the ICRW, in quite general terms, 8 .63
provides for a general empowerment of the IWC to make recommendations
there is a duty on the part of the
to the Contracting Governments, individually or collectively, on issues
recommendation in good faith and, if
relating to the ICRW:
inaction . Judge Hersch Lauterpacht, in his separate opinion in the Voting
Procedure case, rightly stated:
“The Commission may from time to time make recommendations
to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters which relate
to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purposes of this
Convention .”
8 .61 As the Court explained in relation to the resolutions of the General
Assembly of the United Nations, it is an accepted premise that, absent any
acceptance by the States concerned, they are not binding:
“[T]he absence of any binding force of the resolutions of the
General Assembly of the United Nations implies that such 8 .64
international organization entails certain mutual obligations of cooperation
984On the one hand, Paragraph 7(b) provides that: [C]ommercial whaling, whether by pelagic
operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary .” (emphasis added) . On the other hand, Paragraph 10(e) provides that : “Notwithstanding
the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes…”
(emphasis added) .
985See above, paras . III .11-III .13 . 987
986See for instance, Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, “Where resolutions are not binding decisions or
do not have their legal effects specified in the constitutional instrument or do not by implication
have a particular legal effect that can be identified they are generally ‘recommendations’ and are 988
not as such binding .” in Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations , (2
CUP 2005) p . 175 .
372 984
commercial whaling . Japan has amply demonstrated that JARPA II is a
programme of special permit whaling, respecting the conditions set out by
Article VIII . It follows that these Schedule amendments are de jure non 8 .62
985
applicable . instruments . Resolutions and guidelines have no more binding effect than the
resolutions of the UN General Ass embly . And, with all due respect, they
8 .60 In respect of the soft law instruments (guidelines and certainly carry less political weight .
recommendations), they clearly do not (and cannot), whatever their names,
986
create binding obligations . Article VI of the ICRW, in quite general terms, 8 .63
provides for a general empowerment of the IWC to make recommendations
there is a duty on the part of the
to the Contracting Governments, individually or collectively, on issues
recommendation in good faith and, if
relating to the ICRW:
inaction . Judge Hersch Lauterpacht, in his separate opinion in the Voting
Procedure case, rightly stated:
“The Commission may from time to time make recommendations
to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters which relate
to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purposes of this
Convention .”
8 .61 As the Court explained in relation to the resolutions of the General
Assembly of the United Nations, it is an accepted premise that, absent any
acceptance by the States concerned, they are not binding:
“[T]he absence of any binding force of the resolutions of the
General Assembly of the United Nations implies that such 8 .64
international organization entails certain mutual obligations of cooperation
984On the one hand, Paragraph 7(b) provides that: [C]ommercial whaling, whether by pelagic
operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary .” (emphasis added) . On the other hand, Paragraph 10(e) provides that : “Notwithstanding
the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes…”
(emphasis added) .
985See above, paras . III .11-III .13 . 987
986See for instance, Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, “Where resolutions are not binding decisions or
do not have their legal effects specified in the constitutional instrument or do not by implication
have a particular legal effect that can be identified they are generally ‘recommendations’ and are 988
not as such binding .” in Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations , (2
CUP 2005) p . 175 .and good faith on the part of member states and organizations 989 . However as Section 3. Japan Considered in Good Faith the Secondary Instruments
aptly explained by C .F . Amerasinghe:
8 .67
“This co-operation should not be confused with co- operation990 Commission, Japan is due, by the very effect of its membership, “
carrying out the recommendations which is not an obligation .”
[them] due consideration in good faith .”
8 .65 The limited character of those obligations is all the more showing that Japan’s good faith in the consideration of the secondary
compelling in the present case in that, as stressed in Article VIII(1), “ the instruments cannot seriously be put in doubt .
killing, taking, and treating of whales” under special permits are “exempt
from the operation of [the] Convention .”
8 .66 In the present case, as will be further shown in Section 3 of this
Chapter, Japan has fully complied with these obligations of behaviour (and 8 .68
not of result): it took into account the guidelines established by the IWC’s concerns
Commission for granting special permits 991; it gave full consideration to the issuance of special permits is symptomatic . To give an example, regarding
IWC relevant resolutions and, when it did not agree with their content, not the 1986 Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research (1986-
only did it inform the Commission of its reasons but , as a Contracting Appendix 2):
Government, it continued to try to reach agreement on contentious issues 992 .
Australia has therefore no legal or factual ground for, very unpleasantly,
charging Japan with lack of good faith 993 in its relations with the IWC or in
its interpretation of Article VIII .
994
989 995
In the case concerning Interpre tation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and
Egypt, the Court stated: “ The very fact of Egypt’s membership of the Organization entails certain
mutual obligations of co -operation and good faith incumbent upon Egypt and upon the
Organization .” (Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt,
990Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p . 93) .
Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations
991(2nd ed, CUP 2005) p . 179 (emphasis original) .
992See below, paras . 8 .67-8 .68 .
993See below, paras . 8 .71-8 .76 .
See AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63, 5 .135-5 .136 .
374and good faith on the part of member states and organizations 989 . However as Section 3. Japan Considered in Good Faith the Secondary Instruments
aptly explained by C .F . Amerasinghe:
8 .67
“This co-operation should not be confused with co- operation990 Commission, Japan is due, by the very effect of its membership, “
carrying out the recommendations which is not an obligation .”
[them] due consideration in good faith .”
8 .65 The limited character of those obligations is all the more showing that Japan’s good faith in the consideration of the secondary
compelling in the present case in that, as stressed in Article VIII(1), “ the instruments cannot seriously be put in doubt .
killing, taking, and treating of whales” under special permits are “exempt
from the operation of [the] Convention .”
8 .66 In the present case, as will be further shown in Section 3 of this
Chapter, Japan has fully complied with these obligations of behaviour (and 8 .68
not of result): it took into account the guidelines established by the IWC’s concerns
Commission for granting special permits 991; it gave full consideration to the issuance of special permits is symptomatic . To give an example, regarding
IWC relevant resolutions and, when it did not agree with their content, not the 1986 Resolution on Special Permits for Scientific Research (1986-
only did it inform the Commission of its reasons but , as a Contracting Appendix 2):
Government, it continued to try to reach agreement on contentious issues 992 .
Australia has therefore no legal or factual ground for, very unpleasantly,
charging Japan with lack of good faith 993 in its relations with the IWC or in
its interpretation of Article VIII .
994
989 995
In the case concerning Interpre tation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and
Egypt, the Court stated: “ The very fact of Egypt’s membership of the Organization entails certain
mutual obligations of co -operation and good faith incumbent upon Egypt and upon the
Organization .” (Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt,
990Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p . 93) .
Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations
991(2nd ed, CUP 2005) p . 179 (emphasis original) .
992See below, paras . 8 .67-8 .68 .
993See below, paras . 8 .71-8 .76 .
See AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63, 5 .135-5 .136 . 996
Operative paragraph 1 recommends the Contracting Governments to take Operative paragraph 3
account of guidelines drawn up by the Scientific Committee, as well as full limited to the need for completion of the proposed research . Japan’s position
compliance with Paragraph 30 . Japan took into consideration the is that the duration is the minimum for acquiring the sought scientific results .
997
guidelines developed as Annex L of the Report of the S cientific For example in JARPA, the length of the full- scale research programme (16
998
Committee in 1985 and Annex O of the Report of the Scientific years) was determined considering the relationship between sample size and
Committee in 1988 999 , both of which refer to guidelines to review special the accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates, which was the main
permits . The grant of special permits for JARPA and JARPA II programmes research objective of the program
complies in all respects with the requirements of Paragraph 30 of the characteristic is necessary for the monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem (first
Schedule to the ICRW 1000 . objective of the program), which requires a long-time series of dat a and
information . However, JARPA II’s research plan states that a review will be
Operative paragraph 2 1001recommends the Contracting Governments to take conducted every 6 years and revisions will be made to the program i
account of the comments of the Scientific Committee . Japan took account of required
1002
the comments by the Scientific Committee on the original plan and made
1003
further examinations on those comments . Operative paragraph 4
research be subject to annual review by the Scientific Com
submits “Cruise Reports ” and documents containing results of specific
analyses to the meeting of the Scientific Committee every year, as well as
996“Recommends that prior to deciding on the granting of permits for the killing, taking and treating of
whales for the purpose of scientific research, Contracting Governments while complying fully with documents containing data and results of the research program to the
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule, should also take account of guidelines drawn up by the Scienicf intersessional review meetin
997Committee .” (AM, Annex 43) .
For example, in the review of JARPA II proposal, the Scientific Committee reviewed the research
plan in accordance with relevant guidelines, including such items as “proposal”, “objectives”,
“methodology”, “effects on stoc ks” and “research co -operation” . See, “Report of the Scientific
998Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 , pp . 48-52 .
“Proposed Guidelines for Review of Scientific Permits”, Annex L, Report of the Scientific 1004
999Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p . 133 .
“Review of Scientific Permits”, Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. 1005
1000ommn 39, 1989, p . 154 .
See below, paras . 9 .37-9 .39 .
1001“Recommends that Contracting Governments in deciding the issuance of, or modifications,
postponement, or withdrawal of the permits, should take account of the comments of the Scientific
Committee” (AM, Annex 43) . 1006
1002“The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”(SC/39/O4) .
1003Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem 1007
in the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987) pp . 1-3 [Annex 136] .
376 996
Operative paragraph 1 recommends the Contracting Governments to take Operative paragraph 3
account of guidelines drawn up by the Scientific Committee, as well as full limited to the need for completion of the proposed research . Japan’s position
compliance with Paragraph 30 . Japan took into consideration the is that the duration is the minimum for acquiring the sought scientific results .
997
guidelines developed as Annex L of the Report of the S cientific For example in JARPA, the length of the full- scale research programme (16
998
Committee in 1985 and Annex O of the Report of the Scientific years) was determined considering the relationship between sample size and
Committee in 1988 999 , both of which refer to guidelines to review special the accuracy of the estimation of natural mortality rates, which was the main
permits . The grant of special permits for JARPA and JARPA II programmes research objective of the program
complies in all respects with the requirements of Paragraph 30 of the characteristic is necessary for the monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem (first
Schedule to the ICRW 1000 . objective of the program), which requires a long-time series of dat a and
information . However, JARPA II’s research plan states that a review will be
Operative paragraph 2 1001recommends the Contracting Governments to take conducted every 6 years and revisions will be made to the program i
account of the comments of the Scientific Committee . Japan took account of required
1002
the comments by the Scientific Committee on the original plan and made
1003
further examinations on those comments . Operative paragraph 4
research be subject to annual review by the Scientific Com
submits “Cruise Reports ” and documents containing results of specific
analyses to the meeting of the Scientific Committee every year, as well as
996“Recommends that prior to deciding on the granting of permits for the killing, taking and treating of
whales for the purpose of scientific research, Contracting Governments while complying fully with documents containing data and results of the research program to the
Paragraph 30 of the Schedule, should also take account of guidelines drawn up by the Scienicf intersessional review meetin
997Committee .” (AM, Annex 43) .
For example, in the review of JARPA II proposal, the Scientific Committee reviewed the research
plan in accordance with relevant guidelines, including such items as “proposal”, “objectives”,
“methodology”, “effects on stoc ks” and “research co -operation” . See, “Report of the Scientific
998Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 , pp . 48-52 .
“Proposed Guidelines for Review of Scientific Permits”, Annex L, Report of the Scientific 1004
999Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 36, 1986, p . 133 .
“Review of Scientific Permits”, Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. 1005
1000ommn 39, 1989, p . 154 .
See below, paras . 9 .37-9 .39 .
1001“Recommends that Contracting Governments in deciding the issuance of, or modifications,
postponement, or withdrawal of the permits, should take account of the comments of the Scientific
Committee” (AM, Annex 43) . 1006
1002“The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”(SC/39/O4) .
1003Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program for Research
on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem 1007
in the Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987) pp . 1-3 [Annex 136] . 1008
Committee . Examples of presentation and discussion of cruise reports are
1009
given in the Report of the Scientific Committee in 2008 ; of specific Operative paragraph 6
1010
analyses in the Report of the Scientific Committee in 2007 and of review ensure that maximum scientific information is obtained from any whales
1011
meetings in the Report of the Intersessional Workshop held in 2006 . taken under special permits: vast volume and categories of data are obtained
from the whales taken (as wasshown in Part II) .
Operative paragraph 5 1012 recommends the Contracting Governments to take
into account (1) practical and scientific feasibility of the objectives of the Operative paragraph 7
research through non- lethal techniques, (2) the proposal was structured in into account Article VIII(2)
order to contribute information essential for rational management of the stock, completion of scientific treatment, the meat and
(3) the number, age and sex of whales to be taken are necessary information utilized primarily for local consumption .
so as to complete research and facilitate the comprehensive assessment, (4) Special Research Programs of the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR),
killing method is consistent with the provisions of Schedule, with compelling states as follows:
scientific reasons – Part II of this Counter -Memorial amply shows that
JARPA and JARPA II meet these requirements.
1008“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11(Suppl.), 2009, pp . 61 -63;
“Report of the Sub -Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 167- 196 (see, for example, items 6 .2
and 6 .4); “Report of the Intersessional Works hop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4- 8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 411-445 .
1009“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.), 2009, pp . 61-63 .
1010
“Report of the Sub-Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 167-196 (see, for example, items 6 .2 Operative paragraph 8
1011nd 6 .4) .
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research great care when considering issuing special permits for the take of whales
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006 ”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
1012Suppl.), 2008, pp . 411-445 [Annex 113] . from a Protection Stock: JARPA and JARPA II were never designed to take
“Recommends that Contracting Governments when considering proposed res earch permits and the
Scientific Committee when reviewing such permits and when reviewing the results of research from
permits previously issued in accordance with the procedures of the Convention should take into 1013
account whether:
(1) the objectives of the research are not practically and scientifically feasible through non-lethal
research techniques; 1014
(2) the proposed research is intended, and structured accordingly to contribute information essential
for rational management of the stock;
(3) the number, age and sex of whales to be taken are necessary to complete the research and will 1015
facilitate the conduct of the comprehensive assessment; 1016
(4) whales will be killed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section III of the Schedule,
due regard being had to whether there are compelling scientific reasons to the contrary . ” (AM,
Annex 43) .
378 1008
Committee . Examples of presentation and discussion of cruise reports are
1009
given in the Report of the Scientific Committee in 2008 ; of specific Operative paragraph 6
1010
analyses in the Report of the Scientific Committee in 2007 and of review ensure that maximum scientific information is obtained from any whales
1011
meetings in the Report of the Intersessional Workshop held in 2006 . taken under special permits: vast volume and categories of data are obtained
from the whales taken (as wasshown in Part II) .
Operative paragraph 5 1012 recommends the Contracting Governments to take
into account (1) practical and scientific feasibility of the objectives of the Operative paragraph 7
research through non- lethal techniques, (2) the proposal was structured in into account Article VIII(2)
order to contribute information essential for rational management of the stock, completion of scientific treatment, the meat and
(3) the number, age and sex of whales to be taken are necessary information utilized primarily for local consumption .
so as to complete research and facilitate the comprehensive assessment, (4) Special Research Programs of the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR),
killing method is consistent with the provisions of Schedule, with compelling states as follows:
scientific reasons – Part II of this Counter -Memorial amply shows that
JARPA and JARPA II meet these requirements.
1008“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11(Suppl.), 2009, pp . 61 -63;
“Report of the Sub -Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 167- 196 (see, for example, items 6 .2
and 6 .4); “Report of the Intersessional Works hop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4- 8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 411-445 .
1009“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.), 2009, pp . 61-63 .
1010
“Report of the Sub-Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp . 167-196 (see, for example, items 6 .2 Operative paragraph 8
1011nd 6 .4) .
“Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research great care when considering issuing special permits for the take of whales
on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006 ”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10
1012Suppl.), 2008, pp . 411-445 [Annex 113] . from a Protection Stock: JARPA and JARPA II were never designed to take
“Recommends that Contracting Governments when considering proposed res earch permits and the
Scientific Committee when reviewing such permits and when reviewing the results of research from
permits previously issued in accordance with the procedures of the Convention should take into 1013
account whether:
(1) the objectives of the research are not practically and scientifically feasible through non-lethal
research techniques; 1014
(2) the proposed research is intended, and structured accordingly to contribute information essential
for rational management of the stock;
(3) the number, age and sex of whales to be taken are necessary to complete the research and will 1015
facilitate the conduct of the comprehensive assessment; 1016
(4) whales will be killed in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section III of the Schedule,
due regard being had to whether there are compelling scientific reasons to the contrary . ” (AM,
Annex 43) .whales from depleted stocks, and possible effects on conservation of stocks humpback whales would in any way affect endangered stocks, in response to
were adequately addressed 1017 . a request from the then IWC chair William Hogarth of the United States,
Japan agreed “ to delay the taking of humpback whales
1018
Operative paragraph 9 recommends the Contracting Governments not to progress was being made with the IWC normalization process .
grant permits until the proposals for such permits have been reviewed in vein, although Japan firmly considers that establishment of Sanctuaries
nd
accordance with Paragraph 30 . A t the 62 Annual Meeting of the IWC, the irrespective of the stock is not compatible with the ICRW, which requires
Chair of the Scientific Committee noted that JARPA II was “ continuing on decisions to be based on scientific data
the basis of plans already submitted and revie wed in the Scientific compromise on these activities and would not obstruct the creation of a South
1019
Committee” . Atlantic Sanctuary . Japan supported the notion of a 5-
arrangement so as to be able to make progress .”
1020
Operative paragraph 10 recommends the Contracting Governments to will “suspend catching humpback whales”
submit proposals for special permits mo re than 60 days prior to the next long as progress is being made with the IWC normalization process .”
Annual Meeting of the S cientific Committee . Details of the proposed
scientific research permit for JARPA II were submitted to the Scientific 8 .70
Committee through the IWC Secretariat two months before its 2005 annual offered numerous and substantial compromises . These included: a substantial
meeting in Ulsan (Republic of Korea) . reduction of the lethal research catch in the Southern Ocean, acceptance of
international observers on whaling vessels, deployment of a satellite based
B. Japan’s Readiness to Compromise real-time vessel monitoring system, acceptance of a number of conservation
programmes and assurance that its effective DNA-based registers and market
1. Japan’s Concessions in the Negotiations monitoring programmes would continue and that Japan would allow the IWC
8 .69 On several occasions, Japan showed its willingness to compromise .
For instance, although there was no evidence that the taking of samples of
1021
1017 1022
1018See above, paras . 4 .89, 5 . 82-5 .90 . 1023
“Reiterates that Contracting Governments should grant no permits until the proposals for such
permits have been reviewed in accordance with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and further …” (AM, 1024
1019nnex 43) .
1020Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.12 (Suppl.), 2011, p . 57 .
“Recommends that Contracting Governments submit proposals for scientific permits and results of
research obtained from permits previously issued in accordance with the procedures of the
Convention, to the Secretary of the Commission not later than 60 days before the next Annual 1025
Meeting of the Scientific Committee .” (AM, Annex 43) .
380whales from depleted stocks, and possible effects on conservation of stocks humpback whales would in any way affect endangered stocks, in response to
were adequately addressed 1017 . a request from the then IWC chair William Hogarth of the United States,
Japan agreed “ to delay the taking of humpback whales
1018
Operative paragraph 9 recommends the Contracting Governments not to progress was being made with the IWC normalization process .
grant permits until the proposals for such permits have been reviewed in vein, although Japan firmly considers that establishment of Sanctuaries
nd
accordance with Paragraph 30 . A t the 62 Annual Meeting of the IWC, the irrespective of the stock is not compatible with the ICRW, which requires
Chair of the Scientific Committee noted that JARPA II was “ continuing on decisions to be based on scientific data
the basis of plans already submitted and revie wed in the Scientific compromise on these activities and would not obstruct the creation of a South
1019
Committee” . Atlantic Sanctuary . Japan supported the notion of a 5-
arrangement so as to be able to make progress .”
1020
Operative paragraph 10 recommends the Contracting Governments to will “suspend catching humpback whales”
submit proposals for special permits mo re than 60 days prior to the next long as progress is being made with the IWC normalization process .”
Annual Meeting of the S cientific Committee . Details of the proposed
scientific research permit for JARPA II were submitted to the Scientific 8 .70
Committee through the IWC Secretariat two months before its 2005 annual offered numerous and substantial compromises . These included: a substantial
meeting in Ulsan (Republic of Korea) . reduction of the lethal research catch in the Southern Ocean, acceptance of
international observers on whaling vessels, deployment of a satellite based
B. Japan’s Readiness to Compromise real-time vessel monitoring system, acceptance of a number of conservation
programmes and assurance that its effective DNA-based registers and market
1. Japan’s Concessions in the Negotiations monitoring programmes would continue and that Japan would allow the IWC
8 .69 On several occasions, Japan showed its willingness to compromise .
For instance, although there was no evidence that the taking of samples of
1021
1017 1022
1018See above, paras . 4 .89, 5 . 82-5 .90 . 1023
“Reiterates that Contracting Governments should grant no permits until the proposals for such
permits have been reviewed in accordance with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule and further …” (AM, 1024
1019nnex 43) .
1020Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.12 (Suppl.), 2011, p . 57 .
“Recommends that Contracting Governments submit proposals for scientific permits and results of
research obtained from permits previously issued in accordance with the procedures of the
Convention, to the Secretary of the Commission not later than 60 days before the next Annual 1025
Meeting of the Scientific Committee .” (AM, Annex 43) . 1026
auditing of these . These are all substantial concessions since, in addition Whaling, one can see that Japan did not systematically oppose, by a negative
to the large reduction of catch, they introduce monitoring elements that vote, the adoption of resolutions that could be critical of its research
would otherwise not apply to research conducted under Article VIII . programme . A form of negative consensus, resulting in the adoption of the
However, such reduction could not be done unless at the expense of the resolution without voting, could then be established . T his was the case, for
accuracy of the planned research . Thus a s ubstantial reduction of the lethal instance, in 1990, when Japan stated it would join the consensus over the
research catch in the Southern Ocean would have necessitated longer adoption of a resolution critical of JARPA, since it appreciated that its
research period in order to maintain the same quality of the research result, participation in the consensus could contribute to a climate of constructive
and otherwise, the accuracy of the research result would not be the same as dialogue, and this would ultimately allow it to present the results of its
planned . Japan had also indicated it s willingness to accept the establishment research and share information with the rest of the world .
1027
of a South Atlantic Sanctuary in order to form a consensus on the
“Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from
the Chair and Vice- Chair of the Commission ” 1028 notwithstanding its
opposition to the establishment of sanctuaries without scientific grounds .
2. Japan Engaged in a Good Faith Dialogue
8 .71 During the negotiations of resolutions within the IWC, on the
1029
occasions when a debate on the resolution actually existed , Japan
struggled to create a constructive atmosphere within the Commission, by
avoiding the extreme polari zation of anti - and pro-whaling positions of the
Contracting Governments . When looking back at Japan’s attitude in the IWC
meetings, notably after the introduction of the Moratorium on C ommercial
1026
“Statement by H .E . Yasue Funayama, Vice Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan”,
IWC/62/28 (2010) [Annex 157] . See also, Government of Japan, “Japan’s Opening Statement to the
10272nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission”, IWC/62/OS (2010) [Annex 155]
1028overnment of Japan, “Statement on the Future of the IWC”, IWC/M10/SWG7 [Annex 158] .
Chair of the Commission”, IWC/62/7rev,e the Conservation of Whales from the Chair and Vice -
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/iwc62docs/62 -7rev .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
102Sometimes the resolutions concerning JARPA were suitted to vote without any debate . E .g .,
“Resolution on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales and Special Permit Whali”, Resolution 1030
2001-7, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2001, p . 57 .
382 1026
auditing of these . These are all substantial concessions since, in addition Whaling, one can see that Japan did not systematically oppose, by a negative
to the large reduction of catch, they introduce monitoring elements that vote, the adoption of resolutions that could be critical of its research
would otherwise not apply to research conducted under Article VIII . programme . A form of negative consensus, resulting in the adoption of the
However, such reduction could not be done unless at the expense of the resolution without voting, could then be established . T his was the case, for
accuracy of the planned research . Thus a s ubstantial reduction of the lethal instance, in 1990, when Japan stated it would join the consensus over the
research catch in the Southern Ocean would have necessitated longer adoption of a resolution critical of JARPA, since it appreciated that its
research period in order to maintain the same quality of the research result, participation in the consensus could contribute to a climate of constructive
and otherwise, the accuracy of the research result would not be the same as dialogue, and this would ultimately allow it to present the results of its
planned . Japan had also indicated it s willingness to accept the establishment research and share information with the rest of the world .
1027
of a South Atlantic Sanctuary in order to form a consensus on the
“Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from
the Chair and Vice- Chair of the Commission ” 1028 notwithstanding its
opposition to the establishment of sanctuaries without scientific grounds .
2. Japan Engaged in a Good Faith Dialogue
8 .71 During the negotiations of resolutions within the IWC, on the
1029
occasions when a debate on the resolution actually existed , Japan
struggled to create a constructive atmosphere within the Commission, by
avoiding the extreme polari zation of anti - and pro-whaling positions of the
Contracting Governments . When looking back at Japan’s attitude in the IWC
meetings, notably after the introduction of the Moratorium on C ommercial
1026
“Statement by H .E . Yasue Funayama, Vice Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan”,
IWC/62/28 (2010) [Annex 157] . See also, Government of Japan, “Japan’s Opening Statement to the
10272nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission”, IWC/62/OS (2010) [Annex 155]
1028overnment of Japan, “Statement on the Future of the IWC”, IWC/M10/SWG7 [Annex 158] .
Chair of the Commission”, IWC/62/7rev,e the Conservation of Whales from the Chair and Vice -
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/iwc62docs/62 -7rev .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
102Sometimes the resolutions concerning JARPA were suitted to vote without any debate . E .g .,
“Resolution on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales and Special Permit Whali”, Resolution 1030
2001-7, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2001, p . 57 .Japan’s position was all the more commendable in that other Contracting participated fully in discussions of the Scientific Committee related to the
1031
Governments objected strongly to the content of this resolution . Japan’s “comprehensive assessment”
lack of opposition certainly does not entail acceptance of the content of the oversight of surveys, data analysis and other issues
resolution in question, but simply evidences Japan’s “willingness to enter recommendations of the Scientific Committee on these matters
into discussions on concerns and differences ”, as another anti -whaling participated fully in all RMS discussions
member of the Commission acknowledged 1032 . technical meetings, the expert drafting group, intersessional meetings
the Chair’s (Fischer) small group
8 .72 More generally, while not agreeing with many of the Commission’s negotiations by submitting d raft texts for the observation and inspection
1033
tabled agenda items , Japan has been most devoted to the reform process, scheme . Japan’s efforts to reach compromise in drafting the relevant texts
designed to change the Commission into a place of dialogue, where were commended both by the
conflicting interests could find the right compromise . Thus the prime and the Governments, even of the anti-whaling group
most recent example of Japan maintaining a good faith dialogue with the Meeting in 2000, Japan submitted a draft text to amend the Schedule to
Commission and the Contracting Governments is its attitude towards (and finalize and incorporate the RMS
actual engagement in) the Future of the IWC process 1034 . Japan has been an meeting of the RMS Working Group
active member of all of the groups that played central roles in the process 1035
1037
and its attitude was commended by Sir Geoffrey Palmer of New Zealand, 1038
Chair of the Support Group at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the IWC held in
1036 1039
June 2010 .
8 .73 The following paragraphs provide further evidence of Japan’s 1040
1041
cooperative and good faith participation in the work of the IWC . Japan 1042
1031“Resolution on Special Permit Catches by Japan in the Southern Hemisphere”, adopted without
1032voting (ibid ., Appendix 2, pp . 47-48) . See statement by Iceland, ibid ., p . 15 [Annex 51] . 1043
1033United States’ representative declaration as reported ibid ., p . 15 [Annex 51] .
See for example, Chair’s Report of the 56th Annual Meeting, p . 6,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/ChairReportIWC56final .pdf > accessed 14 February 1044
10342012 .
A detailed chronological overview of this process which began in 2007 is available on theC’s
1035website <http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/future .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
Steering Group established at IWC 59 (2007); Small Working Group (SWG) established at IWC 60
(2008), Support Group (SG) to support the Chair of the SWG in developing the consensus solution . 1045
1036Chair’s Report of the 62 nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2010, p . 8 . 1046
384Japan’s position was all the more commendable in that other Contracting participated fully in discussions of the Scientific Committee related to the
1031
Governments objected strongly to the content of this resolution . Japan’s “comprehensive assessment”
lack of opposition certainly does not entail acceptance of the content of the oversight of surveys, data analysis and other issues
resolution in question, but simply evidences Japan’s “willingness to enter recommendations of the Scientific Committee on these matters
into discussions on concerns and differences ”, as another anti -whaling participated fully in all RMS discussions
member of the Commission acknowledged 1032 . technical meetings, the expert drafting group, intersessional meetings
the Chair’s (Fischer) small group
8 .72 More generally, while not agreeing with many of the Commission’s negotiations by submitting d raft texts for the observation and inspection
1033
tabled agenda items , Japan has been most devoted to the reform process, scheme . Japan’s efforts to reach compromise in drafting the relevant texts
designed to change the Commission into a place of dialogue, where were commended both by the
conflicting interests could find the right compromise . Thus the prime and the Governments, even of the anti-whaling group
most recent example of Japan maintaining a good faith dialogue with the Meeting in 2000, Japan submitted a draft text to amend the Schedule to
Commission and the Contracting Governments is its attitude towards (and finalize and incorporate the RMS
actual engagement in) the Future of the IWC process 1034 . Japan has been an meeting of the RMS Working Group
active member of all of the groups that played central roles in the process 1035
1037
and its attitude was commended by Sir Geoffrey Palmer of New Zealand, 1038
Chair of the Support Group at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the IWC held in
1036 1039
June 2010 .
8 .73 The following paragraphs provide further evidence of Japan’s 1040
1041
cooperative and good faith participation in the work of the IWC . Japan 1042
1031“Resolution on Special Permit Catches by Japan in the Southern Hemisphere”, adopted without
1032voting (ibid ., Appendix 2, pp . 47-48) . See statement by Iceland, ibid ., p . 15 [Annex 51] . 1043
1033United States’ representative declaration as reported ibid ., p . 15 [Annex 51] .
See for example, Chair’s Report of the 56th Annual Meeting, p . 6,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/ChairReportIWC56final .pdf > accessed 14 February 1044
10342012 .
A detailed chronological overview of this process which began in 2007 is available on theC’s
1035website <http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/future .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 .
Steering Group established at IWC 59 (2007); Small Working Group (SWG) established at IWC 60
(2008), Support Group (SG) to support the Chair of the SWG in developing the consensus solution . 1045
1036Chair’s Report of the 62 nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2010, p . 8 . 1046 part in future work
1047
8 .74 During the course of RMS discussions which began in 1994 and the IWC” in 2007 and invited all the
lasted until 2006 when the Commission acknowledged that it had reached an conference were to discuss and recommend specific measures to restore the
1048
impasse on the matter , there were two “ package” proposals put forward IWC as an effective resource management organization in accordance
by IWC Chairs . The first of these was put forward by the Commissioner for its mandate prescribed by the ICRW and to promote dialogue and reduce the
Ireland (it became known as the “Irish Proposal” at the 1997 meeting because confrontational nature of the discourse that had become entrenched in
Ireland saw a risk of the break-up the IWC) . The proposal aimed at breaking IWC
the deadlock between the governments opposed to a resumption of
1049
commercial whaling and those in favour . Although Japan did not agree 8 .75
with the details of the proposal it expressed some support as a means to reviewed the JARPA program
further discussion in order that its objective of completing an RMS might be appreciation of its results, and considered them in the light of the guidelines
achieved 1050 . The second package proposal came from Chairman Fischer in and resolutions of the Commission:
2004 as a way forward on the RMS based on the work of his small group
referred to above 1051 . Japan recognized that the Chair’s proposed RMS
package represented a compromise and noted that because of this, it was not
happy with all elements . Nevertheless, Japan remained committed to taking
1047
See “Resolution on the Revised Management Sche me”, Resolution 1994-5,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES46_1994 .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
1048Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Inter national Whaling
Commission 2006, p . 25 .
104“Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, Netherlands, Switzerland, Oman, Germany, Norway,
St . Lucia and Japan all gave support to varying degr(Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth
Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p .35 .)
105According to the verbatim record, Japan stated the following: “ Japan appreciates any initiative or
proposal to find common ground among IWC members to resolve what we view as critical issues
facing the Commission and we appreciate the efforts exerted by Ireland . It is our view that new 1052
initiatives and proposed compromises must respect the fundamental principles enshrined in the 1053
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling including the principle of sustainable use
based on the best available scientific evidence which was adopted by the onset . In this regard we
welcome the productive dialogue among the member s on the Irish proposal and are willing to
discuss the resolutions for the constructive solu(Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997), p . 1054
36 .)
105Details of the proposal as well as the Chair’s explanation of why an RMS is needed can be found in
Annex E of the Chair’s Report of the 56th Annual Meeting,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/ChairReportIWC56final .pdf > accessed 14 February 1055
2012 .
386 part in future work
1047
8 .74 During the course of RMS discussions which began in 1994 and the IWC” in 2007 and invited all the
lasted until 2006 when the Commission acknowledged that it had reached an conference were to discuss and recommend specific measures to restore the
1048
impasse on the matter , there were two “ package” proposals put forward IWC as an effective resource management organization in accordance
by IWC Chairs . The first of these was put forward by the Commissioner for its mandate prescribed by the ICRW and to promote dialogue and reduce the
Ireland (it became known as the “Irish Proposal” at the 1997 meeting because confrontational nature of the discourse that had become entrenched in
Ireland saw a risk of the break-up the IWC) . The proposal aimed at breaking IWC
the deadlock between the governments opposed to a resumption of
1049
commercial whaling and those in favour . Although Japan did not agree 8 .75
with the details of the proposal it expressed some support as a means to reviewed the JARPA program
further discussion in order that its objective of completing an RMS might be appreciation of its results, and considered them in the light of the guidelines
achieved 1050 . The second package proposal came from Chairman Fischer in and resolutions of the Commission:
2004 as a way forward on the RMS based on the work of his small group
referred to above 1051 . Japan recognized that the Chair’s proposed RMS
package represented a compromise and noted that because of this, it was not
happy with all elements . Nevertheless, Japan remained committed to taking
1047
See “Resolution on the Revised Management Sche me”, Resolution 1994-5,
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/IWCRES46_1994 .pdf> accessed 14 February
2012 .
1048Chair’s Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Inter national Whaling
Commission 2006, p . 25 .
104“Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, Netherlands, Switzerland, Oman, Germany, Norway,
St . Lucia and Japan all gave support to varying degr(Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth
Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p .35 .)
105According to the verbatim record, Japan stated the following: “ Japan appreciates any initiative or
proposal to find common ground among IWC members to resolve what we view as critical issues
facing the Commission and we appreciate the efforts exerted by Ireland . It is our view that new 1052
initiatives and proposed compromises must respect the fundamental principles enshrined in the 1053
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling including the principle of sustainable use
based on the best available scientific evidence which was adopted by the onset . In this regard we
welcome the productive dialogue among the member s on the Irish proposal and are willing to
discuss the resolutions for the constructive solu(Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997), p . 1054
36 .)
105Details of the proposal as well as the Chair’s explanation of why an RMS is needed can be found in
Annex E of the Chair’s Report of the 56th Annual Meeting,
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/meetings/ChairReportIWC56final .pdf > accessed 14 February 1055
2012 .3. Japan Gave Reasons for its Disagreement, When it Occurred Furthermore, a State must constantly defend its legal position, otherwise it
8 .76 Finally, even when Japan strong ly disagreed with the position of may be argued that its silence means acquiescence.
the majority of the IWC members, it always provided detailed reasons for its
disagreement . Such is the case f or the use of non- lethal method, to which 8 .79
many resolutions refer to . Japan explained at length for what purposes the resolutions which it considers not to fulfil the objectives of the Convention,
1056
lethal method was necessary . and even more, if it considers that they violate a State’s rights under Article
VIII . As Japan explained during the 1996 Annual Meeting, when it presented
C. Japan’s Right to Oppose IWC Resolutions to the Commission a legal opinion
9
8 .77 A Contracting Government has a duty to consider IWC resolutions
in good faith; however this does not entail a duty for it to comply with them .
The resolutions, not being binding, do not create an obligation for the State to
comply with them . This is all the more true when, by their own terms, they
attempt to restrict the Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII of
the Convention . It is only if the resolutions remain purely exhortatory acts
which the State to which they are addressed is free to follow or not that the 8 .80
question of their legal validity need not be answered . permits granted under Article VIII, and notably the JARPA and JARPA II
programmes, was justified on several grounds . Often, they were adopted
8 .78 Furthermore, it is certain that a Contracting Government is not
without supportive advice of the Scientific Committee and in violation of
merely free not to follow the recommendations of the IWC . If it believes that
Japan’s power of appreciation under Article VIII . The record of voting shows
such recommendations are at odds with the provisions of the ICRW , it is
how controversial many of these resolutions were and underlines that Japan’s
within its right to oppose the adoption, by a majority vote, of the resolution or position, far from isolated, is shared by many of the Contracting
to denounce it . The reasons for doing so are various; first, every Contracting Governments having an interest in whaling .
Government is a guardian of the integrity of the Convention . As such, it must
speak up when the Convention’s organs appear to be in violation of the text .
1057
1058
105See, for instance, Verbatim Record (24- 28 May 1999), pp . 152- 153 [Annex 39] . On the necessity
for using lethal methods, see also above, paras . 4 .55-4 .83, 5 .45-5 .52 . 1059
3883. Japan Gave Reasons for its Disagreement, When it Occurred Furthermore, a State must constantly defend its legal position, otherwise it
8 .76 Finally, even when Japan strong ly disagreed with the position of may be argued that its silence means acquiescence.
the majority of the IWC members, it always provided detailed reasons for its
disagreement . Such is the case f or the use of non- lethal method, to which 8 .79
many resolutions refer to . Japan explained at length for what purposes the resolutions which it considers not to fulfil the objectives of the Convention,
1056
lethal method was necessary . and even more, if it considers that they violate a State’s rights under Article
VIII . As Japan explained during the 1996 Annual Meeting, when it presented
C. Japan’s Right to Oppose IWC Resolutions to the Commission a legal opinion
9
8 .77 A Contracting Government has a duty to consider IWC resolutions
in good faith; however this does not entail a duty for it to comply with them .
The resolutions, not being binding, do not create an obligation for the State to
comply with them . This is all the more true when, by their own terms, they
attempt to restrict the Contracting Governments’ rights under Article VIII of
the Convention . It is only if the resolutions remain purely exhortatory acts
which the State to which they are addressed is free to follow or not that the 8 .80
question of their legal validity need not be answered . permits granted under Article VIII, and notably the JARPA and JARPA II
programmes, was justified on several grounds . Often, they were adopted
8 .78 Furthermore, it is certain that a Contracting Government is not
without supportive advice of the Scientific Committee and in violation of
merely free not to follow the recommendations of the IWC . If it believes that
Japan’s power of appreciation under Article VIII . The record of voting shows
such recommendations are at odds with the provisions of the ICRW , it is
how controversial many of these resolutions were and underlines that Japan’s
within its right to oppose the adoption, by a majority vote, of the resolution or position, far from isolated, is shared by many of the Contracting
to denounce it . The reasons for doing so are various; first, every Contracting Governments having an interest in whaling .
Government is a guardian of the integrity of the Convention . As such, it must
speak up when the Convention’s organs appear to be in violation of the text .
1057
1058
105See, for instance, Verbatim Record (24- 28 May 1999), pp . 152- 153 [Annex 39] . On the necessity
for using lethal methods, see also above, paras . 4 .55-4 .83, 5 .45-5 .52 . 10591. Resolutions Inconsistent with Article VIII of the ICRW interpretation of Article VIII by the Commission and by the
8 .81 Unsuccessful attempts by the anti-whaling countries of the IWC to Governments advocating it, as Australia does in its Memorial
phase out whaling under special permit or at least to submit special permits to
the authori zation of the Commission were prolonged by a series of 8 .83
resolutions attempting to restrict the power of appreciation of the Contracting must have occurred recently, since in 1997, when it introduced a resolution
Governments granting the permits 1060 . calling for Japan to refrain from using lethal methods in the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary, Australia admitted that such use is legal under Article VIII and
8 .82 The use of lethal methods in the scientific research is one of the that non-lethal research cou ld only be required by virtue of extra-legal
most controversial subjects discussed within the IWC . Australia thus suggests considerations:
that the contemporary interpretation of Article VIII of the ICRW must be
1061
such as to rule out the lethal methods of research . However, the use of
lethal methods is explicitly authoriz ed by Article VIII (1) of the Convention
which permits each Contracting Government to authori ze its nationals “to
kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research ” . Australia’s
reliance on resolutions urging Contracting Governments to refrain from using
1062
such methods postulates that th e clear wording of Article VIII has
1063
somehow become obsolete . It explicitly assume s a contra legem
8 .84
1060See above, paras . 8 .33-8 .42 .
1061AM, paras . 4 .79-4 .80 . The existence of an opinio juris as to the existence of such an obligation
1062See “Resolution on Whaling under Special Permit”, Resolution 1993, Appendix 4, Chairman’s
Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission
1999, pp . 52 -53 (AM, Annex 32); “Resolution on Special Permit Catches by Japan”, Resolution
1996-7, Appendix 7, Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 1064
Commn 47, 1997, pp . 51-52 (AM, Annex 28) . See also “Resolution on Special Permit Catches by 1065
Japan in the Southern Hemisphere”, Resolution 1994- 10, Appendix 15, Chairman’s Report of the
Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45, 1995, p . 47 (AM, Annex 25); “Resolution 1066
on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”, Resolution 1997- 5, Appendix 5,
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 47
(AM, Annex 29); “Resolution on JARPA”, Resolution 2007 -1, Annex E, Chair’s Report of the 59th
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2007, p . 90 (AM, Annex
41) .
1063See “Resolution 2003-2 on Whaling under Special Permit”,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2003 .htm#2> accessed 14 February 2012 (AM,
Annex 38) .
3901. Resolutions Inconsistent with Article VIII of the ICRW interpretation of Article VIII by the Commission and by the
8 .81 Unsuccessful attempts by the anti-whaling countries of the IWC to Governments advocating it, as Australia does in its Memorial
phase out whaling under special permit or at least to submit special permits to
the authori zation of the Commission were prolonged by a series of 8 .83
resolutions attempting to restrict the power of appreciation of the Contracting must have occurred recently, since in 1997, when it introduced a resolution
Governments granting the permits 1060 . calling for Japan to refrain from using lethal methods in the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary, Australia admitted that such use is legal under Article VIII and
8 .82 The use of lethal methods in the scientific research is one of the that non-lethal research cou ld only be required by virtue of extra-legal
most controversial subjects discussed within the IWC . Australia thus suggests considerations:
that the contemporary interpretation of Article VIII of the ICRW must be
1061
such as to rule out the lethal methods of research . However, the use of
lethal methods is explicitly authoriz ed by Article VIII (1) of the Convention
which permits each Contracting Government to authori ze its nationals “to
kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research ” . Australia’s
reliance on resolutions urging Contracting Governments to refrain from using
1062
such methods postulates that th e clear wording of Article VIII has
1063
somehow become obsolete . It explicitly assume s a contra legem
8 .84
1060See above, paras . 8 .33-8 .42 .
1061AM, paras . 4 .79-4 .80 . The existence of an opinio juris as to the existence of such an obligation
1062See “Resolution on Whaling under Special Permit”, Resolution 1993, Appendix 4, Chairman’s
Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission
1999, pp . 52 -53 (AM, Annex 32); “Resolution on Special Permit Catches by Japan”, Resolution
1996-7, Appendix 7, Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. 1064
Commn 47, 1997, pp . 51-52 (AM, Annex 28) . See also “Resolution on Special Permit Catches by 1065
Japan in the Southern Hemisphere”, Resolution 1994- 10, Appendix 15, Chairman’s Report of the
Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45, 1995, p . 47 (AM, Annex 25); “Resolution 1066
on Special Permit Catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan”, Resolution 1997- 5, Appendix 5,
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, p . 47
(AM, Annex 29); “Resolution on JARPA”, Resolution 2007 -1, Annex E, Chair’s Report of the 59th
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2007, p . 90 (AM, Annex
41) .
1063See “Resolution 2003-2 on Whaling under Special Permit”,
<http://iwcoffice .org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2003 .htm#2> accessed 14 February 2012 (AM,
Annex 38) .in carrying out special permits research is far from being general . Moreover, 8 .86
the Contracting Governments whose interests would be particularly affected of information obtained by JARPA or JARPN was acknowledged by IWC’s
1068
by the emergence of such a rule – i .e . those undertaking whaling research 1997 review meeting of JARPA . This
– have constantly and consistently expressed their opposition to the methods available . . . but that logistics and the abundance of minke whales in
Commission’s attempt to impose non-lethal methods . the relevant area probably pr
Scientists composing the panel established to review Japan’s research
8 .85 During discussions of the resolutions Australia relies upon, many whaling in the North Pacific (JARPN II) concluded:
Contracting Governments expressed their opinion that lethal methods are not
only authori zed by the ICRW but are necessary to obtain important
information on the stocks of whales and their interaction with the ecosystem:
“As it had on previous occasions, Iceland noted that since lethal
scientific research on animals is carried out widely including in all
IWC member countries, it is an accepted practice . It urged
members to be consistent and to stop treating whales differently
from other animals . Switzerland reporte d that its position is that
lethal research on animals is only acceptable on two conditions: (1)
that the results cannot be obtained by other research methods; and 8 .87
(2) that the principle of proportionality is followed, i .e . that the reach consensus on the necessity or lack of necessity of lethal methods
expected results of the research will contribute to science in such a
fashion that any suffering of animals can be justified . this context, the Commission’s resolutions appear clearly as political
decisions, driven more by the convictions and the preservationist attitude of
St . Kitts and Nevis understood that scientific permit whaling
remains a controversial issue . . . .The Russian Federation, Republic anti-whaling States of the IWC
of Korea, Norway, Grenada, St . Lucia and St . Vincent and The
Grenadines spoke in support of research under special permit as
provided for by the Convention noting that such programmes have
provided important information .” 1069 1070
1071
106See mutatis mutandis, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. 1072
Reports 1996, pp . 254-255, para . 70 .
1068See mutatis mutandis , North Sea Continental Shelf , Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969 , pp . 42-43,
paras . 73-74 .
1069Revised Chair’s Report of the 60Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2008, pp . 28-29 [Annex 67] .
392in carrying out special permits research is far from being general . Moreover, 8 .86
the Contracting Governments whose interests would be particularly affected of information obtained by JARPA or JARPN was acknowledged by IWC’s
1068
by the emergence of such a rule – i .e . those undertaking whaling research 1997 review meeting of JARPA . This
– have constantly and consistently expressed their opposition to the methods available . . . but that logistics and the abundance of minke whales in
Commission’s attempt to impose non-lethal methods . the relevant area probably pr
Scientists composing the panel established to review Japan’s research
8 .85 During discussions of the resolutions Australia relies upon, many whaling in the North Pacific (JARPN II) concluded:
Contracting Governments expressed their opinion that lethal methods are not
only authori zed by the ICRW but are necessary to obtain important
information on the stocks of whales and their interaction with the ecosystem:
“As it had on previous occasions, Iceland noted that since lethal
scientific research on animals is carried out widely including in all
IWC member countries, it is an accepted practice . It urged
members to be consistent and to stop treating whales differently
from other animals . Switzerland reporte d that its position is that
lethal research on animals is only acceptable on two conditions: (1)
that the results cannot be obtained by other research methods; and 8 .87
(2) that the principle of proportionality is followed, i .e . that the reach consensus on the necessity or lack of necessity of lethal methods
expected results of the research will contribute to science in such a
fashion that any suffering of animals can be justified . this context, the Commission’s resolutions appear clearly as political
decisions, driven more by the convictions and the preservationist attitude of
St . Kitts and Nevis understood that scientific permit whaling
remains a controversial issue . . . .The Russian Federation, Republic anti-whaling States of the IWC
of Korea, Norway, Grenada, St . Lucia and St . Vincent and The
Grenadines spoke in support of research under special permit as
provided for by the Convention noting that such programmes have
provided important information .” 1069 1070
1071
106See mutatis mutandis, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. 1072
Reports 1996, pp . 254-255, para . 70 .
1068See mutatis mutandis , North Sea Continental Shelf , Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969 , pp . 42-43,
paras . 73-74 .
1069Revised Chair’s Report of the 60Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2008, pp . 28-29 [Annex 67] .recalled earlier 1073, JARPA and JARPA II have always employed lethal
methods for scientific purposes only 1074 .
8 .90
2. Instruments Adopted in Disregard of the Opinion of the Scientific
mistreatment of the conclusions of the Scientific Committee regarding the
Committee
scientific importance of the JARPA program me . Thus in 1997, when the
8 .88 As shown in Chapter 2 of this Counter-Memorial, the ICRW places
Scientific Committee had praised the results of the JARPA
great importance on the role of science in furthering the object and purpose of
more than one account
the Convention . As the IWC’s website underlines, “[a]n important feature of
JARPA programme does not address critically important research needs .”
the Convention is the emphasis it places on scientific advice . The Convention
Together with Japan
requires that amendments to the Schedule ‘shall be based on scientific
ignorance of the Scientific Committee’s conclusions:
findings’ . To this end, the Commission has established a Scientific
Committee .” 1075 The Scientific Committee was thus created to ensure neutral/
consensual scientific advice to the Commission, which is at least bound to
take the views of the Committee into account .
8 .89 However, the resolutions condemning the scientific program mes
And further:
were adopted either regardless of the conclusions of the Scientific Committee
or in open defiance of it . As far as JARPA or JARPN resolutions were
concerned:
1076
“Japan expressed its objection to this kind of Resolution which
does not reflect what was discussed in the Scientific Committee . 1077
There was no disagreement there on the research or the effect of the 1078
catches in the North Pacific, only three scientists raised the non -
1079
1073 1080
1074See above, para . 8 .76 .
1075See below, paras . 4 .55-4 .83; see also below, paras . 5 .45-5 .52 .
“IWC Information”, Home Page of the International Whaling Commission, 1081
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/iwcmain .htm#committee> accessed 14 February 2012 .
394recalled earlier 1073, JARPA and JARPA II have always employed lethal
methods for scientific purposes only 1074 .
8 .90
2. Instruments Adopted in Disregard of the Opinion of the Scientific
mistreatment of the conclusions of the Scientific Committee regarding the
Committee
scientific importance of the JARPA program me . Thus in 1997, when the
8 .88 As shown in Chapter 2 of this Counter-Memorial, the ICRW places
Scientific Committee had praised the results of the JARPA
great importance on the role of science in furthering the object and purpose of
more than one account
the Convention . As the IWC’s website underlines, “[a]n important feature of
JARPA programme does not address critically important research needs .”
the Convention is the emphasis it places on scientific advice . The Convention
Together with Japan
requires that amendments to the Schedule ‘shall be based on scientific
ignorance of the Scientific Committee’s conclusions:
findings’ . To this end, the Commission has established a Scientific
Committee .” 1075 The Scientific Committee was thus created to ensure neutral/
consensual scientific advice to the Commission, which is at least bound to
take the views of the Committee into account .
8 .89 However, the resolutions condemning the scientific program mes
And further:
were adopted either regardless of the conclusions of the Scientific Committee
or in open defiance of it . As far as JARPA or JARPN resolutions were
concerned:
1076
“Japan expressed its objection to this kind of Resolution which
does not reflect what was discussed in the Scientific Committee . 1077
There was no disagreement there on the research or the effect of the 1078
catches in the North Pacific, only three scientists raised the non -
1079
1073 1080
1074See above, para . 8 .76 .
1075See below, paras . 4 .55-4 .83; see also below, paras . 5 .45-5 .52 .
“IWC Information”, Home Page of the International Whaling Commission, 1081
<http://www .iwcoffice .org/commission/iwcmain .htm#committee> accessed 14 February 2012 .8 .91 More generally, anti -whaling Contracting Governments in the
Commission, when facing advice from the Scientific Committee or other
scientific body established under the ICRW that does not serve their political
purposes, had an unfortunate tendency to question either the quality of these
scientific conclusions or the integrity of the members of the Committee:
“In addition, Monaco, referring to papers tabled but not discussed
by the Scientific Committee, commented that it has serious doubts
about the internal procedures of the Committee as far as allowing
flow of information during its meetings and asked its Chair to
comment on the basis for the decisions she must have made .
The Chair responded that there was no censoring of papers, and
certainly no censoring of discussions on the lethal versus the non-
lethal issue, which has been discussed m any times by the
Committee .” 1082
3. Instruments Adopted Despite the Pro-Whaling States’ Opposition
8 .92 Most of the resolutions against special permit whaling were
adopted with a significant number of negative votes 1083 . Japan’s opposition to
most of these resolutions is apparent not only through its negative votes, but
also by the interventions of the Japanese representatives during the 8 .93
discussions within the Commission . In all circumstances, Japan insisted that Governments supporting sustainable use of whales:
the resolutions in question were ultra vires , as the y violated Contracting
Governments’ rights under Article VIII and went again st the philosophy
behind the ICRW, which is that regulatory decisions must be based on
science:
1084
“Japan introduced a paper giving comments on past IWC
Resolutions on this subject . It argued that these Resolutions were in 1085
108See Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting, 2000, p . 37 [Annex 60] .
108See below, Table 8-1 “Voting Records on Resolutions on JARPA/JARPA II Programmes”
3968 .91 More generally, anti -whaling Contracting Governments in the
Commission, when facing advice from the Scientific Committee or other
scientific body established under the ICRW that does not serve their political
purposes, had an unfortunate tendency to question either the quality of these
scientific conclusions or the integrity of the members of the Committee:
“In addition, Monaco, referring to papers tabled but not discussed
by the Scientific Committee, commented that it has serious doubts
about the internal procedures of the Committee as far as allowing
flow of information during its meetings and asked its Chair to
comment on the basis for the decisions she must have made .
The Chair responded that there was no censoring of papers, and
certainly no censoring of discussions on the lethal versus the non-
lethal issue, which has been discussed m any times by the
Committee .” 1082
3. Instruments Adopted Despite the Pro-Whaling States’ Opposition
8 .92 Most of the resolutions against special permit whaling were
adopted with a significant number of negative votes 1083 . Japan’s opposition to
most of these resolutions is apparent not only through its negative votes, but
also by the interventions of the Japanese representatives during the 8 .93
discussions within the Commission . In all circumstances, Japan insisted that Governments supporting sustainable use of whales:
the resolutions in question were ultra vires , as the y violated Contracting
Governments’ rights under Article VIII and went again st the philosophy
behind the ICRW, which is that regulatory decisions must be based on
science:
1084
“Japan introduced a paper giving comments on past IWC
Resolutions on this subject . It argued that these Resolutions were in 1085
108See Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting, 2000, p . 37 [Annex 60] .
108See below, Table 8-1 “Voting Records on Resolutions on JARPA/JARPA II Programmes” the Convention . . . . Norway associated itself with these views on the
1086
illegality of the Resolution .”
8 .94 Even more sig nificantly, some pro - and anti-whaling States alike ,
expressed similar concerns:
“While it considered the report of the Scientific Committee on its
review of existing and new proposals entirely appropriate,
Denmark did not believe it appropriate to establish a Commission
policy on scientific permit whaling since this would be contrary to
the Convention . It indicated that it would not participate in any vote
on the Resolution . Antigua and Barbuda also referred to the rights
given under Article VIII and that the Convention requires whales
taken under Special Permit to be utilised .” 1087
8 .95 The context in which these resolutions were put to a vote is equally
disturbing: no compromise between contradicting interests was sought by
their sponsors, but simply a condemnation of a whaling policy that they
opposed more for cultural than legal reasons . This ultimately led 27
Contracting Governments not to participate in this biased voting: 8 .96
which anti-whaling States in the IWC simply forced through the adoption of
“Drawing attention to its long -standing policy on Resolutions the resolution by imposing a
concerning Article VIII, Denmark reported that it would not contrasts with the period after the adoption of the Moratorium,
participate in any vote .
Norway, Antigua an d Barbuda, Iceland, Mali, St . Kitts and expectation of a comprehensive a ssessment that would allow for the
Nevis, St . Lucia, Morocco, Republic of Guinea, Benin, Republic of
resumption of commercial whaling, Contracting Governments endeavoured
Korea and Senegal spoke against the draft Resolution .
to reach compromise s on the text of proposed resolutions concerning
Norway did not agree with New Zealand’s conclusion that JARPA
had not provided useful informati on . … Antigua and Barbuda scientific permits . In that context, resolutions could be adopted by consensus,
referred to discussions on the future of the organisation and noted
that if governments are to be sincere in their efforts to improve the 1088
1086
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 14 [Annex
1087Chair’s Report of the 55th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2003, p . 30 [Annex 63] .
398 the Convention . . . . Norway associated itself with these views on the
1086
illegality of the Resolution .”
8 .94 Even more sig nificantly, some pro - and anti-whaling States alike ,
expressed similar concerns:
“While it considered the report of the Scientific Committee on its
review of existing and new proposals entirely appropriate,
Denmark did not believe it appropriate to establish a Commission
policy on scientific permit whaling since this would be contrary to
the Convention . It indicated that it would not participate in any vote
on the Resolution . Antigua and Barbuda also referred to the rights
given under Article VIII and that the Convention requires whales
taken under Special Permit to be utilised .” 1087
8 .95 The context in which these resolutions were put to a vote is equally
disturbing: no compromise between contradicting interests was sought by
their sponsors, but simply a condemnation of a whaling policy that they
opposed more for cultural than legal reasons . This ultimately led 27
Contracting Governments not to participate in this biased voting: 8 .96
which anti-whaling States in the IWC simply forced through the adoption of
“Drawing attention to its long -standing policy on Resolutions the resolution by imposing a
concerning Article VIII, Denmark reported that it would not contrasts with the period after the adoption of the Moratorium,
participate in any vote .
Norway, Antigua an d Barbuda, Iceland, Mali, St . Kitts and expectation of a comprehensive a ssessment that would allow for the
Nevis, St . Lucia, Morocco, Republic of Guinea, Benin, Republic of
resumption of commercial whaling, Contracting Governments endeavoured
Korea and Senegal spoke against the draft Resolution .
to reach compromise s on the text of proposed resolutions concerning
Norway did not agree with New Zealand’s conclusion that JARPA
had not provided useful informati on . … Antigua and Barbuda scientific permits . In that context, resolutions could be adopted by consensus,
referred to discussions on the future of the organisation and noted
that if governments are to be sincere in their efforts to improve the 1088
1086
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 14 [Annex
1087Chair’s Report of the 55th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2003, p . 30 [Annex 63] .although disagreement on the substance of the resolutions among pro - and
1089
anti-whaling States in the IWC was apparent .
8 .97 Unfortunately, the consensus approach did not last long, and anti -
whaling States in the IWC decided to impose their views on the other
members, by forcing a vote . Sometimes a proposed resolution was not even
discussed by the Commission for supposed lack of time . The purpose of
8 .100
submitting a proposed resolution should be, on the contrary, to stimulate
from having by its attitude adhered to [them], has, on the contrary, repudiated
discussion 1090 .
[them]”
their adoption .
8 .98 Thus, the voting record on most of the recommendations Australia
invokes simply underlines the divergence of opinion between the majority, 8 .101
on the one side, and a significant minority of the members of the IWC, Contracting Governments . On the contrary, it has
1091
including Japan , on the other side, as to the scope and extent of the agenda of
obligations the members have undertaken . account the preoccupations of the pro-
other Contracting Governments, through a process which is regrettably
8 .99 The history of voting o n these recommendations only underlines
reminiscent of the “ tyranny of the majority”
the existence of polarized positions in the IWC among the pro- and the anti-
falls short of complying with the requirements of the normative process in
whaling States . For that reason these reso lutions cannot be relied upon as
international law: no customary rule can be born out of it, and their
having any interpretative or customary normative value:
interpretative value is devalued by the liberties the IWC deliberately took
“With respect to the second point, to wit the appraisal of the legal with the text of the Convention and the opposition constantly manifested
value on the basis of the principles stated, it appears essential to Contracting Governments particularly affected .
1089See below, Table 8-1 “Voting Records on Resolutions on JARPA/JARPA II Programmes” .
109See, for instance, “Ireland’s declaration”, Chair’s Report of the 53rd Annual Meeting, Annual
Report of the International Whaling Commission 2001, p . 29 [Annex 61] . See also, Chair’s Report
of the 59th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Inter national Whaling Commission 2007, p . 46
[Annex 66] . See also, ibid ., p . 49 (on Resolution 2007-4) . 1092
109The exact number is fluctuating since the composition of the Commission has changed . Besides, 1093
recently, the whaling States, despairing to have their views at least taken into consideration, have
given up participating in the votes . See on this point the Table 8-1 “ Voting Records on Resolutions 1094
on JARPA/JARPA IIProgrammes” and the 2007 record in particular .
400although disagreement on the substance of the resolutions among pro - and
1089
anti-whaling States in the IWC was apparent .
8 .97 Unfortunately, the consensus approach did not last long, and anti -
whaling States in the IWC decided to impose their views on the other
members, by forcing a vote . Sometimes a proposed resolution was not even
discussed by the Commission for supposed lack of time . The purpose of
8 .100
submitting a proposed resolution should be, on the contrary, to stimulate
from having by its attitude adhered to [them], has, on the contrary, repudiated
discussion 1090 .
[them]”
their adoption .
8 .98 Thus, the voting record on most of the recommendations Australia
invokes simply underlines the divergence of opinion between the majority, 8 .101
on the one side, and a significant minority of the members of the IWC, Contracting Governments . On the contrary, it has
1091
including Japan , on the other side, as to the scope and extent of the agenda of
obligations the members have undertaken . account the preoccupations of the pro-
other Contracting Governments, through a process which is regrettably
8 .99 The history of voting o n these recommendations only underlines
reminiscent of the “ tyranny of the majority”
the existence of polarized positions in the IWC among the pro- and the anti-
falls short of complying with the requirements of the normative process in
whaling States . For that reason these reso lutions cannot be relied upon as
international law: no customary rule can be born out of it, and their
having any interpretative or customary normative value:
interpretative value is devalued by the liberties the IWC deliberately took
“With respect to the second point, to wit the appraisal of the legal with the text of the Convention and the opposition constantly manifested
value on the basis of the principles stated, it appears essential to Contracting Governments particularly affected .
1089See below, Table 8-1 “Voting Records on Resolutions on JARPA/JARPA II Programmes” .
109See, for instance, “Ireland’s declaration”, Chair’s Report of the 53rd Annual Meeting, Annual
Report of the International Whaling Commission 2001, p . 29 [Annex 61] . See also, Chair’s Report
of the 59th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the Inter national Whaling Commission 2007, p . 46
[Annex 66] . See also, ibid ., p . 49 (on Resolution 2007-4) . 1092
109The exact number is fluctuating since the composition of the Commission has changed . Besides, 1093
recently, the whaling States, despairing to have their views at least taken into consideration, have
given up participating in the votes . See on this point the Table 8-1 “ Voting Records on Resolutions 1094
on JARPA/JARPA IIProgrammes” and the 2007 record in particular . Conclusion
8 .102 By way of conclusion, it will be apparent that Australia’s at tempt
to base its allegations of breaches of the ICRW by Japan on alleged
violations of “rules” included in secondary instruments adopted by the IWC
is doomed to failure because:
(i) the approach is “up- side down” since it postulates that the Commission
could redefine the object and purpose of the ICRW, while the opposite is
expressly provided for in the ICRW, and in conformity with the general
principles of interpretation;
(ii) with the exception of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule, as adopted in 1979,
none of the Schedule amendments are relevant in respect of the present
case since they do not concern special permit s (which are exempt from
the operation of the Convention);
(iii) Paragraph 30, which relates to the granting of special permits, only
imposes on the relevant Contracting Governments formal and procedural
obligations, with which Japan has always scrupulously complied;
(iv) the other relevant “ decisions” (whether guidelines or recommendations)
adopted by the I WC or other organs of the Convention are non-binding
in essence; however,
(v) Japan has always considered them faithfully and has maintained an
attitude of full cooperation inside the Commission, but
(vi) it has not been rewarded for its positive attitude, since the anti -whaling
countries in t he IWC have during the last decade adopted a rigid and
arrogant position leaving little room for dialogue inside the IWC .
402 Conclusion
8 .102 By way of conclusion, it will be apparent that Australia’s at tempt
to base its allegations of breaches of the ICRW by Japan on alleged
violations of “rules” included in secondary instruments adopted by the IWC
is doomed to failure because:
(i) the approach is “up- side down” since it postulates that the Commission
could redefine the object and purpose of the ICRW, while the opposite is
expressly provided for in the ICRW, and in conformity with the general
principles of interpretation;
(ii) with the exception of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule, as adopted in 1979,
none of the Schedule amendments are relevant in respect of the present
case since they do not concern special permit s (which are exempt from
the operation of the Convention);
(iii) Paragraph 30, which relates to the granting of special permits, only
imposes on the relevant Contracting Governments formal and procedural
obligations, with which Japan has always scrupulously complied;
(iv) the other relevant “ decisions” (whether guidelines or recommendations)
adopted by the I WC or other organs of the Convention are non-binding
in essence; however,
(v) Japan has always considered them faithfully and has maintained an
attitude of full cooperation inside the Commission, but
(vi) it has not been rewarded for its positive attitude, since the anti -whaling
countries in t he IWC have during the last decade adopted a rigid and
arrogant position leaving little room for dialogue inside the IWC . 9 1 2 Republic of
Chile Korea
FinlanSeychelles, South Republic of Korea
Russian Switzerland, Argentina, Ireland,
8 7 11
Grenada, Japan Russia Federation
Dominica, Grenada, Japan,nd the Lucia, St Vincent and the
Republic of Korea, Norway, StndNorway, Russian Federation, Stua and Barbuda, People’s,
Grenada, Japan, Mexico, Norway,
14 21 18
CONSENSUS Brazil, DenmarkENSUS
Netherlands, New Zealand
France, Germany, India, Ireland, South Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile,
Monaco, Netherlands, New ZealanO,a,itzeof China, Denmark, Finland, France,rland, New Zealand
Austria, Brazil, Chile, People’s Republicrance, Germany,
199R2eoertiACpphhproii)i(sanerehirayJeeoetteiCoutRprio1lipppenihp7)iyRJePeumtiAoupherixiylmasaneirne
404 8 4 3 1 Oman
Korea, Oman
IrelaSouth Africa, Spain,ssian Federationhina, Republic of
Korea, Mexico, Oman,na, Ireland, Oman,ple’s Republic of
9
10 10 14 orway, Russian
Barbuda Iceland
Antigua and Barbuda Grenadines, Antigua and
Dominica, Grenada, Japan,d tGrenadinesGrenada, Republic of Guinea,, Grenada, Morocco, Republic of China,
Norway, RussiaAntigua and Barbuda, Dominica,evis, St .
Grenada, Japan, Republic of Korea,a, Norway, Russianeration, St . Kitts and Nevis, St .
17 21
20 20
Denmark
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
Switzerland, UK, USA, Argentina,, Mexico, Monaco,, Mexico, MonacSwitzerland, UK, USA, Argentina,
Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy,enmark,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA,k, Finland, France,n,le, India
UK,BrazilNetherlands, New Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa,
mit 4) 7)
on 2000-
199R8esu(tippendixlaeingin(tpppendixlaln0g0esuStu(tennlOtaeim2i0ictulmyisSoerlotihk2rWi1-lesling
405 1 Oman 1
Solomon Islands
20 27
Tuvalu, Antigua Mauritania
Grenada, Republic of Guinea,nd Barbuda, Belize,and the GreGrenada, Republic of Guinea,Korea,
panDomNicaragua, Norway, Republic ofNicaraand NeviBarbuda,Iceland, Japan, Kiribati, Republic
Ja Palau, Panama, St . Kitts and NPalau, Russian, Federation, St . Kitts
24 30
ch Republic, Denmark,
Slovak Republic, South Africa,
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg
Switzerland, UK, USA, Argentina,
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, India,ZeaMarino,n, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA,gium,,
Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, FBrazil, Chile, Cze
3) 1)
2003 ResHolmisRhereloinnkrWi3-leslin205 ResRlusintioonA005A II
406 1
Republic of China
-issau, Iceland,
2
Russian FederatiSenegad’Ivoire, Denmark, Dominica,all Islands,
St . KitBarbudGabon, Gambia, Grenada, RepublicNauru, Palau
Slovak Republic,
40
Zealand, Oman, Panama, Peru
SwiAusBrazil, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechs, New
Portugal, San MaGerIndia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg,
1)
2007 Res(RlusintionnA007A-
407CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION CHAPTER 9
JARPAII IS IN CONFORMITYWITH
ARTICLE VIIIOF THE ICRW
Section 1. The Court Has No Jurisdiction over the Dispute
9 .1 Before turning to the conformity of JARPAII withArticle VIII of the
ICRW, Japan reiterates that t he Court has no jurisdiction over the present
dispute by virtue of reservations made by Australia when depositing its
Declaration under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the ICJ and on the basis of
reciprocity 109 . Those reservations exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction a ny
“dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones,
including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
shelf, or arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any
disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its
1096
delimitation” .
9 .2 While the dispute submitted to the Court by Australia is not a dispute
relating to the delimitation of maritime areas, t here can be no doubt that it is
one “arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed
area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation” . Insofar
as the results of JARPAII can be used to prove that commercial whaling of
certain species is sustainable (or not) and helps to improve the RMP, it is
clearly a form of research “ concerning, or relating to the exploitation” of
1095
See the Declaration of the Government of Japan, made by virtue of Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, 9
1096uly 2007 .
Australian optional clause reservation, paragraph(b) . CHAPTER 9
JARPAII IS IN CONFORMITYWITH
ARTICLE VIIIOF THE ICRW
Section 1. The Court Has No Jurisdiction over the Dispute
9 .1 Before turning to the conformity of JARPAII withArticle VIII of the
ICRW, Japan reiterates that t he Court has no jurisdiction over the present
dispute by virtue of reservations made by Australia when depositing its
Declaration under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the ICJ and on the basis of
reciprocity1095 . Those reservations exclude from the Court’s jurisdiction a ny
“dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones,
including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
shelf, or arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any
disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its
1096
delimitation” .
9 .2 While the dispute submitted to the Court by Australia is not a dispute
relating to the delimitation of maritime areas, t here can be no doubt that it is
one “arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed
area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation” . Insofar
as the results of JARPAII can be used to prove that commercial whaling of
certain species is sustainable (or not) and helps to improve the RMP, it is
clearly a form of research “ concerning, or relating to the exploitation” of
1095
See the Declaration of the Government of Japan, made by virtue of Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, 9
1096uly 2007 .
Australian optional clause reservation, paragraph(b) .
409Australia’s disputed claim to an Antarctic Exclusive Economic Zone or
adjacent maritime areas .
9 .3 Neither the legality of Australia’s territorial and maritime claims nor
their exact extent needs to be established for the purposes of the application of
Australia’s reservation, however . What is disputed is not only the exact extent 9 .5
of these claims, but also and most importantly the basis of their validity, that is, its Memorial . First, it says that large
whether the claimant State is the holder of sovereign rights over the relevant fundamentally inconsistent with Article VIII’s character as a strictly limited
area . It follows that this undelimited maritime area as a whole is a “disputed exception . That comes close to saying that because Article VIII does not
area” within the meaning of Australian reservation (b) . Moreover, the create many exceptions, Japan may not catch many whales
Australian reservation also covers areas “adjacent to any such maritime zone continuity and scale of the catch are a consequence of the need to establish a
pending its delimitation” . Alarge part of the area within which special permit proper statistical base and to determine the sustainability of whaling . As was
whaling for the purposes of JARPA II has been carried out falls within explained in Part II of this Counter -Memorial, it is the mathematics behind
Australia’s claimed EEZ and in maritime areas immediately adjacent to it . For the statistical analysis that dictates the sample size
these reasons the Court lacks jurisdiction over Australia’s claim and the case
should be dismissed on that basis . 9 .6
implies a right to review Japan’s determination of the need for special permit
9 .4 It is therefore only in the alternative that Japan has discussed – and whaling . Australia offers no legal argument whatever on the existence and
will recapitulate hereafter – its arguments on the substance of the case . Japan content of such a putative right, which is the premise upon which its entire
also notes that Australia’s Submissions paragraph 4(a) refers to special permit application is based . Its omission creates a serious problem .
whaling generally, not only to JARPA II . Similarly, paragraph 1 of the
submissions refers to Japan’s “ international obligations” generally, not only 9 .7
on those arising under the ICRW . But Australia’s pleadings are directed only other Contracting Government, has the right to authorize special permit
to JARPA II and to the ICRW, and that is the case that Japan has answered . whaling . Japan has exercised and is exerci
Japan reserves its right to return to these matters, should the need arise . presumption that States are acting in compliance with their international
1097
410Australia’s disputed claim to an Antarctic Exclusive Economic Zone or
adjacent maritime areas .
9 .3 Neither the legality of Australia’s territorial and maritime claims nor
their exact extent needs to be established for the purposes of the application of
Australia’s reservation, however . What is disputed is not only the exact extent 9 .5
of these claims, but also and most importantly the basis of their validity, that is, its Memorial . First, it says that large
whether the claimant State is the holder of sovereign rights over the relevant fundamentally inconsistent with Article VIII’s character as a strictly limited
area . It follows that this undelimited maritime area as a whole is a “disputed exception . That comes close to saying that because Article VIII does not
area” within the meaning of Australian reservation (b) . Moreover, the create many exceptions, Japan may not catch many whales
Australian reservation also covers areas “adjacent to any such maritime zone continuity and scale of the catch are a consequence of the need to establish a
pending its delimitation” . Alarge part of the area within which special permit proper statistical base and to determine the sustainability of whaling . As was
whaling for the purposes of JARPA II has been carried out falls within explained in Part II of this Counter -Memorial, it is the mathematics behind
Australia’s claimed EEZ and in maritime areas immediately adjacent to it . For the statistical analysis that dictates the sample size
these reasons the Court lacks jurisdiction over Australia’s claim and the case
should be dismissed on that basis . 9 .6
implies a right to review Japan’s determination of the need for special permit
9 .4 It is therefore only in the alternative that Japan has discussed – and whaling . Australia offers no legal argument whatever on the existence and
will recapitulate hereafter – its arguments on the substance of the case . Japan content of such a putative right, which is the premise upon which its entire
also notes that Australia’s Submissions paragraph 4(a) refers to special permit application is based . Its omission creates a serious problem .
whaling generally, not only to JARPA II . Similarly, paragraph 1 of the
submissions refers to Japan’s “ international obligations” generally, not only 9 .7
on those arising under the ICRW . But Australia’s pleadings are directed only other Contracting Government, has the right to authorize special permit
to JARPA II and to the ICRW, and that is the case that Japan has answered . whaling . Japan has exercised and is exerci
Japan reserves its right to return to these matters, should the need arise . presumption that States are acting in compliance with their international
1097 1098
obligations , and accordingly that in this case JARPA II is consistent with
Japan’s obligations under the ICRW . This presumption is admittedly 9 .9
rebuttable: Japan does not question the right to challenge a State’s decision to the four essential criteria of a program for purposes of scientific research ”,
authorize special permit whaling on the ground that the authori zation is supposes that Article VIII of the ICRW prescribes four mandatory criteria
arbitrary or capricious . But, as Part II of this Counter -Memorial makes plain, (identified by Professor Ma ngel) for the design of a research program, and
that is very obviously not the cas e here . It is not clear what further power that special permit whaling that does not meet those four criteria is therefore
Australia believes the Court to have to decide whether or not it shares Japan’s incompatible with Article VIIIof the ICRW
view that JARPA II has been designed in a manner that is completely
consistent with Article VIII of the ICRW. Japan considers that question to be 9 .10
one that lies within the margin of appreciation that international law affords criteria” . Australia has hired one expert whose reported opinion supports its
1099
States in such matters . This is plainly a matter to be addressed in case, and has sought to present the report as evidence of a general “scientific
1100
Australia’s Memorial on the merits ; but it is not addressed . truth” . No reason is given as to why his opinion should be regarded as legally
binding upon all Contracting Governme nts as a matter of international law .
9 .8 Australia’s second argument, that “ Japan objectively fails to meet Japan has employed scientific experts for many ye ars on the design of its
the requirements of Article VIII, and the legality of its program cannot be research programmes and the analys es of the resultant data . Their views
saved by the legal fiction Japan has created through the issue of special differ from those of Professor Mangel; and the reasons for the views of the
permits”, is the same as its first argument; and it calls for the same answer . scientists who designed JARPA II are explained in Part II of this
Counter-Memorial . Differences among scientists are perfectly normal: that is
1098
“Omnia rite acta praesumuntur.This universally accepted rule of law should apply with even greater how science develops .
force to the acts of governments than those of private persons .” (Duffield, Umpire, in the Valentiner
case (1903), X UNRIAA 403 at 405); “[M]isuse cannot be presumed, and it rests with the party who
states that there has been such misuse to prove his statement .” (Certain German Interests in Polish
Upper Silesia, Merits, Judgment No. 7, 1926, P.C.I.J., Series A,, p . 30 ); Cf ., Bin Cheng, 9 .11
General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tri(CUP 1953; reprinted
Litigation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005) pp . 214-215 and ch . 11 passim; Anna Riddell resolutions and guidelines adopted by the IWC; but, as explained in Chapter
and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (London: British Institute of
International and Comparative Law 2009) pp . 102, 105-106 . 8, they are recommendatory in nature, and Japan has in every case given
1099On the margin of appreciation see, e .g ., the WTO Appellate Body in the Horcase, which
ruled that the power to review of national measures under the Agreement on Sanitary and them due consideration in good faith .
Phytosanitary Measures “is not to determine whether the risk assessment undertaken by a WTO
Member is correct, but rather to determine whether that risk assessment is supported by coherent
reasoning and respectable scientific evidence and is, in this sense, objectively justifiable,” : WTO
Doc . WT/DS320/AB/R (16 October 2008), para . 590 . 9 .12
1100As Australia has recognized in the past: seethe Reply on Jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand
dated 31 March 2000 in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases, paras . 172, 183, other international standards regulating the conduct of such research also
<http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/>
412 1098
obligations , and accordingly that in this case JARPA II is consistent with
Japan’s obligations under the ICRW . This presumption is admittedly 9 .9
rebuttable: Japan does not question the right to challenge a State’s decision to the four essential criteria of a program for purposes of scientific research ”,
authorize special permit whaling on the ground that the authori zation is supposes that Article VIII of the ICRW prescribes four mandatory criteria
arbitrary or capricious . But, as Part II of this Counter -Memorial makes plain, (identified by Professor Ma ngel) for the design of a research program, and
that is very obviously not the cas e here . It is not clear what further power that special permit whaling that does not meet those four criteria is therefore
Australia believes the Court to have to decide whether or not it shares Japan’s incompatible with Article VIIIof the ICRW
view that JARPA II has been designed in a manner that is completely
consistent with Article VIII of the ICRW. Japan considers that question to be 9 .10
one that lies within the margin of appreciation that international law affords criteria” . Australia has hired one expert whose reported opinion supports its
1099
States in such matters . This is plainly a matter to be addressed in case, and has sought to present the report as evidence of a general “scientific
1100
Australia’s Memorial on the merits ; but it is not addressed . truth” . No reason is given as to why his opinion should be regarded as legally
binding upon all Contracting Governme nts as a matter of international law .
9 .8 Australia’s second argument, that “ Japan objectively fails to meet Japan has employed scientific experts for many ye ars on the design of its
the requirements of Article VIII, and the legality of its program cannot be research programmes and the analys es of the resultant data . Their views
saved by the legal fiction Japan has created through the issue of special differ from those of Professor Mangel; and the reasons for the views of the
permits”, is the same as its first argument; and it calls for the same answer . scientists who designed JARPA II are explained in Part II of this
Counter-Memorial . Differences among scientists are perfectly normal: that is
1098
“Omnia rite acta praesumuntur.This universally accepted rule of law should apply with even greater how science develops .
force to the acts of governments than those of private persons .” (Duffield, Umpire, in the Valentiner
case (1903), X UNRIAA 403 at 405); “[M]isuse cannot be presumed, and it rests with the party who
states that there has been such misuse to prove his statement .” (Certain German Interests in Polish
Upper Silesia, Merits, Judgment No. 7, 1926, P.C.I.J., Series A,, p . 30 ); Cf ., Bin Cheng, 9 .11
General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tri(CUP 1953; reprinted
Litigation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2005) pp . 214-215 and ch . 11 passim; Anna Riddell resolutions and guidelines adopted by the IWC; but, as explained in Chapter
and Brendan Plant, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (London: British Institute of
International and Comparative Law 2009) pp . 102, 105-106 . 8, they are recommendatory in nature, and Japan has in every case given
1099On the margin of appreciation see, e .g ., the WTO Appellate Body in the Horcase, which
ruled that the power to review of national measures under the Agreement on Sanitary and them due consideration in good faith .
Phytosanitary Measures “is not to determine whether the risk assessment undertaken by a WTO
Member is correct, but rather to determine whether that risk assessment is supported by coherent
reasoning and respectable scientific evidence and is, in this sense, objectively justifiable,” : WTO
Doc . WT/DS320/AB/R (16 October 2008), para . 590 . 9 .12
1100As Australia has recognized in the past: seethe Reply on Jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand
dated 31 March 2000 in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases, paras . 172, 183, other international standards regulating the conduct of such research also
<http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/>support these essential attributes which characterise a legitimate program for commercial whaling, and by ignoring relevant IWC Guidelines as well as the
1101
purposes of ‘ scientific research ’” . But Australia’s evidence of this significant concerns expressed by the IWC in relation to JARPA II, Japan is
alleged support shows only that the international law sources support not acting in good faith .”
uncontroversial propositions such as the need for program mes whose
justification is that they address a defined practical problem to contribute to 9 .15
knowledge and understanding of that problem . Moreover, “support” for but here the bad faith is said to
“attributes” is not at all the same thing as proof that those attributes are “ignoring” of relevant IWC guidelines and significant concerns expressed
mandated by law . Only by establishing a legal obligation to apply the criteria “by the IWC” . The argument plainly could arise only insofar as JARPAII can
favoured by Professor Mangel, can Australia begin to make out its case; and be shown to be inconsistent with IWC guidelines and concerns; but even then
thatAustralia has not done . Australia would need to demonstrate that Japan has “ignored”
disagreed with) IWC guidelines and concerns, and that such guidelines and
9 .13 Australia’s fourth argument, that “Japan’s purpose is not scientific concerns have some obligatory force . Australia would have to show that
research, but in fact the continuation of whaling ” moves beyond the Japan has in fact acted in bad faith . Australia has satisfied none of those
statement of a logical consequence of its third argument . It asserts what requirements; and Japan rejects each of them.
Japan’s “purpose” is . That is, presumably, an assertion that Japan’s stated
purpose is not its true purpose . It is an assertion tha t Japan is acting in bad 9 .16
faith . That assertion is not true . Japan has no legal obligation to disprove address the very obvious point that States must have a margin of appreciation
1102
allegations of bad faith: the burden lies upon Australia to prove it . in cases such as this . There is extensive jurisprudence on the subject; and the
Nonetheless, it is fully explained in this Counter -Memorial why JARPA II is principle must be an axiom of international law and relations, as well as a
constructed as it is 1103 . sensible safeguard against unwarranted accusations of bad faith
the central importance of this question, Australia’s omission is startling .
9 .14 Australia’s fifth and final argument is that “[b] y issuing special
permits for a program that is intended to subvert the moratorium on 9 .17
asserts and relies upon the principle that States have a margin of appreciation
1101AM, para . 4 .94 .
1102“[G]ood faith must be presumed”: Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica 1104
v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009 , p . 267, para . 150 . “[I]l est un principe general de
droit bien établi selon lequel la mauvaise foi ne se presume pas . ”: Lac Lanoux, (1957) XII RIAA
281 at 305 . Cf ., Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September(The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, paras . 132, 138, 168 .
1103See paras . 5 .16-5 .37 .
414support these essential attributes which characterise a legitimate program for commercial whaling, and by ignoring relevant IWC Guidelines as well as the
1101
purposes of ‘ scientific research ’” . But Australia’s evidence of this significant concerns expressed by the IWC in relation to JARPA II, Japan is
alleged support shows only that the international law sources support not acting in good faith .”
uncontroversial propositions such as the need for program mes whose
justification is that they address a defined practical problem to contribute to 9 .15
knowledge and understanding of that problem . Moreover, “support” for but here the bad faith is said to
“attributes” is not at all the same thing as proof that those attributes are “ignoring” of relevant IWC guidelines and significant concerns expressed
mandated by law . Only by establishing a legal obligation to apply the criteria “by the IWC” . The argument plainly could arise only insofar as JARPAII can
favoured by Professor Mangel, can Australia begin to make out its case; and be shown to be inconsistent with IWC guidelines and concerns; but even then
thatAustralia has not done . Australia would need to demonstrate that Japan has “ignored”
disagreed with) IWC guidelines and concerns, and that such guidelines and
9 .13 Australia’s fourth argument, that “Japan’s purpose is not scientific concerns have some obligatory force . Australia would have to show that
research, but in fact the continuation of whaling ” moves beyond the Japan has in fact acted in bad faith . Australia has satisfied none of those
statement of a logical consequence of its third argument . It asserts what requirements; and Japan rejects each of them.
Japan’s “purpose” is . That is, presumably, an assertion that Japan’s stated
purpose is not its true purpose . It is an assertion tha t Japan is acting in bad 9 .16
faith . That assertion is not true . Japan has no legal obligation to disprove address the very obvious point that States must have a margin of appreciation
1102
allegations of bad faith: the burden lies upon Australia to prove it . in cases such as this . There is extensive jurisprudence on the subject; and the
Nonetheless, it is fully explained in this Counter -Memorial why JARPA II is principle must be an axiom of international law and relations, as well as a
constructed as it is 1103 . sensible safeguard against unwarranted accusations of bad faith
the central importance of this question, Australia’s omission is startling .
9 .14 Australia’s fifth and final argument is that “[b] y issuing special
permits for a program that is intended to subvert the moratorium on 9 .17
asserts and relies upon the principle that States have a margin of appreciation
1101AM, para . 4 .94 .
1102“[G]ood faith must be presumed”: Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica 1104
v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009 , p . 267, para . 150 . “[I]l est un principe general de
droit bien établi selon lequel la mauvaise foi ne se presume pas . ”: Lac Lanoux, (1957) XII RIAA
281 at 305 . Cf ., Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September(The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, paras . 132, 138, 168 .
1103See paras . 5 .16-5 .37 .in making judgments upon questions of scientific necessity. Mere other conditions subj ect to which the special permit whaling may be
divergence from international standards, even if established, could never be conducted .
in itself proof of bad faith and the improper exercise of discretion .
9 .20
9 .18 These responses to the five arguments advanced by Australia must 9th Annual Meeting of the IWC held in 1957, N
not, however, be allowed to distract attention from the most obvious and most Chairman of the Scientific Committee, reported to the Plenary as follows:
important point, made in Chapter 7 and summarized in the following section,
namely that Australia has failed to show that JARPAII falls outside the clear,
express terms of the permission to which Australia agreed when it ratified the
ICRW .
B. JARPAII Falls Well within the Margins ofAppreciation
under Article VIII No objection was raised by the Contracting Governments on this point, and the
Report of the Scientific Committee was accepted unanimously
9 .19 As a Contracting Government to the ICRW, Japan may grant special
permits authorizing its national “to kill, take and treat whales for the purposes
9 .21
of scientific research” pursuant to Article VIII, within the discretion given by
determine the number of whales taken under special permits and the
the Article to the Contracting Governments . Furthermore, according to the
conditions subject to which such permits are issued . The JARPAand JARPA
natural and ordinary meaning of the text of the Article, t he killing, taking or II programmes fall well within Japan’s margin of appreciation in these
treating of whales under specia l permit for scientific purposes is exempted respects, and Chapters 4 and 5 have established that JARPAand JARPA II are
from the operation of the Convention by Article VIII(1) . Except for the
designed and implemented with the objective of providing to the Scientific
provisions of Article VIII itself, the ICRW including the Schedule 1105 does
Committee the scientific data necessary for conservation and management of
not prescribe any obligation upon the Contracting Governments conc erning
whale stocks . The sovereign powers of the States granting special permits
special permit whaling . Instead, each Contracting Government is given the thus remain unqualified, subject to procedural obligations of notification to
discretion under Article VIII to determine the need for the scientific research the ICRW’s organs . In the exercise of its power to grant
and then to set restrictions such as the number of whales to be taken and
1106
1105 1107
With the exception of Paragraph 30 – see Section 5, below .
416in making judgments upon questions of scientific necessity. Mere other conditions subj ect to which the special permit whaling may be
divergence from international standards, even if established, could never be conducted .
in itself proof of bad faith and the improper exercise of discretion .
9 .20
9 .18 These responses to the five arguments advanced by Australia must 9th Annual Meeting of the IWC held in 1957, N
not, however, be allowed to distract attention from the most obvious and most Chairman of the Scientific Committee, reported to the Plenary as follows:
important point, made in Chapter 7 and summarized in the following section,
namely that Australia has failed to show that JARPAII falls outside the clear,
express terms of the permission to which Australia agreed when it ratified the
ICRW .
B. JARPAII Falls Well within the Margins ofAppreciation
under Article VIII No objection was raised by the Contracting Governments on this point, and the
Report of the Scientific Committee was accepted unanimously
9 .19 As a Contracting Government to the ICRW, Japan may grant special
permits authorizing its national “to kill, take and treat whales for the purposes
9 .21
of scientific research” pursuant to Article VIII, within the discretion given by
determine the number of whales taken under special permits and the
the Article to the Contracting Governments . Furthermore, according to the
conditions subject to which such permits are issued . The JARPAand JARPA
natural and ordinary meaning of the text of the Article, t he killing, taking or II programmes fall well within Japan’s margin of appreciation in these
treating of whales under specia l permit for scientific purposes is exempted respects, and Chapters 4 and 5 have established that JARPAand JARPA II are
from the operation of the Convention by Article VIII(1) . Except for the
designed and implemented with the objective of providing to the Scientific
provisions of Article VIII itself, the ICRW including the Schedule 1105 does
Committee the scientific data necessary for conservation and management of
not prescribe any obligation upon the Contracting Governments conc erning
whale stocks . The sovereign powers of the States granting special permits
special permit whaling . Instead, each Contracting Government is given the thus remain unqualified, subject to procedural obligations of notification to
discretion under Article VIII to determine the need for the scientific research the ICRW’s organs . In the exercise of its power to grant
and then to set restrictions such as the number of whales to be taken and
1106
1105 1107
With the exception of Paragraph 30 – see Section 5, below .Japan has also in good faith considered the recommendations the
Commission addressed to it on the subject . However, this duty to consider the 9 .24
IWC’s recommendations is not a duty to comply with them: Japan does not conformity with Article VIII(2) since that article requires that “[a]ny whales
violate the ICRW when it does not comply with the resolutions which are not taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and
binding upon it and which in its view openly contradict the express terms of the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the
the ICRW 110 . Government by which the permit was granted .” The special permit issued by
the Government of Japan clearly stipulates that any whales caught in
C. Obligations underArticle VIII have been Complied with accordance with the special permit shall, so far as practicable, be processed
after observation and collections of samples are completed
9 .22 Whereas Article VIII(1) stipulates that “[e]ach Contracting whales taken in the process of conducting JARPAand JARPAII are so far as
Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations practicable processed and sold, and the proceeds are dealt with in accordance
which it has granted”, Japan has submitted copies of the special permit to the with Article 12 and Article 13 of the Code for Special Research Programs of
IWC Secretariat every time it is issued for the JARPA and JARPA II the Institute of Cetacean Research, which was approved by an order from the
programmes, with an English tr anslation, promptly through diplomatic Minister forAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan
channels . The IWC Secretariat has then circulated copies of the special
1109
permits to all Commissioners and Contracting Governments . Section 3. JARPAII is Carried Out for Purposes of Scientific Research
9 .23 Article VIII(3) stipulate s that Contracting Governments “ shall
transmit …, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, 9 .25
scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales therefore the killing, taking or treating of whales pursuant to those
and whaling, including the results of research conducted” pursuant to Article programmes does not constitute commercial whaling . The fact, which Japan
VIII(1) . Utilizing data/information from JARPA II cruises, 9 papers, has never denied, that the significant portion of the research cost of
including the 6 cruise reports, have been submitted to the Scientific JARPA/JARPA II has been funded by revenue from the sale of whale meat,
Committee for its annual meetings from 2006 to 2011 1110 . lawful under Article VIII(2), has nothing to do with the question whether
JARPA/JARPA II’s objectives are genuinely scientific .
1108See above, Chapter 8 .
1109The latest circular communication sent by the IWC Secretariat regarding JARPA II for the 1111
2011/2012 season can be found on the IWC website , 1112
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/circulars/circulars .htm> accessed 14 February2012 .
1110See above paras . 5 .91-5 .98 for more details on documents submitted to the Scientific Committee .
418Japan has also in good faith considered the recommendations the
Commission addressed to it on the subject . However, this duty to consider the 9 .24
IWC’s recommendations is not a duty to comply with them: Japan does not conformity with Article VIII(2) since that article requires that “[a]ny whales
violate the ICRW when it does not comply with the resolutions which are not taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and
binding upon it and which in its view openly contradict the express terms of the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the
the ICRW 110 . Government by which the permit was granted .” The special permit issued by
the Government of Japan clearly stipulates that any whales caught in
C. Obligations underArticle VIII have been Complied with accordance with the special permit shall, so far as practicable, be processed
after observation and collections of samples are completed
9 .22 Whereas Article VIII(1) stipulates that “[e]ach Contracting whales taken in the process of conducting JARPAand JARPAII are so far as
Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations practicable processed and sold, and the proceeds are dealt with in accordance
which it has granted”, Japan has submitted copies of the special permit to the with Article 12 and Article 13 of the Code for Special Research Programs of
IWC Secretariat every time it is issued for the JARPA and JARPA II the Institute of Cetacean Research, which was approved by an order from the
programmes, with an English tr anslation, promptly through diplomatic Minister forAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan
channels . The IWC Secretariat has then circulated copies of the special
1109
permits to all Commissioners and Contracting Governments . Section 3. JARPAII is Carried Out for Purposes of Scientific Research
9 .23 Article VIII(3) stipulate s that Contracting Governments “ shall
transmit …, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, 9 .25
scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales therefore the killing, taking or treating of whales pursuant to those
and whaling, including the results of research conducted” pursuant to Article programmes does not constitute commercial whaling . The fact, which Japan
VIII(1) . Utilizing data/information from JARPA II cruises, 9 papers, has never denied, that the significant portion of the research cost of
including the 6 cruise reports, have been submitted to the Scientific JARPA/JARPA II has been funded by revenue from the sale of whale meat,
Committee for its annual meetings from 2006 to 2011 1110 . lawful under Article VIII(2), has nothing to do with the question whether
JARPA/JARPA II’s objectives are genuinely scientific .
1108See above, Chapter 8 .
1109The latest circular communication sent by the IWC Secretariat regarding JARPA II for the 1111
2011/2012 season can be found on the IWC website , 1112
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/circulars/circulars .htm> accessed 14 February2012 .
1110See above paras . 5 .91-5 .98 for more details on documents submitted to the Scientific Committee . necessary for scientific research on the conservation and sustainable use of
9 .26 JARPAand JARPAII are programmes of scientific research carried whales . It is planned, inter alia , to collect and analy se data and information
out under s pecial permits granted in furtherance of Article VIII of the on the Antarctic ecosystem, on whale abundance, feeding ecology, and the
Convention . JARPA was conducted between the 1987/1988 and the effects of contaminants . JARPA II research objectives will ultimately lead to
2004/2005 seasons to collect and analyze data to contribute to the improvement of the whale stock management procedures . In other words,
“comprehensive assessment” and “review” of the Commercial Whaling the first objective will provide information on biological parameters (such as
Moratorium as prescribed in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule . Its objectives MSYR) necessary for managing the stocks more efficiently under the RMP,
included research into the effect of environmental change on cetaceans, the the second will lead to examining a multi- species management model for the
role of minke whales in the ecosystem, and the stock structure of Southern future and the third will supply information for establishing management
Hemisphere minke whale s . Research methods were limited to what was areas in theAntarctic Ocean .
scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives and carefully designed to
cause no harm to the whale stocks . Scientific calculation showed that a 9 .28
research take of several hundred minke whales (less than 1% of the termination date because its primary objective ( i .e . monitoring the Antarctic
1113
population size) would not harm the stock . Abundance estimates obtained ecosystem) requires a continuing programme of research. The necessity of
from JARPA indicate that no harm was caused to the whale stocks by the continuous research is explicitly stated in Article VIII(4) of the ICRW, which
JARPAactivities using lethal methods 1114 . provides that “continuous collection and analysis of biological data
indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale
9 .27 JARPA produced a number of scientific findings, which were fisheries”
positively recognized by the Scientific Committee as well as a number of estimate such items as age, age at maturity, pregnancy rate, and blubber
Contracting Governments. It also revealed scientific questions that would thickness for a wh ale species at a particular time period or for a particular
require further research whaling. In addition, some of the scientific year class (cohort), JARPA II aims to detect changes over a period of time
developments that had taken place since the launch of JA RPA, the most for such items as age at maturity and blubber thickness
conspicuous example of which was a growing concern about climate change, research methods are thus also limited to what is sc ientifically necessary to
necessitated further research whaling of a different kind from JARPA . Thus achieve its objectives and similarly designed to cause no harm to the whale
JARPA II commenced in 2005 for the purpose of obtaining further data 1115
1116
1113Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic ”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 24-26
[Annex 135] .
1114See above, para . 4 .89 .
420 necessary for scientific research on the conservation and sustainable use of
9 .26 JARPAand JARPAII are programmes of scientific research carried whales . It is planned, inter alia , to collect and analy se data and information
out under s pecial permits granted in furtherance of Article VIII of the on the Antarctic ecosystem, on whale abundance, feeding ecology, and the
Convention . JARPA was conducted between the 1987/1988 and the effects of contaminants . JARPA II research objectives will ultimately lead to
2004/2005 seasons to collect and analyze data to contribute to the improvement of the whale stock management procedures . In other words,
“comprehensive assessment” and “review” of the Commercial Whaling the first objective will provide information on biological parameters (such as
Moratorium as prescribed in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule . Its objectives MSYR) necessary for managing the stocks more efficiently under the RMP,
included research into the effect of environmental change on cetaceans, the the second will lead to examining a multi- species management model for the
role of minke whales in the ecosystem, and the stock structure of Southern future and the third will supply information for establishing management
Hemisphere minke whale s . Research methods were limited to what was areas in theAntarctic Ocean .
scientifically necessary to achieve its objectives and carefully designed to
cause no harm to the whale stocks . Scientific calculation showed that a 9 .28
research take of several hundred minke whales (less than 1% of the termination date because its primary objective ( i .e . monitoring the Antarctic
1113
population size) would not harm the stock . Abundance estimates obtained ecosystem) requires a continuing programme of research. The necessity of
from JARPA indicate that no harm was caused to the whale stocks by the continuous research is explicitly stated in Article VIII(4) of the ICRW, which
JARPAactivities using lethal methods 1114 . provides that “continuous collection and analysis of biological data
indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale
9 .27 JARPA produced a number of scientific findings, which were fisheries”
positively recognized by the Scientific Committee as well as a number of estimate such items as age, age at maturity, pregnancy rate, and blubber
Contracting Governments. It also revealed scientific questions that would thickness for a wh ale species at a particular time period or for a particular
require further research whaling. In addition, some of the scientific year class (cohort), JARPA II aims to detect changes over a period of time
developments that had taken place since the launch of JA RPA, the most for such items as age at maturity and blubber thickness
conspicuous example of which was a growing concern about climate change, research methods are thus also limited to what is sc ientifically necessary to
necessitated further research whaling of a different kind from JARPA . Thus achieve its objectives and similarly designed to cause no harm to the whale
JARPA II commenced in 2005 for the purpose of obtaining further data 1115
1116
1113Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic ”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 24-26
[Annex 135] .
1114See above, para . 4 .89 .stocks . JARPA II has already made available data and samples whose conservation in the way that Australia alleges . “Conservation” as used in the
scientific value has been recognized by the Scientific Committee 1117 . ICRWhas always allowed for sustainable use of resources , and it continues
to do so
9 .29 JARPA and JARPA II are necessary for the purpose of conducting
research into whale stocks and their ecosystem . The continuity and scale of 9 .31
the whale catch are a consequence of the need to establish a proper statistical are different from each other in a number of crucial respects . In particular, the
base and to determine the sustainability of whaling . The parties to the ICRW areas of operation, the target species and number taken, the individual
are bound by Article VIII(4) of the Convention to take all practicable animals taken, the information/data to be obtained, the tissue samples
measures to obtain biological data continuously in connection with the ir collected, the personnel involved and the manner in which pr oceeds are dealt
whaling operations . Scientific research is not an activity that is merely with are quite different
tolerated, alongside the other provisions of the ICRW . It is declared to be an planned in detail beforehand in accordance with the objectives of the research
integral and essential part of the ICRW scheme . Article VIII(4) thus and would not be changed unless absolutely necessary . JARPA/JARPA II
recognizes the indispensability of continuous data collection to the aim of special permit whalin g follows scientifically determined tracklines and
“sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries” . Other parties to covers broad areas in accordance with the objectives of the research,
the Convention have necessarily recogni zed the need for continuity of data including areas where the density of the target species is low
collection and the need for continuous, long- term research into their
sustainable use . 9 .32
animals to be taken is based on commercial efficiency so that larger animals
9 .30 JARPAand JARPA II therefore accord with the object and purpose tend to make up a majority of the catch . In scientific
of the Convention, in particular because they are designed to further proper individual animals are taken on a random sampling basis . In commercial
and effective management of whale stocks and their conservation and whaling only basic information/data are to be obtained .
sustainable use . To regard the ICRW as a wildlife preservation measure is to requires a variety of additional information/data in accordance with the
ignore its object and purpose as set out in the Preamble . There is no basis objectives of the research . For scientific research whaling operations besides
upon which any anti -whaling presumption can be read into the ICRW . The the ordinary crew of the whaling vessel, a number of scientists/researc
Schedule amendments cannot change the object and purpose of the ICRW . and technicians are on board the vessels . Japan also places officials of the
Nor have subsequent multilateral treaties redefined the concept of
1118
1119
1117 1120
See above, paras . 5 .91-5 .103 .
422stocks . JARPA II has already made available data and samples whose conservation in the way that Australia alleges . “Conservation” as used in the
scientific value has been recognized by the Scientific Committee 1117 . ICRWhas always allowed for sustainable use of resources , and it continues
to do so
9 .29 JARPA and JARPA II are necessary for the purpose of conducting
research into whale stocks and their ecosystem . The continuity and scale of 9 .31
the whale catch are a consequence of the need to establish a proper statistical are different from each other in a number of crucial respects . In particular, the
base and to determine the sustainability of whaling . The parties to the ICRW areas of operation, the target species and number taken, the individual
are bound by Article VIII(4) of the Convention to take all practicable animals taken, the information/data to be obtained, the tissue samples
measures to obtain biological data continuously in connection with the ir collected, the personnel involved and the manner in which pr oceeds are dealt
whaling operations . Scientific research is not an activity that is merely with are quite different
tolerated, alongside the other provisions of the ICRW . It is declared to be an planned in detail beforehand in accordance with the objectives of the research
integral and essential part of the ICRW scheme . Article VIII(4) thus and would not be changed unless absolutely necessary . JARPA/JARPA II
recognizes the indispensability of continuous data collection to the aim of special permit whalin g follows scientifically determined tracklines and
“sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries” . Other parties to covers broad areas in accordance with the objectives of the research,
the Convention have necessarily recogni zed the need for continuity of data including areas where the density of the target species is low
collection and the need for continuous, long- term research into their
sustainable use . 9 .32
animals to be taken is based on commercial efficiency so that larger animals
9 .30 JARPAand JARPA II therefore accord with the object and purpose tend to make up a majority of the catch . In scientific
of the Convention, in particular because they are designed to further proper individual animals are taken on a random sampling basis . In commercial
and effective management of whale stocks and their conservation and whaling only basic information/data are to be obtained .
sustainable use . To regard the ICRW as a wildlife preservation measure is to requires a variety of additional information/data in accordance with the
ignore its object and purpose as set out in the Preamble . There is no basis objectives of the research . For scientific research whaling operations besides
upon which any anti -whaling presumption can be read into the ICRW . The the ordinary crew of the whaling vessel, a number of scientists/researc
Schedule amendments cannot change the object and purpose of the ICRW . and technicians are on board the vessels . Japan also places officials of the
Nor have subsequent multilateral treaties redefined the concept of
1118
1119
1117 1120
See above, paras . 5 .91-5 .103 .Fisheries Agency on research vessels used in the special permit whaling there are “threats of serious or irreversible damage”
operation . kind of damage must be likely to some degree
one: serious or irreve rsible harm requires more than “significant” harm
Section 4. JARPAII Supports a PrecautionaryApproach to Whaling The precautionary approach does not reverse the normal burden of proof in
international litigation: it is for Australia to prove a risk of serious or
9 .33 JARPA II supports a pr ecautionary approach to whaling, insofar as irreversible harm to whale stocks resulting from JARPAand JARPA II
that approach is applicable at all . Japan does not dispute that it should act the present case it has not even tried to do so .
with prudence and caution . Aprecautionary approach necessarily envisages
that steps will be taken to illuminate uncertainties and pro vide a sounder 9 .35
scientific basis for conservation and sustainable exploitation . Adopting a JARPAII catches on whale stocks were analy sed and submitted to the IWC
precautionary approach thus entails the conduct of further special permit Scientific Committee in 2005
whaling for scientific purposes as a means of improving understanding of be no adverse effects on the long -term status of any of the targeted whale
marine ecosystems and the sustainability of whale stocks . It is on that basis species in the Antarctic . If there is scientific uncertainty about the
that JARPAand JARPAII have been designed and carried out .
1124
9 .34 The JARPAand JARPAII programmes pose no risk to the survival
of abundant minke whale stocks and the numbers which can be taken under 1125
1121
special permits are both prudent and cautious in that context . So is the far
1122
smaller quota of fin and humpback whales . Australia has advanced no 1126
evidence to the contrary . It merely makes reference to the past history of 1127
whaling and uncertainty over the total minke population 1123 . The
precautionary approach only comes into play where it can first be shown that
1121
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1, Appendix 9,
<http://www .icrwhale .org/JARPAIIResearchPlan .html> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 150] .
1122Ibid.
1123AM, paras . 5 .96-5 .98 . Australia’s own evidence shows that pre -exploitation abundance of minke 1128
whales is most likely at or below, possibly well below, even the most conservative estimates of the
current population . See William de la Mare, Natalie Kelly, David Peel, “Antarctic Baleen Whale
Populations”, paras . 6 .12-6 .18 (AM, Appendix 1) .
424Fisheries Agency on research vessels used in the special permit whaling there are “threats of serious or irreversible damage”
operation . kind of damage must be likely to some degree
one: serious or irreve rsible harm requires more than “significant” harm
Section 4. JARPAII Supports a PrecautionaryApproach to Whaling The precautionary approach does not reverse the normal burden of proof in
international litigation: it is for Australia to prove a risk of serious or
9 .33 JARPA II supports a pr ecautionary approach to whaling, insofar as irreversible harm to whale stocks resulting from JARPAand JARPA II
that approach is applicable at all . Japan does not dispute that it should act the present case it has not even tried to do so .
with prudence and caution . Aprecautionary approach necessarily envisages
that steps will be taken to illuminate uncertainties and pro vide a sounder 9 .35
scientific basis for conservation and sustainable exploitation . Adopting a JARPAII catches on whale stocks were analy sed and submitted to the IWC
precautionary approach thus entails the conduct of further special permit Scientific Committee in 2005
whaling for scientific purposes as a means of improving understanding of be no adverse effects on the long -term status of any of the targeted whale
marine ecosystems and the sustainability of whale stocks . It is on that basis species in the Antarctic . If there is scientific uncertainty about the
that JARPAand JARPAII have been designed and carried out .
1124
9 .34 The JARPAand JARPAII programmes pose no risk to the survival
of abundant minke whale stocks and the numbers which can be taken under 1125
1121
special permits are both prudent and cautious in that context . So is the far
1122
smaller quota of fin and humpback whales . Australia has advanced no 1126
evidence to the contrary . It merely makes reference to the past history of 1127
whaling and uncertainty over the total minke population 1123 . The
precautionary approach only comes into play where it can first be shown that
1121
Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1, Appendix 9,
<http://www .icrwhale .org/JARPAIIResearchPlan .html> accessed 14 February 2012 [Annex 150] .
1122Ibid.
1123AM, paras . 5 .96-5 .98 . Australia’s own evidence shows that pre -exploitation abundance of minke 1128
whales is most likely at or below, possibly well below, even the most conservative estimates of the
current population . See William de la Mare, Natalie Kelly, David Peel, “Antarctic Baleen Whale
Populations”, paras . 6 .12-6 .18 (AM, Appendix 1) .conservation status and population dynamics of whale stocks, the n further Committee through the IWC Secretariat two months before its 2005 annual
research is obviously necessary, and Japan is acting prudently in continuing meeting in Ulsan ( Republic of Korea), immediately followed by circulation
to conduct JARPAII . to the Commissioners and member
Committee reviewed the JARPA II research plan in accordance with the
9 .36 Alternatively, if there is no uncert ainty about these matters – no relevant guidelines, and at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Chair of
“gap” in the knowledge – Australia’s reliance on the precautionary approach, the Scientific Committee noted that JARPAII was “continuing on the basis of
“in the abstract” so to speak, can only be explained by its failure to produce plans already submitted and reviewed in the Scientific Committee
any better evidence of a risk of serious harm to targeted stocks . Presumably it objection was raised on this point .
has none, and can only invite the Court to speculate . In effect it says that
there might be a problem, but one so serious that no research into it should be 9 .38
allowed . This is not a credible position . proposed permits which are reviewed by the Committee
“objectives of the research”, the “number, sex, size and stock of the animals
Section 5. JARPAII Complies with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule to be taken”, and the “possible effect on conservation of the stock”
However, Paragraph 30 gives t
9 .37 The grant of special permits for JARPAand JARPA II programmes “review and comment” on proposed permits . The ordinary meaning of these
comply in all respects with the requirements of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule provisions of Paragraph 30 does not envisage a process of prior approval by
to the ICRW . Japan both followed the notification procedure of Paragraph 30 the IWC based on criteria which it determines .
and provided the type of information required by it. With respect to JARPA,
the Scientific Committee has expressed that the JARPA research plans 9 .39
adequately fulfilled the requirements 1129 . With respect to JARPA II, details of Contracting Governments to decide, not the Scientific Committee or the IWC .
the proposed scientific research permit were submitted to the Scientific The IWC fully accepts that “[w]hilst member nations must submit proposals
for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that
1129
For example, when the Scientific Committee considered the 1989/90 JARPA(first season of ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides
the full scale research) at its 41st meeting, the Committee “agreed that the proposal specified the
number, sex, size and stock of animals to be taken in so far as sible given the random any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and
scientists of other nations had been adequately specified and that the possible effect on the
conservation of the stock had been addre ssed .” (Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn. 40, 1990, p .66 .)[Annex 84] For other JARPA plans, see Report of the Scientific
Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn, 38, 1988, pp . 56, 58 [Ann82]; Report of the Scientific
Committee, Rep int. Whal.Commn, 39, 1989, pp . 161-162, [Ann83]; Report of the Scientific
Commitee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 46, 1996, p .83 [Annex 92]; Report of the Scientific Committee, 1130
Rep. int. Whal. Commn, 47, 1997, p .96 [Annex 93] . 1131
426conservation status and population dynamics of whale stocks, the n further Committee through the IWC Secretariat two months before its 2005 annual
research is obviously necessary, and Japan is acting prudently in continuing meeting in Ulsan ( Republic of Korea), immediately followed by circulation
to conduct JARPAII . to the Commissioners and member
Committee reviewed the JARPA II research plan in accordance with the
9 .36 Alternatively, if there is no uncert ainty about these matters – no relevant guidelines, and at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Chair of
“gap” in the knowledge – Australia’s reliance on the precautionary approach, the Scientific Committee noted that JARPAII was “continuing on the basis of
“in the abstract” so to speak, can only be explained by its failure to produce plans already submitted and reviewed in the Scientific Committee
any better evidence of a risk of serious harm to targeted stocks . Presumably it objection was raised on this point .
has none, and can only invite the Court to speculate . In effect it says that
there might be a problem, but one so serious that no research into it should be 9 .38
allowed . This is not a credible position . proposed permits which are reviewed by the Committee
“objectives of the research”, the “number, sex, size and stock of the animals
Section 5. JARPAII Complies with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule to be taken”, and the “possible effect on conservation of the stock”
However, Paragraph 30 gives t
9 .37 The grant of special permits for JARPAand JARPA II programmes “review and comment” on proposed permits . The ordinary meaning of these
comply in all respects with the requirements of Paragraph 30 of the Schedule provisions of Paragraph 30 does not envisage a process of prior approval by
to the ICRW . Japan both followed the notification procedure of Paragraph 30 the IWC based on criteria which it determines .
and provided the type of information required by it. With respect to JARPA,
the Scientific Committee has expressed that the JARPA research plans 9 .39
adequately fulfilled the requirements 1129 . With respect to JARPA II, details of Contracting Governments to decide, not the Scientific Committee or the IWC .
the proposed scientific research permit were submitted to the Scientific The IWC fully accepts that “[w]hilst member nations must submit proposals
for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that
1129
For example, when the Scientific Committee considered the 1989/90 JARPA(first season of ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides
the full scale research) at its 41st meeting, the Committee “agreed that the proposal specified the
number, sex, size and stock of animals to be taken in so far as sible given the random any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and
scientists of other nations had been adequately specified and that the possible effect on the
conservation of the stock had been addre ssed .” (Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn. 40, 1990, p .66 .)[Annex 84] For other JARPA plans, see Report of the Scientific
Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn, 38, 1988, pp . 56, 58 [Ann82]; Report of the Scientific
Committee, Rep int. Whal.Commn, 39, 1989, pp . 161-162, [Ann83]; Report of the Scientific
Commitee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 46, 1996, p .83 [Annex 92]; Report of the Scientific Committee, 1130
Rep. int. Whal. Commn, 47, 1997, p .96 [Annex 93] . 1131 1132
sanctuaries .”
Section 6. Special Permit Whaling is Not an Abuse of Right
9 .43
9 .40 In relation to the principle of good faith, Australia claims that such a theory in international law, without however applying it . Absent any
Japan’s exercise of rights under Article VIII of the Convention would amount occasion to apply the concept, nothing can be inferred from these judgments
to an abuse of rights . This is wrong both on legal and factual grounds . concerning the legal content of this principle . Like in the Free Zones case, the
principle, if any, was unnecessary for the determination of the issue at hand,
9 .41 Should the Court find that the conditions set out for the application and the statements appear no more than guarded warnings against abusive
of Article VIII are met – as is indeed the case – Australia relies additionally exercise of a right .
on the abuse of rights doctrine . For Australia, an abuse of rights would derive
from a supposed mala fide interpretation and application of Article VIII by 9 .44
Japan 1133 . A review of th e authorities suggests , however, that there is Appellate Body of the WTO did not rely upon a general principle of law, but
substantial uncertainty, to say the least, as to the existence of the principle simply interpreted and applied a specific provision of the GATT, namely the
and, if it does exist, there is certainly no consensus as to its precise contours chapeau of Article XX, which placed specific limitations on States’rights
or how it should apply in particular cases . The scarcity of references in Thus, the Appellate Body, while mentioning the principle of good faith as an
Australia’s Memorial to authorities acknowledging the existence or the interpretative aid
statute of this alleged principle in international law is telling to the extreme . it relied upon specific evidence of a violation of explicit and objective
standards forbidding arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination contained in
9 .42 Australia refers first to the Free Zones case . However, in that case, GATT 1994 itself .
like in any other where the argument was pleaded, the Court did not consider
that the unstated conditions for this doctrine to come into play were met . 9 .45
Australia’s quotation of the Free Zones judgment leaves aside the second 1134
sentence of that paragraph, which i s most telling of the Court’s reluctance to 1135
rely upon this theory:
1136
1132“Scientific Permit Whaling”, Home Page of the International Whaling C ommission, 1137
1133http://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/permits .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 1138
See AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63, 5 .135-5 .136 .
428 1132
sanctuaries .”
Section 6. Special Permit Whaling is Not an Abuse of Right
9 .43
9 .40 In relation to the principle of good faith, Australia claims that such a theory in international law, without however applying it . Absent any
Japan’s exercise of rights under Article VIII of the Convention would amount occasion to apply the concept, nothing can be inferred from these judgments
to an abuse of rights . This is wrong both on legal and factual grounds . concerning the legal content of this principle . Like in the Free Zones case, the
principle, if any, was unnecessary for the determination of the issue at hand,
9 .41 Should the Court find that the conditions set out for the application and the statements appear no more than guarded warnings against abusive
of Article VIII are met – as is indeed the case – Australia relies additionally exercise of a right .
on the abuse of rights doctrine . For Australia, an abuse of rights would derive
from a supposed mala fide interpretation and application of Article VIII by 9 .44
Japan 1133 . A review of th e authorities suggests , however, that there is Appellate Body of the WTO did not rely upon a general principle of law, but
substantial uncertainty, to say the least, as to the existence of the principle simply interpreted and applied a specific provision of the GATT, namely the
and, if it does exist, there is certainly no consensus as to its precise contours chapeau of Article XX, which placed specific limitations on States’rights
or how it should apply in particular cases . The scarcity of references in Thus, the Appellate Body, while mentioning the principle of good faith as an
Australia’s Memorial to authorities acknowledging the existence or the interpretative aid
statute of this alleged principle in international law is telling to the extreme . it relied upon specific evidence of a violation of explicit and objective
standards forbidding arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination contained in
9 .42 Australia refers first to the Free Zones case . However, in that case, GATT 1994 itself .
like in any other where the argument was pleaded, the Court did not consider
that the unstated conditions for this doctrine to come into play were met . 9 .45
Australia’s quotation of the Free Zones judgment leaves aside the second 1134
sentence of that paragraph, which i s most telling of the Court’s reluctance to 1135
rely upon this theory:
1136
1132“Scientific Permit Whaling”, Home Page of the International Whaling C ommission, 1137
1133http://www .iwcoffice .org/conservation/permits .htm> accessed 14 February 2012 . 1138
See AM, paras . 4 .57-4 .63, 5 .135-5 .136 .does not have an autonomous application . It may eventually come into play
when the violation of conventional or customary obligations is proved, but it
does not apply when no other violation can be established . As the Court 9 .47
explained in the Border and Transborder Armed Actions case, good faith, programme designe d and implemented legitimately “
although undoubtedly a normative principle, is “ not in itself a source of scientific research” under Article VIII of the ICRW . It follows, therefore, that
1139
obligation where none would otherwise exist .” contrary to what Australia alleges, in authorizing and implementing JARPAII
in the Southern Ocean, Japan cannot be said to be in breach of its obligations
9 .46 Returning to the interpretation of Article VIII, Australia concludes under the Convention, or under the Factory Ship Moratorium, the
that the obligation of good faith interpretation is fulfilled “ where that grant Commercial Wha ling Moratorium
1140
[of a special permit] is in further ance of the objects of the ICRW .” It prescribed in the Schedule, P aragraphs 10(d), 10(e) and 7(b) respectively ,
cannot be doubted that such is the case: Japan has already demonstrated that because special permit whaling conducted in accordance with Article VIII is
JARPA II respects the letter of Article VIII and the spirit of the Convention . exempt from the operation of the ICRW .
Reliance by Australia on the doctrine of abuse of rights is itself abusive . Even
assuming that the theory of abuse of rights could provide a basis for 9 .48
international responsibility – which Australia has not established – the Japan’s obligations has been recogni zed by other Contracting Governments .
requirements for ascertaining such an abuse are plainly not met in this case . For example, Richard Benyon, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
Accusations of this kind are all the more out of place when they lack any and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom,
legal and factual basis . The Court should discourage thoughtless attempts to WrittenAnswer to Questions in 18 July 2011:
delegitimize the exercise of rights expressly conferred upon a State by a
treaty .
1141
1139
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p . 105, para . 94 . Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admiss ibility,
1140AM, para . 4 .62 .
430does not have an autonomous application . It may eventually come into play
when the violation of conventional or customary obligations is proved, but it
does not apply when no other violation can be established . As the Court 9 .47
explained in the Border and Transborder Armed Actions case, good faith, programme designe d and implemented legitimately “
although undoubtedly a normative principle, is “ not in itself a source of scientific research” under Article VIII of the ICRW . It follows, therefore, that
1139
obligation where none would otherwise exist .” contrary to what Australia alleges, in authorizing and implementing JARPAII
in the Southern Ocean, Japan cannot be said to be in breach of its obligations
9 .46 Returning to the interpretation of Article VIII, Australia concludes under the Convention, or under the Factory Ship Moratorium, the
that the obligation of good faith interpretation is fulfilled “ where that grant Commercial Wha ling Moratorium
1140
[of a special permit] is in further ance of the objects of the ICRW .” It prescribed in the Schedule, P aragraphs 10(d), 10(e) and 7(b) respectively ,
cannot be doubted that such is the case: Japan has already demonstrated that because special permit whaling conducted in accordance with Article VIII is
JARPA II respects the letter of Article VIII and the spirit of the Convention . exempt from the operation of the ICRW .
Reliance by Australia on the doctrine of abuse of rights is itself abusive . Even
assuming that the theory of abuse of rights could provide a basis for 9 .48
international responsibility – which Australia has not established – the Japan’s obligations has been recogni zed by other Contracting Governments .
requirements for ascertaining such an abuse are plainly not met in this case . For example, Richard Benyon, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
Accusations of this kind are all the more out of place when they lack any and Rural Affairs of United Kingdom,
legal and factual basis . The Court should discourage thoughtless attempts to WrittenAnswer to Questions in 18 July 2011:
delegitimize the exercise of rights expressly conferred upon a State by a
treaty .
1141
1139
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p . 105, para . 94 . Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admiss ibility,
1140AM, para . 4 .62 .9 .49 Finally, it is worth recalling the views of the then United States IWC
Commissioner William T . Hogarth:
“Article 8 of the ICRW allows member countries unilaterally to
grant Special Permits to kill, take, and treat whales for the purpose
of scientific research .… Japan is currently the only member
country conducting lethal scientific research . … In order to prohibit
scientific whaling through legal means, a ch ange to the ICRW
would be necessary, or relevant countries would need to enter into a
separate binding international side agreement with regard to
scientific whaling .”42 reserving its right to supplement or amend these Submissions,
Japan requests that the Court adjudge and declare:
Japan by Australia, referred to it by the Application of Australia of
31 May 2010;
114William T Hogarth, Written Testimony on the 60th Meeting of IWC before the Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on F isheries, Wildlife, and Oceans , 110th Congress (10 June
2008), p . 4 [Annex 186] .
4329 .49 Finally, it is worth recalling the views of the then United States IWC
Commissioner William T . Hogarth:
“Article 8 of the ICRW allows member countries unilaterally to
grant Special Permits to kill, take, and treat whales for the purpose
of scientific research .… Japan is currently the only member
country conducting lethal scientific research . … In order to prohibit
scientific whaling through legal means, a ch ange to the ICRW
would be necessary, or relevant countries would need to enter into a
separate binding international side agreement with regard to
scientific whaling .”42 reserving its right to supplement or amend these Submissions,
Japan requests that the Court adjudge and declare:
Japan by Australia, referred to it by the Application of Australia of
31 May 2010;
114William T Hogarth, Written Testimony on the 60th Meeting of IWC before the Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on F isheries, Wildlife, and Oceans , 110th Congress (10 June
2008), p . 4 [Annex 186] . LIST OFANNEXES
TREATIES
1 . Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force
16 January 1935) 155 LNTS 349
2 . International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into
force 7 May 1938) 190 LNTS 79
3 . Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of
Whaling (entered into force 30 December 1938) 196 LNTS 131
4 . Protocol amending the International Agreement for the Regulation of
Whaling (entered into force 5 October 1945) UKTS 1946 61
5 . Protocol amending the International Agreement of 8 June 1937, and
the Protocol of 24 June 1938, for the Regulation of Whaling (entered
into force 3 March 1947) 11 UNTS 43
6 . The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered
into force 10 November 1948) 161 UNTS 72, amended by Protocol
of 19 November 1956, 338 UNTS 366
THE 1937 INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON WHALING (ICW)
7 . British Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at
the Opening of the Conference”, ICW/1937/3 (24 May 1937) LIST OFANNEXES
TREATIES
1 . Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force
16 January 1935) 155 LNTS 349
2 . International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into
force 7 May 1938) 190 LNTS 79
3 . Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of
Whaling (entered into force 30 December 1938) 196 LNTS 131
4 . Protocol amending the International Agreement for the Regulation of
Whaling (entered into force 5 October 1945) UKTS 1946 61
5 . Protocol amending the International Agreement of 8 June 1937, and
the Protocol of 24 June 1938, for the Regulation of Whaling (entered
into force 3 March 1947) 11 UNTS 43
6 . The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered
into force 10 November 1948) 161 UNTS 72, amended by Protocol
of 19 November 1956, 338 UNTS 366
THE 1937 INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON WHALING (ICW)
7 . British Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at
the Opening of the Conference”, ICW/1937/3 (24 May 1937)
4358 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) pp . 1-3 19 .
9 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/21 (1 June 1937) pp . 1, 16-17
20 .
10 . “Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, Additional Article”,
ICW/1937/31 (3 June 1937)
21 .
11 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/33 (3 June 1937) pp . 1, 15
12 . “Whaling, AShort Historical Sketch” (1937) p . 1
13 . “Final Act” (1940) 34 (2) AJIL 112, pp . 112-114 22 .
23 .
THE 1946 INTERNATIONALWHALING CONFERENCE
14 . “United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention” , IWC/3 24 .
(29 October 1946) pp . 1-3, 11-12
15 . “List of Reference Material Available”, IWC/8 (19 November 1946)
25 .
16 . “Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946)
pp . 1-3
26 .
17 . “Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946) pp . 1,
3-5, 8-10, 13, 25-32
18 . “Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946) pp . 1-2,
9-11, 14-15
4368 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) pp . 1-3 19 .
9 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/21 (1 June 1937) pp . 1, 16-17
20 .
10 . “Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, Additional Article”,
ICW/1937/31 (3 June 1937)
21 .
11 . Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/33 (3 June 1937) pp . 1, 15
12 . “Whaling,AShort Historical Sketch” (1937) p . 1
13 . “Final Act” (1940) 34 (2) AJIL 112, pp . 112-114 22 .
23 .
THE 1946 INTERNATIONALWHALING CONFERENCE
14 . “United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention” , IWC/3 24 .
(29 October 1946) pp . 1-3, 11-12
15 . “List of Reference Material Available”, IWC/8 (19 November 1946)
25 .
16 . “Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946)
pp . 1-3
26 .
17 . “Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946) pp . 1,
3-5, 8-10, 13, 25-32
18 . “Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946) pp . 1-2,
9-11, 14-15INTERNATIONALWHALING COMMISSION (IWC) 40 .
Verbatim Records
41 .
27 . Verbatim Record, Document XIVC (28 June 1957) pp . 44-49
28 . Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1 (25 June 1973) pp . 46-47 Chairman’s and Chair’s Reports
29 . Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974) pp . 5-6 42 .
30 . Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974) pp . 1-4, 9-10 43 .
31 . Verbatim Record (9-13 July 1979) pp . 1-5, 29-31, 33-34, 57-60 44 .
32 . Verbatim Record (21-26 July 1980) pp . 62-64 45 .
33 . Verbatim Record, IWC/33/VR (20 July 1981) pp . 1-3
46 .
34 . Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982) pp . 72-86
35 . Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987) pp . 142-144 47 .
36 . Verbatim Record (12-16 June 1989) pp . 108-110, 116
48 .
37 . Verbatim Record (24-28 June 1996) pp . 85-88, 172-173
38 . Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997) pp . 5, 139 49 .
39 . Verbatim Record (24-28 May 1999) pp . 5, 152-153
438INTERNATIONALWHALING COMMISSION (IWC) 40 .
Verbatim Records
41 .
27 . Verbatim Record, Document XIVC (28 June 1957) pp . 44-49
28 . Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1 (25 June 1973) pp . 46-47 Chairman’s and Chair’s Reports
29 . Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974) pp . 5-6 42 .
30 . Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974) pp . 1-4, 9-10 43 .
31 . Verbatim Record (9-13 July 1979) pp . 1-5, 29-31, 33-34, 57-60 44 .
32 . Verbatim Record (21-26 July 1980) pp . 62-64 45 .
33 . Verbatim Record, IWC/33/VR (20 July 1981) pp . 1-3
46 .
34 . Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982) pp . 72-86
35 . Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987) pp . 142-144 47 .
36 . Verbatim Record (12-16 June 1989) pp . 108-110, 116
48 .
37 . Verbatim Record (24-28 June 1996) pp . 85-88, 172-173
38 . Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997) pp . 5, 139 49 .
39 . Verbatim Record (24-28 May 1999) pp . 5, 152-15350 . Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 60 .
Whal. Commn 38, 1988, pp . 10-16, 29
51 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Second Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 61 .
Whal. Commn 41, 1991, pp . 11, 14-15
52 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 62 .
Whal. Commn 42, 1992, pp . 11, 13-15, 17-18
53 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 63 .
Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp . 11, 20-26
54 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 64 .
Whal. Commn 45, 1995, pp . 15, 27-30
55 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 65 .
Whal. Commn 46, 1996, pp . 15, 29-31
56 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 66 .
Whal. Commn 47, 1997, pp . 17, 37-39
57 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 67 .
Whal. Commn 48, 1998, pp . 17, 37-39
58 . Chairman’s Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting, Annual Report of 68 .
the International Whaling Commission 1998, pp . 3, 28-29
59 . Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting, Annual Report 69 .
of the International Whaling Commission 1999, pp . 7, 48
44050 . Chairman’s Report of the Thirty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 60 .
Whal. Commn 38, 1988, pp . 10-16, 29
51 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Second Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 61 .
Whal. Commn 41, 1991, pp . 11, 14-15
52 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Third Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 62 .
Whal. Commn 42, 1992, pp . 11, 13-15, 17-18
53 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 63 .
Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp . 11, 20-26
54 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 64 .
Whal. Commn 45, 1995, pp . 15, 27-30
55 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 65 .
Whal. Commn 46, 1996, pp . 15, 29-31
56 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 66 .
Whal. Commn 47, 1997, pp . 17, 37-39
57 . Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. 67 .
Whal. Commn 48, 1998, pp . 17, 37-39
58 . Chairman’s Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting, Annual Report of 68 .
the International Whaling Commission 1998, pp . 3, 28-29
59 . Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting, Annual Report 69 .
of the International Whaling Commission 1999, pp . 7, 48Resolutions 77 .
70 . “Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme”, Appendix 3,
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p . 40 78 .
71 . “Proposed Resolution on Interactions between Whales and Fish
Stocks”, Resolution2001- 9, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rd
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling 79 .
Commission 2001, p . 58
72 . “St . Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006- 1, Annex C,
Chair's Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the 80 .
International Whaling Commission 2006, p . 68
Others 81 .
73 . “Final Report of the Committee of Three Scientists”, IWC/15/9,
Special Scientific Investigation of the Antarctic Whale Stocks (1963)
pp . 4-6 82 .
74 . “Report of Special Meeting” (3-13 December 1974) pp . 33-34
83 .
75 . “Criteria for the Classification of Whale Stocks”, Annex C2, Report
of Special Meeting (3-13 December 1974)
76 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 29, 84 .
1979, p . 43
85 .
442Resolutions 77 .
70 . “Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme”, Appendix 3,
Chairman’s Report of the Forty -Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p . 40 78 .
71 . “Proposed Resolution on Interactions between Whales and Fish
Stocks”, Resolution2001- 9, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rd
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling 79 .
Commission 2001, p . 58
72 . “St . Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006- 1, Annex C,
Chair's Report of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the 80 .
International Whaling Commission 2006, p . 68
Others 81 .
73 . “Final Report of the Committee of Three Scientists”, IWC/15/9,
Special Scientific Investigation of the Antarctic Whale Stocks (1963)
pp . 4-6 82 .
74 . “Report of Special Meeting” (3-13 December 1974) pp . 33-34
83 .
75 . “Criteria for the Classification of Whale Stocks”, Annex C2, Report
of Special Meeting (3-13 December 1974)
76 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 29, 84 .
1979, p . 43
85 .86 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on Southern Hemisphere Minke 95 .
Whales”, Annex E, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 41, 1991
87 . Kirkwood G P, “Background to the Development of Revised
Management Procedures”, Annex I, Report of the Scientific 96 .
Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 236
88 . Resignation Letter from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee,
Philip Hammond, to the IWC Secretary,Ray Gambell (26 May 1993)
97 .
89 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. i nt. Whal. Commn 43,
1993, pp . 57-62
98 .
90 . “Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a Revised
Management Procedure (RMP) for Baleen Whales”, Annex H, Report
of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993,
pp . 146-152 99 .
91 . “Report of the Working Group on MSY Rates”, Annex M, Report of
the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44, 1994, p . 183
100 .
92 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46,
1996, p . 83
93 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47, 101 .
1997, p . 96
94 . “Report of the S cientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48,
1998, pp . 95-105
44486 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on Southern Hemisphere Minke 95 .
Whales”, Annex E, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 41, 1991
87 . Kirkwood G P, “Background to the Development of Revised
Management Procedures”, Annex I, Report of the Scientific 96 .
Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42, 1992, p . 236
88 . Resignation Letter from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee,
Philip Hammond, to the IWC Secretary,Ray Gambell (26 May 1993)
97 .
89 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. i nt. Whal. Commn 43,
1993, pp . 57-62
98 .
90 . “Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a Revised
Management Procedure (RMP) for Baleen Whales”, Annex H, Report
of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993,
pp . 146-152 99 .
91 . “Report of the Working Group on MSY Rates”, Annex M, Report of
the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44, 1994, p . 183
100 .
92 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46,
1996, p . 83
93 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47, 101 .
1997, p . 96
94 . “Report of the S cientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48,
1998, pp . 95-105102 . “Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research 110 .
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the
Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 (2005)
103 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 111 .
(Suppl.), 2005, p . 45-46
104 . “Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations”, Appendix 2, 112 .
Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, pp . 84-89
105 . Adjunct 1-3, Appendix 2, Annex D, Report of the Scientific 113 .
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p . 90-92
106 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, p . 47
114 .
107 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, pp . 132-133
115 .
108 . “Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group”,
Annex O2, Report of the Scientifi c Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 265-267 116 .
109 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on the Revised Management
Procedure”, Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 94-96
117 .
446102 . “Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research 110 .
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the
Government of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 (2005)
103 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 111 .
(Suppl.), 2005, p . 45-46
104 . “Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations”, Appendix 2, 112 .
Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, pp . 84-89
105 . Adjunct 1-3, Appendix 2, Annex D, Report of the Scientific 113 .
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p . 90-92
106 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, p . 47
114 .
107 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on In -Depth Assessment”, Annex G,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, pp . 132-133
115 .
108 . “Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group”,
Annex O2, Report of the Scientifi c Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp . 265-267 116 .
109 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on the Revised Management
Procedure”, Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007, pp . 94-96
117 .118 . “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of 125 .
Whales from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission”, Annex E,
Chair’s Report of the 62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2010, pp . 56-60
119 . “The Future of the International Whaling Commission: An Australian
Proposal”, IWC/M10/SWG 5
INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS
120 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12
(Suppl.), 2011, pp . 25-26, 57 126 .
121 . “Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations” (As amended by the
Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011)
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/rules2011 .pdf> 127 .
accessed 14 February 2012
122 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 3, 14, 24-26 128 .
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/
63-Rep1-with%20covers .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
129 .
123 . “List of Participants”, Annex A, Report of the Scientific Committee ,
IWC/63/Rep1, p . 82 <http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/
SCRepFiles2011/63-Rep1-with%20covers .pdf> accessed 14 February 130 .
2012
124 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on the Revised Management
Procedure”, Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, 131 .
IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 1-4 <http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/
sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20D%20-%20RMP .pdf> accessed
14 February 2012
448118 . “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of 125 .
Whales from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission”, Annex E,
Chair’s Report of the 62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2010, pp . 56-60
119 . “The Future of the International Whaling Commission: An Australian
Proposal”, IWC/M10/SWG 5
INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS
120 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12
(Suppl.), 2011, pp . 25-26, 57 126 .
121 . “Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations” (As amended by the
Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011)
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/commission/rules2011 .pdf> 127 .
accessed 14 February 2012
122 . “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 3, 14, 24-26 128 .
<http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/
63-Rep1-with%20covers .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
129 .
123 . “List of Participants”, Annex A, Report of the Scientific Committee ,
IWC/63/Rep1, p . 82 <http://iwcoffice .org/_documents/sci_com/
SCRepFiles2011/63-Rep1-with%20covers .pdf> accessed 14 February 130 .
2012
124 . “Report of the Sub- Committee on the Revised Management
Procedure”, Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, 131 .
IWC/63/Rep1, pp . 1-4 <http://www .iwcoffice .org/_documents/
sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20D%20-%20RMP .pdf> accessed
14 February 2012132 . FAO, “Report of the twenty -fifth session of the Committee on 138 .
Fisheries Roma, 24–28 February 2003” (2003) 702 FAO Fi sheries
Report, pp . 14-15
139 .
JAPAN
140 .
133 . Ordinance for Enforcement of the Fisheries Act 1950 (as amended
18 March 2009),Article 1
134 . Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries
etc . to be taken in the 1988 fiscal year ”, submitted to the 112t h
ordinary session of the Diet of Japan, Association of Agriculture and 141 .
Forestry Statistics [ Nourin-Toukei-Kyoukai], White Paper on
Fisheries [Gyogyou Hakusho] (1987) p . 22 [excerpt]
135 . Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the 142 .
Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 3-4, 6-12,
16-18, 24-26, 46-51
136 . Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study
on ‘The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the 143 .
Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987)
137 . The Institute of Cetacean Research, Act of Endowment of the 144 .
Institute of Cetacean Research (30 October 1987) (As amended
20 October 1999) [excerpt]
450132 . FAO, “Report of the twenty -fifth session of the Committee on 138 .
Fisheries Roma, 24–28 February 2003” (2003) 702 FAO Fi sheries
Report, pp . 14-15
139 .
JAPAN
140 .
133 . Ordinance for Enforcement of the Fisheries Act 1950 (as amended
18 March 2009), Article 1
134 . Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries
etc . to be taken in the 1988 fiscal year ”, submitted to the 112t h
ordinary session of the Diet of Japan, Association of Agriculture and 141 .
Forestry Statistics [ Nourin-Toukei-Kyoukai], White Paper on
Fisheries [Gyogyou Hakusho] (1987) p . 22 [excerpt]
135 . Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the 142 .
Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp . 3-4, 6-12,
16-18, 24-26, 46-51
136 . Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study
on ‘The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the 143 .
Antarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987)
137 . The Institute of Cetacean Research, Act of Endowment of the 144 .
Institute of Cetacean Research (30 October 1987) (As amended
20 October 1999) [excerpt]145 . Government of Japan, “Some Counter Comments on the Past IWC 153 .
Resolution”, IWC/48/36 (1996)
146 . Government of Japan, “ The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese
Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic”,
SC/48/SH3 (1996)
154 .
147 . Burke W T, “The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary”, IWC/50/27 (1998)
155 .
148 . Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (1999, as amended 15 June 2011),Article 37
149 . Government of Japan, “Japan: Notification regarding the submission 156 .
made by Australia to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf”, SC/05/039 (2005)
157 .
150 . Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese
Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, 158 .
SC/57/O1 (2005)
151 . Hakamada T, Matsuoka K and Nishiwaki S, “An update of Antarctic 159 .
minke whales abundance estimate based on JARPAdata”, SC/D06/J6
(2006) pp . 10-11
152 . Hatanaka H et al, “Response to Appendix 2”, Appendix 3, Annex O1,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, pp . 259-264
452145 . Government of Japan, “Some Counter Comments on the Past IWC 153 .
Resolution”, IWC/48/36 (1996)
146 . Government of Japan, “ The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese
Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic”,
SC/48/SH3 (1996)
154 .
147 . Burke W T, “The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary”, IWC/50/27 (1998)
155 .
148 . Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (1999, as amended 15 June 2011),Article 37
149 . Government of Japan, “Japan: Notification regarding the submission 156 .
made by Australia to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf”, SC/05/039 (2005)
157 .
150 . Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese
Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and
Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources”, 158 .
SC/57/O1 (2005)
151 . Hakamada T, Matsuoka K and Nishiwaki S, “An update of Antarctic 159 .
minke whales abundance estimate based on JARPAdata”, SC/D06/J6
(2006) pp . 10-11
152 . Hatanaka H et al, “Response to Appendix 2”, Appendix 3, Annex O1,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8
(Suppl.), 2006, pp . 259-264AUSTRALIA 169 .
160 . Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 (Cth)
161 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate, Senate, 1 December 1948,
p . 3695 (BillAshley, Minister for Shipping and Fuel)
162 . Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) pp . 4, 6-7 (Secs . 6, 10A,
10B, 11) 170 .
163 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate , House, 4 April 1979,
pp . 1481-1482 (Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister)
164 . “Opening Statement by the Australian Commissioner, 31st Annual 171 .
Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London, July
1979”, ITEM 2, IWC 31
172 .
165 . Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Cth) pp . 331-338
173 .
166 . Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Minister for Foreign Affairs
Alexander Downer, “Changes to International Dispute Resolution”
(News Release, 25 March 2002)
167 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Joint Standing Committee
on Treaties, 12 July 2002 (William Campbell) TR 45 - TR 53
174 .
168 . Government of Australia, Executive S ummary, Continental Shelf
Submission of Australia, 2004, pp . 1, 11 -13 <http://www .un .org/
Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_
web_delivery .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
454AUSTRALIA 169 .
160 . Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 (Cth)
161 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate, Senate, 1 December 1948,
p . 3695 (BillAshley, Minister for Shipping and Fuel)
162 . Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) pp . 4, 6-7 (Secs . 6, 10A,
10B, 11) 170 .
163 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate , House, 4 April 1979,
pp . 1481-1482 (Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister)
164 . “Opening Statement by the Australian Commissioner, 31st Annual 171 .
Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London, July
1979”, ITEM 2, IWC 31
172 .
165 . Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Cth) pp . 331-338
173 .
166 . Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Minister for Foreign Affairs
Alexander Downer, “Changes to International Dispute Resolution”
(News Release, 25 March 2002)
167 . Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Joint Standing Committee
on Treaties, 12 July 2002 (William Campbell) TR 45 - TR 53
174 .
168 . Government of Australia, Executive S ummary, Continental Shelf
Submission of Australia, 2004, pp . 1, 11 -13 <http://www .un .org/
Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_
web_delivery .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012175 . Government of Australia, Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary 181 .
(2007) < http://www .environment .gov .au/coasts/species/cetaceans/
pubs/sanctuary-map .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
182 .
176 . Australian Embassy , Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘ scientific
whaling’” (Press Release, TK01/2008, 7 January 2008)
<http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008>
accessed 14 February 2012 183 .
177 . Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ,
FCA3, (15 January 2008) pp . 20-21 184 .
178 . Government of Australia, “Addressing Special Permit Whaling and
the Future of the IWC”, IWC/61/9 (2009)
185 .
179 . Australian Antarctic Division in Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Pollution and Communities, “ Antarctic
territorial claims ” (29 June 2011) < http://www .antarctica .gov .au/
antarctic-law-and-treaty/our-treaty-obligations/antarctic-territorial- 186 .
claims> accessed 14 February 2012
187 .
THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
180 . Special Committee of the US Senate on Conservation of Wild Life
Resources, Report on the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling,
(19 September 1931), pp . 17-21, 44-45
456175 . Government of Australia, Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary 181 .
(2007) < http://www .environment .gov .au/coasts/species/cetaceans/
pubs/sanctuary-map .pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
182 .
176 . Australian Embassy , Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘ scientific
whaling’” (Press Release, TK01/2008, 7 January 2008)
<http://www .australia .or .jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008>
accessed 14 February 2012 183 .
177 . Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd ,
FCA3, (15 January 2008) pp . 20-21 184 .
178 . Government of Australia, “Addressing Special Permit Whaling and
the Future of the IWC”, IWC/61/9 (2009)
185 .
179 . Australian Antarctic Division in Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Pollution and Communities, “ Antarctic
territorial claims ” (29 June 2011) < http://www .antarctica .gov .au/
antarctic-law-and-treaty/our-treaty-obligations/antarctic-territorial- 186 .
claims> accessed 14 February 2012
187 .
THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
180 . Special Committee of the US Senate on Conservation of Wild Life
Resources, Report on the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling,
(19 September 1931), pp . 17-21, 44-45UNITED KINGDOM 195 .
188 . “Order in Council placing Territory in the Antar ctic Seas under the
Authority of the Commonwealth of Australia-Sandringham, February
7 1933” (1934) 137 British and Foreign State Papers 754,
pp . 754-755
189 . “Notes for the Minister for Whaling Luncheon, 14 .6 .38” (London SWITZERLAND
14 June 1938)
196 .
190 . HLDeb 4 March 2009, vol . 708, col . WA164
191 . HC Deb 18 July 2011, vol . 531, cols . 617-618W
NEW ZEALAND NORWAY
192 . The High Commission er in London to the Secretary of Foreign 197 .
Affairs, “International Whaling Commission: United States Views ”
(7 June 1979)
198 .
193 . The Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the High Commissioner in
London, “International Whaling Commission: Briefing” (29 June
1979)
194 . The Secretary of Foreign Affairs , “Brief for the New Zealand BOOKS & ARTICLES
Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, London, 9-13 July 1979” (9-13 July 1979) pp . 1-3 199 .
458UNITED KINGDOM 195 .
188 . “Order in Council placing Territory in the Antar ctic Seas under the
Authority of the Commonwealth of Australia-Sandringham, February
7 1933” (1934) 137 British and Foreign State Papers 754,
pp . 754-755
189 . “Notes for the Minister for Whaling Luncheon, 14 .6 .38” (London SWITZERLAND
14 June 1938)
196 .
190 . HLDeb 4 March 2009, vol . 708, col . WA164
191 . HC Deb 18 July 2011, vol . 531, cols . 617-618W
NEW ZEALAND NORWAY
192 . The High Commission er in London to the Secretary of Foreign 197 .
Affairs, “International Whaling Commission: United States Views ”
(7 June 1979)
198 .
193 . The Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the High Commissioner in
London, “International Whaling Commission: Briefing” (29 June
1979)
194 . The Secretary of Foreign Affairs , “Brief for the New Zealand BOOKS & ARTICLES
Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, London, 9-13 July 1979” (9-13 July 1979) pp . 1-3 199 .200 . Gulland J, “The end of whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist 42, 207 .
pp . 42-45
201 . Butterworth D S, “Science and sentimentality” (1992) 357 Nature
532
202 . Foster C E, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International
Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality
(CUP 2011) pp . 14-17
203 . Morishita J and Goodman D, “ The IWC moratorium on commercial
whaling was not a value judgement and was not intended as a
permanent prohibition” (2011) 1(2) Aegean Review of the Law of the
Sea and Maritime Law 301
204 . Zenitani R, “Long-term Trend of Age at Sexual Maturity in Antarctic
Minke Whales” (DPhil of Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of
Marine Science and Technology 2011) p . 16, 25
205 . The Research Advisors, “Sample Size Table from the Research
Advisors” <http://research-advisors .com/tools/SampleSize .htm>
accessed 14 February 2012
MEDIAREPORTS
206 . “Whaling: Dr. Ray Gambell answers your questions”, BBC (5 July
2000) < http://newsvote .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/
817116 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012
460200 . Gulland J, “The end of whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist 42, 207 .
pp . 42-45
201 . Butterworth D S, “Science and sentimentality” (1992) 357 Nature
532
202 . Foster C E, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International
Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality
(CUP 2011) pp . 14-17
203 . Morishita J and Goodman D, “ The IWC moratorium on commercial
whaling was not a value judgement and was not intended as a
permanent prohibition” (2011) 1(2) Aegean Review of the Law of the
Sea and Maritime Law 301
204 . Zenitani R, “Long-term Trend of Age at Sexual Maturity in Antarctic
Minke Whales” (DPhil of Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of
Marine Science and Technology 2011) p . 16, 25
205 . The Research Advisors, “Sample Size Table from the Research
Advisors” <http://research-advisors .com/tools/SampleSize .htm>
accessed 14 February 2012
MEDIAREPORTS
206 . “Whaling: Dr. Ray Gambell answers your questions”, BBC (5 July
2000) < http://newsvote .bbc .co .uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/
817116 .stm> accessed 14 February 2012 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRALIAv. JAPAN)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF JAPAN
VOLUME II
ANNEXES 1 - 69
9 MARCH 2012 VOLUME II
LIST OF ANNEXES
TREATIES
1. Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 16 January
1935) 155 LNTS 349 ................................................ 1
2. International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force
7 May 1938) 190 LNTS 79 .......................................... 19
3. Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of Whaling
(entered into force 30 December 1938) 196 LNTS 131 ..................... 35
4. Protocol amending the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling
(entered into force 5 October 1945) UKTS 1946 61 ....................... 41
5. Protocol amending the International Agreement of 8 June 1937, and the
Protocol of 24 June 1938, for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force
3 March 1947) 11 UNTS 43 .......................................... 45
6. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered
into force 10 November 1948) 161 UNTS 72, amended by Protocol of
19 November 1956, 338 UNTS 366 .................................... 61
THE 1937 INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE ON WHALING (ICW)
7. British Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at the
Opening of the Conference”, ICW/1937/3 (24 May 1937) .................. 99
8. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) pp. 1-3 ................... 103
9. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/21 (1 June 1937) pp. 1, 16-17 ................ 107
10. “Agreement for the Regulationof Whaling,AdditionalArticle”, ICW/1937/31
(3 June 1937) .................................................... 111
11. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/33 (3 June 1937) pp. 1, 15 ................... 113
12. “Whaling,AShort Historical Sketch” (1937) p. 1 ........................ 115
13. “FinalAct” (1940) 34 (2)AJIL 112, pp. 112-114 ......................... 117
iiiTHE 1946 INTERNATIONALWHALING CONFERENCE
14. “United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention”, IWC/3 (29 October
1946) pp. 1-3, 11-12 .............................................. 121
15. “List of Reference MaterialAvailable”, IWC/8 (19 November 1946) ......... 127
16. “Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946) pp. 1-3 ..... 129
17. “Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946) pp. 1, 3-5,
8-10, 13, 25-32 ................................................... 133
18. “Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946) pp. 1-2,
9-11, 14-15 ...................................................... 149
19. “Minutes of the Fourth Session”, IWC/22 (21 November 1946) pp. 1▯, 7-10,
26 ............................................................. 157
20. “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 1946) pp. ▯1, 4-5,
28-31 ........................................................... 163
21. “Address by the Honorable C. Girard Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the
United States Department of the Interior at a Dinner in Honor of the Del▯egates
to the International Whaling Conference”, IWC/42 (26 November 1946) ..... 171
22. “Report of Committee on Penalties”, IWC/45 (27 November 1946) pp▯. 1-2 ... 177
23. “Minutes of the Tenth Session”, IWC/47 (27 November 1946) pp. 1, 10-11 .... 179
24. “Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention
Recommended by the Drafting Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946)
pp. 1-3, 8-10, 14-16 ............................................... 183
25. “Minutes of the T welfth Session”, IWC/56 (29 November 1946) pp. 1, 6,
10-11 ........................................................... 193
26. “Final Act”, The Final Documents of the Conference, IWC/64 (1 December
1946), pp. 1-20 ................................................... 197
INTERNATIONALWHALING COMMISSION (IWC)
Verbatim Records
27. Verbatim Record, Document XIVC (28 June 1957) pp. 44-49 .............. 217
28. Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1 (25 June 1973) pp. 46-47 .................. 223
29. Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974) pp. 5-6 .................... 227
30. Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974) pp. 1-4, 9-10 ............... 231
31. Verbatim Record (9-13 July 1979) pp. 1-5, 29-31, 33-34, 57-60 ............. 239
32. Verbatim Record (21-26 July 1980) pp. 62-64 ........................... 255
iv33. Verbatim Record, IWC/33/VR (20 July 1981) pp. 1-3 ..................... 259
34. Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982) pp. 72-86 ........................... 263
35. Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987) pp. 142-144 ......................... 279
36. Verbatim Record (12-16 June 1989) pp. 108-110, 116 ..................... 283
37. Verbatim Record (24-28 June 1996) pp. 85-88, 172-173 ................... 289
38. Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997) pp. 5, 139 ........................ 297
39. Verbatim Record (24-28 May 1999) pp. 5, 152-153 ....................... 299
40. Verbatim Record (16-19 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] .303
41. Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record] .305
Chairman’s and Chair’s Reports
42. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-ForthAnnual Meeting, pp. 1, 5-6 .......... 309
43. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting, pp. 1, 4-5 ................. 313
44. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting, pp. 1-3 .................. 317
45. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
27, 1977, pp. 6-7, 13-15 ............................................ 321
46. Chairman’s Report of theThirty-FirstAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn
30, 1980, pp. 25-27 ................................................ 327
47. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 33, 1983, pp. 20-21, 41, 42 ................................... 331
48. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 36, 1986, pp. 10, 12 ......................................... 335
49. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 37, 1987, pp. 10, 12 ......................................... 337
50. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 38, 1988, pp. 10-16, 29 ...................................... 339
51. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 41, 1991, pp. 11, 14-15 ..................................... 347
52. Chairman’s Reportof the Forty-ThirdAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn
42, 1992, pp. 11, 13-15, 17-18 ....................................... 351
53. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 43, 1993, pp. 11, 20-26 ...................................... 357
54. Chairman’s Reportof the Forty-SixthAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn
45, 1995, pp. 15, 27-30 ............................................. 365
v55. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 46, 1996, pp. 15, 29-31 ...................................... 371
56. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 47, 1997, pp. 17, 37-39 ...................................... 375
57. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-NinthAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn
48, 1998, pp. 17, 37-39 ............................................. 379
58. Chairman’s Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 1998, pp. 3, 28-29 .................... 383
59. Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 1999, pp. 7, 48 ....................... 387
60. Chairman’s Reportof the Fifty-SecondAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2000, pp. 11, 34-38 ................... 389
61. Chair’s Report of the 53rdAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2001, pp. 5, 29 ................................. 395
62. Chair’s Report of the 54thAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2002, pp. 5, 31-32 ............................... 397
63. Chair’s Report of the 55thAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2003, pp. 5, 8-10, 29-31 .......................... 401
64. Chair's Report of the 57thAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2005, pp. 5, 37-39 ............................... 409
65. Chair’s Report of the 58thAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2006, pp. 5, 23-25 ............................... 413
66. Chair’s Report of the 59thAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2007, pp. 7, 39-41, 46-47 ......................... 417
67. Revised Chair’s Report of the 60th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2008, pp. 5, 27-29, 42 ................ 423
68. Chair’s Report of the 61stAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2009, pp. 5, 10-11, 26-28 ......................... 429
69. Chair’s Report of the 62ndAnnual MeetingA , nnual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2010, pp. 5, 21 ................................. 435
vi Annex 1
1. Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 16 January 1935)
155 LNTS 349
No 3586.
UNION SUD-AFRJCAINE,
ALBAN JE, ALLEMAGN E,
ETATS-UNJS D'AMERIQUE,
AUSTRALIE, etc.
Convention pour Ia regJementation
de Ja chassea Ia baleine. Signee
aGeneve, Je 24 septembre 1931.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA,
ALBANIA, GERMANY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AUSTRALIA, etc.
Convention for the Regulation of
WhaHng. Signed at Geneva, Sep
tember 24th,1g31.
1Annex 1
350 SocietedesNations- Recueildes Traites. 1935
1
N° 3586. - CONVENTION POUR LA REGLEMENTATION DE LA
CHASSE A LA BALEINE. SIGNEE A GENEVE, LE 24 SEPTEMBRE
1931.
Textesofficielsefran~ etensanglais.CetteconventionaeteenregistreeparleSecretariat,onformement
a son article21,le r6 janvier1935, datede son entreeen vigueur.
SA MAJESTE LE ROI DES ALBANAIS; LE PRESIDENT DU REICH ALLEMAND; LE PRESIDENT
DES ETATS-UNrs D'AMERIQUE; SA MAJESTE LE Ror DES BELGES; SA MAJESTE LE Ror DE GRANDE
BRETAGNE ET D'!RLANDE ET DES DOMINIONS BRITANNIQUES AU DELA DES MERS, EMPEREUR DES
lNDES ; LE PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE DE COLOMBIE ; SA MAJESTE LE ROI DE DANEMARK
ET D'lSLANDE ; LE PRESIDENT DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA R:EPUBLIQUE ESPAGNOLE ; LE PRESIDENT
DE LA R:EPUBLIQUE DE FINLANDE ; LE PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE FRANc;:AISE ; LE PRESIDENT
DE LA REPUBLIQUE HELLENIQUE; SA MAJESTE LE ROI D'lTALIE; LE PRESIDENT DES ETATS-UNIS
DU MEXIQUE; SA MAJESTE LE Ror DE NoRvEGE; SA MAJESTE LA REINE DES PAYs-BAs; LE
PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE DE POLOGNE ; SA MAJESTE LE ROI DE ROUMANIE ; LE CONSEIL
FEDERAL SUISSE ; LE PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE TCHECOSLOVAQUE ; LE PRESIDENT DE LA
REPUBLIQUE DE TuRQUIE; SA MAJESTE LE Rm DE YouGoSLAVIE ont designe pour leurs
plenipotentiairessavoir :
SA MAJESTE LE Roi DES ALBANAIS:
M. Lee KURTI, ministre resident,delegue permanent aupres de Ia Societe des Nations.
IDepot des ratificationa Geneve :
ETATS-UNISn'AMERIQUE. 7 juillet 1932.
NoRVEGE ...... . IS juillet 1932.
UNION Sun-AFRICAINE. . II janvier1933.
SUISSE . ...... . r6 fevrier 1933.
MEXIQUE .................. . 13 mars 1933.
PAYS-BAS{y compris les Indes neerlandaises, Surinam
et Curac;:ao). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 mai 1933·
ITALIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 juin 1933·
Tt·aduction.- L'adbesion du Gouvernement
italiena cette convention ne pourra en aucun
cas constituer un precedent pour les accords
futurs prevoyantune limitation de la pckhe dans
les mers extraterritoriales.
ESPAGNE. .... 2 aoflt 1933·
POLOGNE 27 septembre 1933·
TCHECOSLOVAQUIE 20 octobre 1933.
YouGOSLAVIE 16 janvier1934·
TURQUIE............ . 2S mai 1934·
DANEMARK(y compris le Groenland) . 26 juin 1934·
GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET IRLANDEDU NORD rS octobre 1934.
Traduction. - Sa Majeste n'assume aucune
obligationen ce qui conceme l'un quelconque
de ses colonies, protectoret territoires d'outre-
2 Annex 1
1935 League of Nations - Treaty Series. 351
1
No. 3586. - CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING.
SIGNED AT GENEVA, SEPTEMBER 24TH, 193r.
Officialtextsin Frenchand English. This ConventionwasregisteredwiththeSett-etariat,in accordance
with its Articl21, on January r6th, 1935, thedateof its entry into force.
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE ALBANIANS ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE GERMAN REICH ; THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS;
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE
SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA ; HIS MAJESTY THE
KING OF DENMARK AND ICELAND ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SPANISH
REPUBLIC ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH
REPUBLIC; THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC; HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY;
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF MEXICO; HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF NORWAY; HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC ; HIS
MAJESTY THE KING OF RouMANIA ; THE Swiss FEDERAL CouNCIL ; THE PRESIDENT oF THE
CzECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC ; THE PRESIDENT OF THE TuRKISH REPUBLIC ; His MAJESTY THE KING
OF YuGOSLAVIA, have appointed as theirPlenipotentiaries the following :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE ALBANIANS :
M. Lee KuRTI, Resident Minister,Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
1
Deposit of ratifications in Geneva :
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA July 7th, 1932.
NoRWAY ......... . July 18th, 1932.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA . . January nth, 1933.
SwiTZERLAND . . . . . . .
February 16th, 1933.
MEXICO ... ......... ..... . . . March 13th, 1933.
THE NETHERLANDS(including the Netherlands Indies,
Surinam and Cura~ao) . . . . . . . . . . . May 3oth, 1933.
ITALY ............. . ...... . June 12th, 1933·
Translation. - The accession of the Italian
Government to this Convention can in no way
constitute a precedent for future agreements
providing for the limitationof fishing in extra
territoriaseas.
SPAIN .... . August 2nd, 1933·
POLAND .... . September 27th, 1933.
CzEcHOSLOVAKIA.
October 2oth, 1933.
YuGOSLAVIA . . . January 16th, 1934·
TURKEY . ... . . . ... ... . . May 28th, 1934.
DENMARK(including Greenland) . . . . June 26th, 1934·
GREATBRITAIN AND NORTHERNIRELAND October 18th, 1934·
His Majesty does not assume any obli
gations in respect of any of His colonies,
protectorates,overseas temtories or territories
3Annex 1
352 Societe des Nations - Recueil des Traites. 1935
LE PRESIDENT DU REICH ALLEMAND:
M. Hans Hermann V6LCKERS,consul general a Geneve.
LE PRESIDENT DES ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE:
M. Hugh R. WILSON, envoye extraordinaire et ministre plenipotentiairepres le Conseil
federal suisse.
SA MAJESTE LE Ror DES BELGES :
M. P. HYMANS, ministre des Affaires etrangeres.
SA MAJESTE LE Ror DE GRANDE-BRETAGNEET D'!RLANDEET DES DOMINIONS BRITANNIQUES
AU DELA DES MERS, EMPEREUR DES lNDES :
PouR LA GRANDE-BRETAGNEET L'IRLANDEDU NoRD, ainsi que toutes parties de !'Empire
britannique non membres separes de la Societe des Nations :
Le tres honorable vicomte CECIL OF CHELWOOD,K.C.
PouR LE DoMINION DU CANADA:
L'honorable Hugh GuTHRIE, P.C., K.C., M.P., ministre de la Justice, procureur general.
POUR LE COMMONWEALTD H'AUSTRALIE:
Mr. James R. CoLLINS,C.M.G., C.B.E., secretaire officiel et conseiller financier au Bureau
du haut commissaire a Londres.
POUR LE DOMINIONDE LA NOUVELLE-ZELANDE :
Sir Thomas Mason WILFORD, K.C.M.G., K.C., haut commissaire a Londres.
PouR L'UNION SuD-AFRICAINE :
Mr. c. T. TE WATER, haut commissaire a Londres.
PouR L'INDE :
Sir Brojendra L. MITTER, Kt., membre juridique du Conseil executif du Vice-Roi.
LE PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUEDE COLOMBIE:
Le docteur A. J. RESTREPO, delegue permanent aupres de la Societe des Nations.
SA MAJESTELE Ror DE DANEMARKET D'IsLANDE :
M. William BoRBERG, delegue permanent aupres de la Societe des Nations.
mer ou territoires places sous la suzerainete ou
le mandat du Gouvemement de Sa Majeste dans
le Royaume-Uni.
FRANCE ••.••• 16 mai 1935·
N OUVELLE-ZELANDE 16 octobre 1935.
CANADA ..... 12 decembre 1935.
Adhesions
SOUDAN 13 avril1932.
NICARAGUA 30 avril 1932.
MONACO • 7 juin 1932.
BRESIL • 21 novembre 1932.
EGYPTE . 25 janvier 1933·
EQUATEUR 13 avril 1935.
LETTONIE 17 septernbre 1935.
4 Annex 1
1935 League o/ Nations - Treaty Series. 353
THE PRESIDENTOF THE GERMANREICH:
M. Hans Hermann VoLCKERSC , onsul-General at Geneva.
THE PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA:
Mr. Hugh R. WILSON,Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Swiss
Federal Council.
His MAJESTYTHEKINGOFTHEBELGIANS :
M.P. HYMANSM , inister for Foreign Affairs.
HIS MAJESTYTHEKING OFGREATBRITAIN,IRELANDAND THE BRITISHDOMINIONS BEYOND
THESEAS,EMPEROROF INDIA:
FOR GREATBRITAINANDNORTHERN IRELANDand ali parts of the British Empire which
are not separate Members of the League of Nations :
The Right Honourable Viscount CECILOF CHELWOODK ,.C.
FOR THEDOMINION OF CANADA :
The Honourable Hugh GuTHRIE,P.C., K.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attomey
General.
FOR THECOMMONWEALO THF AUSTRALIA :
Mr. James R. CoLLINS,C.M.G., C.B.E., Official Secretary and Financial Adviser in the
Office of the High Commissioner in London. -
FoR THEDOMINION OFNEW ZEALAND :
Sir Thomas Mason WILFORD,K.C.M.G., K.C., High Commissioner in London.
FoR THEUNIONOF SouTH AFRICA:
Mr. C. T. TE WATER,High Commissioner in London.
FoR INDIA:
Sir BrojendraL. MrTTER,Kt., Law Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council.
THE PRESIDENTOFTHEREPUBLICOFCOLOMBIA :
Dr. A. J. RESTREPOP , ermanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
Hrs MAJESTYTHEKINGOFDENMARK ANDIcELAND:
M. William BoRBERG,Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
His Majesty's Governmentmin the United King
dom.
FRANCE... May 16th, 1935.
NEW ZEALAND October 16th, 1935..
CANADA December 12th, 1935.
Accessions :
SUDAN. April 13th, 1932.
NICARAGUA April 3oth, 1932.
MoNAco . June 7th, 1932.
BRAZIL • November 21st, 1932.
EGYPT .. January 25th, 1933.
EcuADOR April 13th, 1935·
LATVIA Septeinber 17th, 1935.
23 No. 3586
5Annex 1
354 SocietedesNations - Recueildes Traites. 1935
LE PRESIDENTDU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUEESPAGNOLE
M. Alejandro LERROUXGARCiA,ministre d'Etat.
LE PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUEDE FINLANDE :
M. Evald GYLLENBOGELc ,onseiller de legation, delegue permanenta. i. aupres de ·la
Societe des Nations.
LE PRESIDENTDE LA R:EPUBLIQUEFRAN<;AISE :
M. Louis RoLLIN, depute, ministre du Commerce et de l'Industrie.
LE PRESIDENTDE LA REPUBLIQUEHELLENIQUE:
M. R. RAPHAEL,delegue permanent aupres de la Societe des Nations.
SA MAJESTELE Roi D'lTALIE :
M. Augusto Rosso, ministre plenipotentiaire,delegue adjoint au Conseil de la Societe
des Nations.
LE PRESIDENTDES ETATS-UNISDU MEXIQUE:
M. Salvador MARTiNEZDE ALVA, directeur du Bureau permanent aupres de la Societe
des Nations.
SA MAJESTELE Rox DE NoRVEGE :
M. Birger BRAADLAND,ministre des Affaires etrangeres.
SA MAJESTELA REINE DES PAYS-BAS:
Le Jonkheer F. BEELAERTSVANBLOKLAND,ministre des Affaires etrangeres.
LE PRESIDENTDE LA REPUBLIQUEDE PoLOGNE :
M. Auguste ZALESKI,ministre des Affaires etrangeres.
SA MAJESTELE Rm DE RouMANIE :
M. Constantin ANTONIADE,envoye extraordinaire et ministre plenipotentiaireaupres
de la Societe des Nations.
LE CONSEILFEDERALSUISSE :
M. Giuseppe MorrA, president de la Confederation suisse, chef du Departemenpolitique
federal.
LE PRESIDENTDE LA REPUBLIQUETCHECOSLOVAQU:E
M. Zdenek FIERLINGER,envoye extraordinaire et ministre plenipotentiaipres le Conseil
federal suisse, delegue permanentaupres de la Societe des Nations.
LE PRESIDENTDE LA REPUBLIQUEDE TURQUIE :
Cemal HusNu bey, envoye extraordinaireet ministre plenipotentiairepres le Conseil
federalsuisse.
SA MAJESTELE Roi DE YouGOSLAVIE:
M. Voislav MARINKOVITCHm , inistre des Affaires etrangeres.
Lesquels,apres avoir communique leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouves en bonne et due forme, sont
convenus des dispositions suivantes:
6 Annex 1
1935 Leagueof Nations- TreatySeries. 355
THE PRESIDENT OFTHEGOVERNMENO TFTHESPANISHREPUBLIC
M. Alejandro LERROUGARCiAM, inister of State.
THE PRESIDENT OFTHEREPUBLICOFFINLAND:
M. Evald GYLLENBOGEL C,ounsellor of Legation, Permanent Delegate a.i. accredited
to the League of Nations.
THE PRESIDENTOFTHEFRENCHREPUBLIC
M. Louis ROLLIN,Deputy, Minister of Commerce and Industry.
THE PRESIDENT OFTHEHELLENICREPUBLIC:
M. R. RAPHAELP, ermanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
His MAJESTYTHEKINGOF ITALY:
M. Augusto Rosso, Minister Plenipotentiary, Substitute Delegate to the· Council of the
League of Nations.
THE PRESIDENT OFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFMEXICO:
M. Salvador MARTiNEDEALVA,Head of the Permanent Office accredited to the League
of Nations.
HIS MAJESTY THEKINGOFNORWAY :
M. Birger BRAADLANDM,inister for Foreign Affairs.
HER MAJESTYlTHE QUEENOF THENETHERLAND:S
Jonkheer F. BEELAERTVANBLOKLANDM , inister for Foreign Affairs.
THE PRESIDENTOF THE PoLISH REPUBLIC:
M. Auguste ZALESKI, inister for Foreign Affairs.
His MAJESTYTHEKINGOF RouMANIA:
M.Constantin ANTONIADE,nvoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary accredited
to the League of Nations.
THE Swiss FEDERALCouNCIL:
M. Giuseppe MorrA, President of the Swiss Confederation, Head of the Federal Political
Department.
THE PRESIDENTOF THECZECHOSLOVA REPUBLIC:
M. Zden~ FkERLINGERE,nvoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Swiss
Federal Council, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
THE PRESIDENTOF THETURKISHREPUBLIC:
CemaCouncil.Bey, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the SwissFederal
His MAJESTYTHEKING OF YuGOSLAVIA :
M. Voislav MARINKOVITCMHi,nister for Foreign Affairs.
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the
following provisions :
No.3586
7Annex 1
356 Societedes Nations - Recueildes Traites. ·1935
Article premier.
Les Hautes Parties contractantes conviennent de prendre, dans les limites de leurs juridictions
respectives, des mesures appropriees pour assurer !'application des dispositions de la presente
convention et pour punir les infractions auxdites dispositions.
Article2.
La presente convention est applicable seulement aux baleines a fanons.
Article 3·
La presente convention ne s'applique pas aux aborigenes habitant les c6tes des territoires
des Hautes Parties contractantes a Ia condition que :
ro IIs £assent seulement usage de canots, de pirogues ou d'autres embarcations
exclusivement indigenes et mues a la voile ou a rames ;
2° IIs ne se servent pas d'armes a feu ;
3o IIs ne soient pas au service de personnes non aborigenes ;
40 IIs ne soient pas tenus de livrer a des tiers le produit de leur chasse.
Article 4·
comprenant Ia baleine du cap Nord, la baleine du Greenland,alela <<rightwhale>>australe, Ia <<right
whale >> du Pacifique et la <right whale >>pygmee australe.
Article5·
II est interdit de capturer ou de tuer les baleineaux ou jeunes baleines non sevrees, les baleines
non adultes et les baleines femelles accompagnees de baleineaux (ou jeunes non sevres).
Article 6.
Les carcasses de baleines capturees devront etre utilisees aussi completement que possible.
En particulier :
ro L'huile devra etre extraite, par ebullition ou par tout autre procede, de tout le
blanc ainsi que de Ia tete et de Ia langue et, en outre, de la queue jusqu'a l'ouverture
exterieure du gr0s intestin.
·Les dispositions du present paragraphe ne seront applicables qu'aux carcasses ou
parties de carcasses non destinees a etre utilisees comme comestibles.
zo Toute usine, flottante ou non, servant a traiter les carcasses de baleine, devra
etre munie de l'outiJlage necessaire pour extraire l'huile du blanc, de la chair et deOS.
3o Si des baleines sont amenees au rivage, des mesures appropriees devront etre prises
pour utiliser les residus apres !'extraction de l'huile.
8 Annex 1
1935 Leagueo/ Nations - Treaty Series. 357
ArticleI.
The High Contracting Parties agree to take, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions,
appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of the present Convention and the
punishment of infractions of the said provisions.
Article2.
The present Convention applies only to baleens or whalebone whales.
Article 3·
The present Convention does not apply to aborigines dwelling on the coasts of the territories
of the High Contracting Parties provided that :
(I) They only use canoes, pirogues or other exclusively native craft propelled by
oars or sails ;
(2) They do not carry firearms;
(3) They are not in the employment of persons other than aborigines ;
(4) They are not under contract to deliver the products of their whaling to any third
person.
Article4·
The taking or killing of right whales, which shall be deemed to include North-Cape whales,
Greenland whales, southern right whales, Pacific right whales and southern pigmy right whales,
is prohibited.
Article 5·
The taking or killing of calves or suckling whales, immature whales, and female whales which
are accompanied by calves (or suckling whales) is prohibited.
Article 6.
The fullest possible use shall be made of the carcases of whales taken. In particular :
(I) There shall be extracted by boiling or otherwise the oil from all blubber and
from the head and the tongue and, in addition, from the tail as far forward as the outer
opening of the lower intestine.
The provisions of this sub-paragraph shall apply only to such carcases or parts of
carcases as are not intended to be used for human food.
(2) Every factory, whether on shore or afloat, used for treating the carcases of
whalesshall be equipped with adequate apparatus for the extraction of oilfrom the blubber,
flesh and bones.
(3) In the case of whales brought on shore, adequate arrangements shall be made
for utilising the residues after the oil has been extracted.
No. 3586
9Annex 1
358 Societe des Nations - Recueil des Traites. 1935
Article 7·
Les canonniers et les equipages des navires baleiniers devront etre embaucaedes conditions
qui feront, dans une grande mesure, dependre leur remuneration de facteurs tels que la taille,
l'espece, la valeur des baleines capturees et Ia quantite d'huile extraite, et non pas seulement du
nombre des baleines capturees, pour autant que cette remuneration depende des resultats de la
chasse.
Article 8.
Aucun navire des Hautes Parties contractantes ne pourra se livaela capture ou au traitement
des baleines sans gu'une licence Speciale ait ete concedeea ce navire par la Haute Partie
contractante dont il portele pavilion, ou sans que son proprietaire ou affreteur ait notifie au
gouvernement de cette Haute Partie contractante son intention d'utiliser ce navire pour la chasse
a la baleine et qu'il ait re<;ududit gouvernement une attestation de cette notification.
Le present article ne porte nullement atteinte au droit, pour l'une quelconque des Hautes
Parties contractantes, d'ex1ger,en outre, une licence emanant dees propres autorites, pour tout
navire desireux d'utiliser son territoire ou ses eaux territoriales en vue de capturer, d'amener
ou de traiter des baleines. La delivrance de cette licence pourra etre, soit refusee, soit subordonnee
aux conditions que la Haute Partie contractante interessee estirnera necessaires ou opportunes,
queUe que soit la nationalite du navire.
Articleg.
La zone geographique d'application des articles de la presente convention s'etendra toutes
les eaux du monde entier, y compris a la fois la haute mer et les eaux territoriales et nationales.
ArticleIO.
r. Les Haute Parties contractantes devront obtenir des navires baleiniers portant leur
pavilion les renseignements les plus complets possibles au point de vue biologiquesur chaque baleine
capturee, et en tout cas en ce qui coilcerne les points suivants :
a) Date de la capture ;
b) Lieu de Ia capture ;
c) Espece;
d) Sexe;
e) Longueur, mesuree si !'animal est retire de l'eau ; approximative si la baleine est
decoupee dans l'eau ;
f) S'il y a un fretus, longueur du fretus et son sexe, s'il peut etre determine ;
g) Renseignements sur le contenu de l'estomac, lorsque cela est possible.
z. La longueur mentionnee aux paragraphes e) et f) du present article sera celle de la ligne
droite depuis l'extremite du museau jusqu'a !'intersection des nageoires caudales.
ArticleII.
Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes se fera adresser par toutes les usines, flottantes
ou etablies sur la terre ferme, soumiaesa juridiction, des releves indiquant le nombre des baleines
N° 3586
10 Annex 1
1935 Leagueo/ Nations - Treaty Series. 359
Article 7·
Gunners and crews of whaling vessels shall be engaged on terms such that their remuneration
shall depend to a considerable extent upon such factors as the size, species, value and yield of
oil of whales taken, and not merely upon the number of whales taken, in so far as payment is made
dependent on results.
Article 8.
No vessel of any of the High Contracting Parties shall engage in taking or treating whales
unless a licence authorising such vessel to engage therein shall have been granted in respect of
such vessel by the High Contracting Party, whose flag she flies, or unless her owner or charterer
has notified the Government of th~ said High Contracting Party of his intention to employ her
in whali an~d has received a certificate of notification from the said Government.
Nothmg in this Article shall prejudice the right of any High ContractingParty to require that,
in addition, a licence shall be required from his own authorities by every vessel desirous of using
his territory or territorial waters fore purposes of taking, landing or treating whales, and such
licence may be refused or may be made subject to such conditions as may be deemed by such High
Contracting Party to be necessary or desirable, whatever the nationality of the vessel may be.
Article9·
The geographical limits within which the Articles of this Convention are to be applied shall
include all the watersof the world, including both the high seas and territorial and national waters.
Article ro.
1. The High Contracting Parties shall obtain, with regard to the vessels flying their flags
and engaged in the taking of whales, the most complete biological information practicable with
regard to each whale taken, and in any case on the followingpoints : ·
(a) Date of taking ;
(b) Place of taking ;
(c) Species;
(d) Sex;
(e) Length ; measured, when taken out of water ; estimated, if cut up in water ;
(f) When fretus is present, length and sex if ascertainable ;
(g) When practicable, information as to stomach contents.
2. The length referred to in sub-paragraphs (e) and (f)of this Article shall be the length of a
straight line taken from the tip of the snout to the notch between the flukes of the tail.
ArticleII.
Each High Contracting Party shall obtain from all factories, on land or afloat, under his
jurisdiction, returnsof the number of whales of each species treated at each factory and of the
No. 3586
11Annex 1
360 Societe des Nations- Recueildes Traites. 1935
de chaque espece traitees dans chacune des usines et les quantites d'huile de chaque qualite, poudre,
guano et autres sous-produits tires dees baleines.
Article 12.
Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes communiquera les renseignements statistiques
relatifs aux operations, concernant les baleines, qui ont eu lieu dans le ressort de leur juridiction,
au Bureau international de statistiques baleinieres,a Oslo. Les renseignements fournis devront
comprendre au moins les details mentionnes a!'article10 et :1° le nom et le tonnage de chaque
usine flottante ;°le nombre et le tonnage global des navires baleiniers ; 3oune liste des stations
terrestres ayant fonctionne au cours de la periode envisagee. Ces renseignements seront fournis
a des intervalles appropries ne depassant pas une annee.
Article 13.
L'obligation, pour l'une quelconque des Hautes Parties contractantes, de prendre des mesures
en vue d'assurer !'observation des dispositions de la presente convention dans ses territoireset
dans ses eaux territoriales et parses navires, sera liaceux de ses territoires auxquels s'applique
la convention et aux eaux territoriales contigues, ainsi qu'aux navires immatricules dans ces
territoires.
Article 14.
La presente convention, dont les textes fran<;aiset anglais feront egalement foi, pourra etre
signee, jusqu'au trenteet un mars 1932, au nom de tout Membre de la Societe des Nations ou de
tout Etat non membre.
Article15.
La presente convention sera ratifiee. Les instruments de ratification seront deposes aupres du
Secretaire general de la Societe des Nations, qui en notifiera le depota tons les Membres de la
Societe des Nations et aux Etats non membres, en indignant les dates auxquelles ces depOts ont
ete effectues.
Article 16.
A partir du premier avril1932,tout Membrede la Societe des Nations et tout Etat non membre
au nom duquella convention n'a pas ete signee acette date, pourra y adherer.
Les instruments d'adhesion seront deposes aupres du Secretaire general de la Societe des
Nations, qui notifiera le depot la date de ce demiera tons les Membres de la Societe des Nations
et aux Etats non membres.
Article 17.
La presente convention entrera en vigueur quatre-vingt-dix jours apres que le Secretaire
general de la Societe des Nations aura re<;udes ratifications ou des adhesions au nom d'au moins
huit Membres de la Societe des Nations ou Etats non membres. Dans ce nombre doivent etre
compris le Royaume de Norvege et le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord.
N• 3586
12 Annex 1
1935 League of Nations - Treaty Series. 361
amounts of oil of each grade and the quantities of meal, guano and other products derived from
them.
Article 12.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall communicate statistical information regarding
all whaling operations under their jurisdictionthe International Bureau for Whaling Statistics
at Oslo. The information given shall comprise at least the particulars mentioned in Articl10
and : (1) the name and tonnage of each floating factory; (2) the number and aggregate tonnage
of the whale catchers ;(3) a list of the land stations which were in operation during the period
concerned. Such information shall be given at convenient intervals not longer than one year.
Article 13.
The obligation of a HighContrac tarty~to take measures to ensure the observance of the
conditions of the present Convention in h1sown territoires and territorial waters, and by his vessels,
shall not applyo those of his territories to which the Convention does not apply, and the territorial
waters adjacent thereto, or to vessels registered in such territories .
Article14·
The present Convention, the French and English texts of which shall both be authoritative,
shall remain open until the thirty-first of M1932 for signature on behalf of any Member of the
League of Nations or of any non-member State .
Article 15.
The present Convention shall be ratified. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall notify their receipt to all Members
of the League of Nations and non-member States indicating the dates of their deposit.
Article16.
State, on whose behalf the Convention has not been signed before that date, may accede thereto.
The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the Leaguef
Nations, who shall notify all the Members of the League of Nations and non-member States of
their depositnd the date thereof.
Article 17.
The present Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the receipt by
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations of ratifications or accessions on behalf of not less
than eight Members of the League or non-member States, including the Kingdom of Norway
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
No. 3586
13Annex 1
362
Societedes Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1935
A l'egard de chacun des Membres ou Etats non membres au nom desquels un instrument
de ratification ou d'adhesion sera ulterieurement depose, Ia convention entrera en vigueur le quatre
vingt-dixieme jour apres la date du dep6t de cet instrument.
Article 18.
Si, apres !'entree en vigueur de la presente convention eta la demande de deux Membres de Ia
Societe, ou deux Etats non membres, a l'egard desquels la presente convention sera ace moment
en vigueur, le Conseil de Ia Societe des Nations convoque une conference pour Ia revision de la
convention, les Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent a s'y faire representer.
Article 19.
I.La presente convention pourra etre denoncee a !'expiration d'une periode de trois annees
a partir de la date a laquelle elle sera entree en vigueur. .
2.La denonciation de la convention s'effectuera par une notification ecrite, adressee au
Secretaire general de Ia Societe des Nations, qui informera tousles Membres de la Societe et les Etats
non membres de chaque notification, ainsi que de Ia date de Ia reception.
3· La denonciation prendra effet six mois apres Ia reception de Ia notification.
Article20.
I.Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes peut declarer, au moment de la signature, de Ia
ratification ou de !'adhesion, que par son acceptation de Ia presente convention, elle n'entend
assumer aucune obligation en ce qui concerneIensemble ou toute partie de ses colonies, protectorats,
territoires d'outre-mer ou territoires places sous sa suzerainete ou son mandat ; dans ce cas, la
presente convention ne sera pas applicable aux territoires faisant l'objet d'une telle declaration.
2.Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes pourra ulterieurement notifier au Secretaire
general de Ia Societe des Nations qu'elleentend rendre Ia presente convention applicable a I'ensemble
ou a toute partie de ses territoires ayant fait !'objet de Ia declaration prevue au paragraphe
precedent. Dans ce cas, Ia convention s'appliquera a tous les territoires vises dans Ia notification
quatre-vingt-dix jours apres Ia reception de cette notification par le Secretaire general de la Societe
des Nations.
3· Chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes peut, a tout moment apres !'expiration de Ia
periode de trois ans prevue a !'article 19, declarer qu'elle entend voir cesser !'application de la
presente convention a !'ensemble ou a toute partie de ses colonies, protectorats, territoires d'outre
mer ou territoires places sous sa suzerainete ou son mandat ; dans ce cas, la convention cessera
d'etre applicable aux territoires faisant !'objet d'une telle declaration six mois apres Ia reception
de cette declaration par le Secretaire general de la Societe des Nations.
4· Le Secretaire general de Ia Societe des Nations communiquera a tous les Membres de la
Societe des Nations et aux Etats non membres les declarations et notifications rer;ues en vertu du
plesent article, ainsi que les dates de leur reception.
Article21.
La presente convention sera enregistree par le Secretaire general de la Societe des Nations
des qu'elle sera entree en vigueur.
14 Annex 1
1935 League o/ Nations - Treaty Series. 363
As regards any Member of the League or non-member State on whose behalf an instrument
of ratification or accession is subsequently deposited, the Convention shall enter into force on the
ninetieth day after the date of the deposit of such instrument.
Article rB.
If after the coming into force of the present Convention the Councilof the League of Nations,
at the request of any two Members of the League or non-member States with regard to which the
Convention is then in force, shall convene a Conferencefor the revision of the Convention, the High
Contracting Parties agree to be represented at any Conferenceso convened.
Article rg.
I. The present Convention may ·be denounced after the expiration of three years from the
date of its coming into force.
2. Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary
General of the League of Nations, who shall inform all the Members of the League and the non
member States of each notification received and of the date of its receipt.
3· Each denunciation shall take effectsix months after the receipt ofits notification.
Article 20.
I. Any High Contracting Party may, at the time of signature, ratification or accession,
declare that, in accepting the present Convention, he does not assume any obligations in respect
of all or any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territones under suzerainty or
mandate ; and the present Convention shall not apply to any territories named in such declaration.
2. Any High Contracting Party may give notice to the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations at any time subsequently that he desires that the Convention shall apply to all or any
of his territories which have been made the subject of a declaration under the preceding paragraph,
and the Convention shall apply to all the territories named in such notice ninety days after its
receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
3· Any High Contracting Party may, at any time after the expiration of the period of three
years mentioned in Article rg, declare that he desires that the present Convention shall cease to
apply to allor any of his colonies, protectorates, overseas territories or territories under suzerainty
or mandate and the Convention shall cease to apply to the territories named in such declaration
six months after its receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
4· The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall communicate to all the Members
of the League of Nations and the non-member States all declarations and notices received in virtue
of this Article and the dates of their receipt.
Article21.
The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations
as soon as it has entered into force.
No. 3586
15Annex 1
364 Societe des Nations - Recueil des Traites. 1935
En foi de quoi les plenipotentiaires sus In faith whereof the above-mentioned Pleni
mentionnes ont signea presente convention.potentiaries have signed the present Convention.
Fait a Geneve, le vingt-quatre septembre Done at Geneva, on the twenty-fourth day
mil neuf cent trenteun, en un seul exemplaof September one thousand nine hundredd
qui sera conserve dans les archives du Secthirty-one, in a single copy which shall be kept
tariat de la Societe des Nationsont cdpie in the archives of Secretariat of the League
certifiee conforme sera remise a tousles Mof Nationsand of which certified true copies
de la Societe aux Etats non membres. shall be delivered to all the Members of the
League of Nations and to the non-member
States.
ALBAN IE ALBANIA
Lee KuRTI.
ALLEMAGNE GERMANY
Dr. Hans Hermann VoLCKERS.
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hugh R. WILSON.
BELGIQUE BELGIUM
HYMANS.
GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET IRLANDE DU GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
NORD, ainsi que toutes parties de !'EmpireIRELAND, and all parts of the British
britanniquenon membres separes de la Empire which are not separate Members of
Societe des Nations. the League ofthe Nations.
CECIL.
CANADA CANADA
H. GUTHRIE.
COMMONWEALTH D'AUSTRALIE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
James R. CoLLINS.
NOUVELLE-ZELANDE NEW ZEALAND
Thomas M. WILFORD.
UNION SUD-AFRICAINE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
C. T. TE WATER.
INDE INDIA
B. L. MITTER.
COLOMBIE COLOMBIA
A. J.RESTREPO.
DANEMARK DENMARK
Avec reserve, jusqu'a nouvel ordre, pourconcerne le Groenland.
William BORBERG.
1
Tt'anslation :
With reservation, until further notice, as regards Greenland.
16 Annex 1
1935 League o/ Nations - Treaty Series. 365
ESPAGNE SPAIN
A. LERROUX.
FINLANDE FINLAND
Evald GYLLENBOGEL.
FRANCE FRANCE
Louis ROLLIN.
GRECE GREECE
R. RAPHAEL.
ITALIE ITALY
Augusto Rosso.
MEXIQUE MEXICO
S. Martinez DE ALVA.
NORVEGE NORWAY
Birger BRAADLAND.
PAYS-BAS THE NETHERLANDS
Pour le Royaume en Europe et les Indes neerland1ises.
BEELAERTSVANBLOKLAND.
POLOGNE POLAND
Auguste ZALESKI.
ROUMANIE ROUMANIA
C. ANTONIADE.
SUISSE SWITZERLAND
MOTTA
TCHECOSLOVAQUIE CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Zd. FIERLINGER.
TURQUIE TURKEY
CernaHusNu.
YOUGOSLAVIE YUGOSLAVIA
Dr V. MARINKOVITCH.
1Translation :
For the Kingdom in Europe and the Netherlands Indies.
No. 3586
1718 Annex 2
2. International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 7 May
1938) 190 LNTS 79
UNION SUD-AFRICAINE, ALLEMAGNE,
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERJQUE,
REPUBLIQUE ARGENTINE,
COMMONWEALTH D'AUSTRALJE, etc.
Accord international pour Ia reglementation de Ja chasse a
Ia baJeine, signe a Londres, le 8 juin 1937• et declaration
du principal secretaire d'Etat aux Affaires etrangeres de
Sa Majeste Je Roi de Grande-Bretagne, d'lrlande et des
Territoires britanniques au deJa des mers, Empereur des
)ndes, relative a ]a prorogation dudit accord, signee a
Londres, Je 29 juin 1938.
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA, GERMANY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, etc.
lnternationalAgreement for the Regulation of WhaHng,
signed at London, June 8th, 1937, and Declaration by
the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
relating to the Prolongationof the said Agreement,
signed at London, June 29th,938.
19Annex 2
80 Societedes Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1938
1
No. 4406. - INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE REGULATION
OF WHALING. SIGNED AT LONDON, JUNE 8TH, 1937.
English official text communicated by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Great
Britain. The registration of this Agreement took placeuly 27th, 1938.
THE GoVERNMENTs OF THE UNION OF SouTH AFRICA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, GERMANY, THE UNITED KINGDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE IRISH FREE STATE, NEW ZEALAND AND NORWAY,
desiring to secure the prosperity of the whaling industry and, for that purpose, to maintain the
stock of whales, have agreed as follows :
Article 1.
The contracting Governments will take appropriate measures to ensure the application of
the provisions of the present Agreement and the punishment of infractions against the said
provisions, and, in particular, will maintain least one inspector of whaling on each factory ship
under their jurisdiction.The inspectors shall be appointed and paid by Governments.
Article z.
The present Agreement applies to factory ships and whale catchers and to land stations as
defined in Article 18 under the jurisdiction of the contracting Governments, and to all waters
inwhich whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships and/or whale catchers.
1
Ratifications deposited in London :
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA • • • • • • September 3rd, 1937·
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND October 25th, 1937.
NoRWAY ••• October 29th, 1937.
GERMANY ••• November sth, 1937.
IRELAND ••• May 7th, 1938.
NEW ZEALAND: June 24th, 1938.
Accessions :
MEXICO •••• May 7th, 1938.
CANADA June qth, 1938.
Came into force May 7th, 1938.
20 Annex 2
1938 Leagueof Nations - Treaty Series. 81
1TRADUCTION. - TRANSLATION.
No 4406. - ACCORD 2 INTERNATIONAL POUR LA REGLEMENTA
TION DE LA CHASSE A LA BALEINE. SIGN£ A LONDRES, LE
8 JUIN 1937.
Texte otficielanglais communique par le secretaired'Etat aux A[faires etrangeresde Sa Majeste en
Grande-Bretagne. L'enregistrement de cet accord a eu lieu le27 juille1938.
LES GOUVERNEMENTD SE L'UNIONSUD-AFRICAINED , ES ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE,DE LA
R:EPUBLIQUEARGENTINE,DU COMMONWEALTD H'AUSTRALIED , E L'ALLEMAGNED , U ROYAUME
UNI DEGRANDE-BRETAGNEETn'IRLANDEDUNORD,DEL'ETATLIBRED'IRLANDED , ELANOUVELLE
ZELANDEet DE LANoRvEGE, desireux d'assurer la prosperite de l'industrie baleiniere ea, cette
fin, de proteger l'espece baleiniere, sont convenus de ce qui suit :
Article premier.
Les gouvernements contractants prendront toutes mesures utiles en vue d'assurer !'application
des dispositions du present accord et de punir les infractions auxdites dispositions ; ils maintiendront,
notamment, au moins un inspecteur de la chasse a la baleine a bord de chaque usine flottante
soumise a leur juridiction. Les inspecteurs seront nommes et retribues par les gouvernements.
Article 2.
Le present accord s'applique aux usines flottantes et aux navires baleiniers, ainsi qu'aux stations
terrestres, tels qu'ils sont definis a !'article 18 et pour autant qu'ils sont Soumis a la juridiction
des gouvernements contractants, de meme qu'a toutes les eaux dans lesquelles la chasse ala baleine
est pratiquee par lesdites usines flottantes et fou par lesdits navires baleiniers.
1 Traduit par le Secretariat de la Societe des 1Translated by the Secretariat of the League
Nations, a titre d'information. of Nations, for information.
B Ratifications depostfasLondres :
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE . • . • •••• 3 septembre 1937.
GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET !RLANDE DU NORD 25 octobre 1937.
NORVEGE ••... 29 octobre 1937.
ALLEMAGNE .... 5 novembre 1937.
lRLANDE •••.. 7 mai 1938.
N OUVELLE-ZELANDE 24 juin 1938.
Adhesions:
MEXIQUE ..... 7 mai 1938.
CANADA ..•.. 14 juin 1938.
Entre en vigueur le 7 mai 1938.
6
21Annex 2
82 Societe des Nations - Recueil des Traites. 1938
Article 3·
Prosecutions for infractions against or contraventions of the present Agreement and the
regulations made thereunder shall be instituted by the Government or a Department of the
Government.
Article 4·
It is forbidden to take or kill Grey Whales and/or Right Whales.
Article 5.
It is forbidden to take or killany Blue, Fin, Humpback or Sperm whales below the following
lengths, viz. : .
(a) Blue whales . . . . 70 feet,
(b) Fin whales . . . . 55 feet,
(c) Humpback whales . 35 feet,
(d) Sperm whales . . . 35 feet.
Article 6.
It is forbidden to take orkillcalves, or suckling whales or female whales which are accompanied
by calves or suckling whales.
Article 7·
It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a whale catcher attached thereto for the purpose of
taking or treating baleen whales in any waters south of 40°South Latitude, except during the period
from the 8th day of December to the 7th day of March following, both days inclusive, provided
that in the whaling season 1937-38the period shall extend to the 15th day of March, 1938,inclusive.
Article 8.
It is forbidden to use a land station or a whale catcher attached thereto for the purpose of
taking or treating whales in any area or in any waters for more than six months in any period
of twelve months, such period of six months to be continuous.
Article 9·
It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a whale catcher attached thereto for the purpose of
taking or treating baleen whales in any of the following areas, viz. :
(a) In the Atlantic Ocean north of 40o South Latitude and in the Davis Strait,
Baffin Bay and Greenland Sea;
(b) In the Pacific Ocean east of 15ooWest Longitude between 40° South Latitude
and 35° North Latitude; 0
(c) In the Pacific Ocean west of 15o West Longitude between 40° South Latitude
and z(d)NoIn the Indian Ocean north of 40° South Latitude.
Article 10.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, any contracting Government may
grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorising that national to kill,take and treat whales
N° 4406
22 Annex 2
1938 Leagueof Nations - Treaty Series. 83
Article 3·
En cas d'infraction ou de contravention aux dispositions du present accord et des reglements
edictes en vertu dee dernier,les poursuites seront intentees par le gouvernement ou par un service
gouvernemental.
Article4·
Il est interdit de capturer ou de tuer les baleines gr(grey whales)et fou le<right whales ».
Article 5.
Il est interdit de capturer ou de tuer les baleines bleues (blue whales). les baleines a
nageoires(fin whales), les baleinesa bosse (humpback whales) ou les cachalots (sperm whales)
qui n'atteignent pas les longueurs suivantes :
a) Baleines bleues . . 70 pieds,
b) Baleines a nageoires 55 pieds,
c) Baleines a bosse. 35 pieds,
d) Cachalots . . . . . 35 pieds.
Article6.
Il est interdit de capturer ou de tuer les baleineaux, ou les jeunes baleines non sevrees, ou
les baleines femelles accompagnees de baleineaux ou de jcunes baleines non sevrees.
Article7·
Il est interdit de faire usage d'une usine flottante ou d'un navire baleinier rattaacelle-ci
sud, sauf pendant Ia periode comprise entre le 8 decembre et le l7 mars suivant, I'une et !'autre
date incluse ; toutefois,ilest entendu que pour Ia campagne 1937/38, la periode en question
s'etendra jusqu'au IS mars 1938 inclusivement.
Article8.
Il est interdit de faire usage d'une station terrestre ou d'un navire baleinier ratacelle-ci
en vue de capturer ou de traiter des baleines dans des zones ou des eaux quelconques pendant
plus de six mois par periode de douze mois, etant entendu que ladite periode de six mois devra
~tre continue.
Article 9·
Il est interdit de faire usage d'une usine flottante ou d'un navire baleinier rattaccelle-ci
en vue de capturer ou de traiter des baleinesa fanons dans les zones ci-apres :
a) Dans !'ocean Atlantique, au nord du 40° de latitude sud et dans le detroit de
Davis, la baie de Baffin et la mer du Groenland;
b) Dans !'oceanPacifique, a l'est du rsoo de longitude ouest, entre le 40o de latitude
sud et le 35° de latitude nord ;
c) Dans !'oceanPacifique,a !'ouestdu 150°delongitude ouest, entre le 40°de latitude
sud et le zoo de latitude nord ;
d) Dans !'ocean Indien, au nord du 40o de latitude sud.
ArticleIO.
Nonobstant toute disposition contraire du present accord, chaque gouvernement contractant
pourra accorder a ses ressortissants un permis special autorisant !'interesae tuer, capturer et
No. 4406
23Annex 2
84 Societedes Nations- Recueildes Traites. 1938
for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such
other c(;mditionsas the_contracting q-overnment thin fit.and the killing, taking and treating of
whales m accordance w1th the terms m force under this Article shall be exempt from the operation
of this Agreement.
Any contracting Government may at any time revoke a permit granted by it under this Article.
Article II.
The fullest possible use shall be made of all whales taken. Except in the case of whales or
parts of whales intended for human food or for feeding animals, the oil shall be extracted by boiling
?r othenvise from all blubber, meat (except the meat of sperm whales) and bones other than the
mternal organs, whale bone and flippers, of all whales delivered to the factory ship or land station.
Article 12.
There shall not at any time be taken for delivery to any factory ship or land station a greater
number of whales than can be treated efficiently and in accordance with Article II of the present
Agreement by the plant and personnel therein within a period of thirty-six hours from the time
of the killing of each whale.
Article 13.
Gunners and crews of factory ships, land stations and whale catchers shall be engaged on
the species, size and yield of whales taken, and not merely upon the number of the whales taken,
and no bonus or other remuneration, calculated by reference to the results of their work, shall be
paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is
forbidden by this Agreement.
Article 14·
With a view to the enforcement of the preceding Article, each contracting Government shall
obtain, in respect of every whale catcher under its jurisdiction, an account showing the total
emolument of each gunner and member of the crew and the manner in which the emolument of
each of them is calculated.
Article IS.
Articles s. g, I3 and I4 of the present Agreement, in so far as they impose obligations not
already in force, shall not until the rst day of December, I937, apply to factory ships, land stations
or catchers attached thereto which are at present operating or which have already taken practical
measures with a view to whaling operations during the period before the said date. In respect
of such factory ships, land stations and whale catchers, the Agreement shall in any event come
into force on the said date.
Article r6.
The contracting Governments shall obtain with regard to all factory ships and land stations
under their jurisdiction records of the number of whales of each species treated at each factory
N• 4406
24 Annex 2
1938 League o/ Nations - Treaty Series. 85
traiter des baleines en vue de recherches scientifiques, ladite autorisation pouvant etre subordonnee
a telles restrictions, en ce qui concerne le nombre, et a telles autres conditions que le gouvernement
contractant jugera opportun de prescrire ; dans ce cas, les baleines pourront etre tuees, capturees
ou traitees sans qu'ily ait lieu de se conformer aux dispositions du present accord.
aura accorde en vertu du present article., a n'importe quel moment, annuler un permis ~qu'il
ArticleII.
Toutes les baleines capturees devront etre utilisees aussi completement que possible. Sauf
s'ils'agite baleines ou de parties de baleines destinees ala consommation humaine ou ala nourriture
du betail, l'huile sera extraite par ebullition ou par tout autre procede de tout le blanc, de toute
la chair (a !'exception de la chair des cachalots) et de tons les os, autres que les organes internes,
fanons et nageoires, de toutes les baleines livrees a l'usine flottanteaoIa station terrestre.
Article12.
A aucun moment il ne devra etre livre a une usine flottante ou une station terrestre plus de
baleines que leur outillaget leur personnel n'en permettent de traiter efficacementet conformement
a !'articlII du present accord dans un delai de trente-six heures a compter de l'heure a laquelle
chaque baleine aura ete tuee.
Article13.
Les canonniers et les equipages des usines flottantes, des stations terrestres et des navires
baleiniers devront etre engages a des conditions qui feront, dans une large mesure, dependre leur
non pas seulement de leur nombre ; aucune prime ni autre remuneration calculee sur la base dest
resultats de leur travail ne sera versee aux canonniers et aux equipages des navires baleiniers pour
toute baleine dont Ia capture est interdite par le present accord.
Article 14.
En vue d'assurer !'application de !'article precedent, chaque gouvernement contractant
exigera, pour tout navire baleinier soumis a sa juridiction, la productiond'un compte indiquant
le total des emoluments de chaque canonnier et membre de !'equipage, ainsi que les modalites
selon lesquelles les emoluments de chacun des interesses sont calcules.
Article 15.
Les articles 5, g, 13 et 14 du present accord, pour autant qu'ils etablissent des obligations
non encore existantes, ne s'appliqueront pas avant le rer decembre 1937 aux usines flottantes,
aux stations terrestres ou aux navires baleiniers rattaches a celles-ci qui sont actuellement en
exploitation ou qui ontdeja pris des mesures effectivesen vue dselivrera leurs operations pendant
la periode anterieure a la date susindiquee. En ce qui concerne ces usines flottantes, stations
terrestreset navires baleiniers, l'accord entrera, en tout cas, en vigueur ala date en question.
Article 16.
Les gouvernements contractants exigeront de toutes les usines flottantes et stations terrestres
soumises a leur juridiction des releves indiquant le nombre de baleines de chaque espece traitees
No. 4406
25Annex 2
86 Societe des Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1938
ship or land station and as to the aggregate amounts of oil of each grade and quantities of meal,
guano and other products derived from them, together with particulars with respectto each whale
treated in the factory ship or land station as to the date and place taking, the species and sex
of the whale, its length and, if it contains a fretus, the length and sex, if ascertainable, of the fretus.
Article 17.
jurisdiction, communicate to the International Bureau for Whaling Statisticstioat Sandefjord in
Norway the statistical information specified in Article of the present Agreement together with
any information which may be collected or obtained by them in regard to the calving grounds
and migration routes of whales.
In communicating this information the Governments shall specify :
(a) The name and tonnage of each factory ship ;
{b) The number and aggregate tonnage of the whale catchers;
{c) A list of the land stations which were in operation during the period concerned.
Article 18.
In the present Agreement the following expressions have the meanings respectively assigned
to them, that is to say :
" Factory ship " means a ship in which or on which whales are treated whether wholly
or in part;
" Whale catcher " means a ship used for the purpose of hunting, taking, towing,
holding on to, or scouting for whales ;
thereto, in which or"at which whales are treated whether wholly or in part ;ers adjacent
" Baleen whale " means any whale other than a toothed whale ;
" Blue whale " means any whale known by the name of blue whale, Sibbald's rorqual
or sulphur bottom ; ·
" Fin whale " means any whale known by the name of common finback, common
finner, common rorqual, finback, fin whale, herring whale, razorback, or true fin whale ;
" Grey whale "means any whale known by the name of grey whale, California grey,
devil fish, hard head, mussel digger, grey back, rip sack ;
" Humpback whale " means any whale known by the name of bunch, humpback,
humpback whale, humpbacked whale, hump whale or hunchbacked whale ;
" Right whale " means any whale known by the name of Atlantic right whale,Arctic
right whale, Biscayan right whale, bowhead, great polar whale, Greenland right whale,
Greenland whale, Nordkaper, North Atlantic right whale, North Cape whale, Pacific
right whale, pigmy right whale, Southern pigmy right whale or Southern right whale ;
" Sperm whale " means any whale known by the name of sperm whale, spermacet
whale, cachalot or pot whale ;
26 Annex 2
1938 Leanue of Nations - Treaty Series. 87
par chaque usine flottante ou station terrestre, ainsi que les quantites totales d'huile de chaque
qualite et les quantites de poudre, de guano et autres sous-produits tires des baleines, dem~me que,
pour chaque baleine traitee dans l'usine flottante ou la station terrestre, des renseignements sur
la date et le lieu de la capture, l'especeet le sexe de la baleine, sa longueur et, s'il y a un fretus,
la longueur de ce dernier et son sexe, s'il peut etre determine.
Article I7.
Pour toutes les operations concernant les baleines et relevant de leur juridiction, les gouver
nements contractants communiqueront au Bureau international des Statistiques baleinieres, a
Sandefjord, en Norvege, les renseignements statistiques prevus a !'article I6 du present accord,
ainsi que tous renseignements qu'ils pourront recueillir ou obtenir sur les lieux de reproduction
et les voies de migration des baleines.
En transmettant ces renseignements, les gouvemements specifieront:
a) Le nom et le tonnage de chaque usine flottante;
b) Le nombre et le tonnage global des navires baleiniers ;
c) Une liste des stations terrestres ayant fonctionne au cours de la periode envisagee.
ArticleI8.
Dans le present accord, les expressions ci-apres ont respectivement le sens enonce:
Par cusine flottante »,on entend un navire a bord duquel des baleines sont traitees
en tout ou en partie.
Par ccnavire baleinier », on entend un navire utilise pour chasser, capturer, tuer,
poursuivre ou reperer des baleines.
Par cstation terrestre ll,on entend une usine sur la terre ferme ou dans les eaux
territoriales limitrophes, dans ou par laquelle des baleines sont traitees en tout ou en
partie.
Par cbaleine a fanons ,, (baleen whale), on entend toute baleine autre que la baleine
denticete.
Par cbaleine bleue ,, (blue whale), on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom de
baleine bleue, de rorqual de Sibbald ou de ccsulphur bottom ,,,
Par cbaleine a nageoires ,,(fin whale), on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom
de baleine a nageoires commune, de physale commun, de rorqual commun, de baleine
a nageoires (fin back, fin whale)'de ((herring whale llde gibbar ou de baleine a nageoires
veritable.
Par cbaleine grise ,,, on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom de baleine grise,
de grise de Californie, de cdevil fish», de chard head llde cmussel digger», de cgrey
back ,,, de crip sack ».
Par cbaleine a bosse ,,, on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom de jubarte, de
cchumpback », de cchumpback whale ll,de cchumpbacked whale llde chump whale ,, ou
de uhunchbacked whale ,,,
Par cright whale ,,, on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom de ccright whale ,,
de !'Atlantique, de ccright whale ))arctique, de ccright whale ,,de Biscaye, de ccbowhead»,
de grande baleine polaire, de cright whale,, du Groenland, de baleine du Groenland,
de uNordkaper », de «right whale,, de !'Atlantique nord, de baleine du cap Nord, de
ccright whale ,,du Pacifique, de cright whale »pygmee, de cright whale pygmee ,,australe
ou de cright whale ,, australe.
Par ccachalot ,, (sperm whale), on entend toute baleine connue sous le nom de
baleine a spermaceti, de ((cachalot )) ou de ((pot whale )),
No. 4406
27Annex 2
88 Societe des Nations - Recueil des Traites. 1938
" Length " in relation to any whale means the distance measured on the level in a
straight line between the tip of the upper jaw and the notch between the flukes of
the tail.
Article 19.
The present Agreement shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited
with the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as soon as
possible. Itshall come into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by a majority
of the signatory Governments, which shall include the Governments of the United Kingdom,
Germany and Norway ; and for any other Government not included in such majority on the date
of the deposit of its instrument of ratification. ·
The Government of the United Kingdom will inform the other Governments of the date on
which the Agreement thus comes into force and the date of any ratification received subsequently.
Article20.
The present Agreement shall come into force provisionally on the 1st day of July, 1937, to
the extent to which the signatory Governments are respectively able to enforce it ; provided
that if any Government within two months of the signature of the Agreement informs the
Government of the United Kingdom that it is unwilling to ratify it the provisional application
of the Agreement in respect of that Government shall thereupon cease.
The Government of the United Kingdom will communicate the name of any Government
which has signified that it is unwilling to ratify the Agreement to the other Governments, any of
whom may within one month of such communication withdraw its ratification or accession or
in respect of that Government shall thereupon cease. Any such withdrawal or communicationthe Agreement
shall be notifiedto the Government of the United Kingdom, by whom it will be transmitted to
the other Governments.
Article21 .
The present Agreement shall, subject to the preceding Article, remain in force until the 30th
day of June, 1938, and thereafter if, before that date, a majority of the contracting Governments,
which shall include the Governments of the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, shall have
agreed to extend its duration. In the event of such extension it shall remain in force until the
contracting Governments agree to modify it, provided that any contracting Government may,
at any time after the 30th day of June, 1938, by giving notice on or before the 1st day of January
in any year to the Government of the United Kingdom (who on receipt of such notice shall at
once communicate it to the other contracting Governments) withdraw from the Agreement, so
that it shall cease to be in force in respect of that Government after the 30th day of June following,
and that any other contracting Government may, by giving notice in the like manner within one
month of the receipt of such communication, withdraw also from the Agreement, so that it shall
cease to be in force respecting it after the same date.
Article22.
Any Government which has not signed the present Agreement may accede thereto at any
time after it has come into force. Accession shall be effected by means of a notificatioin writing
addressed to the Government of the United Kingdom and shall take effect immediately after the
date of its receipt.
The Government of the United Kingdom will inform all the Governments which have signed
or acceded to the present Agreement of all accessions received and the date of their receipt.
28 Annex 2
1938 League of Nations - Treaty Series. 89
Pa.r «longueur », en ce qui concerne la baleine, on entend la distance mesuree,
sur le meme plan, par une ligne droite entre l'extremite de la machoire superieure
et !'intersection des nageoires caudales.
Article19.
Le present accord sera ratifie, et les instruments de ratification seront deposes, aussitot que
possible, aupres du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord. II
entrera en vigueur lorsque les instruments de ratification auront ete deposes par une majorite
des gouvernements signataires, comprenant les Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne
et de la Norvege, et, en ce qui concerne tout autre gouvernement non compris dans cette majorite,
a la date du depot de son instrument de ratification.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni fera connaitre aux autres gouvernements la date a laquelle
l'accord entrera ainsi en vigueur et la date de toute ratification rec;ue ulterieurement.
Article20.
Le present accord entrera en vigueur a titre provisoire le 1er juillet 1937, dans la mesure
oil les gouvernements signataires pourront respectivement l'appliquer, etant entendu, toutefois,
que, si un gouvernement quelconque fait savoir au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, dans les
deux mois qui suivront la signature de l'accord, qu'il n'est pas dispose a ratifier ce dernier,
!'application provisoire de !'accord cessera pour ce qui concerne ce gouvernement.
Le nom de tout gouvernement qui a fait savoir qu'il n'etait pas dispose a ratifier l'accord
sera notifiear le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni aux autres gouvernements. Chacun de cesderniers
pourra, dans le delai d'un mois a dater de cette communication, retirer sa ratification ou adhesion
ou faire savoir qu'il n'est pas dispose a ratifier !'accord ; de ce fait, !'application provisoire de
!'accord cessera a l'egard de ce gouvernement. Tout retrait ou toute communication de ce genre
seront notifiesau Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, qui les transmettra aux autres gouvernements.
Article21.
Sous reserve des dispositions de !'article precedent, le present accord demeurera en vigueur
jusqu'au 30 juin 1938, et ulterieurement si, avant la date indiquee, la majorite des gouvernements
contractants, comprenant les Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne et de la Norvege,
conviennent dele proroger. En cas de prorogation, l'accord demeurera en vigueur jusqu'a ce que
les gouvernements contractants conviennent de le modifier, etant entendu, toutefois, que tout
gouvernement contractant pourra, a n'importe quel moment apres le 30 juin 1938, par un avis
donne le 1er janvier de n'importe queUeannee, ou auparavant, au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
(qui, des reception de cet avis, le communiquera aux autres gouvernements contractants), se
retirer de l'accord, de telle sorte que celui-ci cessera d'etre applicable a l'egard de ce gouvernement
apres le 30 juin suivant. 11 est egalement entendu que tout autre gouvernement contractant
pourra, par un avis analogue, donne dans le mois qui suivra la reception de cette communication,
se retirer egalement de l'accord, de sorte que celm-ci cessera, a la meme date, d'etre applicable
a son egard.
Article22.
Tout gouvernement non signataire du present accord pourra adherer a celui-ci a n'importe
quel moment apres son entree en vigueur. L'adhesion s'effectuera au moyen d'une notification
date de sa reception.ouvernement du Royaume-Uni, et prendra effet immediatement apres la
qui auront signe le present accord ou y auront adhere, toute adhesion rec;ueainsi que la date de
sa reception.
No. 4406
29Annex 2
90 Societedes Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1938
In faith whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised, have signed the present Agreement.
Done in London the 8th day of June, 1937, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NortheIreland,
by whom certified copies will be transmitted to all the other contracting Governments.
For the Government of the Union of South Africa :
F. J. DU Ton.
For the Government of the United States of America:
Herschel V. jOHNSON.
Remington KELLOGG .
For the Government of the Argentine Republic :
Manuel E. MALBRA.N
M. FJNCATI.
T. L. MARINI.
For the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia :
S.M. BRUCE.
For the Government of Germany:
WoHLTHAT .
For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland:
Henry G. MAURICE.
Geo. HoGARTH.
For the Government of the Irish Free State :
Sean O'FaolainO'DULCHAONTIGH.
For the Government of New Zealand:
G. McNAMARA.
For the Government of Norway :
BirgerBERGERSEN.
30 Annex 2
1938 League o/ Nations - Treaty Series. 91
En foi de quoi, les soussignes, dfunent autorises, ont signe le present accord.
Fait a Londres, le 8 juin 1937, en un exemplaire unique ; celui-ci restera depose dans les
archives du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, qui en
transmettrades copies certifiees confonaetous les autres gouvernements contractants.
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-africaine :
F. J.DU ToiT.
Pour le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique:
Herschel V. jOHNSON.
Remington KELLOGG.
Pour le Gouvernement de la Republique Argentine :
Manuel E. MALBRAN.
M. FINCATI.
T. L. MARINI.
Pour le Gouvernement du Commonwealth d'Australie :
S.M. BRUCE.
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Allerriagne :
WOHLTHAT.
Pour le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande du Nord:
Henry G. MAURIC.E
Geo. HoGARTH.
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Etat libre d'Irlande :
Sean O'Faolain O'DuLCHAONTIGH.
Pour le Gouvernement de Ia Nouvelle-Zelande :
G. MeN AMARA .
Pour le Gouvernement de la Norvege :
BirgerBERGERSEN.
31Annex 2
92 Societe des Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1938
DECLARATION
BY THE PRINCIPALSEcRETARYOF STATEFORFoREIGNAFFAIRSOF His MAJESTYTHE KING
oF GREATBRITAIN,IRELANDANDTHE BRITISHDoMINIONsBEYONDTHE SEAS,EMPEROR
OF INDIA,REGARDING THEPROLONGATIO NFTHEINTERNATIONA ALGREEMENT OFjUNE 8TH,
1937, FORTHEREGULATION OFWHALING.SIGNEDATLONDONj,UNE 29TH,1938.
RegisteredonNovember2nd, 1938, attherequesto.fHis Mafesty'sSecretaryofState forForeignAffairs
in GreatBritain.
Whereas the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, signed in London on
the 8th June, 1937, has been ratified by the Governments of the United States of America,
Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Eire, New Zealand and
Norway, and came into force in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 on the 7th day of
May, 1938 ; and
Whereas the Governments of the United States of Mexico and Canada have acceded, with
effect from the 7th May, 1938, and the 14th June, 1938, respectively, to the said Agreement in
accordance with Article 22 thereof ; and
Whereas in consequence the Governments of the United States of America, Germany, the
United Kingdom of Great Britainnd Northern Ireland, Eire, New Zealand, Norway, the United
States of Mexico and Canada are contracting Governments; and
the30th June, 1938, and thereafter if, before that date, a majority of the contracting Governments,
which shall include the Governments ofhe United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, shall have
agreed to extend its duration ;
The undersigned, Principal Secretary ofate for Foreign Affairs of His Majesty the King
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, hereby
certifies that the Governments of the United States of America, Canada, Germany, the United
Kingdom of Great Britainnd Northern Ireland, Eire, the United States of Mexico,New Zealand and
Norway have agreed to extend the duration of the said Agreement, and that the Agreement will
accordingly, under the provisions of Article 21, continue in force after the 30th June, 1938.
Witness my hand this 29th day of June, 1938.
Given at the Foreign Office, London.
HALIFAX.
Certified:true copy :
Stephen Gaselee,
Librarian and Keeper
of the Papers at the Foreign Office.
London, nth Oct., 1938.
32 Annex 2
1938 League of Nations - Treaty Series. 93
DECLARATION
DU PRINCIPAL SECRETAIRE D'ETAT AUX AFFAIRES ETRANGERES DE SA MAJESTE LE R01 DE GRANDE
BRETAGNE, D'lRLANDE ET DES TERRITOIRES BRITANNIQUES AU DELA DES MERS, EMPEREUR
DES lNDES, RELATIVE A LA PROROGATION DE L'ACCORD INTERNATIONAL DU 8 JUIN 1937 POUR
LA REGLEMENTATION DE LA CHASSE A LA BALEINE. SIGNEE A LONDRES, LE 29 JUIN 1938.
Enregistree l2 novembre 1938ala demande du secretaired'Etat aux Afjaires etrangeres de Sa Mafeste
en Grande-Bretagne.
Attendu que l'Accord international concernant la reglementation de la chasse a la baleinc,
signe a Londres, le 8 juin 1937, a ete ratifie par les Gouvernements des Etats-Unis d'Amerique,
de l'Allemagne, du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, de l'Eire, de la
Nouvelle-Zelande et de la Norvege, et est entre en vigueur, conformement aux dispositions de
!'article 19, le 7 mai 1938 ;
Attendu que les Gouvernements des Etats-Unis du Mexique et du Canada ont adhere, avec
effet a partir du 7 mai 1938 et du 14 juin 1938, respectivement, audit accord, conformement a
!'article 22 de ce dernier ; et
Attendu qu'en consequence les Gouvernements des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, de l'Allemagne,
du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, de l'Eire, de la Nouvelle-zelande,
de la Norvege, des Etats-Unis du Mexique et du Canada, sont des gouvernements contractants; et
Attendu que, conformement aux dispositions de !'article 21, ledit accord reste en vigueur
jusqu'au 30 juin 1938, et ulterieurement si, avant la date indiquee, la majorite des gouvernements
contractants, comprenant les Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne et de la Norvege,
conviennent de le proroger ;
Le soussigne, principal secretaire d'Etat aux Affairesetrangeres de Sa Majeste le Roi de Grande
Bretagne, d'Irlande et des Territoires britanniques au dela des mers, Empereur des Indes, certifie
par la presente que les Gouvernements des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, du Canada, de l'Allemagne,
du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, de l'Eire, des Etats-Unis du Mexique,
de la Nouvelle-Zelande et de la Norvege ont convenu de proroger ledit accord et que, par consequent,
celui-ci, conformement aux dispositions de !'article 21,demeurera en vigueur apres le 30 juin 1938.
En foi de quoi j'ai signe les presentes, ce vingt-neuvieme jour du mois de juin 1938.
Fait au Foreign Office,Londres.
HALIFAX.
3334 Annex 3
3. Protocol amending the International Agreement on the Regulation of Whaling
(entered into force 30 December 1938) 196 LNTS 131
UNION SUD-AFRICAIN·E,
ALLEMAGNE,
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE,
REPUBLJQUE ARGENTINE,
COMMONWEALTH D'AUSTRALIE, etc.
Protoco)e modifiant IAccord international du
8 juin •937 pour )a regJementation de )a
chasse a Ja ba1eine. Signe a Londres, Je
24 juin 1938.
Texte ogiciel anglais communique par le secretaired'Etat aux Affaires etrangeres
de SaMafesteenGrande-BretaL'enregistrement a le lieu
31mai1939·
UNION OF SOUTH APRICA,
GERMANY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC,
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, etc.
Protocol amending the International Agree
ment of june 8th, 193 7, for the Regu]a
tion of WhaHng. Signed at London, June
24th, I938.
English official text communicated by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs Great BriThe registration took p1939.May 31st,
35Annex 3
132 Societe des Nations - Recueil des T raites. 1939
TRADUCTION.- TRANSLATION.
No. 4575· -- PROTOCOL 1 AMEND No 4575· - PROTOCOLE 1 MODI
ING THE INTERNATIONAL FIANT L'ACCORD INTERNATIO
AGREEMENT OF JUNE 8TH,1937, NAL DU 8 JUIN 1937 POUR
FOR THE REGULATION OF LA REGLEMENTATION DE LA
WHALING. SIGNED AT LON CHASSE A LA BALEINE. SIGNE
DON, JUNE 24TH,1938. A LONDRES, LE 24 JUIN 1938.
THE GOVERNMENTO SFTHEUNIONOF SOUTH LEs GouV'ERNEMENTD SEL'UNIONSuD-AFRI
AFRICA,THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA,THE CAINE, DES ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQU,EDE LA
ARGENTINEREPUBLIC,THECOMMONWEALTO HF REPUBLIQUEARGENTINE,DU CoMMONWEALTH
AusTRALIA, CANADA,EIRE, GERMANY,THE D'AUSTRALIED , UCANADAD , E L'EIRE, DE L'AL
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND LEMAGNED , U ROYAUME-UNIDE GRANDE-BRE
NoRTHERNIRELAND,NEw ZEALANDand NoR TAGNEET D'I:RLANDEDU NORD, DE LA Nou
WAY,desiring to introduce certain amendmentsVELLE-ZELANDE et DE LA NORVEGE, desireux
into the InternatioAgreement 2for the Regu d'apporter certainsamendements a !'Accord2
lation of Whaling, signed in.London on the 8internationalpour la reglementationde la
June, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Prinse ala baleine, signa Londres le 8 juin
cipal Agreement) in accordance with the prov1937 (ci-dessous mentionne sous le nom d'Accord
sions of Article21 thereof, have agreed as principal), conformemeaux dispositions de !'ar
follows: ticle 21dudit accord, sont convenus de cequi suit:
ArticleI. Article premier.
With reference to the provisions of ArticlesEn ce qui concerne les dispositions des articles
5 and 7 of the Principal Agreement, it is for et 7 de !'Accord principalil est interdit
bidden to use a factory ship or a whale catchertiliserune usine flottanteou un navire
attached thereto for the purpose of taking oraleinierrattacMa celle-d, en vue de capturer
treating humpback whalesin any waters south ou de traiter des baleinasbosse (humpback
-of 40o South Latitudduring the period from whales) dans toutes les eaux au sud du 40° de
the rst October, 1938, to the 30th September,atitude sud pendant la periode comprise entre
le 1er octobre 1938 et le 30 septembre 1939.
1939·
Articl2. Article2.
Nonobstant les dispositions de !'ar7idee
Notwithstanding the prbvi of i oines7 1'Accord principal, il est interdit de faire usage
ofthe Principal Agreement, it is forbidden td'une usine flottanou d'un navire baleinier
use a factory ship or a whale catcher attached
thereto for the purpose of taking or treatintraiter des baleiaefanons dans les eaux au
baleen whales in the waters south of 40° South
Latitudefrom 70o West Longitude westwards sud du 400 de latitude sudae!'ouest entre le
1 Ratificatiodeposeea .Londres :
1 RatificatiodepositeinLondon :
GERMANY . . . . . . . October 31st, 1938. ALLEMAGNE . . . . . . 31 octobre1938.
UNITED KINGDOM December 7th, 1938. NORVEGE . . . . . . . 30 decembre1938.
UNITED STATES OF AME-. December 3oth, 1938. ETATs-UNIS D'AMERIQUE. 30 mars 1939.
RICA. . . . . . . . . March 3oth, 1939.
Entre definitivemen vigueur le 30 decembre
Came definitively into force on December 31938.
1938.
tVol. CXC, page 79, of this Series. 'Vol. CXC, page 79, de ce recueil.
36 Annex 3
1939 Leagueof Nations - Treaty Series.
133
as far as 16oo West Longitude for a period of 70° de longitude ouest et le I6oo de longitude
two years from the 8th day of December, 1938. ouest, pendant une periode de deux annees a
dater du 8 decembre 1938.
Article 3· Article 3·
I. No factory ship which has been used for I. Aucune usine flottante qui aura ete utili
the purpose of treating baleen whales south see en vue de traiter des baleines a fanons au
of 40o South Latitude shall be used for that sud du 40° de latitude sud ne sera utilisee ail
purpose elsewhere within a period of twelve leurs a cette fin, au COUTS d'une periode de
months from the end of the open season pre douze mois a dater de la fin de la saison auto
scribed in Article 7 of the Principal Agreement. risee, mentionnee a !'article 7 de !'Accord prin
cipal.
2. Only such factory ships as have operated 2. Seules les usines flottantes qui auront
during the year 1937 within the territorial ete utilisees au cours de l'annee 1937 dans les
waters of any signatory Government shall, eaux territoriales d'un des gouvernements si
after the signature of this Protocol,so operate, gnataires pourront etre ainsi employees apres
and any such ships so operating shall be treated la signature du present protocole, et tous les
as land stations and remain moored in terri bateaux ainsi utilises seront consideres comme
torial waters in one position during the season stations terrestreset resteront a l'ancre dans
and shall operate for not more than six months les eaux territoriales, un poste fixe, au cours
in any period of twelve months, such period of de la saison ; ils ne fonctionneront que pendant
six months to be continuous. six mois au plus au cours de toute periode de
douze mois, etant entendu que ladite periode
de six mois devra etre continue.
Article4· Article4·
To ArticleS of the Principal Agreement there L'article S de !'Accord principal comportera
shall be added the following : les dispositions additionnelles suivantes :
" Except that blue whales of not less <Toutefois, les baleines bleue(blue wha
than 6S feet, fin whales of not less than les)d'au moins 6s pieds, les baleinesa na
so feet and sperm whales of not less than geoires (fin whales) d'au moins so pieds
30 feet in length may be taken for delivery et les cachalots{sperm whales) d'au moins
to land stations provided that the meat et livres aux stations terrestres, pourvu que
of such whales is to be used for local con la chair en soit utilisee en vue de la con
sumption as human or animal food." sommation locale comme nourriture pour
l'homme ou les animaux. >>
Articles. Article s.
To Article 7 of the Principal Agreement there L'article 7 de !'Accord principal comportera
shall be added the following : les dispositions additionnelles suivantes :
" Notwithstanding the above prohibi <Nonobstant !'interdiction ci-dessus de
tion of treatment during a close season, traiter des baleines au cours d'une saison
the treatment of whales which have been interdite, le traitement des baleines qui
taken during the open season may be auront ete capturees au cours de la saison
completed after the end of the open season.'' autorisee pourra etre acheve apres la fin
deladite saison.»
Article6. Article 6.
In Article 8 of the Principal Agreement the A1'article 8 del'Accord principal, lemot a(fa
word " baleen " shallbe inserted after the word nons » sera insere apres le mot<baleine >>.
" treating ".
No. 4575
37Annex 3
134 Societedes Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1939
Article7· Article 7·
For the areas specifiedin(a), (b), (c)and (d) Les zones specifieesaux paragraphes a), b), c)
of Article 9 of the Principal Agreement there et d) de !'article 9 de !'Accord principal seront
shall besubstitutedthe following areas, viz. : remplacees par les zones suivantes :
(a) In the waters north of 66o North a) Dans les eaux au nord du 66ode lati
Latitude ; except that from r5o 0 East tude nord ; toutefois, a l'est du I500 de
Longitude eastwards as far as r40° West longitude est jusqu'au 140o de longitude
Longitude the taking or killing of whales ouest, il sera permis d'utiliser une usine
by such ship or catcher shall be permitted flottante ou un navire baleinier en vue de
between 66° North Latitude and 72o North capturer ou de tuer des baleines entre le
Latitude; 66oet le 72ode latitude nord ;
(b) In the Atlantic Ocean and its depen b) Dans !'ocean Atlantique et les eaux
dent waters north of 40° South Latitude ; qui en dependent, au nord du 40° de lati
(c) In the Pacific Ocean and its depen tuc) Dans l'ocean Pacifique et les eaux qui
dent waters east of r5o West Longitude en dependent, a l'est du I50° de longitude
between 40° South Latitude and 35oNorth ouest, entre le40° de latitude sud et le35°
Latitude; de latitude nord ;
(d) In the Pacific Ocean and its depen d) Dans Iocean Pacifique et les eaux qui
dent waters west of r5oo West Longitude en dependent, a l'ouest du I50° de longi
between 40o South Latitude and zoo North tude ouest, entre le 40° de latitude sud et
Latitude; le20°de latitude nord ;
(e) In the Indian Ocean and its depen e) Dans !'ocean Indien et les eaux qui
dent waters north of 40° South Latitude. en dependent, au nord du 40° de latitude
sud.
Article 8. Article 8.
For Article rz of the Principal Agreement L'article rz de !'Accord principal sera rem
there shall be substituted the following, viz. : place par le texte suivant.:
The taking of whales for delivery to a La capture des baleines a livrer a une
stricted by the master or person in charge treinte par le capitaine oula personne res
of the factory ship that no whale carcase ponsable de l'usine flottante, de maniere
shall remain in the sea for a longer period qu'aucune baleine morte ne reste en mer
than 33 hours from the time of killing to plus de 33 heures entre le moment oil elle
the time when it is taken up on to the deck aura ete tuee et le moment oil elle aura ete
of the factory ship for treatment. livreesur le pont de l'usine flottante, en
vue d'y etre traitee.
Article 9· Article 9·
The present Protocol shall come into force Le present protocole entrera en vigueur, a
provisionally on the first day of July, I938, titre provisoire, le rer juillet I938, dans la me
ments are respectively able to enforce it.n respectivement l'appliquer.signataires pourront
Article IO.
Article ro.
(i) The present Protocol shall be ratified and i) Le present protocole sera ratifie et les
the instruments of ratification shall be depo instruments de ratification seront deposes aus
sited with the Government of the United King sit6t que possible aupres du Gouvernement du
dom of Great Britain and Nortl1ern Ireland as Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande
soon as possible. du Nord.
(iiIt shall come into force definitively upon ii)11entrera definitivement en vigueur lors
the deposit of the instruments of ratification que les instruments de ratification auront ete
N• 4575
38 Annex 3
1939 League of Nations - Treaty Series. 135
by the Governments of the United Kingdom, deposes par les Gouvernements du Royaume
Germany and Norway. Uni, de l'Allemagneet de la Norvege.
(iii) For any other Government which is a iii) Pour tout autre gouvernement partie a
Party to the Principal Agreement, the present !'Accord principal, le present protocole entrera
Protocol shall come into force on the date of en vigueur a la date du depot de !'instrument
the deposit of its instrument of ratification or de ratification ou dela notification d'adhesion.
notification of accession.
(iv) The Government of the United Kingdom iv) Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni fera
will inform the other Governments of the date connaitre aux autres gouvernements la date a
on which the Protocol comes into force and the laquelle le protocole entrera en vigueur et la
date of any ratification or accession received date de toute ratification ou adhesion reryue
subsequently. ulterieurement.
ArticleII. ArticleII.
(i) The present Protocol shall be open to i) Le present protocole sera ouvea!'adhesion
accession by any Government which has not de tout gouvernement qui ne !'aura pas signe
signed it and which accedes to the Principal et qui aura adhere a !'Accord principal avant
Agreement before the definitive entry into force !'entree en vigueur definitive du protocole.
of the Protocol.
(ii) Accession shalbe effected by means of ii) L'adhesion sera effectuee par voie de
a notification in writing addressed to the Go notification ecrite, adressee au Gouvernement
vernment of the United Kingdom and shall du Royaume-Uni, et prendra effet immediate
take effect immediately after the date of its ment apres la date de reception.
receipt.
(iii) The Government of the United Kingdom iii) Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni por
will inform all the Governments which have tera a la connaissance de tous les gouverne
signed or acceded to the present Protocol of ments qui auront signe le present protocole ou
all accessions received and the date of their qui y auront adhere toute adhesion reryueainsi
receipt. que la date de sa reception.
Article12.
Articl12.
Any ratification of or accession to the Prin Toute ratification de !'Accord principal ou
cipal Agreement which may be deposited or adhesion audit accord qui aura ete deposee ou
into force of the present Protocol shall beg notifiee apres la date de !'entree en vigueur
deemed to relate to the Principal Agreement definitive du present protocole, sera conside
as amended by the present Protocol. ree comme s'appliquant a !'Accord principal,
amende par le present protocole.
In witness whereof the undersigned, duly En foi de quoi, les soussignes, dument auto
authorised thereto, have signed the present rises, ontigne le present protocole.
Protocol.
Done in London the twenty-fourth day of Fait a Londres, le 24 juin 1938, en un exem
June, 1938, in a single copy, which shall be plaire unique qui sera depose dans les archives
deposited in the archives of the Government du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande
Northern Ireland, by whom certified copies shall mettra des copies certifiees conformestaatous
be communicated to all the signatory Govern les gouvernements contractants.
ments.
For the Government of the Union of South Pour le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Afri
Africa: caine:
c. T.TE WATER. C.T. TE WATER.
F. J. DU ToiT. F. J.DU TOIT.
No. 4575
39Annex 3
136 Societe des Nations - Recueildes Traites. 1939
For the Government of the United States of Pour le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Ame-
America: rique:
Herschel V. JoHNSON. Herschel V. JoHNSON.
Remington KELLOGG. Remington KELLOGG .
Wilfrid N. DERBY. Wilfrid N.DERBY.
For the Government of the Argentine Republic Pour le Gouvemement de la Republique
Argentine:
Manuel E. MALBRAN. Manuel E. MALBRAN.
M. FINCATI. M. FINCATI.
For the Government of the Commonwealth of Pour le Gouvernement du Commonwealth
Australia: d'Australie :
Robert G. MENZIES. Robert G. MENZIES.
For the Government of Canada : Pour le Gouvemement du Canada :
Vincent MASSEY. Vincent MASSEY.
For the Government of Eire : Pour le Gouvemement de l'Eire :
Sean O'FAOLAINO'DuLCHAONTIGH. Sean O'FAOLAINO'DuLCHAONTIGH.
J.D. RusH. J.D. RusH.
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Allemagne :
For the Government of Germany:
Helmuth WOHLTAT. Helmuth WoHLTAT.
For the Government of the United Kingdom of Pour le Gouvemement du Royaume-Uni de
Great Britain and Northern Ireland : Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord :
Henry G. MAURICE. Henry G. MAURICE.
Geo. HoGARTH. Geo. HoGARTH.
For the Government of New Zealand: Pour le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zelande:
W. J. JORDAN. W. J. jORDAN.
For the Government of Norway: Pour le Gouvemement de la Norvege :
Birger BERGERSEN. Birger BERGERSEN.
No 4575
40 Annex 4
4. Protocol amending the International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling
(entered into force 5 October 1945) UKTS 1946 61
WHALING/.0(!)7
Treaty Series No. 6 I (946)
PROTOCOL
ON TH E INTER NATIONAL
REGULA - -iON OF WHALING
London, 7th Febru194 4
Presented by the Secretary of State for Foreign .·!!fairs
to Parliament bynd of His Maj esty
LO N D ON
41Annex 4
PROTOCQL ON THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF WHALING
~- -----·--- ··----.,-
London, 7th Febnwry. 1944
THE Governments of the Union of South Africa, the t:nited States of
Americ a, the Commonwealth of Australia, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern :Ireland; Canada, Eir e, New Zealand and Norway,
Being parties. or 'signa tories to the International Agreement for the
R egulation of Whaling signed at London on the 8th June, 1937(1) (hereinafter
referr ed to as the Agreement of 1937), and to the Protocol signed at London
on the 24th June 1938,(2) introducing certain amendments into the
Agreement of 1937 lhereinafter referred to as the Prot ocol of 1938); and
Desiring, in view of the fact that pelagic whaling operations in the area
to which Article 7 of the 1937 Agreement applies have been interrupted
for a considerable period by the existence of hostilities and in order to meet
the present emerg ency without prejudi cing the conservati on of stocks of
whales, to put into force by agreement such provisions as may be necessary
with regard to pelagic whaling in this Grea when whaling operations are
resumed there:
H ave agreed as follows :-
ARTICLE 1
(i. The period fixed by Article 7 of the Agreeme nt of 1937, during which
factory ships or a whale catch er attached thereto may be used for the
purpose o£ taking or trea ting baleen whales, shall be extended £or the first
season in which whaling operations are resumed in the area referred to in
the said Article 7, so as to cover the period from the 24th November to the
24th March, both dates inclusiYe.
(ii) Each Government party to the present Protocol shall give notice to
the Government of the United Kingdom \vhen wha.le factory ships registered
under the law o£ any territory under its authority or otherwise under its
jurisdiction engage in whaling operations in the area defined in Article 7 of
the Agreemen t of 1937. The Governm ent of the Fnited Kingdom will inform
the other Governm ents party to the presen t Protocol of all notices received
under this paragraph and shall itself similarly give notice to the other
contracting Governments if whale factory ships registe red under the law of
any territory unde r its authority or other>vise under its jurisdict ion engage
in wlwling operations in the said area.
(iii)For the purposes of paragraph (iJ of this· article the first season in
respect of which any notice has been given under paragraph (ii) above, shall
be deemed to be the first season in ,,·hich whaling operati ons are resumed .
Thi s season is hereina fter referred to as " the first. season."
ARTICLE 2
The provisions of Article 1 of th e Protocol of 1938 relati ng to the taking
of humpback whales in an:v waters south . of 40 degrees south latitude shall
apply during the first seRson.
(I)" Treaty Series No. 37 (L938),"Cmd. 5757.
(2)"Treaty Series No. 18 (1939)," Cmd. 5993.
42 Annex 4
3
ARTIC LE 3
(i) During the first season, the number of baleen whales caught in the
area referred to in Article 7 of the 1937 Agreement shall not exceed 16,000
blue whale units.
(ii) For the purposes of p~ragraph (i) of this article, blue whale units
shall be calculated on the basis that one blue whale equals-
(a) 2 fin whales, or
(b) 2t humpb ack whales, or
(c) 6 seiwhales.
(iii) The Government of the United Kingdom shall consult all t.he
Government s who have given notice under Article 1 (ii) of thiagreem~nt in
order to arrange by co-operation and agreflment the measures necessary to
ensure that the tota l number of baleen whales caught during the first season
does not exceed the number specified in paragraph (i)of this article.
A ltTlC L4
In the absence of agreeme nt. to the contrary none of the provision;; of the
present. Protocol shall operate except in the first S·en.o
AR TICLE 5
The present Protocol shall be ratified and the instr uments of ratification
deposited as soon n, possible with the Government of the llni t-ed Kingdom .
A RTIC LE6
(i) The present Protocol shall be open to accession on behalf of any
Government which was a par ty to the 1937 Agreeme nt and has not signed
the present Protocol.
(ii) Accession shall be effected by means of a notification addressed to
the Governm ent. of the Unit ed Kingdom.
AR TI CLE7
(i) The Govemment of the United Kingdom shall inform the Govern
me nts of the United State s of America, Canada, Eire, Mexico, New Zealand
and Norway of all rati fications of this Protocol or accessions thereto.
*(ii) The present Protocol shall come into force as soon as ratifications or
accessions have been deposite d on behalf o£ all Government s referred to in
paragraph (i) of this article and of the Government of the United Kingdom.
(iii) The ratification of or accession to the present Pro tocol by a Govern
ment which is a signatory but n ot a party to th e Agreement of 1937 shall
not become e ffective until such Government becomes a party to that
agreement by ra tification.
In witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly
authorised to this effect by their respective Governm ents. have signed the
present Protocol and affixed thereto their seals.
Done at Londo n this 7th day of February, 1944, in a single copy which
shall rema in deposited in the <1rchiYes of the Governm ent of the United
• See" Tr ea ty Series No. 44 (1946),''Cmd. 6941.
43Annex 4
Kingdom by whom certified copies will be transmitted to all the Governments
referredto in Article 7 (i).
~or the Government of the Union of South Afriea:
(L.S.)
DENEYS REITZ.
(L.S.) A. P. VAN DER POST.
For the Government of the l' nited States of America:
(L.S.) LOYD V. STEERE.
:'or the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia:
(L.S.) S. M. BRUCE.
For t.he Governme nt of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ir eland:
(L.S.) A. T. A. DOBSON .
(L.S.) J. E. DE \YATTEV ILLE.
'
For the Government of Canada :
(L.S.) YINCENT MASSEY.
For the Government of Eire:
For the Government of New Zealand:
(L.S.) W. J. JORDAN.
For the Government ofNorway :
(L.S.) BIRGER BERGERSEN.
Signatory States . Da.te of Deposit of
Ratification.
United Kingdom 28th June, 1944.
Canada 24th August, 1944.
Australia
New Zealand
8th March, 1945.
South Africa, Union of 18th March, 1946.
Norway 31st March, 1944.
United States · ... lOth July, 1944.
Acceding States. Date of Accession.
Argentine R.epublic. 18th Jun e, 1946.
Denmark lOth November, 1945.
Mexico 29th June, 1944.
44 Annex 5
5. Protocol amending the International Agreement of 8 June 1937, and the Protocol
of 24 June 1938, for the Regulation of Whaling (entered into force 3 March 1947)
11 UNTS 43
No. 148
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA,
AUSTRALIA, CANADA,
DENMARK, FRANCE, etc.
Protocol amending the International Agreement of 8 June
1937, and the Protocol of 24 June 1938, for the regula·
tion of whaling, signed at London, ou 26 November
1945, and Supplementary Protocol regarding the entry
into force of the Protocol of26 November 194,5, signed
at London, on 3 March 194 7
English officialtext communicated by the Permanent United Kingdom Represen
tative to the United Nations. The registration took place on 26 November
1947.
UNION SUD-AFRICAINE,
AUSTRALIE, CANADA,
DANEMARK, FRANCE, etc.
Protocole modifiant I'Accord international du 8 juin 1937
et le Protocolc du 24 juin 1938 pour Ia reglementation
de Ia chassea Ia baleine, signa Londres, le26 novembre
1945, et Protocole additionnel concernant !'entree en
vigneur du Protocole du 26 novembre 1945, signe a
Londres le 3 mars 194 7
Texte officiel anglais communique par le representant permanent du Royaume
Uni aupres de !'Organisation des Nations Unies. £'enregistrement a eu
lieu le 26 novembre 1947.
45Annex 5
44 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
1
No. 148. PROTOCOL AMENDING THE INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT OF 8 JUNE 1937,AND THE PROTOCOL OF
24 JUNE 1938, FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING.
SIGNED AT LONDON, ON 26 NOVEMBER 1945
PROTOCOL
The Governments of the Union of South Africa, the Commonwealth of
Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
United States of America;
Desiring, in view of the fact that pelagic whaling operations in the area
defined by Article 7 of the International Agreement for the Regulation of
Whaling, signed at London on the 8th June, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as
the Principal Agreement), as amended by the Protocol signed at London on the
3
24th June, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol of 1938), have been
interrupted for a considerable period by the war, and in order to meet the
emergency produced by post-war conditions without prejudice to the conserva
tion of sfocks of whales, to put into force by agreement such provisions as may
be neceSsaryin regard to pelagic whaling for the season 1946/47;
Have agreed as follows:-
Article 1
Subject to the provisions of Article 3 of the present Protocol, the period
fixed by Article 7 of the Principal Agreement, during which factory ships
or whalecatchers attached thereto may be used for the purpose of taking or
treating baleen whales, shalle extended for the season 1946/4 7 so as to cover
the period from the 8th December to the 7th April inclusive.
Article 2
Each contracting Government shall give notice to the Government of the
United Kingdom when factory ships registered under the law of any territory
• Came into force on 3 March 19bysignature of the Supplemen tary Protocol (see page
52 of this volume). · · ·
• League of NatioTreaty SerieVolum e CXC, page 79.
1League of NationsTreaty SerieVolume CXCVI, page 131.
46 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 45
TRADUCTION - TRANSLATION
No 148. PROTOCOLE 1 MODIFIANT L'ACCORD INTERNA
TIONAL DU 8 JUIN 1937,ET LE PROTOCOLE DU 24 JUIN
1938 POUR LA REGLEMENTATION DE LA CHASSE A LA
BALEINE. SIGNE A LONDRES, LE 26 NOVEMBRE 1945
PROTOGOLE
Les Gouvemements de !'Union Sud-Africaine, du Commonwealth d'Aus
tralie, duanada, du Danemark, de Ia France, du Mexique, des Pays-Bas, de Ia
Nouvelle-Zelande, de Ia Norvege, du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et
d'Irlande du Nord et des Etats-Unis d'Amerique;
Desireux, en raison de Ia tres longue interruption subie les operations
de chassea Ia baleine en haute mer dans Ia zone defina!'article 7 de I'Accord
international pour Ia reglementation de Ia chassaIa baleine signea Londres
le 8 juin 19372 {ci-apres mentionne sous le nom d'Accord principal) modifie
par le Protocole signea Londres le 24 juin 1938 (ci-apres mentionne sous le
nom de Protocole de 1938) du fait de Ia guerre, et afin de faire face aux diffi
cultes resultant de Ia situation d'apres-guerre, sans porter prejudicenser
vation des especes de baleines, de mettre en vigueurar voie d'accord toutes
dispositions necessaires relatavIa chassea Ia baleine en haute mer durant Ia
campagne 1946/47;
Sont convenus de cequi suit:
Article premier
Sous reserve des dispositions de !'article 3 du present protocole, Ia periode
fixeepar !'article 7 de !'Accord principal et durant laquelle l'usage d'usines
flottantesu de navires baleiniers rattacaecelles-ciest autorise en vue de cap
turer ou de traiter des baleinea fanons sera prolongee durant Ia campagne
1946/47 de maniere a s'etendre du 8 (tecembre au 7 avril indus.
Article 2
Chacune des Parties contractantes avisera le Gouvemement du Royaume
Uni lorsque des usines flottantes immatriculees conformementa Ia legislation
• Entreen vigueur le 3 mars 1947, par signature du Protocole (voir page 53
de • Societe des NatiRecueil des Traitvolume CXC, page 79.
• Societe des NatiRecueil des Traivolume CXCVI, page 131.
47Annex 5
United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
46
under its authority or otherwise under its jurisdiction engage in whaling opera
tionsin the area defined by Article 7 of the Principal Agreement. The Govern
ment. of the United Kingdom will inform the other contracting Governments
of all notices received under this paragraph and shall itself similarly give notice
to the other contracting Governments if factory ships registered under the law
of any territory under its authority or otherwise under its jurisdiction engage
in whaling operations in the said area.
Article 3
The prohibition contained in Article 1 of the Protocol of 1938 relating
to the taking of hump back whales in any waters south of 40° south latitude
shall apply during the season of 1946/47.
Article 4
(1) During the season of 1946/47 the number of baleen whales caught
in the area defined by Article 7 of the Principal Agreement shall not exceed
16,000 blue whale units.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article blue whale units shall
be calculated on the basis that one blue whale equals-
(a) Two fin whales or
(b) Two and a half hump back whales or
(c) Six sei whales.
· (3) Each contracting Government undertakes to ensure that the Inter
national Bureau for Whaling Statistics shall be provided, within two days after
the end of each calendar week, with data on the number of blue whale units
caught by each factory ship under the jurisdiction of the said Government inthe
area defined by Article 7 of the Principal Agreement. The Government of the
United Kingdom shall consult from time to time with the International Bureau
for Whaling Statistics and it should appear that the annual quota provided by
paragraph (1) of this Article may be reached before the 7th April, the Inter
national Bureau for Whaling Statistics shall be requested to determine, on the
basisof the data provided, the date on which the annual quota of blue whale
units shall be deemed to have been reached and to notify each contracting
Government of that date not lessthan two weeksin advance thereof. The taking
of baleen whales shall be illegal after the date so determined.
No. 148
48 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 47
d'un territoire quel qu'il soit, Sauson autorite OUrelevana un autre titre
de sa juridiction, se livreades operations de chasae1abaleine dans 1a zone
definiea !'article 7 de l'Accord principal. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
communiquera aux autres Parties contractantes toutes 1es notifications qu'il
recevra en vertu des dispositions du present paragraphei1avisera de meme
les autres Parties contractantes si des usines flottantes immatriculees conforme
memt a la lt~gisl d'unitonitoire quel qu'il soit, soason autorite ou rele
vant a un autre titre de sa juridiction, se lades operations de chassa la
baleine dans ladite zone.
Article 3
L'interdiction relatala capture de baleinasbosse (hump back whales)
dans toutes les eaux au sud du 40° degre de latitude sud, qui fait l'objet de
!'article premier du protocole de 1938, s'appliquera durant la campagne 1946/47.
Article 4
1) Au cours de la campagne 1946/47, le nombre de baleines a fanons
capturees dans1a zone definiea !'article 7 dAccord principal ne devra pas
depasser 16.000 unites de baleines bleues.
2) Aux finsdu paragraphe 1 du present article, Ie nombre d'unites-baleines
bleues sera calcule sur base d'une equivalence d'u.ne baleine bleue et de:
a) Deux baleines a nageoires(fin whales),ou .
b) Deux baleines et demiea bosse(hump back whales), ou
c) Six rorquals de Rudolf(sei whales).
3) Chacune des Parties Contractantes s'engaaefaire en sorte que soient
fournies au Bureau international des statistiques baleinieres, dans un delai de
deux jours apresa fin de chaque semaine, des indications sur le nombre d'unites
baleines bleues capturees par chacune des usines flottantes relevant de sal juri
diction, dans la zone defiaI'article 7 dAccord principal. Le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni se concertera periodiquement avec le Bureau international des
statistiques baleinieres et, s'il apparaissait que le contingent annuel prevu
au paragraphe 1 du present article puisse etre atteint avant le 7 avril, le Bureau
international des statistiques baleinieres serafixer, sur la base des indica
tions qui lui auront ete fournies, la datea laquelle 1e contingent annuel
exprime en unites-baleines bleues sera considere comme atteint et de faire con
naitre cette data chacune des Parties contractantes deux semaines au moins
avant ladite date. La capture de baleinea fanons sera illicite apres la date
ainsi fixee.
No 148
49Annex 5
48 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
Article 5
The provisions of Article 3, paragraph (2), of the Protocol of 1938, regard
ing the operation of factory ships as land stations in the territorial waters of any
contracting Government, shall not apply during the period from 1st May, 1947,
to 31st October, 1947, inclusive.
Article 6
(1) In the present Protocol the following expressions shall have the mean
ings assigned to them in Article 18 of the Principal Agreement: "factory ship,"
"whalecatcher," "land station," "baleen whale," "blue whale," "hump back
whale," "fin whale."
(2) Sei whale means, for the purposes of this Protocol, any whale known
by the name of balaenoptera borealis, sei whale, Rudolphi's rorqual, pollack
whale, or coalfish whale, and shall be taken to include Balaenoptera brydei,
Bryde's whale.
(3) The expression "land station" shall, for the purposes. of Article 5 of
the present Protocol, include a factory ship the movements and anchorage of
which are confined to the territorial waters of any contracting Government.
Article 7
(1) The present Protocol shall be ratified and the instruments of ratifica
tion deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United Kingdom;
and it shall be open to accession on behalf of any Government which is a party
to the Principal Agreement and the Protocol of 19.38 and has not signed the
present Protocol.
(2) Accessionshall be effected by notification addressed to the Government
of the United Kingdom .
(3) The Government of the United Kingdom shall inform the Govern
ments which are parties or signatories to the present Protocol of all ratifications
of this Protocol or accessions thereto.
Article 8
(1) The present Protocol shall come into force in its entirety when all
the Governments referred to in the Preamble hereof shall have deposited their
instruments of ratification or given notification of accession.
No. 148
50 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 49
Article 5
Les dispositions du paragraphe 2 de !'article 3 du protocole de 1938 concer
nant !'utilisation des usines fiottantes comme stations terrestres dans les eaux terri
toriales de l'un quelconque des Etats contractants ne seront pas applicablcs
durant la periode allant du 1er mai 1947 au 31 octobre 1947 indus.
Article 6
1) Dans le present protocole, les expressions suivantes auront le sens qui leur
est donne a !'article 18 de 1'Accord principal: "usine fiottante", "navire balei
nier"' "station terrestre"' "baleine a fanons"' "baleine bleue"' "baleina bosse"'
"baleine a nageoires".
2) On entend par rorqual de Rudolf (sei whale), aux fins du present
protocole, toute baleine connue sous le nom de balaenoptera borealis, de sei
whale, de Rudolphi's rorqual, de pollack whale, ou de coalfish whale, y compris
la baleine connue sous le nom de baleine de Bryde, balaenoptera brydei.
3) Aux fins de I'article 5 du present protocole, I'expression "station ter
restre" s'appliquera egalement a une usine flottante dont les deplacements et le
mouillage sont limites aux eaux territoriales de 1'une quelconque des Parties
contractantes.
Article 7
1) Le present protocole sera ratifie et les instruments de ratification seront
deposes aussitot que possible aupres du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni; il
sera ouvert a !'adhesion de tout Etat partie a I'Accord principal et au protocole
de 1938 qui n'a pas signe le present protocole. ·
2) L'adhesion sera effectuee par voie de notification adressee au Gouverne
ment du Royaume-Uni.
3) Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni portera ala connaissance des Gou
vemements qui sont parties au present protocole ou qui l'ont signe, toutes les
ratifications ou adhesions dont il aura fait l'objet.
Article 8
1) Le present protocole entrera en vigueur dans toutes ses dispositions
lorsque tous les Gouvernements mentionnes dans son preambule auront depose
leurs instruments de ratification ou notifieeur adhesion.
N• 148
51Annex 5
50 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
(2) The provisions of this Article and Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 (1), 6 (2) and 7
of the present Protocol shall, when instruments of ratification have been deposited
by at least three signatory Governments, becoming binding on those Govern
ments and shall become binding on each other Government which subsequently
ratifies or accedes, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or
notification of its accession. 1
(3) The ratification of or accession to the present Protocol by a Govern
ment which is not a party to the Principal Agreement and the Protocol of 1938
shall not become effective until such Government becomes a party to that
Agreement and the Protocol of 1938.
Article 9
The present Protocol shall bear the date on which it is opened for signature
and shall remain open for signature for a period of 14 days thereafter.
IN WITNESS . WHEREOF the undersigned plenipotentiaries being duly
authorised to this end by their respective Governments have signed the present
Protocol.
DoNE at London this 26th day of November, 1945, in a single copy which
shall remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom,
by whom certified copies will be transmitted to all the Governments referred
to in the preamble.
For the Government of the Union of South Africa:
A. P. VAN DER PosT
For the Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia:
J. S. DuNCAN
1 The following Governments have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession:
Date of deposit of
Signatory States instrum ent of:
ratification
United Kingdom ........ . ......... . .... . . ... . ...... ... ·. ·. . ···. March 1946
Australia . . .... . ........ . . ... ...... . . .............. ...... .. . .. . July 1946
New Zealand .............. . . . ...... ... . ........................... 7 March 1946
Union of South Africa ... . . . ........... . .... . ... . ... . ... . . ... ..10..April 194646
Francek ........ ....... ... . . ............ ........ . . ... ....... .... . .4 October 1946
Norway . ...................... . . . ......... ........ .......... . . . . . .April 1946
United States ........ . . . ... . . . . .. ... . .. .. ........... .. . .. .. . .ugwt 1946
accession
Acceding State 25 November 1946
USSR
No. 148
52 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 51
2) Les dispositions du present article et des articles 2, 3, 4, 6 (1), 6 (2) et 7
du present protocole seront, lorsque les instruments de ratification auront ete
deposes par trois Etats signataires au mains, obligatoires pour ces Etats et elles
deviendront obligatoires pour chacun des autres Etats qui, par Ia suite, ratifieront
ledit protocole ou y adhereront, a Ia date du depot de leurs instruments de
1
ratification ou de Ia notification de leur adhesion •
3) La ratification du present protocole ou I'adhesion audit protocole par
un Etat qui n'est pas partie a l'Accord principal et au protocole de 1938 ne
produira ses effets que lorsque cet Etat deviendra partie audit Accord et audit
protocole de 1938.
Article 9
Le present protocole portera Ia date a laquelle i1 est ouvert a Ia signature et
il restera ouvert a cet effet pendant un delai de quatorze jours apres cette date.
EN FOI DE QUOI, les plenipotentiaires soussignes, dilment autorises a cet effet
par leurs Gouvemements respectifs, ont sigJUele present protocole.
FAIT a Londres, le 26 novembre 1945, eri un exemplaire unique, lequel
restera depose dans les archives du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni qui en
communiquera des copies certifiees conformes a tous les Gouvemements me.n
tionnes dans Ie preambule.
Pour 1e Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Africaine:
A. P. VAN DER PosT
Pour le Gouvemement du Commonwealth d'Australie:
J. S. DuNCAN
1Les Gouvernements suivants ont depose leurs instruments de ratification ou notifie leur
adhesion:
DattJ du d4p8t dtJs
Etats signataires instruments:
ratification
Royaume-Uni .... .. .. . .......... .. . ... .. . .... . .... . ...... . .29 mars 1946
Australie .. . ... .... .. . . . ... .... .. ... .. . .. . . ...... ... .. .23 juillet 1946
Union Sud-Africaine ....... ................. ... .. .... . .. . . . . .......11 decembre 1946
Danemark ........ .... ... . ....... ....... ... .. . ... . ................10 avril 1946
France ....... . .......... . ...... . .. . ..... ... . . . .. .. .... . ..24 octobre 1946
Norvege ..... .. . . . ..... .. . . ... . .. . ..... . .. ... . .... .. ... .4 avril 1946
Etats-Unis d'Amerique ... ...... . .... . .. . . . . . . .... . ... .. ....30 aout 1946
Etat adh4rent adhJsion
URSS . . . . .... . .... ....... . .. . .. . ...... . .... . . .. . . . . 25 novembre 1946
No 148
53Annex 5
52 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
For the Government of Canada:
Vincent MASSEY
For the Government of Denmark:
P. F. ERICHSEN
For the ProvisionaGovernment of the French
Republic:
Noel HENRY
For the Government of the United Mexican States:
Alfonso DERosENZWEIGDIAz
For the Government of the Netherlands:
E. TEIXEIRADE MATTOS
For the Government of New Zealand :
R. M. CAMPBELL
For the Government of Norway:
Birger BERGERSEN
For the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
A. T. A. DoBSON
J.E. DEWATTEVILLE
For the Government of the United States of America :
Remington KELLOGG
Ira N. GABRIELSON
SUPPLEMENTARY PROTOCOL SIGNED AT LONDON, ON 3 MARCH
1947, REGARDING THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE
WHALING PROTOCOL OF 26 NOVEMBER 1945
The Governments of the Union of South Africa, the Commonwealth of
AustraliaCanada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway, the United
Kingdom , 'the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics,
No. 148
54 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 53
Pour le Gouvernement du Canada:
Vincent MASSEY
Pour le Gouvernement du Danemark:
P. F. ERICHSEN
Pour le Gouvernement provisoire de Ia Republique
fran~aise:
Noel HENRY
Pour le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis du Mexique:
Alfonso DERosENZWEIGDIAz
Pour le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas:
E. TEIXEIRDEMATTOS
Pour le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zelande:
R. M. CAMPBELL
Pour le Gouvernement de la Norvege:
Birger BERGERSEN
Pour le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande
Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord:
A. T. A. DoBsoN
J.E. DEWATTEVILLE
Pour le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique:
Remington KELLOGG
Ira N. GABRIELSON
PROTOCOLE ADDITIONNEL SIGNE A LONDRES, LE 3 MARS 1947,
CONCERNANT L'ENTREE EN VIGUEUR DU PROTOCOLE
RELA TIF A LA CHASSE A LA BALEINE DU 26 NOVEMBRE 1945
Les Gouvernements de !'Union Sud-Africaine, du Commonwealth d'Aus
tralie, du Canada, du Danemark, de la France, de la Nouvelle-Zelande, de la
Norvege, du Royaume-Uni, des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et de !'Union des Repu
bliques socialistes sovietiques,
No 148
55Annex 5
54 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
Having ratified or acceded to the Protocol signed in London on 26th Novem
ber, 1945 1 (hereinafter called "The Protocol"), amending the International
2
Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling signed in London on 8th June, 1937,
as amended by the Protocols of 24th June, 1938, and 7th February, 1944 4;
Considering that it is provided under paragraph (i) of Article VIII of the
Protocol that the Protocol shall come into force in its entirety when all the
Governments referred to in·.t·he preamble of the Protocol shall have deposited
their instruments of ratification or given notification of accession;
Considering further that ratifications or accessions have been deposited on
behalf of all the Governments referred to in the preamble of the Protocol with
the exception of the Governments of Mexico and the Netherlands; and
Desiring that the Protocol should be brought into force in its entirety without
awaiting ratification by the Governments of Mexico and the Netherlands;
Have decided to conclude a Supplementary Protocol for this purpose and
have agreed as follows:-
Article I
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (i) of Article VIII of the
Protocol, the Protocol shall, on the signature of the present Supplementary
Protocol, come into force with respect to Governments signing the present
Supplementary Protocol immediately upon signature by them.
Article II
The present Supplementary Protocol shall bear the date on which it is
opened for signature and shall remain open for signature for a period of 14 days
thereafter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned, duly authorised by their respective
Governments, have signed the present Supplementary Protocol, done in London
this 3rd day of March, 1947, in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the
archives of the Government of the United Kingdom and of which certified
copies shall be transmitted to all the signatory Governments.
• See page 44 of this volume.
"League of Nations, Treaty Series, VoluCXC, page 79.
•Great Britain, Treaty Series No. 61 (1946), Cmd. 6990.1.
No. 148
56 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 55
Ayant ratifie 1e protocole signe a Londres le 26 octobre 1945 1 (ci-apr~
mentionne sous 1enom de "protocole") modifiant }'accord international pour la
2
reglementation de la Chasse ala baleine, signe a Londres le 8 juin 1937 modifie
par les protocoles du 24 juin 1938 et du 7 fevrier 1944\ ou ayant adhere audit
protocole.
Considerant qu'il est prevu au paragraphe i) de l'article VIII dudit proto
cole qu'il entrera en vigueur dans toutes ses dispositions lorsque taus 1esGouver
nements mentionnes dans le preambule dudit protocole auront depose leurs ins
truments de ratification ou notifie leur adhesion;
Considerant en outre que des ratifications ou des adhesions ant ete deposees
au nom de taus les Gouvemements mentionnes dans le preambule dudit proto
cole a !'exception des Gouvemements du Mexique et des Pays-Bas; et
Desireux de mettre en vigueur ledit protocole dans toutes ses dispositions
sans en attendre la ratification par les Gouvemements du Mexique et des Pays
Bas;
Ont decide d'etablir a cet effet un protocole additionnel et sont convenus
de ce qui suit:
Article premier
Nonobstant les dispositions du paragraphe i) de l'article VIII du protocole,
ledit protocole entrera en vigueur au moment de la signature du present proto
cole additionnel, a l'egard des Gouvemements ayant signe ledit protocole addi
tionnel, et au moment meme de leur siguature.
Article 2
Le present protocole additionnel portera la date a 1aquelle il est ouvert
ala siguature et il restera ouvert a cet effet pendant un delai de quatorze jours
apres cette date.
EN FOI DE QUOI, les soussignes, dument autorises par leurs Gouvernements
respectifs, ont signe le present protocole additionnel, fait a Londres, le 3 mars
1947, en un exemplaire unique, lequel sera depose dans les archives du Gouverne
ment du Royaume-Uni et des copies certifiees conformes seront communiquees
a tous les Gouvernements siguataires.
1
1Societe des NationsRecueil des Traitlsvolume CXC, page 79.
•Societe desNat ionsRecueil des Traitls,volume CXCVI, page 131.
• Great Britain, "Treaty Serien° 61 (1946), Cmd. 6990.
N• 148
57Annex 5
56 United Nations- Treaty Series 1947
For the Government of the Union of South Africa:
Eugene K. SCALLAN
For the Government of t:h£Commonwealth of
Australia:
John A. BEASLEY
Subject to approval
For the Government of Canada:
N. A. RoBERTSON
For the Government of Denmark:
E. REVENTLOW
For the Government of France:
Jean LERoy
For the Government of New Zealand:
W. J. JoRDAN
For the Government of Norway:
P. PREBENSEN
For the Government of the United Kingdom:
0. G. SARGENT
For the Government of the United States of America:
w. J. GALLMAN
Subject to ratification
For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics:
G. ZAROUBIN
No. 148
58 Annex 5
1947 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 57
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Union Sud-Africaine:
Eugene K. SCALLAN
Pour le Gouvernement du Commonwealth d'Australie:
John A.BEASLEY
Sous reserve d'approbation
Pour le Gouvernement du Canada:
N. A. ROBERTSON
Pour Ie Gouvernement du Danemark:
E. REVENTLOW
Pour le Gouvernement de la France:
Jean LERoY
Pour le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zelande:
W. J. JORDAN
Pour le Gouvernement de la Norvege:
P. PREBENSEN
Pour le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni:
0. G. SARGENT
Pour le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique:
W. J. GALLMAN
Sous reserve de ratification
Pour le Gouvernement de l'Union des Republiques
socialistes sovietiques:
G. ZAROUBIN
N• 148
5960 Annex 6
6. The International Convention for the RegulatWhaling (entered into force
10 November 1948) 161 UNTS 72, amended by Protocol of 19 November 1956, 338
UNTS 366
No. 2124
ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA,
BRAZIL, CANADA, CIHLE, ete.
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
(with annexed schedule). Signed at Washington, on
2 December 1946
Amendments to paragraphs 6, 7 (a) and 10 of the schedule
to the above-mentioned Convention. Adopted at the
first meeting of the International Whaling Commission,
held in London, 30 May-7 Jnne 1949
Amendment to paragraph 17 of the schedule to the above·
mentioned Convention. Adopted at the first meeting
of the International Whaling Commission, held in
London, 30 May•7 June 1949
Amendments to paragraphs 6, 8 (c), 8(d) and 8 (e) of the
schedule to the above-mentioned Convention. Adopted
at the second meeting of the International Whaling
Commission, held at Oslo in Jnly 1950
Official texts: English.
Registered by the United States of America o1953.arch
61Annex 6
ARGENTINE, AUSTRALIE,
BRESIL, CANADA, CIDLI, etc.
Convention internationale pour Ia rcglementation de Ia
le 2 decemhre 1946 (avec annexe). Signeea Washington,
Modifications aux paragraphes 6, 7, a, et 10 de l'annexea
Ia Convention susmentionnec. Adoptees a Ia premiere
reunion de Ia Commission internationale de Ia ehasse
a Ia baleine, qui s'est tenue a Londres du 30 mai au
7 juin 1949
Modification au paragraphe 17 de l'annexe a Ia Convention
susmentionnee. Adoptee a Ia premiere reunion de Ia
Commission internationale de Ia chasse a Ia baleine,
qui s'est tenuea Londres du 30 mai au 7 juin 1949
Modifications aux paragraphes 6, 8,c8, d, et 8e,de l'annexe
a Ia Convention susmentionnee. Adoptees a Ia deuxieme
reunion de Ia Commission internationale de Ia ehasse
a Ia baleine, qui s'est tenaOslo au mois de juillet 1950
Textes officielsanglais.
Enregistreespar les Etats-Unis d'Amerique le 4 mars 1953.
62 Annex 6
74 United Nations- Treaty Series 1953
No. 2124. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION 1 FOR THE
REGULATION OF WHALING. SIGNED AT WASHING
TON, ON 2 DECEMBER 1946
The Governments whose duly authorized representatives have subscribed
hereto,
Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for
future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;
Considering that the history of whaling has seen overfishing of one area
after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it
is essential to protect all species of whales from further overfishing;
Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if
whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks
will permit increases in the numbers of whales which may be captured without
endangering these natural resources;
·Recognizing that it is in the common interest to achieve the optimum
level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible without causing wide-spread economic
and nutritional distress;
Recognizing that in the course of achieving these objectives, whaling
operations should be confined to those species best able to sustain exploitation
in order to give an interval for recovery to certain species of whales now depleted
in numbers;
Desiring to establish a system of international regulation for the whale
fisheries to ensure proper and effective conservation and development of whale
1In accordance with article X, the Convention came into force on 10 November1948 in
respect of the following States on behalf of wbicb the instruments of ratification or notifications
of adherence(a)were received by the Government of the United States of America on tbe dates
indicated :
Iceland . . . . . . 10 March 1947 (a) Norway . . . . . . . 3 March 1948
Australia . . . . . 1 December 1947 Union of South Africa. 5 May 1948
United Kingdom of Union of Soviet Socialist
Great Britain and Republics . . . . . 11 September 1948
Northern Ireland .. 17 June 1947 Panama . . . . ... 30 September1948 (a)
UnitedStatesofAmerica 18 July 1947 Netherlands ..... 10 November1948
It subsequently came into force on the dates indicated in respect of the following States upon
the receipt by the Governmen t of the Uni ted States of America of the resinstrument of
ratification or notification of adh(a) :e
France. 3 December 1948 New Zealand . 2 August 1949
Sweden 28 January 1949 (a) Brazil 9May 1950
Canada 25 February 1949 Denmark 23 May 1950
Mexico 30 June 1949 (a) Japan 21 April 1951 (a)
63Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 75
(TRADUCTION - TRANSLATION]
1
N° 2124. CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA RE
GLEMENTATION DE LA CHASSE A LA BALEINE.
SIGNEE A WASHINGTON, LE 2 DECEMBRE 1946
Les Gouvernements dont les representants dument autorises ont signe Ia
presente Convention,
Reconnaissant que les nations du monde ont interet a sauvegarder, au
profit des generations futures, les grandes ressources naturelles representees
par I'espece baleiniere;
Considerant que, depuis son debut, Ia chasse a Ia baleine a donne lieu a
!'exploitation excessive d'une zone apres !'autre et a Ia destruction immoderee
d'une espece apres !'autre, au point ou il est essentiel de proteger toutes les
especes de baleines contre Ia prolongation d'abus de cette nature ;
Reconnais sant qu'une reglementation appropriee de Ia chasse a Ia baleine
serait de nature a assurer un accroissement nature( des peuplements baleiniers,
ce qui permettrait d'augmenter le nombre des baleines pouvant ~tr eapturees
sans compromettre ces ressources naturelles;
Reconnaissant qu'il est dans ('interet general de faire en sorte que les
peuplements baleinier s atteignent leur niveau optimum aussi rapidement que
possible, sans provoquer une penurie plus ou moins generalisee sur les plans
economique et alimentaire;
Reconnaissant que, pour atteindre ces objectifs, il faut limiter les operations
de chasse aux especes qui sont le mieux a meme de supporter une exploitation,
de maniere a donner a certains peuplements baleiniers actuellement insuffisants
le temps de se reconstituer;
. Desirant instituer un systeme de reglementation internationale de Ia chasse
a Ia baleine qui soit de nature a assurer d'une maniere appropriee et efficace
1
l'egarddes Etats enumcresci-apres au nom desquels des instrumede ratificatiou desre 1948
notifications d'adhesion (a) onre~uepr Ie Gouvemement des Etats-Unid'Amerique au:x:
dates indiquee s ci-dessous :
Islande . . . ..•. 10 mars 1947 (a) Norvege . . . . • . . 3 mars 1948
Australie . . . . . . 1•• decembre 1947 Union Sud-Af ricain. 5 mai 1948
Royaum e-Uni de Gran- Union des Republique s
de-Bretagneet d'lr- socialistes sovieti11 septembre 1948
lande du Nord . . . 17 juin 1947 Pays-Bas. . . . . ...10 novembre 1948(a)
Etat s-Unis d'Ameriqu18 juillet 1947
La Convention est entree ulterieuren vigueur aux dates indiquee s ci-dasl'egard
leur s instruments de ratification ou leurs notification s d'adhesion (a) suivant Ie cas :
Suedee. . 28 janviere 1949 (a) Bresil . .Zelande . 9 mailt 1950
Canada . 25 fevrier 1949 Dan emark 23 mai 1950
Mexique 30 juin 1949 (a) Japon 21 avril 1951(a)
64 Annex 6
76 United Nations- Treaty Series 1953
stocks on the basis of the principles embodied in the provisions of the Inter
national Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling signed in London on
1
June 8, 1937 and the protocols to that Agreement signed in London on June 24;.
1938 and November 26, 1945; and 3
Having decided to conclude a convention to provide for the proper con
servation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of
the whaling industry;
Have agreed as follows :
Article I
1. This Convention includes the Schedule attached thereto which forms
an integral part thereof. All references to " Convention " shall be understood
as including the said Schedule either in its present terms or as amended in
accordance with the provisions of Article V.
2. This Convention applies to factory ships, land stations, and whale
catchers under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Governments, and tr. all
waters in which whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships, land stations, and
whale catchers.
Article II
As used in this Convention
1. " factory ship " means a ship in which or on which whales are treated
whether wholly or in part;
2. " land station " means a factory on the land at which whales are treated
whether wholly or in part;
3. " whale catcher " means a ship used for the purpose of hunting, taking,
towing, holding on to, or scouting for whales;
4. " Contracting Government " means any Government which has
deposited an instrument of ratification or has given notice of adherence to this
Convention.
Article III
1. The Contracting Governments agree to establish an International
Whaling Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, to be composed
1
League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. CXp.79; United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 32,
p. 404, and Vol. 91p.388.
Vol. 32,p.405, and Vol. 92p.435.Series, Vol. CXCVl,p. 131; United Nations, Trtaty Series,
sUn ited Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. p.,43, and Vol. 32p. 396.
No. 2124
65Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 77
Ia conservation et l'accroissement des peuplements baleiniers, sur Ia base des
principes incorpores dans les dispositions de !'Accord international pour Ia
reglementation de la chasse a la baleine, signea Londres le 8 juin 19371, et des
2
protocoles audit Accord, signes a Londres le 24 juin 1938 et le 26 novembre
1945 3, et
Ayant decide de conclure une convention destinee aassurer la conservation
appropriee des peuplements baleiniers et voulant ainsi donner a l'industrie
baleiniere la possibilite de se developper d'une maniere methodique,
Sont convenus des dispositions suivantes:
Article premier
1. La presente Convention comprend l'annexe JOlnte, qui en fait partie
integrante. Toutes mentions de Ia «Convention » viseront egalement ladite
annexe, soit dans sa version actuelle, soit telle qu'elle pourra etre modifiee con
formement aux dispositions de !'article V.
2. La presente Convention s'applique aux usines flottantes, aux stations
terrestres et aux navires baleiniers Soumis a la juridiction des Gouvernements
contractants, ainsi qu'a toutes les eaux dans lesquelles ces usines flottantes,
stations terrestres et navires baleiniers se livrent a leur industrie.
Article II
Aux fins de la presente Convention :
l. Par « usine flottante »,on entend un navire a bord duquel les baleines
sont traitees en tout ou en partie.
2. Par « station terrestre», on entend une usine sur Ia terre ferme ou les
baleines sont traitees en tout ou en partie.
3. Par<<navire baleinier »,on entend un navire utilise pour chasser, capturer,
remorquer, poursuivre ou reperer des baleines.
4. Par <<Gouvernement contractant », on entend tout gouvernement qui a
depose un instrument de ratification ou notifie son adhesion a la presente Con
vention.
Article III
1. Les Gouvernements contractants sont convenus de creer une Commission
internationale de la chasse a la baleine, ci-apres denommee « la Commission >J,
1
Societe des Nations , Recueil des Traites, vol. CXC, p. 79; Nations Unies, Recueil des Traites,
vol.232p. 404, et vol. p.,388.
Traith, vol. 32, p. 405, et vol. 92, p. 435.s, vol. Cp.V131; Nations Unies, Recueil des
8Nations Unies, Recueil des Traitts, vol. 11, p. 43, et vol. 32, p. 396.
No 2124
66 Annex 6
78 United Nations - Treaty Series 1953
of one member from each Contracting Government. Each member shall have
one vote and may be accompanied by one or more experts and advisers.
2. The Commission shall elect from its own members a Chairman and
Vice Chairman and shall determine its own Rules of Procedure. Decisions of
the Commission shall be taken by a simple majority of those members voting
except that a three-fourths majority of those members voting shall be required
for action in pursuance of Article V. The Rules of Procedure may provide
for decisions otherwise than at meetings of the Commission.
3. The Commission may appoint its own Secretary and staff.
4. The Commission may set up, from among its own members and experts
or advisers, such committees as it considers desirable to perform such functions
as it may authorize.
5. The expenses of each member of the Commission and of his experts and
advisers shall be determined and paid by his own Government .
6. Recognizing that specialized agencies related to the United Nations
will be concerned with the conservation and development of whale fisheries
and the products arising therefrom and desiring to avoid duplication of functions,
the Contracting Governments will consult among themselves within two years
after the coming into force of this Convention to decide whether the Commission
shall be brought within the framework of a specialized agency related to the
United Nations.
7. In the meantime the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland shall arrange, in consultation with the other
Contracting Governments, to convene the first meeting of the Commission,
and shall initiate the consultation referred to in paragraph 6 above.
8. Subsequent meetings of the Commission shall be convened as the
Commission may determine.
Article IV
l. The Commission may either in collaboration with or through inde
pendent agencies of the Contracting Governments or other public or private
agencies, establishments, or organizations, or independently
(a) encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organize studies and investigations
relating to whales and whaling;
No. 2124
67Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 79
qui sera composee de membres designes par les Gouvernements contractants,
a raison d'un membre par Gouvernement. Chaque membre disposera d'une
voix:; il pourra se faire accompagner d'un ou de plusieurs experts ou conseillers.
2. La Commission elira dans son sein un President et un Vice-President
et elle elaborera son propre reglement interieur. Elle prendra ses decisionsa
la majorite simple des membres votants ; toutefois, une majorite des trois quarts
des membres votants sera requise pour les decisions prises en vertu de I'article V.
Le reglement interieur pourra disposer que les decisions pourront etre prises
autrement qu'au cours des seances de la Commission.
3. La Commission pourra designer son secretaire et son personnel.
4. La Commission pourra creer, en faisant appel a ses propres membres,
experts et conseillers, les comites qu'elle jugera utiles pour remplir les fonctions
qu'elle pourra conferer.
5. Chaque Gouvemement determinera et prendra a sa charge les frais de
son representant a la Commission , ainsi que ceux: des experts ou conseillers
qui l'accompagneront.
6. Constatant que certaines institutions specialisees rattachae!'Organisa
tion des Nations Unies s'interessent au maintien et au developpement de l'in
dustrie baleiniere, ainsi qu'aux produits de celle-ci, et souhaitant eviter que les
activites en Ia matiere ne fassent double emploi, les Gouvernements contractants
se consulteront dans un delai de deux: ansa compter de l'entree en vigueur de
la presente Convention, afin de decider s'il convient ou non d'integrer la Com
mission dans le cadre d'une institution specialisee rattachee a !'Organisation
des Nations Unies.
7.En attendant, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne
et d'lrlande du Nord, agissant de concert avec les autres Gouvernements
contractants, prendra les dispositions necessaires pour reunir une premiere
foisIa Commission et il fera proceder aux consultations visees au paragraphe 6
qui precede.
8. Pour les seances suivantes, Ia Commission fixera elle-meme son mode
de convocation.
Article IV
1. La Commission, agissant soit de concert avec des organismes autonomes
des Gouvernements contractants ou d'autres organisme s, institutions ou etablisse
ments publics ou prives, ou par leur intermediaire, soit independamment, sera
habiliteea:
a} Encoura ger, recommander et, en cas de besoin, organiser des etude s et des
enquetes sur les baleines et la chassa la baleine;
N• 2124
68 Annex 6
80 United Nations - Treaty Series 1953
(b) collect and analyze statistical information concerning the current condition
and trend of the whale stocks and the effects of whaling activities thereon;
(c) study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning methods of main
taining and increasing the populations of whale stocks.
2. The Commission shall arrange for the publication of reports of its
activities, and it may publish independently or in collaboration with the Inter
national Bureau for Whaling Statistics at Sandefjord in Norway and other
organizations and agencies such reports as it deems appropriate, as well as
statistical, scientific, and other pertinent information relating to whales and
whaling.
Article V
1. The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the
Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization
of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and
closed seasons; (c)open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary
areas; (d) size limits for each species; (e) time, methods, and intensity of whaling
(including the maximum catch of whales to be taken in any one season); (f) types
and specifications of gear and apparatus and appliances which may be used;
(g) methods of measurement; and (h) catch returns and other statistical and
biological records.
2. These amendments of the Schedule (a)shall be such as are necessary
to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide
for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale
resources; (b)shall be based on scientific findings; (c)shall not involve restrictions
on the number or nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor allocate
specific quotas to any factory ship or land station or to any group of factory
ships or land stations; and (d) shall take into consideration the interests of the
consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.
3. Each of such amendments shall become effective with respect to the
Contracting Governments ninety days following notification of the amendment
by the Commission to each of the Contracting Governments, except that (a) if
any Government presents to the Commission objection to any amendment
prior to the expiration of this ninety-day period, the amendment shall not
become effective with respect to any of the Governments for an additional
ninety days; (b) thereupon, any other Contracting Government may present
objection to the amendment at any time prior to the expiration of the additional
ninety-day period, or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of
No. 2124
69Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 81
b) Rassembler et analyser des renseignements statistiquessur Ia situation
actuelleet ('evolution des peuplements baleiniers, ainsi que sur les reper
cussions des operations de chasse sur ces peuplements;
c) :Etudier, evaluer et diffuser des renseignements sur Ies methodes a utiliser
pour preserver et reconstituer les peuplements baleiniers.
2. La Commission prendra les dispositions voulues pour publier des rapports
d'activite; elle pourra egalement publier, soit independamment , soit en collabo
ration avec le Bureau international des statistiques baleinieres a Sandefjord ,
en Norvege, ou d'autres organismes ou services, tous autres rapports qu'elle
jugera necessaires, ainsi que des renseignements statistiques et scientifiques ou
d'autres renseignements pertinents sur les baleines et Ia chasse ala baleine.
Article V
1. La Commission pourra modifier de temps a autre les dispositions de
l'annexe en adoptant, au sujet de la conservation et de ('utilisation des ressources
baleinieres, des reglements concernant: a) les especes protegees et non pro~
tegees; b) les saisons autorisees et interditec) les eaux ouvertes ou fermees
ala chasse,y compris la delimitation des zones de refuge; d) les tailles minimums
pour chaque espece; e) l'epoque, les methodes et l'intensite des operations de
chasse (y compris le nombre maximum de prises autorisees pendant une saison
donnee); f) les types et caracteristiquesdes engins, appareils et instruments
pouvant etre utilises; g) les procedes de mensuration, et h) l'etablissement des
relevesde prises et autres documents de caractere statistique ou biologique.
2. Ces modifications de l'annexe devront: a) s'inspirer de Ia necessite
d'atteindre les objectifs et les buts de la Convention et d'assurer la conservation,
le developpement et !'utilisation optimum des ressources baleinieres; b) se
fonder sur des donnees scientifiques; c) n'instituer aucune restriction en ce qui
concerne le nombre ou la nationalite des usines flottantes et des stations terrestres,
ni allouer des contingents determines a une usine flottante ou a une station
terrestre ou a un groupe d'usines flottantes ou de stations terrestret d) tenir
compte des interets des consommateurs de produits tires de Ia baleine et des
interets de l'industrie baleiniere.
3. Une modification de cette nature entrera en vigueur a l'egard des
Gouvernements contractants quatre-vingt-dix jours apres Ia date a laquelle Ia
Commission !'aura notifieea chacun des Gouvernements contractants; toute
fois, a) si l'un des Gouvernements presenta Ia Commiss ion une objection contre
cette modification avant 1'expiration de ce delai de quatre-vingt-dixjours, son
entree en vigueur a l'egard des Gouvernements contractants sera suspendue
pendant un nouveau delai de quatre-vingt-dix jours, et b) n'importe quel autre
Gouvernement contractant pourra alors presenter une objection contre la
modification, a tout moment avant ('expiration de ce nouveau delai de quatre-
N•2124
70 Annex 6
82 United Nations - Treaty Series 1953
receipt of the last objection received during such additional ninety-day period,
whichever date shall be the later; and (c) thereafter, the amendment shall become
effectivewith respect to all Contracting Governments which have not presented
objection but shall not become effective with respect to any Government which
has so objected until such dateas the objection is withdrawn. The Commission
shall notify each Contracting Government immediately upon receipt of each
objection and withdrawal and each Contracting Government shall acknowledge
receipt of all notifications of amendments, objections, and withdrawals.
4. No amendments shall become effective before July 1, 1949.
Article VI
The Commission may from time to time make recommendations to any or
all Contracting Governments on any matters which relate to whales or whaling
and to the objectives and purposes of this Convention.
Article VII
The Contracting Governments shall ensure prompt transmtsston to the
International Bureau for Whaling Statistics at Sandefjord in Norway, or to such
other body as the Commission may designate, of notifications and statistical
and other information required by this Convention in such form and manner
as may be prescribed by the Commission.
Article VIII
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any Con
tracting Government may grant to any of its nationals aspecial permit authorizing
that national to kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research
subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions
as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating
of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt
from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall
report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted.
Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit
which it has granted.
2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable
be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions
issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
No. 2124
71Annex 6
1953 Nations Un£es- Recueil des Traites 83
vingt-dix jours ou, si cette eventualite doit se produire plus tard, avant !'expira
tion d'un delai de trente jours a compter de la date de la reception de la derniere
objection parvenue au cours de ce delai supplementaire de quatre-vingt-dix
jours, apres quoi c) la modification entrera en vigueur a l'egard de tous les
Gouvernements contractants qui n'auront pas souleve d'objection, cependant
qu'a l'egard d'un Gouvernement qui aura presente une objection, elle n'entrera
en vigueur que lorsque celle-ci aura ete retiree. La Commission devra notifier
toutes les objections et tous les retraits d'objectaochaque Gouvernement
contractant, des leur reception, et chaque Gouvernement contractant sera tenu
d'accuser reception de toutes les notifications relaaides modifications, des
objections ou des retraits d'objections.
4. Aucune modification ne pourra entrer en vigueur avant lerjuillet 1949.
Article VI
La Commission pourra formuler de temps a autre,a l'intention de l'un
quelconque ou de tous les Gouvernements contractants, des recommandations
a propos de questions ayant trait, soit aux baleinesaela chassea Ia baleine,
soit aux objectifs et aux buts de Ia presente Convention.
Article VII
Les Gouvernements contractants devront veiller a ce que les notifications
et les renseignements statistiques ou autres requis par Ia presente Convention
soient transmis sans delai au Bureau international des statistiques baleinaeres
Sandefjord, en Norvege, ou a tout autre organisme que Ia Commission pourra
designer, et ce en la forme et de la maniere que Ia Commission pourra fixer.
Article VIII
1. Nonobstant toute disposition contraire de la presente Convention,
chaque Gouvernement contractant pourra accorder a ses ressortissants un permis
special autorisant !'intereastuer, capturer et traiter des baleines en vue de
recherches scientifiques, ladite autorisatiopouvant etre subordonnee aux:
restrictions, en ce qui concerne le nombre, et a telles autres conditions que le
Gouvemement contractant jugera opportunes; dans ce cas, les baleines pourront
etre tuees, capturees ou traitees sans qu'il y ait lieu de se conformer aux disposi
tions de la presente Convention. Chaque Gouvernement contractant devra
porter immediatement aIaconnaissance de IaCommission toutes les autorisations
de cette nature qu'il aura accordees. Un Gouvernement contractant pourra
annuler atout moment un permis special par lui accorde.
2. Dans toute la mesure du possible, les baleines capturees en vertu de
ces permis speciaux devront etre traitees conformement aux:directives formulees
par le Gouvernement qui aura delivre le permis, lesquelles s'appliqueront
egalement a!'utilisation des produits obtenus .
N • 2124
72 Annex 6
84 United Nations - Treaty Series 1953
3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be
designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not
more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with
respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted
pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.
4. Recognizing that continuous colle'ction and analysis of biological data
in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indis
pensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Con
tracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data.
Article IX
1. Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate measures to
ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment
of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons
or by vessels under its jurisdiction.
2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results
of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect
of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.
3. Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of this Conven
tion shall be instituted by the Government having jurisdiction over the offense.
4. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to the Commission full
details of each infraction of the provisions of this Convention by persons or
vessels under the jurisdiction of that Government as reported by its inspectors .
This information shall include a statement of measures taken for dealing with
the infraction and of penalties imposed.
Article X
1. This Convention shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification
shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America.
2. Any Government which has not signed this Convention may adhere
thereto after it enters into force by a notification in writing to the Government
of the United States of America.
3. The Government of the United States of America shall inform all
other signatory Governments and all adhering Governments of all ratifications
deposited and adherences received.
No. 2124
73Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 85
3. Dans toute Ia mesure du possible, chaque Gouvernement contractant
devra transmettre a l'organisme que Ia Commission pourra designer a cet effet,
a des intervalles d'un an au maximum, les renseignements de caractere scienti
fique dont il disposera sur les baleines et la chasaeIa baleine, y compris les
resultats des recherches effectuees en application du paragraphe 1 du present
article et de !'artiIV.
4. Reconnaissant qu'il est indispensable, pour assurer une gestion saine et
profitable de l'industrie baleiniere, de rassembler et d'analyser constamment les
renseignements biologiques recueillisa !'occasion des operations des usines
flottantes et des stations terrestres, les Gouvernementcontractants prendront
toutes les mesures en leur pouvoir pour se procurer ces renseignements.
Article IX
1. Chaque Gouvernement contractant prendra toutes mesures utiles en vue
d'assurer !'application des dispositions de Ia pn!sente Convention et de punir
les infractionsa ces dispositions qui seraient commises au cours d'operations
effectuees par des personnes ou des navires soumis a sa juridiction.
2. Aucune prime ni autre remuneration calculee sur la base des resultats
de leur travail ne sera versee aux canonniers et aux equipages des navires balei
niers pour toute baleine dont la capture est interdite par la presente Convention .
3. En cas d'infraction ou de contravention aux dispositions de la presente
Convention, les poursuites seront intentees par le Gouvernement competent
pour juger le delit.
4. Chaque Gouvernement contractant devra transmettre a la Commission
les renseignements detailles qui lui auront ete fournis par ses inspecteurs au
sujet de toute infraction aux dispositions de la presente Convention commise
par des personnes ou des navires SOumis a sa juridiction. Cette communication
devra indiquer les mesures prises pour reprimer !'infraction, ainsi que les
sanctions infligees.
Article X
1. La presente Convention sera ratifiee et les instruments de ratification
seront deposes aupres du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique.
2. Tout Gouvernement non signataire de la presente Convention pourra
adherer acelle-ci apres son entree en vigueur, au moyen d'une notification ecrite
adressee au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique.
3.Le Gouvernement des Etats- Unis d'Amerique portera toutes les rati
fications deposees et les adhesions res:uea la connaissance de tous les autres
Gouvernements signataires et adherents.
Vol. 161-7 N• 2124
74 Annex 6
86 United Nations- Treaty Series 1953
4. This Convention shall, when instruments of ratification have been
deposited by at least six signatory Governments, which shall include the Govern·
ments of the Netherlands, Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United
States of America, enter into force with respect to those Governments and shall
enter into force with respect to each Government which subsequently ratifies
or adheres on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or the receipt
of its notification of adherence.
5. The provisions of the Schedule shall not apply prior to July 1, 1948.
Amendments to the Schedule adopted pursuant to Article V shall not apply
priorto July 1, 1949.
Article XI
Any Contracting Government may withdraw from this Convention on June
thirtieth of any year by giving notice on or before January first of the same year
to the depositary Government, which upon receipt of such a notice shall at
once communicate it to the other Contracting Governments . Any other:
Contracting Government may, in like manner, within one month of the receipt
of a copy of such a notice from the depositary Government, give notice of
withdrawal, so that the Convention shall cease to be in force on June thirtieth
of the same year with respect to the Government giving such notice of with
drawal.
This Convention shall bear the date on which it is opened for signature
and shall remain open for signature for a period of fourteen days thereafter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed
this Convention.
DoNE in Washington this second day of December 1946, in the English
language, the original of which shall be deposited in the archives of the Govern-'.
ment of the United States of America. The Government of the United States
of America shall transmit certified copies thereof to all the other signatory and
adhering Governments.
No. 2124
75Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 87
4. Lorsque six Gouvemements signataires au mains, y compris ceux des
Pays-Bas, de Ia Norvege, de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques,
du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord et des Etats-Unis
d'Amerique, auront depose leurs instruments de ratification, Ia presente Con
vention entrera en vigueur a l'egard de ces Gouvernements, et, pour chacun
des Gouvernements qui Ia ratifiera ou y adherera par Ia suite, elle entrera en
vigueur a Ia date du depot de l'instrument de ratification ou de la reception
de la notification d'adhesion.
5. Les dispositions de l'annexe ne seront pas applicables avaerjuillet
1948. Les modifications de l'annexe qui pourront etre adoptees en vertu de
!'article V ne seront pas applicables avanterejuillet 1949.
Article XI
Tout Gouvernement contractant pourra se retirer de la presente Conven
tion le 30 juin de chaque annee en adressant leerjanvier de Iam~me annee
au plus tard une notification de retrait au Gouvernement depositaire, lequel,
des reception de cette notification, sera tenu d'en communiquer le tenant aux
autres Gouvernements contractants. Chacun des autres Gouvernements con
tractants pourra, dans un delai d'un mois a compter de Ia dalaquelle il aura
re~u du Gouvernement depositaire une copie de ladite notification, notifier son
retrait suivant Im~me procedure, et la Convention cessera d'etre en vigueur
a son egard a compter du 30 juin de Ia meme annee.
La presente Convention portera Ia date a laquelle elle est oaIa signa
ture et elle restera ouveraeIa signature pendant un delai de quatorze jours
apres cette date .
EN Foi DE QUOIles soussignesa ce dument autorises, ont signe Ia presente
Convention.
FAITa Washington, le 2 decembre 1946, en langue anglaise, I'original devant
~tr depose dans les archives du Gouvernement des Etats- Unis d'Amerique.
Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique transmettra une copie certifiee
conforme de Ia Convention a tous les autres Gouvernements signataires, ainsi
qu'a tous les Gouvernements qui auront adhere a Ia Convention.
N• 2124
76 Annex 6
88 United Nations- Treaty Series 1953
For Argentina : Pour 1'Argentine :
0 .IvANISSEVICH
J. M. MoNETA
G. BROWN
Pedro H. BRUNOVIDELA
For Australia: Pour 1'Australie :
F. F. ANDERSON
For Brazil: Pour le Bresil :
Paulo FR6Es DACRUZ
For Canada: Pour leCanada :
H. H. WRONG
Harry A. ScoTT
For Chile : Pour le Chili :
Agustin R. EDWARDS
For Denmark : Pour le Danemark :
P. F. ERICHSEN
For France: Pour la France :
Francis LACOSTE
For the Netherlands : Pour les Pays- Bas :
D. J.VANDIJK
No. 2124
77Annex 6
1953 Nations Unies - Recueil des Traites 89
For New Zealand : Pour la Nouvelle-Zelande :
G. R. POWLES
For Norway: Pour la Norvege:
Birger BERGERSEN
For Peru: Pour le Perou :
C. ROTALDE
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- Pour !'Union des Republiques socia-
publics : listes sovietiques :
A. BoGDANov
E. NIKISHIN
For the United Kingdom of Great Pour le Royaume-Uni de Grande-
Britain and Northern Ireland : Bretagne et d'lrlande du Nord :
A. T. A. DOBSON
John THOMSON
For the United States of America: Pour les Etats- Unis d'Amerique :
Remington KELLOGG
Ira N. GABRIELSON
William E. S. FLORY
For the Union of South Africa: Pour l'Union Sud-Africaine:
H. T. ANDREWS
NO2124
78 Annex 6
United Nations- Treaty Series
366 1959
No. 2124. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF
WHALING. SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, ON 2 DECEMBER 19461
PROTOcoL 2 TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CoNVENTION. SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, ON
19 NoVEMBE1 R956
Offidal text: English.
Registered by the United States of America on 6 August 1959.
The Contracting Governments to the International Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling signed at Washington under date of December 2, 1946, which Convention
is hereinafter referred to as the 1946Whaling Convention, desiring to extend the applica
tion of that Convention to helicopters and other aircraft and to include provisions on
methods of inspection among those Schedule provisions which may be amended by the
Commission, agree as follows :
Article I
Subparagraph 3 of Article II of the 1946Whaling Convention shall be amended to
read as follows : ·
"3. 'whale catcher.' means a helicopter, or other aircraft, or a ship, used
for the purpose of hunting, taking, killing, towing, holding on to, or scouting for
whales."
Article II
Paragraph 1 of Article V of the 1946 Whaling Convention shall be amended by
deleting the word "and" preceding clause (h), substituting a semicolon for the period
at the end of the paragraph, and adding the following language: "and (i) methods of
inspection ".
1
United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 161, p. 72; Vol. ~·7396; Vol. 181, p. 364; Vol. 252,
p. 316; Vol. 278, p. 278; Vol. 300, p. 376, and Vol. 337. ' -
In accordance with article III, the Proto<:arr~ri torce on 4 May 1959, the date upon
States of America on behalf of all the Contra cting Parties to the ConvBelow is the list of the
contract ing parties indicating the dates of deposit of the instruments of ratification of the Protocol :
Australia 8 April 1957 Panama 9 February 1959
Brazil . . 4 May 1959 Sweden 6 Jun e 1957
Denmark . . 26 July 1957 UnAfrica of South 25 April 1957
Franc e . 14 April 1958 Un ion of Soviet
Iceland . 23 November 1956 Socialist Republics . 3 July 1957
Japan . . 24 May 1957 United Kingd om of
Mexico . 9 March 1959 Great Britain and
Netherlands 23 December 1957 Northern Ireland . 23 May 1957
New Zealand 21 June 1957 United States of
Norway 15 April 1957 America 30 August 1957
79Annex 6
1959 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 367
(TRADUCTION! - TRANSLATION ]2
N° 2124. CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA REGLEMENTATION
DE LA CHASSE A LA BALEINE. SIGNEE A WASHINGTON, LE 2 DECEM
3
BRE 1946
PRoToco~ A LA CoNVENTION susMENTIONNEB. SIGNtA WASHINGTON, LE 19 NOVEMERE
1956
Texte officielnglais.
Enregistri par lesEtats-Unis d'Amirique le 6 aotlt 1959.
Les Gouvemements contractants de Ia Convention intemationale pour Ia regie
mentation de Ia chasse a Iabaleine signee a Washington le 2 decembre 1946 et appelee
ci-apres Ia Convention de 1946 sur Iachasse a Ia baleine, desireux d'etendre !'application
de cette Convention aux helicopteres et autres aeronefs et d'inserer des dispositions rela
tives aux methodes d'inspection parmi les dispositions du Reglement qui peuvent etre
modifiees par Ia Commission, sont convenus de ce qui suit :
Article I"
Le paragraphe 3 de !'article II de Ia Convention de 1946 sur Ia chasseaIabaleine est
modifie et doit se lire ainsi qu'il suit :
«3. «navire baleinier • signifie un navire, ou un helicoptere, ou un aeronef
quelconque, utilise pour chasser, capturer, remorquer, tenira!'attache ou rechercher
les baleines. •
Article II
Le paragraphe 1 de !'article V de la Convention de 1946 sur 1achasse a Ia baleine
est modifie de Ia fa~o snivante: le mot<<et» qui precede Ia clause h) est supprime; 1e
point qui termine le paragraphe est remplace par un point-virgnle; 1esmots suivants sont
ajoutes au paragraphe : «et i)les methodes d'inspection. ))
1Traduction du Gouvernement canadien.
8Translationby the Government of Canada .
Nations Unies, Recueil des Traites, vol. 161, p. 73; p. 397; vol. 181, p. 365; vol. 252,
p. 317; vol. 278, p. 279; vol.f·377, et vol. 337- ·
1esinstruments de ratification ont ete deposes aupres du Gouverndes Etats-Un is d'Amerique
au nom de toutes les Parties contractaatIa Convention. Voici Ia liste des Partie s contractante s,
avec Ia date du depot des instruments de ratification du Protocole :
Australie . . . . . 8 avril 1957 Panama . . . . . . 9 fevrier 1959
Bresil . • . . . . . 4 mai 1959 Pays-Bas . . . . . . 23 decembre 1957
Canada . . . . . . 14 juin 1957 Royaume-Uni de
Danemark . . . . . 26 juillet 1957 Grande-Bretagne et
Etats-Unis d'Amerique 30 aoftt 1957 d'Irlande du Nord . 23 mai 1957
France 14 avril 1958 Suede . . . . . . 6 juin 1957
Islande 23 novembre 1956 Union des Repub liques
Japon 24 mai 1957 socialistes sovie-
Norvege . . . . 15 avril 1957 Union sud-africaine . 25 avrilet 1957
Nouvelle-Uiande 21 juin 1957
80 Annex 6
368 United Nations- Treaty Series 1959
Articli! Ill
I. This Protocol shallbe open for signature and ratification or for adherence on
behalfof any Contracting Government to the 1946 Whaling Convention.
2. This Protocol shall enter into force on the date upon which instruments of
ratification have been deposited with, or written notifications of adherence have been
received by,the Government of the United States of America on behalf of all the Con
tracting Governments to the1946 Whaling Convention.
3. The Government of the United States of America shall inform all Governments
signatory or adhering to the1946 Whaling .Convention of all ratifications deposited and
adherences received.
4. This Protocol shall bear the date on which it is opened for signature and shall
remain open for signature for a period of fourteen days thereafter, following which period
it shall bepen for adherence.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed this
Protocol.
DONEin Washington this nineteenth day of November 1956,in the English language,
the original of which shabe deposited in the archives of the Government of the United
States of America. The Government of the United States of America shall transmit
certified copies thereofo all Governments signatory or adhering to the1946 Whaling
Convention.
For Australia:
F. J. BLAKENEY
For Brazil:
·Ernani DO AMARAL PEIXOTO
For Canada:
A.D.P. HEENEY
For Denmark:
Henrik KAUFFMANN
For France :
Herve ALPHAND
For Iceland :
Thor THORS
For Japan:
Masayuki TANI
For Mexico:
Manuel TELLO
No. 2124
81Annex 6
Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 369
1959
Article Ill
I. Le present Protocole sera oavIa signature aIa ratificationa!'accession
de tout Gouvemement contractant de Ia Convention 1946 sur Ia chassaIa baleine.
2. Le present Protocole entrera en vigueur leouole Gouvernement des~tats
Unis d'Amerique aurareu~depot d'instruments de ratification ou avis ecrit d'accession
de Ia part de tousles Gouvernements contractants de Ia Conven1946sur la chasse
a Ia baleine.
3. Le Gouvemement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique devra informer tousles Gouveme
ments ayant signe la Convention1946sur la chassaIa baleine ou ayant acaecette
Convention de tous les depots de ratification operes ainsi que de tous les avis d'accession
recus.
4. Le present Protocole portera Ia date du jour ou il sera auIa signature;
il restera ensuite ouvaIa signature pendant quatorze jours, apres quoi il sera ouvert
a !'accession.
EN FOIDE QUOI les soussignes, dfunent autorises, ont signe le present Protocole.
FArr a Washington ce dix-neuvierue jour de novembr1956,en langne anglaise,
en un original qui sera depose dans les archives du Gouvemement des Etats-Unis
d'Amerique. Le Gouvemement des ~tats- U'ni rique devra en transruettre des
copies conformesatous les Gouvernements qui ont signe Ia Conventio1946 sur la
chassea Ia baleine ou qui ont acacette Convention.
Pour IAustralie :
F. J.BLAKENEY
Pour le Bresil :
Emani DO AMARAL PEIXOTO
Pour le Canada :
A. D. P.HEENEY
Pour le Danemark :
Henrik KAUFFMANN
Pour Ia France :
Herve ALPHAND
Pour l'Islande:
Thor THORS
Pour leJapon :
Masayuki TANr
Pour le Mexique :
Manuel TELLO
N• 2124
Vol. 338-zs
82 Annex 6
370 United Nations - TTeaty Series 1959
For the Netherlands:
J. H. VAN RoiJEN
For the Kingdom in Europe
For New Zealand :
G. D. L. WHITB
For Norway:
Wilhelm MoRGBNSTIERNE
For Panama: J.M. MOO>BZ M.
For Sweden:
Erik BoHEMAN
For the Union ofSouth Mrica:
W. C. DU PLESSIS
For the Union of SovietSocialistRepublics:
3APYBlffi
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Harold CACCIA
For the United States of America:
Herbert HooVERJr.
No. 2114
83Annex 6
1959 Nations Unies- Recueil des Traites 371
Pour les Pays-Bas :
J.H. VAN ROIJEN
Pour le Royaume en Europe
Pour la Nouvelle-ZClande:
G. D. L.WHITE
Pour la Norvege :
Wilhelm MORGENSTIERNE
Pour lePanama :
J.M. MENDEM Z.
Pour la Suede :
Pour l'Union Sud-Mricaine :
W. c.DU PLESSIS
Pour l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques :
ZAROUBIN
Pour le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'lrlande du Nord:
Harold CAcciA
Pour le~tats- UnAierique:
Herbert HooVERJr
NO :ZI:Z4
84 Annex 6
International Convention
for the
Regulation of Whaling, 1946
Schedule
As amended by the Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting
Jersey, Channel Islands , July 2011
85Annex 6
International Convention
for the
Regulation of Whalin g, 1946
Schedule
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Tite Schedule printed on the following pages contains the amendments made by the Commission at its 63rdAnnual Meeting in July 2011. The amendments.
which are:<..hnwirnUr hntype . c:1me into ef2~eJ:mmuy 20 12.
In Table<;l.. 3 unclassified stocks arc:indicated by a dash. Other positions in the Tables have been filled with a dot to aid legibility.
Numbered footnotes are integral pa11sof the Schedule fonubythe Conunission. Other footnotes are editorial.
Tite:Commission wa'i.i.nfonned in June 1992 by the ambassador in London that the membership of the UnRepubl.iicte:lntemational
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling from 1948 ibycthe Russian Federation .
Tite Commissionecorded at i39th(1987) meeting the fact that references to names of native inhabitants in Schedu le paragraph 13(b)(4) would be for
geographical-poses alonso as not to be in contravention of Article V.2(c) of(Rep.h1tWhal. Comnm 38:21).
I. INTERPRE TATION B. Toothed whales
I. The following expressions have the meanings "toothed whale" means any whale which has teeth in the
respectively assigned to them. that is to sa jaws.
"beaked whal e" means any whale belonging to the
genus Mesoplodon. or any whale known as Cuvier's beaked
A. Baleen whales whale (Ziphi11s cm·irostris ). or Shepherd's beaked whale
·'baleen whale" means any whale which has baleen or whale (Tasmacet11sshepherdi ).
bone in the mouth. i.e. any whale other than a toothed whale. "bottlenos e whale'' means any whale known as
Baird's beaked whale (Berm·di11sbairdii). Amoux ·s whale
"blue whale'' (Balaenoptera m11sc111s1)1means any whale
known as blue whale. Sibbald's rorqua l. or sulphm bottom. (Berardi11sarn11xii). southem bottlenose whale (H1peroodon
and including pygmy blue whale. planifrons ). or nonhem bottlenose whale (H1peroodon
·'bowhead whale" (Balae11a mysticet11s) means any amp11llat11)s.
"killer whale.. (Orcin11sorca) means au.y whale known
whale known as bowhead. Arctic tight whale. great polar
whale. Greenland light whale. Greenland whale. as killer whale or orca.
·'Btyde's whale" (Balaenoptera edeni. B. brydei) means "pilot whale" means any whale la10wn as long-finned
pilot whale (Giobicephala melaena) or shon -fumed pilot
any whale known as Bt yde's whale. whale (G. macrorhynclws).
"fin whale ''(Balaenoptera physal11s) means any whale
known as common Iinback, connnon rorqual. fin whale. "sperm whale" (Physeter macrocephal11s) means any
whale la10wnas spe tm whale. spennacet whale. cachalot or
hen"i.ngwhale. or tme fin whale. pot whale.
·'gray whale''(Eschrichtills rob11Sf11)smeans any whale
knO\vnas gray whale. Ca lifomia gray. devil fish. hard head,
mussel digger. gray back. or rip sack. C. General
"strike" means to penetrate with a weapon used for whaling.
"humpback whale" (Megaptem nomeangliae) means "land" means to retrieve to a factory shipa nd station. or
any whale known as btmch. humpback. humpback whale.
luunpbacked whale. hump whale or htmchbacked whale. other place where a whale can be treated.
"take" means to flag. buoy or make :fast to a whale
·'inke whale" (Balaenoptem acllforostrata. B. catcher.
bonaerensis) means any whale known as lesser rorqual. "lose''means to eitl1ersttike or take but not to land.
little piked whale. minke whale. pike-headed whale or shmp
headed fim1er. "dauhval" means any unclaimed dead whale found
floating.
"pygmy right whale" (Cape1-ea marginata) means any '·lactatingwhale''means (a)with respect trobaleen whales
whale known as southem pygmy tight whale or pygmy right - a femalewhich has any milk present in a mammaty gland.
whale.
(b) with respect to spetm whales - a female which has milk
"right whale" (Eubalaenn glncinli>. E. nu>trali>) means present in amammmy gland t he maximum thicla1ess(depth)
any whale kn own as Atlantic tight whale.Arctic right whale. of which is IOcmor more. This measurement shall be at the
Biscayan right wha le. Nordkaper. North Atlantic right mid vetmal point of the manmmty gland petpe ndicular to
whale. Nonh Cape whale. Pacific right whale. or southem the body axis. and shall be logged to the nearest centimetre:
tight whale. that is to say. any gland between 9.5cm and 10.5cm shall
"sei whale" (Balaenoptera borealis ) means any whale be logged as !Ocm. The measmement of any gland which
known as sei whale. Rudolpbi ·s rorqual. pollack whale. or falls onan exact 0.5 centin1etre shall be logged at the next
coalfish whale. 0.5 centimetre. e.g. 10.5cm shall be logged as Jl.Ocm.
86 Annex 6
However. notwithstanding these Ciitelia. a whale shall not Land Station Op erati ons
be considered a lactating ;v hale if scientific (histological or 4. (a) It is forbidden to use a whale catcher attached to a
other biological) evidence is presented to the appropriate land station for the pmpose of killing or attempting
nationa l authmity establishing that the whale could not at to kill baleen and spe1mwhales except as pe1mitted
that pointin its physical cycle have had a calf dependem on by the Conn-actingGoveiUlllent in accordance with
it for milk. sub-pm-agr:aphs(b).(c) and (d) of this paragraph.
··small-type whaling·• means catching operations using (b) Each Cmmacting Govemment shall declare for
powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns lnmting all land stations tmder its jurisdiction. and whale
exclusively for minke. bottleno se. beaked. pilot or killer catchers attached to such land stations. one open
whales. season during which the taking or killing of
baleen whales. except minke whales. by the whale
catchers shall be pennitted . Such open season shaH
II. SEASON S be for a pe1iod of not more than six consecutive
months in any period of twelve molllhs and shall
Farto1-yShip Operation s apply to aU land stations tmder the jurisdiction
of the Cmmacting Govenunent: provided that a
2. (a) It is forbidden to use a fact01y ship or whale separate open season may be declared for any land
catcher attached thereto forthe purpose of taking station used for the taking or treating of baleen
or u·eating baleen whales except minke whales. whales. except minke whales. which is more than
in any waters south of 40° South Latimde except
dming the peliod from 12" December to 7" Aplil 1.000 miles fi·omthe nearest land station used for
the taking or treating of baleen whales. except
following. both days inclusive. minke whales. tmder the jmisdictio n of the same
(b) It is forbidden to use a factmy ship or whale C onmtcting GoveiUlllent.
catcher attached thereto for the ptupose of taking (c) Each Contracting Govenunent shall declare for all
or u·eating spenn or minke whales. except as
pemiitted by the Contracting Govenunents in land stations tmder its jm·sdiction and for whale
catchers attached to such land stations. one open
accordance with sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of this season not to exceed eight continuous months in
paragraph. and paragraph 5. any one pe1iod of rwel mo~mehs. dming which
(c) Each Comracting Govemmem shall declare for the taking or killing of spenn whales by the
all factmy sl iips and whale catchers attached
thereto under its jmisdiction. an open season or whale catchers shall be penuitted: provided that
a separate open season may be declared for any
seasons not to ~~xce egd t momhs om of any land station used for the taking or n·eating of spenn
period of rwelve months dming wliich the taking whales which is more than 1.000 miles from the
or killing of spenn whales by whale catchers may nearest land station used fr the taking or treating
be pemiitted: prov ided that a separate open season of spe:nn whales under thejmisd iction of the same
may be declared for each fact01y sliip and the Conu·acting GoveiUlllent.
whale catchers attached thereto. (d) Each Conn-acting GoveJUlllentshall declare for all
(d) EachContractinG g overnmenstha!ldeclareferall landstationsunderitsjmisdicrionandfor'.v hale
factmy sliips and whale catchers attached thereto catchers attached to such land stations one open
season not to exceed six continuous months in
under its jmisdiction one continuous open season
not to exceed six months out of any peiiod of any pe1iod of twelve months dming wliich the
twelve months dming which the taking or killing taking or killing of minke whales by the whale
of minke whales by the whale catchers may be catchers shallbe pemlitted (such pe1iod not being
necessruily conctm·em with the pe1iod declared
penni ned provided that: for other baleen whales. as provided for in sub
(1) a separate open season may be declared for
each fact01y ship and the whale catchers paragnph (b) of this paragraph): provided that a
attached thereto: sepru·ateopen season may be declared for any land
station used for the taking or u·eating of lllinke
(2) the open season need not necessarily include whales wllich is more than 1.000 miles fi·om the
the whole or any pan of the period declared nearest land station used for the taking or treating
for other baleen whales pursuant to sub
paragraph (a) of this paragraph. of niilllkewhales under the jmisiction of the same
3. It is forbidden to us,e a fact01y sliip which has been Cmmac ting Govenunent.
Except that a separate open season may be
used during a season inany waters south of 40° South declru·ed for any land station used for the taking
Latimde for the purpo se of u·eating baleen whales. or u·eating of minke whales which is located in
except minke whales. in any other area except the an ar,ea having oceanographic conditions cleru·ly
Nonh Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters n011h of
distinl..'ilishable fi·om those of the area in which are
the Equator for the same pmpose within a pe1iod of one located the other land stations used for t taking
year fi·om the temiination of that season: provided that or u·eating of minke whales tmder the jmisdiction
catch liniits in theonh Pacific Ocean and dependent of the same Conn-acting Govenune nt: but the
waters are establishedas provided in paragraphs 12 and declaration of a sepru·ate open season by vinue
16 of tills Schedule and provided that this paragraph of the provisions of this sub-paragraph shall not
shall not apply to a shlp whlch has been used d ming cause thereby the pe1iod of time covering the
the season solely for freezing or salting the meat and open easons declared by the same Cmmacting
entrails of whales imended for human food or feeding Goverlllllelll to exceed nine continuous months of
any twelve mo nths.
animals.
2
87Annex 6
(e) The prohibitions contained in this paragraph shall However. this prohibition shall be reviewed ten
apply to all land stationsas defined in Anicle II of years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten
the Whaling Convention of 1946. year iutetvals. and could be revised at such times by
the Collllnission. Nothing in this sub-paragraph is
intended to prejudice the special legal and political
Other Operation s
5. Each Conn·acting Govennnent shall declare for all stams of Antarctica.**+
whale catchers under its jurisdiction not operating
Area Limits for Fact01y Ships
in conjtmction with a factoty ship or land station one 8. It is forbidden to use a factoty ship or whale catcher
continuous open season not to exceed six months out
of any period of twelve months dming which the taking attached thereto. for the pmpose of taking or treating
baleen whales. except minke whales. in any of the
or killing of minke whales by such whale catchers following areas:
may be pennined . Notwithstanding tlJ.isparagraph one
continuous open season not to exceed nine months may (a) in the waters nonh of 66°N. except that fl·om150°E
be ill1plementedso far as Greenland is concemecl. eastwards as far as 140°W. the taking or killing of
baleen whales by a factoty slJ.ipor whale catcher
III. CAPTURE shallbe pennitted between 66°N and 72°N:
(b) in the Atlantic Ocean and its dependent waters
G. The killing for commercial pmposes of whales. except uunh uf 40°S:
minke whales using the cold grenade hmpoon shall be (c) in the Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters east
forbidden fi·omthe beginning of the 1980/81 pelagic
of 150°W between 40°S and 35°N:
and 1981 coastal seasons. The killing for connnercial (d) in the Pacific Ocean and its dependent waters west
pmposes of minke whales using the cold grenade of 150°Wbetween40 °S and 20°N:
hmpoon shall be forbidden fi·om the beginning of the (e) in the Indian Ocean and its dependent waters nonh
1982/83 pelagic and the 1983 coastal seasons* of 40°S.
7. (a) In accordance with Anicle V(i)(c ) of the
Convention. commercial whaling. whether Classification of Areas nnd Divisions
by pelagic operations or from land stations. is 9. (a) Classification of Areas
prohibited in a region designated as the Indian A..reas relating to Sourhem Hemisphere baleen
Ocean Sancmmy. This comprises the waters of the whales except Btyde's whales are those waters
Nonhem Hemisphere from the coast of Aflica to
between the ice-edge and the Equator and between
I00°E. including the Red and Arabian Seas and the meridians of longimde listed in Table 1.
the Gulf of Oman: and the waters of the Southem (b) Classification ofDhisions
Hemisphere in the sector from 20°E to 130°E. with
Divisions relating to Southem Hemisphere spenn
the Southem boundaty set at 55°S.This prohibition whales are those waters between the ice-edge and
applies i.nespective of such catch linJ.itsfor baleen the Equator and between the meridians oflongimde
or toothed whales as may fl·om time to time be listed in Table 3.
determined by the Commission. This prohibition
(c) Geographical boundaries in the North Atlantic
shall be reviewed by the Connnission at itsAnnual The geographical boundaries for the fin. mitike and
Meeting in2002 '" sei whale stocks ill theonh Atlantic are:
(b) In accordance with Anicle V(l)(c ) of the Con
vention. conmtercial whaling. whether by pelagic Fl l" WHALE STOCKS
operations or from land stations. is prohibited NOVA SCOTIA
in a region designated as the Southem Ocean South andWest of a line through:
Sancmaty. This Sancmaty comprises the waters 47•N 54•w . 46·N 54•3o·w.
46°N 42•w. 2o•N 4rw.
of the Southem HenJ.isphere southwards of the
following line: staning from 40 degrees S. 50 NEWFOUNDLAND- LABRADOR
degrees W: thence due east to 20 degrees E: \Vest of a line through:
75•N 73•3o·w. 69°N 59•w. 61°N 59•w.
thence due south to 55 degrees S: thence due 'Q20'N 42°\V. 40°N 42 °\V :nul
east to 130 degrees E: thence due nonh to 40 North of a line through:
degrees S: thence due east to 130 degrees W: 46°N 42°\V.46°N 54•3o·w. 47°N 54°\V.
thence due south to 60 degrees S: thence clueeast WEST GREENLAND
to 50 degrees W: thence due notlh to the point of Eastof a line through:
begimting. This prohibition applies i.ITespective 75•N 73•30'W. 69•N 59•w.
of the consetvation stams of baleen and toothed 61°N 59°\V. 52°20'N 4r\V.
and \Vest of a line through
whale stocks in tlJ.is Sancmmy. as may fl·om 52°20'N 42°\V. 59°N 42°\V.
time to time be determined by the ConmJ.sision. 59•N 44•w . Kap Fan·el.
*The Governments of Brazil. Iceland. Japan. Norway and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lodged objections to the second sentence of
paragraph 6 within the:prescribed period. For all other Contracting Governments this sentence came into force on 8 March 1982 . Norway withdrew its
objection on 9 July 1985 and Brazil on 8 January 1992. Iceland withdrew from the Convention with effect from 30 June 1992 . The objections of Japanand
the Russian Federationnot having been withdrawn. this sentence is not binding:upon these governments.
1At its IAnnual Meeting:in 2002. the Commission agreedto continue this prohibitionbut didnot discuss whetherornot it should set a time when it should
bere\·iewedagain.
**The Gonnunent of Japanlodged anobjection withinpr~ecrib c:rodto paragraph7(b) to the extentthatit applies to theAntarcticminke lVhalestocks.
Tite Govenunent of the Russian Federationalso lodged an objection to paragraph7(b) \Vithin the prescribed pe1iod butwithdrew it on 26 October 1994. For
allContractingGovemments exceptapanparagraph7(b) came into force on 6 December 1994.
-Paragraph7(b) contains a provision for review of the Southem Ocean Sanctuary··renyearsafter its initial adoption".'Paragraph7(b) was adoptedat the 4611>.
(1994) Ammal Meeting. Therefore. thefirst reYiewis due in 2004.
88 Annex 6
EAST GREENLAND -ICELAND
(d) Geographical boundaries iu the North Pacific
East of a line throu2h: The geographical boundaties for the spenn. Btyde's
Kap Farvd (South Cn·cenland).
59°N 44°W. 59°N 42°\V. 20°N 42°W. and minke whale stocks in the Nonh Pacific are:
and West of a line tlu·ough:
20°N !8 °W. 60°N IS W. 68°N .l'E.
74°N 3°E. and South of 74°N. SPER-'1 WHALE STOCKS
\VESTER1 DNISION
NORTH NORWAY West of a line from the ice·edgc south along the 180° meridian
N011h and East of a line:through: of longitude to 180 °. 50°N . then east along the 50°N parallel of
latitude to 160°\V. 50°N. then south along the 160°W meridian
74°N 22°W. 74°N 3°E. 68°N 3°E. oflongintdeto 160°W. 40°.. then east along the 40°N parallel of
67°N o•. 67°N I4°E.
latin1de to 150°W. 40°N. then south along the l5 0¢W meridian
of longitude to the Equator.
WEST NORWAY-FAROE ISLANDS
South of a lintluough:
67°N 14°E. 67°N 0°. 60°N 18°W. EASTERN DIVISIO N
Eastof the line describedabove.
andN011hof a linethrousz:h:
61oN !6 °W. 61oN 0°. Thyborou
(Wcstem entrance to Li.mfjorden. Denma rk).
BRYD E'S WHALE STOC KS
SPAIN-PORTUGAL -BRITISH ISLES EAST CHINA SEA
South of a line tluough: Westof the Ryukyu hland chain.
Thyborou (Denmark). 61•N o•.61•N 16°W.
and East of a line through: EASTER,'!
63°N u·w. 60°N 1s•w. n ·N !s ow.
Ea')tof l60 °W (excluding the Penn ·ian stock area).
WESTERN
\Vest of 160° \V (excluding the East China Sea stock area).
~liNKE WHALE STOCKS
CANADIAN EAST COAST
\Vest of a line tlu·ough: MINKE WHALE STOCKS
75°N 73°30"\V. 69°N 59°W. 61"N 59°\V.
SEA Of JAPAN-YELLOW SEA-EAST CHINA SEA
52°20"N 42°W. 20°N 42°\V. West of a line through the Philippine hlands. Taiwan. Ryukyu
hlands. Kyu.shu.Honshu. Hokkaido and SakhalinIsland. no11h
CENTRAL
of the Equator.
East of a line throu2h:
Kap Fan·e1 (South Cn·een1and). OKHOTSK SEA-WEST PACIFIC
59°N 44•w. 59°N 42°\V. 20°N 4l W.
East of the Sea of Japan-Yellow Sea- East China Sea '.tock and
and \Vest of a line rhrou2h: west of180°.no11h oftheEquator.
20°N !8 °W. 60°N !8 °W 68°N .lE.
74°N 3°E. and South of 74°N .
REMAINDER
East of the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific c;t,ock. not1h of the Equator.
WEST GREENLAND
East of a line through:
75°N 73°30'W. 69°N 59°W. 61"N 59°\V.
52°20'N 42°\V. and (e) Geographica l boundariesfor Bryde 'swhale stocks
\Vest of a line through:
in the Southern Hemisphere
52°20"N 42°W. 59°N 42°W.
59°N 44°W. Kap Fatve1. SOUTHER!' Jl\DIAN OCEAN
20•E to 130°E.
NORTHEASTERN South of theEquator.
East of a line through:
20°N I8 °W. 60°N I8 °W. 68°N .lE. 74°1'3°E,
SOLOMON ISLANDS
and N011h of a line through: 150°E to 170'E.
74°N 3°E. 74°N 22°\V. l 0°to the Equator.
PERUVIA N
110°\Vto the South American coast.
SEI WH ALE STOC KS 10°S to 10°N.
NOVA SCOTIA
EASTER,'! SOUTH PACIFIC
South and \Vest of a line through :
47"N 54°W. 46°N 54°30"W. 46"N 42•w. 1soow to 70°\V.
20°N 42°W. South of the Equator (excluding the Peruvian stock area).
ICELAND- DENMARK STRAIT WESTERN SOUTH PACIFIC
East of a line throusz:h: 130°E to 150°W.
Kap Fan·d (South Cn·ccnland). South of the Equator (excluding the Solomon hlands stock
59°N 44•w. 59°N 42°\V. 20•N -12•w. area).
and \Vest of a line tlu·ough:
20°N !8 °W. 60°N 18°\V. 68°N .l'E. SOUTH ATLANTIC
74°N J•E. and South of 74•N. 7o•w to zo•E.
South of the Equator (exclud ing the South African inshore stock
EASTERl'l area).
East of a line through:
20°N ts •w. 60°N !8 °W. 6S•N .l•E. 74•N 3°E. SOUTH AFRICAN INSHORE
and North of a line through: South African coast west of 27°E and out to the 100 metre
74°N 3°E. 74°N 22°\V. isobath.
4
89Annex 6
Classification of Stocks
this level. The pennitted catch for such stocks will
I0. All stocks of whales shall be classified in one of three not be more than 90 per cent ofMSY as far as this
careg01ies according to the advice of the Scientific is known. or, where it will be more approp1iate.
catching eff011shall be limited to that which will
Collllllittee as follows:
(a) A Sustained Management Stock (SMS) is a stock take 90 per cent of MSY in a stock at MSY stock
which is not more than I 0 per cent of Maximum level.
In the absence of any positive evidence that a
Sustainable Yield (hereinafter refe!Tedto as MSY) continuing higher percentage will not reduce the
stock level below MSY stock level. and not more
than 20 per cent above that level: MSY being stock below the MSY stock level no more than 5
per cent of the estimated initial exploitable stock
detennined on the basis of the number of whales. shall be taken in any one year. Exploitation should
When a stock has remained at a stable level not commence until an estimate of stock size has
for a considerable period under a r egime of
been obtained which is satisfact01y in the view
approximately constant catches. it shall be of the Scientific Conuuinee. Stocks classi fied as
classified as austained Management Stock in the Initial Management Stock are listed in Tables I. 2
and 3 of this Schedule.
absence of any positive evidence that it should be
othe1wise classified. (c) A Protection Stock (PS) is a stock which is below
Commercial whaling shall be pennitted on 10 per cent of MSY stock level below MSY stock
level.
Sustained Management Stocks according to the There shall be no CO!mnercial whaling on
advice of the Scientific Committee. These stocks
are listed in Tables1. 2 and3 of this Schedule. Protection Stocks. Stocks so classified are listed in
Tables I. 2 and3 of this Schedule.
For stocks at or above the MSY stock level. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph
the pennitted catch shall not exceed 90 per cent of I0 there shall be a moratori Ulll.on the taking.
theMSY For stocks between the MSY stock level
killing orn·eatingof whales. except minke whales.
and I 0 per cent below that level. the pennitted by fact01y ships or whale catchers attached to
catch shall not exceed the number of whales fact01y ships. This moratorium applies to s penn
obtained by taking 90 per cent of the MSY and whales. killer whales aml \mleeu whales. except
reducing that number by I0 per cent for eve1y I minke whales.
per cent by which the stock falls short of the MSY (e) Notwithstanding rhe other provisions of paragraph
I0. catch lin1its for the killing for conm1ercial
stock level. pmposes of whales fi"omall stocks for the 1986
(b) An Initial Management Stock (IMS) is a stock
more than 20 per cent of MSY stock level above coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and
MSY stock level. Commercial whaling shall be thereafter shall be zero. TIJ.si provision will be
kept tmder review. bas ed upon the best scientific
pennined on Initial Management Stocks according advice. and by 1990 at the latest the Connnission
to the advice of the Scientific Connninee as to
will tmdertake a comprehensive assessment of
measures necessa1yto b1ingthe stocks to the MSY the effects of this decision on whale stocks and
stock level and then optinnun level in an efficient consider modification of tins provision and the
marn1erand withont risk of reducing them below establishment of other catch limits.*•#
*The Govetmn ents of Japan. Norway . Pem and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lodged objection to paragraph lO(e) \Vithin the prescribed period. For
all otherntractin govcnunents this paragraph came into fo3Febnuuy 1983. Peru withdrew its objection on 22 July 1983. The Government of Japan
withdrew its objections with effect from I May 1987 \Vith respect to conunercial pelagic whaling: from I October 1987 with respect to conun ercial coastal
wha ling for minke and Bryde's whales: and from I Aptil l988 with respect to conuuercial coas tal spenu whaling . 1l1e objectiotlS of Norway and the Russian
Federation not having:been withdrawn. the paragraph io;not binding upon these Govenunents .
•Iceland's i11stnunent of adherence to the I.ntemational Convention for the Regulation of\Vhaling: and the Protocol to the Convention deposited on 10 October
2002 states that Iceland 'adheres to the aforesaid Conventi on and Protoco l with a reservation with respect to paragraph lO(e) of the Schedule attached to the
Convention· . The instrument further states the following:
·Notw ithstanding this. the Goven unent of Iceland will not authorise whaling for connnercial purposes by Icelandic vessel s before 2006 and. thereafter.
\vill not authorise .such whaling while progress is being made in negotiations wi.thil1 the IWC on the RMS. This does not apply. howeve r. in case of the
so-called moratorium on whaling for conun ercial pmposes . contained ilO(e)of the Schedule not bei11glifted withil1a reasonable time after
thecompletion of the RMS. Under no circumstance s will whaling for commercial purposes be authorised without a sound scientific basis and an effective
managem ent and enforcement scheme .'
#The GoYemments of Argentina. Australia. BraziLChile. Finland. France. Germany. Italy. Mexico . Monaco. the Netherlands. New Zealand. Pem. San Marino.
Spain.Sweden . UK and the USA have lodged objections to Iceland's reservation to paragraph lO(e).
5
90 Annex 6
t t
and nt 3 l~
h t 1 o ti
limi 0 ve e CuCclucl
Y Catc 201 ha th lt h
. nd force toT t
00 d o 2 of
GRA i- 2 int ges01 lll
S e r112 u
S PS yearsldge m cl ry
Clfication e c na It!rtu
th hi io ie.
o w t u. Jmrua
h i h es fi i 23 e
!T t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 eac s~ n ~·t
G Calim r ntri o ~
JU f cou slassimi
10 e Co
MY n o th Thi e oorce
i-o t of . tlt tulrawn
ti PS J'P PSPS PS PS P PS PS 16 s of inth'i
PYG Clfis et period m e
fr d iu a er
rnm ibe eet.<tw
. r M n
AD t t gove esc ' i'li
ls).·E a limi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nhalee pr ed
h J ACK C t:i th e "'"'rHbj
w O of n th A p o
B J'B k upo in e.Hese
. UM i-n g th eJMtt
JT H to S S stoc i wi th ' Tlt
Brydc's ca PS I'P PS PSP PS PS PS nd nd k m u.\
tg RJG Clfis la b tc e in.
n o S fro ss
udu n io g rum
h t Gree r t ilt mmi
(excl t mi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 est a tc ar GtwCo
. Cali W e e
ITS E e IO(e) aro tiuglt
M L th eulc of
LI B - n o raph as h rtra
H i o . t f g ls Sc i11
C ti PS I'PSPS I'SI'S PS PS P 2012. ara h Cm
T Clftea limi p wha t er eet
CA 13and2 o e to ot M
I D 1 catc ik uJ
l N aph e 'ect e all
A tch agr0 th ei o m iu
TabN lim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1"0 r 1, e t k elm1-"Atumal
O Ca pa20 rth in tc m 3
I IN o f g. s ll 61"*
F ntat i ic thea/
IAT i on ye ue m nt o 1 .,l
I ti S S S S S S S usea ed co ta d tI 1
P PSP PS P P PS P S P p th r th A i .
ASS Cla5sa esofiry er
L gih t of p ble6rf
C rieacn ut eastern la e
h • bor lu rs rth iedu tlt
t mit n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f ao vo a o m m
STOCK Cali mi t as e res1:rfro
KE seaso a l s th e g
1al h c reed nt th a/ iu
MIN - n bet ag e nf s
io coas S S o Ca d dm o · ·ari
WHALE t Z PS IM PS rs• JM nt hm en ati withiu
N Clfisi e n a c u p eub
ZO 3(b)3. al ifi i ra
rnh 1Gree ri edm
BALEE and d o clorway. u
t t Gove an eit thf Nobjectmg
lmi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g t o t iu e
I Ca season t parmarkpIs "llt •e du/
SE i acto n ti il lt
- n ntr De be nm dedo
ti pelag S • S . Ta h l m ec
Z PS PSP PSPS PS P PS ao o objecc so lt
Clfssi O/ r pursuan it edeovc se o
season o te d rgrapth e gli s
/IZ / k es Jw ce pa n R n
W W Z k oc N igigio,s p gn h ain
' o ' 0 ' tc t k k k S r r c saKI w
60-o 30 17 S Eas tc oc oc es s aboborc ntrodu ndinzec objeL1io
- w 70"-1 ERE- fic- r k S S s nd OCEA o o ith rai e talr .
o ' '-120 PH Sea Sc d t h sla byby , r t N o bth xt i/(l
SPHERE-ZO.)"-70 S Paci I rdot n tr is I k ANe n dir fe n of cr m !0
MJ 120'W 13170exceMJ: C Sck k elaS ri k rc I tastruck tonsfis 111d ~
·E t t JE F cllow -Laboaoc -c -B tc Stoc IND Aga i o enut e lm l Jum
J I Y tc k k n nd S k d S k be bei m m 6 b i d(~~
RN ho RN AC a- S r oc tc andEast ocnl nmart. n oc RN t t li objec8 rum lon
E P SeaaWest d S S ATLgio dl n S Dc ortugal raorwSy E t 19 01·e c c
HE I IIIllr v V catcH TH eekiof JSeai rn rn re Groenla Scoalree -P easNo rn C/62 ca Govern pelb bl
UT l l o ia a steRTH f adia trG and- rth h N TH alablIW e drawnaJ)e e u u
ra ta ORT OR a h m e O ew n ovae el tcko esort OR AvAvailable th TeaU Tltth ep ep
SOA To N ARCTICWhOkhSesC ReEaste N WhWotNesCa N C Easlc SpaS N W N Easte 1 ' t 20'T.wi • J • of R R
"'
91Annex 6
Table 2
B1yde"s wale stock classifications and catch limits!
Classifica ti Catch limit
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE -1011/.?012 pelagic se.asonand 1012 coastal season•
South Atlantic Stock 0
Southem Indian Ocean Stock IMS 0
South Afiican Inshore Stock 0
Solomon Islands Stock IMS 0
Westem South Pacific Stock IMS 0
Eastem South Pacific Stock IMS 0
Pemvian Stock 0
NORTH PACIFIC-lOll season•
Eastem Stock IMS 0
Westem Stock
IMS 0
EastChina Sea Stock PS 0
NORTH ATLANTIC- l Oll season• IMS 0
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN -1012 season• 0
llte catch limits of zero introduced in Table2 as editorial amendments as a result of the conllng into effel O(e)paragraph
are not binding upon the govenunents of the countries which lodged and haYe notwithdrawn objections to the said paragraph.
• See foo tnote to Table I.
Table 3
Toothed whale stock classifications and catch limits.-
SOUTHER.t'l HEMISPHERE -1011/.?0ll pelagic se.ason and 1012 coastal season•
SPERM
DiYision Longimdes Classification Catch limit
I 60°W-30°W 0
2 30°W-20°E 0
3 20°E·60°E 0
4 60°E-90°E 0
5 90°·l 30°E 0
6 l30°E·l60 °E 0
7 !60°E-170°W 0
8 170°W-l00°W 0
9 l00°W-60°W 0
NORTHERN HEMISPHERE - lOll season•
NORTH PACIFIC
Westen1DiYision PS o'
Easten1Di\·ision 0
NORTH ATLANTIC 0
NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN 0
BOTT LENOSE
NORTH ATL.>\NTIC PS 0
1
No whales may be taken from tllis stock tmtil catch linlits including any linlitations on size and sex are established by the
Commission .
+Tile catch limits of zero inh·oduced in Table 3 as editorial amendments as a result of the coming into effect of paragraph lO!e)
are not binding upon the govenunents of the comltries which lodged and haw not withclra""' objections to the said paragraph.
•See foot note to Table 1.
7
92 Annex 6
Baleen Whale Catch Limits
quota) shall be canied forward and
II . The munber of baleen whales taken in the Somhem added to the stt ike quotas of any
Hemisphere in the 201112012 pelagic season and the subsequem yeal"S. provided that no
2012 coastal season shall not exceed the limits shown more than 15 sttikes shall be added to
in Tables I and 2.• the strike quota for any one ea1·.
12. The munber of baleen whales taken in the Nonh (ii) This provision shall be reviewed
Pacific Ocean and dependem waters in 2012 and in ammally by the Commissi on in light of
the Nonh Atlantic Ocean in 2012 shall not exceed the the advice of the Sciemific Comminee.
limits shown in Tables I and 2.• (2) The taki ng of gmy whales from the Eastem
13. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 10. stock in the North Pacific is petmined.
catch limits for abotiginal subsistence whaling but only by aborigines or a Contracting
to satisfy abmiginal subsistence need f or the Govemmelll on behalf of aborigines. and
1984 whaling season and each whaling season then only when the meat and products of
thereafter shalle established in accordance with such whales are to be used exclusively for
the following ptinciples: local constmlption by the aborigines.
(I) For stocks at or above MSY level. aboriginal (i) For the years 2008. 2009. 2010.
subsistence catches sha II be pemlitted so 20ll and 20I2. the munber of gray
long as total removals do not exceed 90 per whales taken in accordance with this
centofMSY. sub-paragraph shall not exceed 620.
(2) For stocks below the MSY level blll provided that the munber of gray
above a cenain minimum level. abotiginal whales taken in any one of the years
subsistence catches shall be pemlitted so 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011 and 2012 shall
long as they are set at levels wllich will allow not exceed 140.
whale stocks to move to the MSY level.' (ii) This provision shall be reviewed
(3) The above provisions will be kept under ammally by the Commission in light of
review. based upon the best sciemific advice. the advice of the Scientificmmine e.
and by 1990 at the latest the Commission (3) The taking by aborigines of minke whales
willtmdenake a comprehensive assessment from the West Greenland and Cetltl"al stocks
and fin whales from the West Greenland
of the effects of these provisions on whale
stocks and consider modification. stock and bowhead whales fi·om the
(4) For aboriginal whaling conducted under West Greenland feeding aggregation and
subparagraphs (b)(l). (b)(2). and (b)(3) of humpback w hales from the West Greenland
this paragraph. it is forbidden to strike. take feeding aggregation is pennined and then
only when the meat and products are to be
or kill calves or any whale accompanied by a
calf. For abotiginal whaling conducted under used exclusively for local consumption.
subparagraphs (b)(4) of this paragraph. it (i) The munber of fin whales stt1tck from
is forbidden to sttike. take or kill suckling theWestGree nland stock in accordance
with this sub-paragraph shall not
calves or female whales accompanied by exceed 16 in each of the years 2010.
calves.
(5) All abmiginal whaling shall be conducted 2011 and 2012.1
tmder national legislarion that accords with (ii) The number of minke whales stlliCk
from the Cetltl"al stock in accordance
thisparagraph. with tllis sub-paragraph shall n ot
(b) Catch limits for abotiginal subsistence whaling exceed 12 in each of the yeru"S2008.
are as follows:
(l) The taking of bowhead whales from the 2009. 2010. 20 II and 2012. except
Beting-Chukchi-Beaufon Seas stock by that any mmsed ponion of the quota
for each eru· shall be canied forward
abotigines is pennitted.bm only when the fi·om that year and added to the quota of
meat and products of such whales are to be
used exclusively for local consumption by any subsequem yeai"S. provided that no
more than 3 shall be added to the quota
the abotigines and funher provided that: for any one year.
(i) For the years 2008. 2009. 2010. 2011 (iii) The number of mitlke whales stl1tck
and 2012. the number of bowhead fi·om the West Greenland stock shall
w hales landed shall not exceed 280. not exceed 178 in each of the years
For each of these years the mnnber of 2010. 2011 and 2012. except that any
bowhead whales stlltck shalnot exceed unused pottion of the quota for each
67. except that any tmnsed ponion of a year shall be can·ied forward fi·omthat
strike quota fi·om any year (including year and added to the sttike quota of
15 unused sttikes from the 2003-2007 any of the subsequent yeru·s. provided
"Su foor,ot., ro Tobll!1.
1Titc ComJnission.on ad\-ice of the ScientificCommittee.shall establishas faras possible (a) a mininnuustock level foreach stock below which whales shall
notbetaken.and(b) a rateof increasetowards the MSY level foreach stod:. The Scientific C01wnineeshaHadvise on a mini..tmunstock level andou a range
of rates of increase towards the MSY level wtdcr different catch rcgitucs.
1At 1\VC62inAgadir.Morocco. Jtmc:2010. Denmark andGreenlandagreedto \·oluntarily reduce funher the catch limit forthe WestGreenlandstock of fin
whales from 16 to 10 for each of the ylOl land 2012 .
93Annex 6
that no more than 15 sn-ikes shall be meu·es) may be taken in the Nonhem Hetnisphere
added to the su·ike quota for any one for delivety to land stations. provided that. in each
year. This provision will be reviewed case the meat of such whales is to be used for local
if new scientific data become available
consumption as human or animal food.
within the 5 year peri and ifnecessaty
amended on basis of the advice of the
Scientific Cmmninee. Sperm Whale Catc h Limits
(iv) The number of bowhead whales stmck i6. Catchiinlits forspenuwhales of bothsexes sllall be
set at zero in the Southem Hemisphere for the 1981/82
off West Greenland in accordance with
this sub-paragraph shall not exceed 2 pelagic season and 1982 coastal seasons and following
in each of the years 2008. 2009. 2010, seasons. and at zero in the Nmthem Hetnisphere for
2011 and 2012. except that any unused the 1982 and following coastal seasons: except that the
ponion of the quota for each year shall catch limits fr the 1982 coastal season and following
seasons in the Westem Division of the Nonh Pacific
be canied forward from that year and
added to the quota of any subsequent shall remain undetennined and subject to decision by
years. provided that no more than 2 the Commission following special or annual meetings
shall be added to the quota for any one of the Scientific Committee. These limits shall remain
in force until such time as the Commission. on the basis
year. This provision will be reviewed
if new scientific data become available of the scientific infonnation which will be reviewed
within the 5 year peri and ifnecessaty annually. decides othetwise in accordance with the
amended on basis of the advice of the procedures followed at that tin1e by the Collllnission.
Scientific Connninee. I 7. Itis forbidden to take or kill suckling calves or female
whales accompanied by calves.
(v) The number ofhumpback wha les stmck
off West Greenland in accordance with
this sub-paragraph shall not exceed
9 in each of the years 2010. 2011 and Sp erm Whale Size Limits
2012. except that any unused ponion of 18. (a) It is forbidden to take or kill any spenn whales
below 30 feet (9.2 metres) in length except in
the quota for each year shall be can·ied the Nonh Atlantic Ocean where it is forbidden to
forward fi·omthat year and added to the
strike quota of any of the subsequent take or kill any spetm whales below 35 feet (10.7
years. provided that no more than 2 meu·es).
(b) Itis forbidden to take or kill any spetm whale over
strikes shalle added to the su·ikequota 45 feet (13.7 metres) in length in the Southem
for any one year. This provision wille Hemisphere north of 40° South Latimde during
reviewed if new scientific data become
available within the remaining quota the months of October to Janumy inclusive.
period and if necessaty amended on (c) It is forbidden to take or kill any spemt whale over
45 feet (13.? metres) in length in the North Pacific
the basis of the advice of the Scientific Ocean and dependent waters south of 40° Nonh
Cmmnittee.
(4) For d1e seasons 2008-2012 the m1lllber Latimde dming the months of March to Jm1e
of humpback whales to be taken by the inclusive.
Bequians of St. Vincent and The Grenadines
shall not exceed 20. The meat and products IV. TREATMENT
of such whales are to be used exclusively for
local consumption in St. Vincent and The 19. (a) It is forbidden touse a factmy ship or a land station
Grenadines. for the purpose of treating any whales which m·e
14. It is forbidden to take or kill suckling calves or female classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph I0 or
whales accompanied by calves. are taken in cotmavention of paragraphs 2. 3. 4.
5. 6, 7. 8, II. 12. 14. 16 and 17 of this Schedule.
whether or not taken by whale catchers tmder the
Baleen Wh ale Size Limits jurisdiction of a Cotmacting Govetmnent.
15. (a) It is forbidden to take or kill any sei or Btyde's (b) All other whales taken. except mitike whales. shall
whales below 40 feet (12.2 metres) in length be delivered to the factmy ship or land station and
except that sei and Btyde's whales of not les than all parts of such whales shall be processed by
35 feet (10.7 metres) may be taken for delivety boiling or othetwise . except the intemal organs.
to land stations. provided that the meat of such whale bone and flippers of all whales. the meat
whales is to be used for local consumption as of spemt whales and parts of whales intended for
hmnan or animal food. human fo od or feeding anintals. A Contracting
(b) It is forbidden to take or kill any fin whales below Govenunent may in less developed regions
57 feet (I7.4 metres) in length in the Southem exceptionally pennit treating of whales without
Hetnisphere. and it is forbidden to take or kill use of land stations. provided that such whales are
fin whales below 55 feet (16.8 meu·es) in the fully utilised in accordance with this paragraph.
Nort!Jem Hemisphere: except that fin whales of (c) Complete treaunent of the cm·casesof '·dauhval"
not less than 55 feet (16.8 meu·es) may be taken attdof whales used as fenders will not be required
in the Southem Hemisphere for delivety to land in cases where the meat or bone of such whales is
stations andfinwhales of not less than 50feet (15.2 in bad condi tion.
9
94 Annex 6
20. (n) The taking of whales for treatment by a factmy Measmements shall be logged to the nearest foot or
ship shall be so regulated or resnicted by the 0.1 men·e.That is to say. any whale between 75 feet 6
master or person in charge of the factmy ship inches and 76 feet 6 inches shall be logged as 76 feet.
that no whale carcase (except of a whale used as and any whale between 76 feet 6 inches and 77 feet 6
a fender. which shall be processed as soon as is inches shall be logged as 77 feer. Similm·ly. any whale
reasonably practicable ) shall remain in the sea for between I0.15 metres and I0.25 men·esshallbe logged
a longer period than thirty- three hours from the as 10.2 men·es. and any whale between 10.25 metres
rime of killing to the timewhen it is hauled up for and 10.35 metres shall be logged as 10.3 men·es. The
treatment. measurement of any whale which falls on an exact half
(b) Whales taken by all whale catchers. whether for foot or 0.05 men·eshall be logged at the next half foot
factmy sl:ti.ps or land stations. shall be clearly or 0.05 men·e. e.g. 76 feet 6 inches precisely shall be
marked so as to identity the catcher and to indicate logged as 77 feet and l0.25 metres precisely shall be
logged as 10.3 metres.
the order of catching.
VI. INF OR.i\1ATIO N RE QUIRE D
V. SUPERVISI0:-1 AND CON TROL
21. (n) There shall be maintained on each factmy ship at 24. (n) All whale catchers operating in conjunction with
a factmy ship shall report by radio to the factmy
leastTWoinspectors of whaling for the pmpose of ship:
maintaining twenty-four hom inspection provided (I) the time when each whale is taken
that at least one such inspector shall be maintained (2) its species.nd
on each catcher ftmctioning as a factmy ship.
(3) its marking effected pursuant to paragraph
These inspectors shall be appointed and paid 20(b).
by the Govemment having jurisdiction over the (b) The infonnat ion specified in sub-paragraph (n)
factmy ship: provided that inspectors need not be of this paragraph shall be entered innnediarely by
appoinTed Toships which. apart from the storage a factmy ship in a pennan ent record which shall
of products. are used dming the season solely for be available at all times for examination by the
freezing or salting the meat and enTrailsof whales whaling inspectors: and in addition there shall be
inTended for human food or feeding animals. entered in such permanent record the following
(b) Adequate inspection shall be mainTained at each infmmation as soon as it becomes available:
(I) rie of hauling up for Treatment
land station. The inspectors setving at each
land station shall be appointed and paid by the (2) length. measmed pmsuant to paragraph 23
Govemmem having jurisdiction over the land (3) sex
station. (4) if female. whether lactating
(c) There shall be received such obsetvers as the (5) length and sex of foems. if present. and
(6) a full explanation of each infi·acrion.
member commies may mnnge to place on factmy
ships and land stations or groups of land stations (c) A record sintilar to that desciibed in sub-paragraph
of other member counuies. The obsetvers shall be (b)of this paragraph shall be maintained by land
appointed by the Commission acting through its stations. and all of the infommtion mentioned in
Secretmy and paid by the Govennnent nominating the saidsub-paragraph shall be entered therein as
soon as available.
them.
22. Gmmers and crews of factmy ships. land stations. (d) A record sintilar Tothat desciibed in sub-paragraph
and whale catchers. shall be engaged on such tem1s (b) of this paragraph shall be maintained by
that their rennmeration shall depend to a considerable ··small-type whaling" operations conducted
extent upon such factors as the species. size and yield from shore or by pelagic fleets, and all of this
infmmarion mentioned in the said sub-paragraph
of whales and not merely upon the n\1111berof the
whal es taken. No bonus or other remuneration shall shall be entered therein as soon as available.
be paid to the gmmers or crews of whale catchers in 25. (n) All Contracting Govennnents shall rep011to the
respectof the taking of lactating whales. Commission for all whale catchers operati ng in
23. Whales must be measured when at rest on deck or conjunction with factmy ships and land stations
the following infonna tion:
platfmm after the hauling out wire and grasping device
have been released. by means of a tape-measure made (I) methods used to kill each whale. other than
of anon-stretching material. The zero end of the tape a hatpoon. and in patticular compressed air:
measure shall be anached to a spike or stable device (2) number of whales Sl111Cb kut lost.
(b) A record similar to that desctibed in sub-paragraph
To be positioned on the deck or platfmm abreast of (n)of this paragraph shall be maintained by vessels
one end of the whale. Altemative ly the spike may be engaged in ·'small-type whaling" operations
smck into the tail fluke abreast of the apex of the notch.
The rape-measure shall be held taut in a straight line and by native peoples taking species listed in
paragraph 1. and all the infonnationmentioned in
parallel to the deck and the whale·s body. and other the said sub-pm·agraphshall be entered therein as
than in exceptiona l circ1m1stances along the whale 's soon as available. and forwarded by Contracting
back. and read abreast of the other end of the whale.
The ends of the whale for measurement pmposes shall Govemments Tothe Connnission.
26. (n) Notification shall be given in accordance with
be the tip of the upper jaw. or inspenn whales the most the provisions of Article VII of the Convention.
fmward pan of the head. and the apex of the notch within TWOdays after the end of each calendar
between the rail flukes. week. of data on the number of baleen whales
10
95Annex 6
by species taken in any waters south of 40° (iii) the gross tmmage. horsepower. length
South Latitude by all factmy ships or whale and other characteristics of each:
catchers attached thereto under the jurisdicti vessels used only as tow boats should
of each Conn·acting Govemment. provided that be specified.
when the munber of each of these species taken (3) A list of the land stations which were in
isdeemed by the Secretmy to the Intemational operation dming the period concemed. and
Whaling Cmmnission to have reached 85 per the number of 1niles searched per day by
cent of whatever total catch lintit is imposed by aircraft. if any.
the Connnissio n notification shall be given as (b) The infmmati on required under paragraph (a)(2)
aforesaid at the end of each day ofda tn~the (iii) should also be recorded togeter with the
munber of each of these species taken. following infonna tion.n the log book fonnat
(b) If it appears that the maximum catches of whales shown i1~Appendix A. and f0· 1dred to the
pem1ittedby paragraph !!may be reached before 7 Conunission:
Aprilof any year. the Secretmy to the Intemati onal (1) where possible the time spe nt each day
Whaling Cmmnissi on shall detennine. on the on different componen ts of the catching
basis of the data provided. the date on which the operation.
maxinmm catch of each of these species shall be (2) any modifications of the measures in
deemed to have been reached and shall notify the paragraphs (a)(2)(i)-(iii)r (b)(J) or data
master of each factmy ship and each Conn·acting from other suitable indicators of fishing
Govennnent of that date not less than four days effon for·'small-type whaling " operations . -
in advance thereof.The taking or attempting to 29. (a) Where possible all factmy ships and land stations
take baleen whales. so notified. by fact01y ships shall collect f each whale taken and repon on:
or whale catchers attached thereto shallillegal (1) both ovmies or the combined weight of both
in any waters south of 40° South Latimde after testes.
(2) at least one ear plug. one tooth (preferably
midnight of the date so detennined.
(c) Notification shalle given in accordance with the first mandibular).
provisions of Anicle VII of the Convention of (b) Where possible similar collections to those
each fact01y sltip intending to engage in whaling described in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph
shall be undenaken and reponed by "small -type
operations in any waters south of 40° South
Latimde. whaling" operations conducted fi·om shoreor by
27. Notification shall be given in accordance with the pelagic fleets.
provisions ofAlricle VII of the Convention with regard (c) All specin1ens collected under sub-paragraphs (a)
and (b) shall be properly labelled with platf01m or
to all fact01y ships and catcher ships of the following other identification munber of the whale and be
statistical infonnation:
(a) conceming the number of whales of each species approp1iately presetve d.
taken. the number thereof lost. and the munber (d) Cmmacting Govenllllents shall anange for the
n·eated at each fact01y ship or land station. and analsis as soon as possible of the tissue samples
and specinlens collected tmder sub-paragraphs
(b) as to the aggregate amounts of oil of each grade (a) and (b) and report to the Conm1ission on the
and quantities of meal. fertiliser (guano). and
other products derived fi·omthem. together with results of such analyses.
(c) patriculars wi respect to each whale treated in the 30. A Contracting Govemment shall provide·the Secretmy
factmy ship. land station or ·'small-type whaling'' to the Intemationa l Whaling Conuni ssion with
proposed scientific pe1mits before they aissued and
operation s as to the date androxinmte latimde
and longin1de of taking. the species and sex of the in sufficient time to allow the Scientific Committee to
w hale. its leneth and. if it contains a foems. the review and connnent on them. The pro1posedpenu its
length andse;. if asce11ainable. of the foems. should specify:
(a) objectives of the research:
The data refen·ed to in (a) and (c) above shall be (b) number. sex. size and stock of the animals to be
verified at the tin1eof the tally and there shall also be
notification to the Conmtission of any infonnation taken:
which m ay be collected or obtained concemin g the (c) oppommities for participation in th.e research by
scientists of other nations: and
calving grounds and migration of whales. (d) possible effect on conse1tion of stock.
28. (a) Notification shall be given in accordance with the Proposed pennit s shall be reviewed and conunented
provisions of Alricle VII of the Conventio n with
regard to all factships and catcher sips of the on by the Scientific Conunittee at Almual Meetings
when possible. When pennit s would be granted prior
following statistical infmma tion: to the next Alumal Meeting. the Secretmy shall send
(I) the name and gross tonnage of each fact01y the proposed pennit s to members of the Scientific
ship. Cmmninee by mail for their coll1lllelll and review.
(2) or each catcher ship attached to a tact01y
Prelimina1y resultsof any research resulting fi·om the
sltipr land station: pemtits should be made available at the next Almual
(i) the datesn whicheach isconunissioned Meeting of the Scientific Cmmnittee.
and ceases whaling for the season. 31. A Cmu:racting Goven m1ent shall n·a:nsmit to the
(ii) the number of days on which each is Conmtission -copies of all its official laws and
at sea on the whaling grotmds each
regulations relating to whales and whaling and changes
season. in-such laws and rgu.ls a.tion ' '
11
96 Annex 6
INTER."'IATIONAL CONVEN TIO N FOR THE RE GULATIO:\' OF WHALIN G, 1946
SCHEDULE APPENDIX A
TITLE PAGE
(one logbook per catcher per season)
Catcher name .... ... ..... ..... ...... ...... Year built.. ...... ...... ..... ...... ........ .. ..... ..... ...
Attacl1ed to expedition/land station .............. .... ... .......... ............ ..... ...... ..... ..... .. ........... .....
Season
Overall length... Wooden/steel hull..... ...
Gross tonnage.
Type of engine H.P.
Maximtllll speed. Average searching speed.
Asdic set,make and modelno... .......... ......... ........ ......
Date of installation ... ......... .... ........ ............. ...... .
Make and size of cannon .... ... ........
Ty pe of first hmpoon used... .. Explosive/elecTic/non-explosive
Type of killer hmpoon used
Length and type of forenumer.
Type ofwha leline...
Height o fbane l above sea level
Speedboat used. Yes/No
Name of Captain ..................... ...... ......................... ... ............... .. .... ............ ...... ......... ...
Number of years expe1ience..
Name of gmmer..
Number of years expe1ience.......... ...... ...... ... ..... ...
Number of crew .......... .. ..... ...... ........................
12
97Annex 6
A er ut es l
pan c not ho
which t s wal sc
t aa witho doe
chased. takflee t l I
in thate e arge same
r dia l n l e
school . ssibg o t
catcher imehale n on
catcherstgethe io rati
whale eacor t
by ; o I w cen
h 0 closemol taken prating
. u tl o co o
sperm . . ca enter sch
.... ienwhaae would are
each ..... alest, ffic as ers ers anies
TABLE2 .... s d h h mp
for .. wh from another co
. of ch areg ere eatcfatc
.... e t in ent th . i or
sation . ca be h . g s
hip . not whichas e ion
tal s numb ls old whicze,
Catcher ithdo h stars s
coas w bt w kindl expedit
or factory each l o can lega e
n of b hseho p le whaleor abl h
i n c sc u e ot s.
n l e growhatary a aboveak rk
. hol hool .......................h..th.X....a..n.............as....from
positio Sc Sc sc er o soli ef lsd e
expdayt statio in m . . . et g A h e R
g School fro ... ... School eachhase means . hal w unt er
A la each Noon in .... .... r ershool allo
IX pe coastal es . from fo sc ormhandlin i a w be catundrs
used o Whales .... ...... ................ tch s d ut
END by e Caught.... .... .. ........................................................ uld abo
ed be Whal bl r r r ught i thiplet whalenclude
APP REPORT t to Fund of Ca co e; ase on tim e l wo on recorded
rm l Takea Whales atcher Notesonehasc comg bl ese ti be
f expedition of of CatcheCatcheC Catche in e ot hool ea th
comtle of of of of of ll th n sc ndin tak y old
be r Schoo Fi in do A havispe A ncossariInfsrma
HOOLING ame e umber ame ame ame . .
SCHESDCULE To sepa N Dat Time Total NumberNumberN N N Name Total Numbers: ExplanatAry B. C D.
of
6 . ility
194 .... ib ition
..
Vis pos
th
I ad
of
WHALING, ............... CNDITIONS
Winf direction sold
OF TABLE r i
h
......... l)
state oo catc
No WEATHER Sea h h
fc t
Sheet o
REGULATION when
E No. e
T Time and it.
to s tim
ed p whales g the
FOR n nside or facorry tin . (No. chase
grou l p to g ... t
SHEET ed) repo of fou(or hasing a up ed n .. Seen. . . .. means
um or at ) c o) or n u g/res .. .... .... .
rs no. th ig o verdriftin pon) . ... .. .. . ard
seen as ot gged ch ckinpicki delir driftin . in .•...... ... .... tw
RECORDame(or and c whasesd es!fla catpi (f operatio. , Whal.s . .......catcher
CONVENTIONr tcher (Y e of .. g .... ...... .. . to
r seefoufd hletinue hal o. towingmopped .. ein ....................ed move
sartedwhalesspecies o sartedw n usew towingsartfinished s finceased .. . . .. .... ..n to
DAlLYCatche sco al and e e bunk .......... .. ....
... seaTimeatcheumber confirmed imeforri started resting) timt .. ic tim m .. . . ......... reptas
Time * WhaNe PosNameime Time AsdTc Se TimeTime DatTime Timei g timei ............. . es s
.... in asd (e.g. . . . a nd
... g: : : as asdic ck .... ....w al
.....n g searching hantowingrsting ..........t.........e..oo..
ITERNATIONAL asing: l witwithout e ... i..ned h
h ota gh i sc
Dat Search C Handling:Towing Restin Total A) B) TotTaoltTOthtal BluFinHumpRi Sc S *Tia
w
98 Annex 7
7. British Minister ofAgriculture and Fisheries, “Minister’s Speech at the Opening of
the Conference”, ICW/1937/3 (24 May 1937)
I . C . W. /1-937/3.
MIFISTRY OF AGRICULTURB AND FISHERIES .
o~. 'id.Ju.,L.G- .
-----
1
llir . ister s b!,)eeci"l at ti"le Opu~ing of the Confere.nce.
~ .~5 p .m . , ~y 24th , 1 937 .
at
Sh.el:::.. Mex: _l!ouse!.. L ondon, W. 0 . 2 .
It is. n .-.;roat p _e.:.dU).'t: .for me to oe here t o - day
to welcome you all , and t o ex:p~ss th e satis.fac t ion of
His hla.,;esty 1s G-overr-me••t in the United Kin gdon that your
respective Governments ~ave see~ .r~t to instruct you t o
atte ,-d t his confere ce . Fr-om this we j ud :;e that your
Governme..,ts recogTtise t hat the future o.f t he great whaJ.i.:ng
indus try is Lo jeopardy , and that i t s Lmport~nce is such
-r.ha t we ough<. to Jr.c.l<e an effo rt to preserve :i.t :!"rom the
fate which has overtaKen other wha lin g in dustries :i.n the
pas t .
As you know , t he old whaJ.e fi.sher:i.es which depended
upon t he Right Hhale s, are thin gs of the past . For ce~turies
the F:i.n Wha~ca an d t he msgnlii.cent Bluo Vlhal es , ·ah ich are the
la r ges t animals i.n the wor J.d , were immune from attack from
ma.n because they were too sw ift in t heir movements , too large
an d too power :f."ul to be atrtac ked by the o ld method at: the
harpoon throw n by band .from a smaJ.l boat . But , since the
invention by t he Horweg i an sve nd Foyn o:f." the harpoon gun ,
which can b e r~red £rom the b o~ of a sh1p specially constructed
for th e p ur pose , a sh ip 111ith th e necessary speed to enable her
to overhaul a travell i ng whale , t ha t immunity h.as ceased to
exis t . In tne comparat iv e l y narrcw seas of the Arctic Ocean
the stock o:f whales has been reduced to a lev el at wb~ch it
can on 1 y maintain a few smal~ stations , and a t the beg in n in g
of t he present oe"l tu.ry whaJ.ers bega•1 t o tur n t he ir a tte n tion
to t he vast an d :i.nhsopi tab~e sea t ha t su r rounds t he Ant arct ~c
Con tine n t . That sea was found t o contain abundant l ire ,
upon which g reat schoo l s Of whale s t'ed a n d g r ew fat . In a.
sh o r t time a prosperous indu s try was established , based on
l .
99Annex 7
lund s~ations .n the Faltuande Islands and tb eir vepende~cie .s
So lon6 as whaling was thus conducted the
aestruction of whales >~la lm! ted by the rar.e;e of the whale
catchers from tha ldnd stations. BuL the irr~e~tio of the
£loating fa~tory, wbicll cryJlJ worz irdup5ndent_y of ~ny land
st.atio"'l , brou .::h;t about. a comple .onnn~e . These flo a.tiog
factories: 'fllttl t.hei~o:r.t anen.ctatch~:·.s,ho.d the
advan~u~e of mooility . Tha cat~hers, instsad of bei~
t ased a.'b6fore upon lbnd station::;, tho situation of which
limited their ru"'lgs ofac~ivity so that they could only
&t t.ack sucll wha.le<i as came w1.thin the economic radiUE from
the land st~tion, ~er~n~ ablu with their floating factories
to travel in search of the Tmalcs and attack tbem wherever
t.llC:might bo ~ rund .
This developnte"lt led to the dis oovery that tne stock
of whales wns greater than had ever been supposed . Floating
fa~to~ies began to be built in ever -increasing numbers, and
with aver - increasing efficiency . The catchers also became
more speedy and ruore powsrf~, and a vast destruction of whales
ensued . In the year 1930 -31 , no less than 37,000 were kill ed .
:n ~be past ~hree years for wL1Ch we have statistics the nurrber
destroyed has been more thsn 82 , 0CO. The wor~: of the
0 11
Discovery Co!lllll antdtth<: st,tistlcs of ~he whaling
industry, collected from the factory ships and worked out in
Nor~ay , i ndicate clearly that if tne present rate of destruction
is continued the Antnr~tic Wl1aling Industry will soon cease to
be a profitable commorcial venture, and the magn1ficent cl ue
'lhala will proLlably oe ext-erminated .
2 .
100 Annex 7
fJost of u.s represented here are parties to the
Convention !'or the Protection of Whales , which "as made in
Geneva in 1931. That. Comrention provides for a very modest
degree or protection of the stock, which eAY6rie~c eas proved
to be insuf'ficient . For several years past we, in agreement
with our friends in ri"or:Yay, have enforced re3\llations, and
have been able to secure volWltary agreements , the effect of
which is to extend the scope of protective measures; but in
the mean time the increasi:.1g price of' whale oil has encouraged
the building of increasingly powerfUl and efficient factories
and catchers , not only 1n Great Britain and i~ Uor>lay and in
the British Dominions, but in other countries which hitherto
have interested themselves little , if at all , in the Antarctic
Whaling . These are the circumstances which have led us to
invite you to conf'er with us in the hope that we may all agree
upon rr~asure sf protection so that the endeavours of some
countries may not be defeated by the enterprise of others .
As I said in my opening remarks , Gen;;lemen , your
presence here to - day indicates ~~at your Governments share our
opinion that some such agreement is necessary if the Whaling
Industry is to be preserved for the presen-t and for future
generations . The path of' conservation is beset by many
dit'f'icul ties , but as we are all ge t~'ler od pursue a common
object , I hope that your united ef'forts will f'ind a way tr~oug~
or over these di.fficul ties , and that we may reach an agreement
which will be beneficial for all of us , and which because of its
reasonableness and its practical character t may induce those who
are not w1th us to - day to work w1 th us in the near future .
3.
101Annex 7
I bid you all a very hearty welcome . I have to
express regret that tl:e pressure of my duty prevents me from
presiding at the day to day work of t:_e Conference , and I am
the!•efore going to suggest that you appoint as Chairman , my
colleague, !.ir.Haurice , who is sittine at my right hand . Be
has recently been Chairman of an International Conference for
the size of 1'is h nets , which be brough~ to a.very success:f'ul.
c~cl~sio .n I can therefore recommend him to you as a very
skilfUl and impartial Ohai rman . I should be very glad to
know if that receives the support of the gatheri~ Will
anyone seco~d that?
(seconded by His Excellency senor Dr. Don Malbran , G.B.E. (.<\rgentine)
4.
102 Annex 8
8. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/5 (25 May 1937) pp. 1-3
/
= .c. '.'.1/1.937/5.
Tnesdey , 25th r:ay , 1937 .
1_hl5 a . m.
CH.AIR:!A!:: ~o--I Erxceller:.c:; , Gen.tlerJ::::l, befo!•e ue bep:1 our
to raise, wi tll rq;.J.r<l to t;1e posj tioil of' experts. Sone
del~gatio= have b!·o~l:t c:~erts ~d th them , c.n•."'de I1:1ve
sugzcs ted tha ':. e::tpe:. "ts should not take :r>a='t~ the Conf"ererrce
T.i1e .:.•ca:-:o..leit.!•,ir.; isthat &::parts
in our ..,enc ra:t r.ce ti..-,co .
engaged in the iudustr-J nnd !..lave a fi·=cial inte.xst in it .
It may 'he ver~' neces<.ary to cli!.'\cuss c;;.•testions with t:1ese
pe:-so. s at sooilC later ata~e, a.~~ 11c nn:r liish to cc:1sul t cur
e:;:perts and other del.egatio:J.o ruay wish to consult theirs , but
we do not want to have round ~s tab.l.e a competition bet'1'1een
'fihaling con:panies , and t!"lr!t is w=.at. it is likely to becO!ile
:udgi~ fro~ past e~~rience; w!:en you ge ;;companies
re~reoentedro~1d the table it is ju~t a scraumle betweeu them
as to who is goinz to come out of' it je~t.
What ~e want to discu~c here are , in the first ~lace,
regulations wluch our reapective Govc~£nts ore prepared to
en-f'orce . I do not know whetb.•n• yon . Professor Ber${ensen ,
woi.lld like to agree that :;;>oiut .
J'l<OF3:350R
.BH!GER
~"'SEt-;: Yes, I agree .
0:1 the ot>1er b.a::ld\t"e mi-:;ht ;<ant to go into same
technical questions and then fJe should want expert. adv1ce so
that. it is good to have the eA"~">El irt ahe off'in~ so that we
can call on tb.em tlhen we mmt tllelil .
With that preliminary , I think we can proceed to
the discussion of t.he memorandtU'Il which we have prepared .
Have you anything you would lil~e to say Excellency?
l.
103Annex 8
:Oef'ore the proceedi.ngs of' t:1e Conference zo on
: should lilte to ma.'te a reservation , which is very
important , The l.~inist oer~ricul ture , in hi& openil1g
speech , men-tioned in z-ct;£:rdto ;;he pol"crs tb.a~ have ~een
given to the Government fo~ the Fz~and Isl~= • a
juri&diction in all t~a adjuceDt islands . His t!ajeaty 1s
firmly sustained :t.s ril?'r.tof jurisdiction over tl,cse
Island.&. Tb!:.tis a question t.hat t-.asnoching to do '.71th
t:Us Coni'ere:Jce, '.Jut;as .Il>elleve ·ihe speech cr t.l:.e
Minister cr P..,r3iculture ;Til::'Je r:.:oro.e:d in t:!le Mi.cutes of
the Confe~nce, I consider it rirr~~ and I caa~~tse~ any
objection to recording in the ~~u.es, the statement tilat
I mad.e o:t beh~:~l o:fmy Govc~·omen ttat any ag:i'eement
reached , or any document :: .;ned , or any duty to be paid by
the compar.ieo working in ter:'i tor:..al water c;hould not be
considere~ My Government ~ill not consid~r in ~v way
anything prejud icial ~o the rights firmly sustained by w.y
country . That is the reservation. that I ElllOuld lil~e to
make, and I asJ:: you tu', Chai=, i:f the speech o-r t!le
tJiniste r o!' .\[:.-ricul tureis recorU.ed 1 ;;;.1att~e statement
I have ~Bde should be recorded a!so.
?bat shall be done , sxc~lleucy .
With re-ference to our· :llc:nm'c.n.5.1.,unI ha!'>.ll.y
think we need debate the f'irrri;'f1.ve p.:tru.graphs; I believe
we have all Q6reed to Chat 8lld t;J... is ou:r- reaso:1 'for
coming here . Unless there is anything you ifish to .,;a.y,
I su~:;:elW s'tpass to the s<;coud JM6e and t.ake p::;...re.graph 6
and discuss the :first sub-par&gr!lph (e.) . Tba point. or
that paragraph is t~at we aPe not all parties to tne
Geneva Con.-en l.!;l and there artl C~;;:?t paincipleH L1 the
Genev~ Convent1.on which I hope we shall all acce~t here,
i f' I m.s.yve-ry br i ef l y sullr.l8.risthe point.s.
2.
104 Annex 8
They a r e the following -
First o~ all ~he Convention, es it is stated in
the opening of the Second Articl.e, a:;J~li only to b!Ueen
whales .
In the provisions in Article .!there is a
prohibl tion of t;.e killiU<J o'!:ri:¥tt w;w.lea, and there is a
def"L'li tion o.f !'ight ','/hales <.o include Hcrth Ca!Je :;Jhales ,
Grecnl::md \7hales, aouthern l'l6"·.tw:.al<'!.:., .::tc.
~en again, Artic:o 5, ~rc~i~itst~e ~ill!ng of
calves or suc:d.i. wrhaleG, or innwtl!!'e ~;hales -, immature
whe.l~ t:.re c!efineu latdr on - and f'cr.ule 1-!w.les ·.vr..:;.chare
accc.m9Wlled b~r cal.,es o!' sucl::.ing ':il:.:!..es.
Then there is tLe ne:;:t ...:.rt ,~hatl! );be fullest
possible use shouJ.d be :nad'" o~ tile C':i:'case o.f ·,vhales . I
need not go i nto that very fully; in e:t':::'ect, itis that
every part of the whale tbat can ~e tu~1ed to commercial
use shal~ ce u~ilise. d
Then , t:1ere is 7. It it;a very important
article - that the gunners and crP.ws of such vessels
s.."'lall be encsged on such terms t~::. t-eir remuneration
sh<Jll be in accordance w:t.'lthe slze c-1' -..hwhales kill~d..
Most. companies enforce reg.!latio:l.3 u.:aer which a gunner
dces aot 0 et pa!d ~or a whale ~der a certain size.
These, I think, are tha mair- prov:isior.o n-h~ch
we want to ~et accepted by this (Jo;'lfcrenc"'• There are
other ~rovisic~ which : hope wi~l be ~~ccpted,particula ~ly
in P.rticle 10 &bout provicll.ng inf'oro.c.tion c:mcernJng t.!le
catehing of the whales . I should 2-i~r te lmov1, £.nd
I ha.ve no doubt some of you will llaYI:lci>serva·::.ionz on this
poir.t , to what extent the Gove.:-nmeut:;; represe!ltetl l-.er.:a:.:-e
pr e.Pared to enforce re.:;ulationz to these e!':!'oc.·ts, a.zu.thave
got the pone:.:-s to e!l£orce then :r::b .o!~c:,u3 1e~ is
:.lllpOrt<int to get these regula-:..=.o"..a i!ltoperation ne;.:-t
season .
:.;.
105106 Annex 9
9. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/21 (1 June 1937) pp. 1, 16-17
r.o.w. /1 937/2.1. .
INTERNftTIOPJIL 00tl1':S!\o! ON ~~WEALlliO .
~st June, 1937 .
Fi~th Plenary Session . 11.15 a.m .
Befo~ we proceed to discuss the dr~t
CHAIRMAN:
Artic:!.es ~·hich we have put hef'o:::-e you , Mr. Bo:!'l.ey wishes
-to report on t:1e meetings of' the Comni ttee of' which he wa'l
Chairm:m . '?Wo re:r>orts from that Co!!ID.ittee have been
circulated .n dra£t and I unders~d that they have
subsequently been accepted by t!le Committee , but
Mr. Borley will be able co tell us how things stand .
The paper which has been circulated
(No . r.c.W . /1937/9) is a note on ti>...efirst meeting of
that Oorrrnittee t!la t has now been approved by the
Commi tl#ee . The second note is : . c . w. /1937/15. That
has not been before the Con:mittee in a corporate way,
but I have ask~d neGrly all '~ members of the Committee
for amendments, and ~h~ Gnly one = have received relates
to paragraph 4 "'Nl"18les llenerally· • on the secor.d page;
in paragraph 4 (b) the Gel'!llan De~egation wish to point
out that that coes no~ ~present their remarks and that
the words 1South Atlantic" should be replaced by
1Equstor" ("protective zone south of' the Equator") .
CHAirutAN : Is the Committee recocmending us to put
so!l'.ething into the Agreement ?
MR. BORLEY: ~Y are reporting on whaling sanctuaries and
their recommendations are in the notes . :t is
obvious tr_at they cannot be applied immediately ~or
tl::e moat part and tl:ey will tal~e their place, I presume,
with ~ aatters to be discussed ~or ~ture ~~JUlstion.
107Annex 9
t:a'7ing Gie~ose.f :':.~::h~ t>:.me bei.n.oi'
~h:~ tuastion . st.al! ·n!l r.;t..1!'•1 the draft and
con~i~er :!.t . I e:r. f':'Cir.g to asyo·,l to leave out>
the pre~~ulebsca~sott~re is a certain amount of
dil'f"er.,;nco:f op inio.u 9s to the order :..:..hich the
c.:~unt'!' si1~:1llt.e put .
I have aJ so n '}\.eDtion I'Tithreference to
t~~'FOl'tl~ •ng:,r,.~e.Ptfo:r t:he regllLtt:!.onof the
i.>du;;"&::.;;of w!lllin." I understand that on other
occasiol!.l a·.:cb ::e.-:~~.; ravtsLJe~ n ade :fo::othe
:-e3ulat:!.o:of (;he in•iustr;. o~ v·hal.i .nr~··o deal.
:..nt~is~~;·au!1. 1't> Ut ::u:.rge axtent with the
p:..•eserva:;.:..o:. of y,b!~nO:sI :dcr:1t know ·hother the
\icrding 1-~32'at .fon nh.; r:gulu.ttion of wh31ing 11
vzould e •.press the matter better t;}'.."the regulation
11
of ths inJustry ol 't~1iD ~.
I dou~t~~a~~er tnere is veFv much in it .
1 am responsible .fo~ ·:.hatex-pression and tlle reason
wby I use ·1h as b•3caue,-, we wero 1•egulatin,?" not
r.1erely th~ r.al:infof "l"'laies bu~ also cl'tet··aat;ing
of whales. ar.-1i;llv•:>rkinS\~? of tne wmles in the
.fac~o;~: '-•'•t. jn.:::t occurred ~.oma chat -pe::oba-ps
tb.e regul&tio:>'l of the i"ldu.F~: o:';r yali;;g ?aS
-perb:lps a mor" suitable phraae , bilt if you like
to malre it !'H.11Pl:r"of;.talin I~ "gree .
· I should also like to add somethinp: about
tbs presorvatio~ .!' ...r..al.s
16 .
108 Annex 9
GHAIRMiu":'i You mean l?reserva tion o:f th e sto ck'?
!Ior r ~VOHL'i :'AT Yen.
If you want to get i.))sanothing abou"t the
preservation of the stock I think one might sey in the
:preamble t;hnt 'd~si' bg to secure the 1ll'oaperi ty of'
t~e ;'lbnling industry 1 and f'o:!:'t~t -purpose to mnintain
t he stocks o:f whalos''.
I ll.<id in minC.. -the ~ressio n "des i ring to
muiTitain tn~ stoc!>:. of wll?J.<:s and to secm·e the
proa~er·it oy: the wtw.l illg indttatry .11
I rat!ler !J!'<:fe:what I s&i.d .
..grGed,
t!r. :.tACL.l!;:D Doesn 't it r ather leav9 you O?en to cr i ticism
(Gan acht)
thnt the only :purposf: of your -pro-r.ecting wor ds is to
mak e money out o:f t!:J.~m?
OilAIR~ : I run a:f::raid i t i sbruta ll y t ru e .
Her r WO!iLTAT: In the Geneva Oonvcntion they said
''Regu l ation of Whuli.r).g" .
All right , "Regulation of' whaling" .
Does every'.:>od,y ag!>ee? (Ag r eed) .
I thir.Ut i t is pe~·i'el cyt sat i sfacto r y . VIe
will lceve the order of' countries fo r f'uture dis cussio n.
Af'tc r we had drafted and
ci rc ulated i t I asked our Foreign Off'ice to look
tbrough the d.r&i't o.nd the~ hav-e made cer tain f'ormaJ.
sugges t ions whi ch 9e r hep s it woul d be conve nient t o
l '7.
109110 Annex 10
10. “Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling, Additional Article”, ICW/1937/31
(3 June 1937)
__I.o .w../l937/3L
AGREEMENT FOR THE REGULATiotf OF WHALlllG.
Additional Article .
Notwi th .standing a.nythil".g contaLYled i."lthie
Agreerr.ent, any cc·nt!'acting Government may grant to any
of ita nationals a special permit authorising that national
to kill take and treat whales for purposes of scientific
research subject to such restrictions as to number and
subject to such other cor.ltit~ons as the contracting
Government thinkEI f'i t and the ki.llin& "taking and t::-eating
or whales in accordance with. 'the 1.e.t'IUin force under this
Article shall be exempt :frotc the operation or the foregoing
Articles of this Agreemen~.
Any contracting Government may at any time
revoke a penni t gran-ced by it under this Article.
111112 Annex 11
11. Verbatim Record, ICW/1937/33 (3 June 1937) pp. 1, 15
I
r.c . w./J.937/!33 .
Bqventh Plena r y Session . 3rd June, 1937 .
3 o.n .
GE-nt::.eL'!e::l, : am anxious not to start if I can
help it u~~~l Tiis ~c~lleucy tLe Ars~~t~nc}~bassaaor
cones, ar:;.d I au hoping also t:r.c..:; Dr Wohl.ta& wil:. be
here , but perha;.>s you would , il.l t.he meantime, run your
eyes over l;he draf't of the proposed Protocol so that
when l'fe co1:1e to it you will be fa:niliru. • ;vith it.
MR. T:EIOi.SQ;T: There :is one small anendrr.er..t. to ~he
addit2onsl reVise or Alticle 9 ; it should be
Article B in the ne~ draf1; .
3.20 p.m .
May we start and run rapidly through the
revise of Lrticles 1 - 9, whic~ have been circulated .
A:re th~re any observa~ions on ~~ticle 1 ?
DP.. KELLOGG : I scocld l~e to !Glo\'f how ::.t. is proposed to
ensure that tee rezuJations are to be enforced by
the land stations .
OP...A..IRJ.JJ:I.ll I d01~ 1t thi:lk they w.ill be elll'orced fox' t-here
are no Inspectors on the land sta tiona . ~le ant ic ipa t e
that Inspectors will be stationed there . What we have
said is that &here should be at least one Inspector on
each factory ship .
DR. KELLOOG: In our l egislation ~e have Inspectors on each
or oar sho re stations . Would there be any objection
to inc lu ding such a condi~ion in ~ticle I ?
CHAIRMAH: I understand that at a land station an
inspectio n may ~ake place at BilY mo~ent.
It is all righ (; provided they are in sJ)ectcd
once i n a while .
---
113Annex 11
(Agre.Ptl) .
I thi~k we agreed article ~9.
1lX>you agree ~cel1ency?
Yes .
Have -you anything t..say m1t.rticJ..e J.9 Which
\7es 18 .
~<?feElSOr Do you thir~ it wou1d be advisable to have
B~Gll\SEN :
the scientific nanws in connection With the
defH•J. "&ior.s of tile v;r...JL.es, inserted?
I do not tl::Linkso .
Artic~e :g Nas agreed . Artic l e 20 was agreed .
The Accession Article 21 was agreed .
That :fjro.ebes 'the articles 6:XCept old
Art icle 12 (now LrLi. le 14) , Beto::-e we come to t hat
we have an art~cle~~c3 ha~ been circulated
(I.C . W. /1937/31) ~"hic .;;!&!lied-uobe desirable :for us
to put ~n, a savic~~cr sc~anti=lc purposes . Is
there ar.y objection to that additional article?
{l g:·eet) .
It becomes ~rticle 17.
v·e shall he.ve to do some re-m.unberi!lg, but we wil l
do that afte::-wards ,
t.Ir • THOMSON : The definitHln article has now be c ome arti cle lB .
:Mr . .:-mmso:N In Article l there i s some doubt in my mind
as to Whether it hen been decided to use the
expression in:fraction "egainst 11 or 1o:!" .
15 .
114 Annex 12
12. “Whaling,AShort Historical Sketch” (1937) p. 1
WHALING
In co:::u:ection with this -..'haling - Conference it may
be of interest to give a brief historicalaccount of the
developnent of the modern whaling industry .
1iodern whaling was inaugurated in 1868, v1henSvend
Foyn of T0nsberg, afte ~years o: unsuccess:ul experinentation,
inventedt~e shell ha~poo and killed 30 Blue Whales in
Varangerfjord . In the course of a fey~ars a series of whaling
companies were started , with starionarfactories along the
coast o: ?innmarken. in the north of rorway. The catch reached
its culmination in 1886,when 19 co~pan iersoperating
with 35 boats.• F>m.this year the numb<=Pf companies has
slowly declin ed.
A few companies nowbegan to look for other fields,
as f . i . Iceland , where r;orwegi ans commencedcatchi1882.
To begin with , the catch froFinn~rke only
comprised Blue Whales, butlater on Fin Whales, Sei·.~bales
and Eumubackswere also hunted .
?or sever al years the whaling gave a goon profit,
and although the amount o: whales on the field as well as
the prices obtained for the products were subje ct to great
vari at ions, the profof the catch was reduced from year
to year .
115116 Annex 13
13. “FinalAct” (1940) 34 (2)AJIL 112, pp. 112-114
112 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTEltNATlL OAWAL
M. F!NCATI
T.L.:\IARI.N1
For tlte Governmentof the Commonu;ealthof Australia:
S.l\1.B RUCE
For the Governmentof Germany:
WoRLTRAT
For the Gouernmentof the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland:
HL~'l Gl.MAURICE
GEo. H oGARTH
For the Governmentof the Irish Free Stale:
SEA.'O'FAOLAI!\ O'DULCIIAOYTIGH
For the Governmentof New Zeala1'lil:
G. McNAMARA
For the Government of Norway:
BraGER B ERGEB SEN
FINAl. AcT
The Conference, having this da.ysigned an Agreement for the Regulation of
Whaling, to take immediate effect, desires to add, for the consideration of
the governments represen ted aLthe C.onference, th e following observations:
2. The agreement is valid for one year and will, it is hoped, contin ue in
force for future years, unJess the gove:mments, or any of them, decide to the
contrary. It is likelin the opinionr of the Conference, to go far towards
maintaining the stock of 'vhales, un which the prosperity of the whaling
industry depends.
3. Experience may prove, however, that furth er measures of conservation
are necessary or desirable. The Conference desires, therefore, to suggest
that certain further methods of conservation and of preventing wastage of
whales should be examined by the governments concerned without delay,
and that the governments should take the necessary measures by legislation
to place themselves in a position to impose such furth er regulations of whal
ing as experience may dictate.
4. The agreement prescribes regulations mainly of general application
to whaling from factory ships and land stations alikTh e most important
ofthese regulations are those requiring the observance of close seasons, pro
hibiting the taking of whales of certai n species already th reatened with ex
tinction, prohibiting the taking of female whales v.;th calves or suckling
whales and of whales of different species bes~e limits prescribed for each
species, requiring full commercial use to be made of every part of every whale
tak en, and limiting tbe time within which, from the time of catching, whales
must be treate d in a factory shorl.and station as the case may be. The
purpose of these regulations is to limit the number of whales killed tond
prevent the waste of whale material.
117Annex 13
OFFICIAL DOCUltENTS 113
5. Certain provisions of the agreement, however, affect only pelagic
whaling, in particular those provisions which absolutely prohibit pelagic
whAlingfor baleen whales in certain large areas of the sea. This differentia
tionbetween. whaling prosecuted by means of factory ships and by means of
landstations needs explanation. It has been urged that whaling as hitherto
prosecuted from some land stat ions, especially near the equatorial zone, has
beenwasteful and harmful because the physiological condition_of the whales
taken was such that their oil yield was low and because whales were taken at
these stations when they were about to throw their calves. Against this it
may be argued that the raising of the size limits for various species under the
agreement will greatly restrict the catch brought to the land stations, that
the land stations, not enjoying the mobility of the factory ships, are already
handicapped in the pursuit of whales, and that wha.t.evercatch they take is a
comparatively insignificant fraction of the total catch. The Conference
recommends that the catch of the land stations should be carefully studied
andthat the governments should consider, in the light of such study, what
further regulat ions, if any, should be attached to whaling from land stations,
either generally or in particular geographical areas In the view of the Con
ference,there is a certain risk that the restrictions imposed on pelagic whal
ing may lead to a development of whaling from land stat ions, and the
governments should accordingly place themselves in a position to check or
regulate such development should it occur.
6. The Conference further recommends that the governments shou ld put
themselves in a position. to limit, if it is thought fit, the number of whale
catchersthat may be employed in connection with any factory ship or land
station with a view to further limitation of the destruction of whales.
7. The governments are also recommended to take powers, if they do not
already possess them, to prohibit whaling entirely in any area of the sea
eitherpermanently or for a.limited period. It ifelt that it may be desirable,
in thelightof experience gained, to close permanently areas which may be
proved to be calving areas, or to close from year to year selecteareas of the
Antarctic Ocean or elsewhere for the purpose of giving to the whales a sanc
tuary in which they may escape molestation.
8. The Conference also recommends that the governments should place
themselves in a position to regulate the methods of killing whales. Under
existing methods of whaling, whales may be fataJJy injured, but lost owing
~0defects in the guns or harpoons in use. including the propelling and burst
lllcbarges. This involves waste of whales. It is suggested that it may
Prove desirable so to regulate the methods of taking whales as to ensure
that/by the use of suitable explosive charges, or by the use of a haTpoon
electricallyharged, the whale when hit may be speedily killed and wastage
thUsavoided. Moreover, a regulacion of this character may be expected to
abate something of the undoubted cruelty of present methods of whaling.
9. The Conference further recommends that the contracting governments
118 Annex 13
114 THE AMERICAN .rOURNAL OF INTEP.NATIONAL LAW
should take steps to prevent this agreement and any regulations mad•ethere..
under from being defeated by the transfer of ships registered in theii.rtern
tories to the flag of another government not. a partytothis agreement, and
suggests that for this purpose it might be provided that the transfer of a fac
tory ship or whale catcher from its national Bagto the fiag any other coun
tryshould be permitted only under license of the goverrunent.
10. The Conference believes that the regulations upon which it has agreed
will certainly contribute to the maintenancof the stock of whales and to the
prosperity of the whaling industry. Not aU the representatives of Jgovern
ments present at the Conference have been able to sign the agreement, some
ofthem not being authorized by their governments in that behalf. Itis
hoped that all governments represented will eventually accede to thE a~ree..
ment . The Conference desires to urge upon the contracting governments
that they should usetheir utmost endeavors to secure the adhesion of such
Powers as are interested in the whaling industry but were not represented at
the present Conierence. The Conference recognizes that the purpose of the
present agreement may be defeated by the development of unre,gula.ted
whaling by other countries, in which case it would be a matter for consider
ation whether the present agreement should be continued in force, or whether
the contracting governments should not agree to modify their :regulations to
meet the situation thus created, or even to permit their nationals to pursue
whaling without regulation, so that they may derive from its pursuit such
benefit as may be had before the stock of whales ha.s been reduced toa.level
at which whaling ceases to be remunerative. For the Conference is con
vinced that, unless whaling is now strictly regulated,that eventua lity can
not be regarded as remote.
11. In conclusion, the Conference desireto urge that a further contference
should be held at a convenient time next year, at which the result!; oi the
forthe.oming seA~ o ny be studied and the question of the modificntion or
extension of the present agreement be considered.
Done in London, the 8th day of June, 1937, in a single copy, whitchshall
remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ir eland, by whom cert ified copies willbe
transmitted to the other governments which have signed the Agreement for
the Regulation of Whaling.
[Here follow the same signatures as on the preceding agreement, ptp. 111-
112.]
119120 Annex 14
14. “United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention”, IWC/3 (29 October 1946)
pp. 1-3, 11-12
!".EST RI CT""'D
IWC/3
October 29, 1946
INTERNATiONW ALHALING CONFtRE:iC •EWASHUtGTOM,D •.1.94S
UNIT"'D S':'A'i'ES PROPOSALS FOR
~ W.-lALIHG CO:·:\'CHTION
l The Governments of - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 R.;cognizing the inte::oest of the nations · of the
3 ~orld in safeg uarding for future
4 generation s the great na t ural resources repres ented
5 by the ~hale fisher~es;
6 Conside r in g th a t the hi3tory of whal i ng has
7 seen overfish~n og one a r ea after anothe r and of
8 one kind of wha le after another to such a degree
9 tr zt ~any whale fisheries cay neve r r ecove r and
10 that tte fa'W productive l·rhaling ar eas now ren~a niir..
11 ar e :-e:;:idlybei~ depleted, ~aJn ::iit essent i al tha t
12 al l kind s of whales be prctected fr oc futu r e
13 dep!.eticn;
121Annex 14
RESTRICTED
.L'C/ 3
-2-
17 in the size cf whale stocks will permit increases
18 in the n~bers o~ whales which ~ay be captured
19 without end~~gering that natural rescurce;
20 Recognizing that it is in the co~~on interest
21 to restore the vhale stocks as rapidly as possible
22 without causing widespread economic and nutritional
23 distress and that the ultimate objective should be
24 to achieve and to maintain the stocks at a level
25 which will permit a sustained capture of the maximum
26 number of whales;
21 Recognizing that in the course of restoring
28 the stocks whaling operations should be co~ined to
29 certain species tc give ~~ interval of recovery to
jO kinds cf w~ales now depleted in nUZI!ber5;
31 Desiring to establish a permanent system of
32 r.:anagement for the whale fisheries to assure proper
33 and effective conservation and development of whale
stocks on the ~~sis cf ~he prin~iples e=bo~ied in
35 the previsions or the !nte~~e~io~al Agree~ent fer
the Regulation cf ;~a.ling signed in Landen en
37 J·~-: 8e 1937 a.I".d the protocols to that J.~greeoer~t
38 signed !n Lcndcn en June 24, 1933, February 7, l?h4,
39 Octcber 5, 1945, ~cve~ter 26, 19~5, &nd ~arch 15,
122 Annex 14
REST::1ICTED
I'tlC/3
-3-
41 F~v~ng d~cided to cor-elude e convent~on to
42 prov~de·~or~he orderly conservation ~nd d~velopment
I
43 or the whcle fisheries,
l."+'' Hcve agree d as follows:
.ARTICLE I
45 (1) The present Conventionz including the Schedu~e
46 attached to end forming an integral pert thereof,
47 epplies to factory ships end whcle catchers end to
43 lend stetl.ons under the jurisdiction or the co::ltra.ct-
49 ir~Gover~ents, and to ell ~eters in which ~r~licg
50 i~ prosec'.lted by such rectory ships e!ld/or ;.;hale
51 catchers.
52 (2) The provisions of the Schedule shall not apply
53 prior to June 30, 1947. They shall apply thereafter
5~ 1n their preeent tar~s or es amended ~rc~ time to time
55 in accord~ncc with the prov~sions or A~t!cle IV.
ARTICLE II ·
r-:f'er!e d
123Annex 14
RESTRICTED
-11: r,;c/3
ARTICLEVII
199 The contracting Governcents shall assure prc~pt
200 transffiissi t~nthe Commission, or to such agency as
201 the Con~issio ay designate, of notifications and sta-
202 tistical and other information required by the present
203 Convention and Schedule in such form end lliar~ ~se~ay
204 be prescribed by the Co::::llission.
~'"!'riC VLII
205 (1) Notio71thstandi:lSanything conta!.ned in the present
206 Convention and Schedule, any contracting GoverrJnent ~ay_
207 grant to _any of its nationals a sp~cialper~it au:horiz-
208 ing that natic~l to kill, take, and treat whales for
209- pu:pcse3 of ::: ~::t;if e~earch su"!:lject to such restric-
210 ti·~n:a; .;.n~b~;>: ~nd. su;,ject to such other conditions
212 taJ,:ir.g ,
213 provisio~s of this art;icle ~~all be exe~pt frcm the
214 ope~stio nf the prese~t Convention and Schedule. Each
c..::!.l
124 Annex 14
RESTRICTED
HlC/3
-12-
216 all such a~ttoriza~io ~hsich it has granted. Each con~
217 t~ecting Goverr~en~ tay at any t~me revoke any such
218 special ~ermit ~hich it has granted.
219 ('2) ·The contracting Goverr-tnents shall r~por o the
220 Co~ission, insofar as practicable, and at intervals of
221 not ~ore than one year, scientific information collected
222 ~i~h respect to ~b~les and ?h~ling, incl uding the results
223 of resea~ch conducted pursuant to Article III and to
22~ the preceding paragraph.
( -)
225 \ j Recognizing t hat continuous collection and ~nalJsis
226 cf biolcgical data in con.';.ection~ith the opernti r:lns o£
227 factory ships and land st~tions ere incispensable to
22.3 so'.lnd and constructive :::anege! ! let~t ~hale fisheries,
229 the contracting Governments shall take all practicable
230 ~easures~o obtain s'.lch data.
AR':'ICLE IX
231 . (l) Nothing contained in the present Convention she.ll
233 ec~crcin g~yl~~s or reg ulations, app lic sble to it s
c;rn
125126 Annex 15
15. “List of Reference MaterialAvailable”, IWC/8 (19 November 1946)
!WC/8
MHRNATIOHA W lH-'LING COHF'EREN •C£WASHIMGTD U.C,. •I946
LIST OF REFERENCE MATERIAL AVAILABLE
A numb~r o~ articles, backgro~d ref~ren~e material,
and stat:1.stics on Whaling have been s~lected fur t;b.Q use
o~ the del~gates and members of the Secretariat. These
data have been placed on file at the In£o~at:1.on Desk :1.n
the Foyer and may be charged out during the day.for use in
the Coorerence Su:tte or taken out overnight.
The ~allowing titles Gre included in the material on
file:
LeaguA of Nations, Assembly, Second Committee.
Opening of a Convent:1.on for the Regulat:1.on of
Whal:1.:J.g• 1931 •
Regulation of wnaling, Series 880. Convention
Between the United States o~ America and other
Powers. September 24, 1931.
Regulation o~ Whaling, Series 933. Agreement cetween
the Unitej States of America and other ?ewers.
JW1e 8, 1937.
Regulation of 'Jhaling, Series 944. Protccol Between
the United States of America and other Pavers
Amending the International Agreement fc:' the
Regula t1on of 1fualing. Signed in London .TI.ln8,
1937 - JW1e 24, 1938.
Regulation of 'Hhaling, Seventy-eighth Congress,
Second Session, Senate Executive D. Inter
national Agreement for the Regulation of ~baling.
February 7, 1944.
----~s~e--s-si~o-n-, SeventE,-eSetvate h I.greProtocolconP~ending
the International Agreement for the ~egulation
of Whaling. November 26, 1945.
----,S,..e_s_s_i.,......c-n-,-Senate ve Repor ·c No.Sec9.d Protocol
Amending ~he !~t~rnatio~a Alg~eement for the
Regul.ati ':m r:Jf 'n"r:aL1.ngJuly 30, 1946.
Sever.ty-ninth Congress, ?irst Ses3ion,
Senate Executive J. S~pp1e~zntar Pyotocol
Cc·ncArning '"nal~::. Oct-aber 5, 1945.
Suppl~~P.P nrtoatr~ycol Pho t ostat copies. 19U5-46.
( 2 paged ) ..
127Annex 15
List of Reference Material
AVailable IWC/8
- 2 -
Fur Seal Treaty, Series 415. Agreement Betveen the
United States of America and Canada. December
8 a.nd 19, 1942.
Halibut Treaty, Series 701. Convention between the
United States and Great Britain. March 2, 1943.
SalmonUnitedy,Statesriof America and Canada. BetweMay 26,
1930.
Great Lakes Treaty. Seventy-ninth Congress, Second
Session, Senate Exeeutive C. Convention with
Canada for the Development, Protection and
Conservation of the Fisheries of the Great Lakes.
April 2, 1946.
Diacovery Committee Report. First Report 1926.
Second Report 1927 and 1928.
No~egian Whaling Gazette. January, February, March,
· December 1939; January8; Jathrough December 1945;
January through September 1946.
International 1Nhal1ng Statistics (Hvalrads Skrifter ) .
Volumes I through Xrl.
Life f.'!agazine. September 30, 1946.
Foreign Agriculture Report. August 1946.
-END-
128 Annex 16
16. “Minutes of the Opening Session”, IWC/11 (20 November 1946) pp. 1-3
IWC/ll
November 20, 1946
COHFEREM •CWEASHIMGTUN,•D.1 9. S
MIN'"uTESQ[ 1'1-:EOPENING S~SSION
TIME: Wednesda7 , November 20, 1946, 11:20 p. m.
PLACE: Main Conference Room
1. MR. KELLOGG(Temporary Chairman ): The International
Whali ng Confere nce is now convened. The Honorable Dean
Acheson, Aoti~ Sac~etary or State , will now address the
Confe r ence.
2. MR. ACHESON(U.S.): Mr. Kellogg and gentlemen
of the Conference, I ~ very plea sed to have this oppor
tunity of welcoming you he~e tod ay on behalf of the
Goverr~ent o£ the Uni ted States.
3. The convening of this Internati oca l Wnaling
Confer ence is gratifyi~g, not only beca~se it uarks
the advance of L"l.ternat1 onal coone!' at:!.ve effort ln whale ·
conse~atio bu t because it illustrat ie~reasing coo pera
ti on a.t:long thenations in the sol utio n of internati onal
conservation problems.
4 . The wo ~k of thi~ Conference is (1) to provide
for the coordination and the codification of existing
regulat i ons and (2) the establis~en of an effective
4dministrative machi nery fo~ the modificatio n cf these
regulations from t~e to tim e as conditions cay in the
futur e r equ ire.
5. Previous conferences have recognized that there
is an urgent need to establish a pe~a~entint ernation~ .l
~achiner o deal with whal l:-g quc3 t:!.ons and ~o avoid the
freq :.1er.t !'or:nin t.erna. tionalconi'e!'ence s an:J protoc:1s>
which have che.re.cteriz.ed the hist ory of th e 1.rhaling regu
lations . The 'Ul"-ited States proposals for a pe:·~anant
whaling corr.1<se1on and. z'or t~:'icocJi!'lCa::!.e o:n·o1rs':~ng
regulations a:::-e a !:!E>.nifestat:!.on~ne recognized r.ee·.:'.to
place whale ccneervat.ion on a per::-,:1-nent basis. These
pr::>posals have be en presented to you a~ a basis for your
deliberat~ons at this Cor1erence.
6 . While the ~ edia te task of this Confe r ence is
pri=.arily of an ac.:uinist::-ative ·:.t:aracterin estatlish :L'1g
the long-r~nge ~e.:hine:: fo-y :::-egule.tionthe broad
objectives of v~ale cons erva ti on cust be constantly borne
in ~i~d. :i:•..ricpers;:ect 1ve, al l of the nations of the
•~orld have responsibi l i t7 ar.d interest in :::!l.intai: a.:i.~g
129Annex 16
Ninutes of Opening Session • ·.
IWC/11 ··:
•.••# •
- 2 - . .~...
developing the -whale stocks. These whale stocks are a
t~uly international resource in that they belong to no
sir'lgle nation nor to a group o~ nations but rather they are
the wards of ~he entire world. It ·is true that the whalers .
of only a fe ·vr nations have, durir.g any one .period, chosen to
ex:ploi t this common resourc -e~It has not been so long since ·
this country was 1;he primary exploiter of the world~s s,tocks,
and I must admit that I look back with regret to the fact·
more seriously'!'ld 1nd that era.e its conservation responsibilitfeS ··-··
7. Whale conservation must be an international ~ndeavor
and it is our hope that each nation, whatever its direct ·
or indirect interest in whaling, W"ill ultua.tely parti.:ipate ···
actively in the great tasks of fostering and developing this ·.
common resource. · · ···
8. As I tur~ this meeting over to you I do so with
no question as to its outcome. This problem o~ whale
conservation and development is not new to you - ma.nr of
you are authors of this program, most of you have wor~ed.
closely together for many ·years in striving toW"ard the
b-ast pos9:lble means for preservi:ng int;erna .tional whale
stocks, and all of' you are here vi th _simila~ purposes and
s!.milar aims.
9. May I ther. wish you great ·succe3s :ln the work
of this Conf_erence e.nd a pleasa.."l.t stay L'1.r..rash.!.ngton.
10. MR. KELLOGG(Temporary Chairman): Thank you',
Mr. Secretary. . .
11. !'Tow, I have the honor to introdu .;e l\1r.A. T. A.
Dobson, Chairman or the British Delegation.
12- t-'_qDOBSON(U.K.): Mr. Secretary of S~:ate,
members cf the Conf'erence, I feel very ~uch in your debt.
13. In the first place, I should like to express my
persona ·l thanks for the honor that you have conferred upon
me in inviti.ng ~e to respond ~o your addre3~ of W"elco=e.
14. Secondly, on behalf not onlj of the Brit~sh Delega-
~ion but also on behalf of all delegations, I wish t o say
r.ow much we have apprecia t ed the charming way in which you
have bid us welcome to this city.
15. Thirdly, from what I have seen already , I would
like to congratulate the fl~erica ntate D~par~=ent ~~d
ezpress ·our heartfelt tcsnk3 to 1t fo~ the magni fice~t
way in which it ha3 conduc ced t~is Conferen ce so far. Some
of the British ~elega~i on, a~d I ha7e nc doubt t hat ~~e
same applies to members of ot~er deleg~tio~s , a~e payi~g
our first visit to ~3e U~ited Scates. Cthe~s are fort~ate
enough to be f~i liar already wi th t~is city.
130 Annex 16
:•tinutes of Opening Session
rric/11
- 3 -
16. Through the kinclr:.ess of sc>11eof O'J.Z!'riends,
especially Dr. Kellogg and :-:r. ?lory, ve of the Eri tish
Delegation h~ve had tha advantage of seeing under the ~ost
ideal 0onditicns and ~~der the most id~al ~3atner c~nditions
this very beautiful city. To. ment:!.o n ·:;ut one example~ the .
very beautiful Lincoln Memorial, vhich ~pressed us immensely.
17. I can confess, however, to a certain amount of
sadness. I saw so many or"'the pictures vith which ·.;a have
been brought up in our United King~o~ in your National
Museum, Corcoran Gallery, and other~. I~ told tb~t in
the Folger Lil:·rary, which ! am going to see, tl:'..a.t there
are no less tb~ seventy-six volu=P.s of Sr~es~e~re, ¥hioh
represents more than half the n~ber knovn to exist.
Neverthelegs, it is noted that the:y a:::oevery ~~eautifully
housed, end I cannot imagine more beautif~ repository
for such a vork of treasure.
18. So, _I can assure you that r.~h ten time comes
at.the end of our labors tor us to leave Washington, ve
shall be very sorr-y to go. We have so far--I have been
here a veek already--had the most extraordinary sponta.!) .eous
kindness from everybody. We came here f ;,r tr.e firat tine
~ithout knowing how wa vo~ld be received, and I confess
that when the ta..-,::i!-..sntome that h~e collected old china
end old glass I felt very much at heme. ··
19. I notice in one o~ your guide book3 that we are
to go back better .~er:!.cans. I feel that ;.rhen -we leave
',.[as:Ungton ~=- at least shall go bac~ better, whatever our
nationality.
20 . One r.~or d'bout the Co.n.!'e:oence it· elf. I think
this is the fifth com.,erence that I perso!'...?..lly haveat
te-nded, ar.d for some of you I thir .. .. it is the oi.:cth. We
t-.ave, as ycu :r.ave said, a fairly complicated, but yet I
think a fairly clear-cut, problem before us. It is cne of
consolidation and codification, and I am confident enough to
think we shsll have no difficulty in re~ching complete
~~ni~ity by the end of our Conference. At all events, I
wo~ld like to assure you t~~t r.~ ef ~he British Deiegation
pledge to do our ~~most to ass~~~ in the achieveoent of that
end so tl:'.a.t the r.~cr~ :Lesource ;::;.e.ybe oaintained and an iJ:l
;::;.ensely important source of fcod supply coneerved for all
time for the benefit of both the ~reducer and the cor~umer
in all parts of ~he world. ·
21. ~=. Secretary of State, I thar~ you most cordially.
22. Mr. ~2~LCGG (Te~porar Chair~an): Tnenk you,
Mr. Do~son.
23. At this point in our proceedir.gs it is the ;ractice
to introcuce the ne~ters of the ir.divid~~ de:egat:cns, ~o
that we will all get s.c .a".n~ed at the start. \t:1en your nama
is called you vill plec?.:.e rise and ·,;e will go r.Lrour..d t.herc·::::~
ar..:! getthrough with t~'l iet;rcd,.!c tior.sfairly rapidly.
131132 Annex 17
17. “Minutes of the Second Session”, IWC/14 (20 November 1946) pp. 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13,
25-32
RESTRICT:::D
.rwc/l4
November 20,1946
MTNOTES OF THE SECOND SESSION
TI~m : Wednesday, November 20, ~946! 3:00 p.m.
PLACE: l-iaui.Con!'ere .nce R·oom
1. Ml'L KELLOGG (Temporary ChB.iri:lan): •will the Coni'er-
er..ce please come to ordc.r .. Fi.rst I -..ould 11ke ·to call your
~ttention to a correction in press relc~se 830, copy of
-..hich has been laid on each desk. On page 2, the second ·
l i.ne no-.. reads t. "You a.re nov ne-.. .•.". It should be, "You
~re not new .•. ' If you w111 make t~t correction, we w111
~11 be satisfied.
2. The second item is t~t you will observe place
c~rds for delegation oe1:1bers hB.Ye been placed on the table.
E<:.ct. delega.ti .on shculd f'eel free to re~c'.jus the ~rre.nge
~ent in accordance w1th the seating ~rr~~gement you desire.
Please a.lso in spea.king--ag~L l~t me repeat--state your
r..cme and your cO'.l.."ltry for the benefit of the reporters.
3. Another item to which your attention is directed
is Document rwC/9 .' er.titled "Conference I:ocumenta.tion" I and
pa.rticulcrly to i~s cttacnment~-Form 2--to be filled out
and delivered to the Documents Distribut1on Officer. It
is tho ·sn::all docl.ll:ler.tattached on the back--Form 2. I urge
t:J.at e.:lch delegatt-:m sees to it that Form 2 1s executed to
day end deposited with the. Documents Distribution Officer
in the Foyer. If' you will ·taka car;:. or that :natter we will
all appreciate 1t very much.
4 I have an apology to m.:lke. Introduction of' Captain
S~lvesen of' the United Kingdom Delegation wcs omitted this
morning, and 1f Captain Sa~vesenwi~l ~lease rise you -..111
see vho Captain Salvesen is. Thank you, Captain Sa~vesen.
1•17apologies.
5. I will now call on Color.el Guy ?owles, Chair~n
of tte Credentials Coomittee,for his inter1m report. Colo
nel ?owles.
15. COLOrlEL PCWT....ZS(Net; Zeal.:lnd) : !-!r. Chai.r:nan, the
Co~~ittee has the honor to report cs f ollows: The Co~it
~ee a ppointed by the Te~por~ry Chai.r~an of the Ir.te.rne.tional
·.:-:.~li Cogni'er~nce to er.~mine tt:.e credentials of i!:s parti
c i? e nts ~et o~ November 2C, 1946, a~ 12 no on at the Coni'er
ence Hea.do·.J.ar'ters. Tte Committee consisted or t be repr e sen
t~tic vs oi the re~ egatior. ofs ~ew Zeal a nd, Chai.rm~ n ,ile,
(32 pa ge s )
133Annex 17
Mi:1.utes of Seco~d Ses.sion RESTRICTED·..
IWC/14 ·.
- 3 -
. .
States of America. Nomination for Vice-Chairman of the
Coru:"'erenceI J:'r.Gabrielson, Member of the Delegation or ·
the Ur.ited States of America. I beg to move the adoption
or that report and its contents.
14. MR. lGLLOGG (Tecporary C hairms.n) : You b.ave heard . . .
the motion. Is there a second?
15. DELEGATEFROMNOWlAY: I second it;
16. MR. KELLOGG (Temporary Chairman) : Those in favor
say "Aye". (''Ayes")
..
17. MR. KELLOGG(Temporary Chairman): Contrary? The
report of the Nominations Committee is accepted and the
officers therein nominated are declared. elected in these
proceedings.
18. Delegation Proposals are now in order.
19. MR. DOBSON(U.K.):·· May.I address the Conference
on this.
20. z. . KELLOGG(Ch.!l.irm.e.n): Dr. Dobson of the United
Kingdom.
serv~tion Mto D~keON(and vtth thenehelp of the Conferencetent Iob '
would like to· get it off my chest. I ~efreined this .morn
ing from s~ying enythi:lg about the egende of the Conference
because what I am going to sugge3t does not materially inter
fere with the subject metter of the agenda. But, ~~. Cr~ir
~n, the British Delegation is very concerned at the possi
bility th<lt the convention which we ell ho;~e to a.chie'.te at
this Confe:oence ·wi:!.l be of sucl1 i:nportance that it n:ay not
attract the necessary ratification to Yhatever we settle
in :ttm e for dealing \lith the wi:aling season of I947-4A,
\olhich will be due· to start cbout December, 1947. The Pro
tocol of November ~945 dealt with tte whe!ing season which
is about to open, that is, 1946-47. It was, of .course, the
earnest desire of the British Goverr~ent, and I think of
the United States Government, and I am sure of the Nor•;e
gian Government, ~mong others, that \¥hen ~e met hers we
would not onlyle tcoverivthe positiononcluforeall cct~eentbut, whichhich
would at the s~me ti~e allow for a proced u~e which wculd
s~plify the question.of such things as rctiftcation,or at
e.ll events even eneble alterations to be ~ade without that
rather elaborate · procedure . Therefore, vith 5C~e regret,
I have now on ber~lf of the British Delegation to move a:1.
~~endzent which I feel is absolutely necessary if we are to
be quite Sure that We ere going to provide as a result Of
this Conference for the 1947-48 see.~on ~,hichctherv~se
ilOUl. be bft to the te:::de <~:ercies of the 1937 agrce:~r.ent
and its ezending protoco~s.
134 Annex 17
Hinut-3s of Second Session RESTRICTED
·NC/14-
- 4 -
22. iijow, gentlamen, I naed nol; inform you that th-3 .
whaling industry, espGcially of thos~ countries like Norway
end curs;lv~s, Holland and Scuth Africa, and especially th.;
first two, ar~ extr~m~ly impor~ant industriGs in which an
enormous amount of money is sur~ ar-d th~y are producing very
vital commodit13s, oil among o~her 1;~ngs. ThG whalir.g
industries have to make elaborate arrangem~nts for the con- ·
duct of their expeditions in any given ysar. Th-=y have, r·or.
example, to make contracts for the employm~nt of their crews
and thoir catchers, and it is imp ssible for the whaling ·
industry of any country to go on r~lying on a conv~ntion which ·
they may S<3;3U..."lra.ti:'ied., as, st'rictly spae.king, they don't
k~ow that is going to be bi~ding until it is rat~i3d. r
say ~e must look after the whaling industri=s in this respect.
As I say, I feel doubtful whether th<3·convention which we hope
will -=merge quickly from this conference will be effectivo; .
in vi::w of the experience we have had in the pasi:, in time '
for th~ 1947-48 season. I would, therefore, strongly press
on behnli' of tha British D3L~gat1o tnat •..;e should, as the· ·
first it~m on the agenda address ours~ves to a short pro
tocol, which need not be more than t•..ro provisions, the e.ffact
.. of which will ba to deal with the 1947-48 s~ason as a separate ·
'• entity and apply to that s~asc the cond;Ltior.s of 191.1.6-47 as :
1 s~t out in tha protocol t:b..a.~merg~d from the 1945 wr..aling
.coru~arence. Gentlemen, ths.t is my first proposal. I reC.liz~,
iof course, tha question as -co whether the 1946-47 provis1or...s
'should precisely apply is a mat :;er of discussion. I woul.d ·. ·
lik~ to-se.y har(; that the advantage of' transferring th-= pro
visions of the 1945 protocol so as to apply it in its 3nt;Lrety
to 1947-48 obviously has a. grJat deal to r3ccmm3nd it. · ·.
23. Well, new, Mr. Chairman, if I a.m able to. ·c::arry .
my colleagues in this Conf~re~c~ in that proposal, I would
suggest th3.t '.t'apply ourselves to the r-=st of th.3 agenda
in two sections. i.Je a::-e .co=.sidcring a draft convention
covering a long-distanc-3 policy. That convent·:..on, as I see
it, should be dealt with in two separate halves. The first
half, ·.rlch I thir..k is most important, is that we should d.)
cid~ what wa are going to put in by way of restrictions. Tr..a.t .
is ·..rhat I call, in !'act, the -::odificat:ton of all the..t is good. ·:
in tha 1937 a.nd subsaquar.t proto-::ols. ·
21.1.. I said this mor~ingtr~t I am sa.ngui.nu ~ncugh to
thir-k t.l:"...ore •.rbal suff' ic:!..;nt gi· ;,a and taka to er •.::..bl.; us
to arriV·3 qu.i.t-3 r..a.ppily at '\That is th .:; best Of those .SO that
""~ ~Y ;ut them into th0 new convention as codifi-::ation.
25. Having dealt w:l.th tr.at, ··~ then ha·1e to d.aa ~ ith .
the s-econd pa.r· to~ the ;::.:•• conv_;ntion. Tr..a.t is th:; qu3stion.
of th;; settin3 up of a cc;::mission so that wa n:.ay Jr:d'3avor i_.:l
th.) :~utura to d·:::al •..rita:-..yam.:r:dl:l~ tots th.:: !!lainconv.3n_
tion in a man.n. 3h~ich 'lill b~ ax~editiou snd ~ossibly avoid
th·= pr:as-~ rnett, h~~dr~:f~i:: ;:r:o~Cl~td:oJ f .ra cti~:Lcaticn.
26. Now that !s t~aord~r, Mr. Chai~n:. ien w,hich I
suggast '.t".shcul.d. prcc<J;ed. First, t::S.t 'W.3should ~:q:;p:!.y
~urs-3lve ts ;.:J:-.'.1::! er~ goi::.g to do !"cr th.3 1947-l.i.<:l s2eson;
T:...is, I ~ully r-~ali.z ;.ust r.:1~ aa n;;pa:-at-J but v;;.~ s:'1or-c··.
p~otccol which can be r~~idly subm tt:::d t o th.3 gov~r•~~nts
135Annex 17
lli!r:: 2£! 'ec~ond Session
- 5 -
cr >1cerned, a:1d, I tope, :-etified. I realize your pe:oti
c·1l.c.r d1ffic'll ties in the United Ste tes. Secondly, '.Te
s .::mld address ours elves to the long-distance convention,
b~t divide it into t~o heeds . On1 ~auld be the main part
c f the conver..tion, w-hich will1ee. :·. .,.ith~c·o.:J.iftc and tion
I egulations. '!wo, ~o.·h I ith11k :;hould come at the end of
1 h.e. convention, wot:ld be the m.!.tt.Jr of setting up a whalL:lg
c;Cmmission. I will say no more e.l•out how that should be ·
:;et up. I st-ell t:.a:Te a little to say on that, but I now
• 1e.r..only to put be fore the Cczferen=e L"l the shortest n:a.n
.lor what I th!.nk tc ·~e, or rather, \'hat the British Del.e
gation wishe! t;Q pl.t for•..to.rC. as,t .1e; most eff'ective ;:;:eans
of getting tc~oug ~ this Conf'e~enc se~eedily.
27. Mr. Chairran, one oth3r f~~~l word which you will
perhaps forgive me for mention·.ng no.1. I should:n't wish to
emphasize it so ee:•ly at this l!onfer~nce, which many of us
came a long di~ten!e to attend but ! do knov tnat ~~e of'
my collea.gues 1.n tc.e other del· :gat ions are, or certainly .
may be, af'fected in the same · 'lll.-;rwe find it extremely
dif'f'icult to obta1n passages bl ,ck to Europe, because there
are only a limiten n~ber of Pltssages available, end I was
hoping that all t .1e metr.bers of' the Conf'erence would vie
with each other t~ address ourJelves to this problem with
the utmost exned1tion ~o t~~t lf ttere is a chance for a
sudden passage bt.clc to Europe, ~• e:ey take it. I :z;.ean, it
isn't a question of vatting a i.c.y or two; i .f,for e;caople,
we miss a pas~ag3 en the seconi OT Deceober, we might tave
to vcit another 14 or 15 days. That mea.ns we oigh~ not be
able to get home before Cr~istmes. I admit this is a
rath.er domestic metter, but I thought it well to mention the
thought. :i:t wot.ld be a greet pity if ;;e found on the fourt-h
of Decen:ber tha ·. we mig':lt tulve finished on the second and
somebody ~~.s ·1:nsed a 1 ~- or 15-d.Cly delay.
28. ~ffi .L)RY (U.S.) Once again, I believe that the
British and the Americans are in co~plete agreement in sub
stance, and, possibly, have ot .ly some disagreecent in terms
1
of form and procedure. On 11!'. Dobson s first point, I be
lieve tha.t we· would agr~e cooi letely that the continuity of
regulations is most des~reble, tr~t we should make every
eff:;,rt to essure t~.a ·.tte reg,; lations on an interim basis
should coincide fully end cc~;letely ¥ith the entry into
effect of any kind of long-teim arrcngement that we may
resch at this Conf'erence.
29. Eovever, I would like to make several observations
on tr..at point. Inasmuch as it ·..-as our intent'!.on in d:'afting
the proposals that there shouJd oe this continuity of regu
la.ticns, we tried to provide ~ mec~.a.nis wrhereby the pro
posed agreement, '!.fagreeable to the Ccnference, would
cooe into effect with tte lca~t possible trouble.
30. ·,;e were us'!.::.g es OQ!' guide the Al:lerica:J. proced·-1re
for ratiftcation which we thot~ht was possibly t he ~est co~
plics.ted cf all rati~ication I :-ocedures. Cn tr.a.t, i.-e ~Y
have been i::. error.
136 Annex 17
M~nutes of Second Session ·RESTRICTED
IWC/14 .
- 8 -
the 1938 ~greement ,nd the propos~l of my Delegation's
suggestion is as foll ows:
56. The Chilean Delegat!. on proposes tb..a.t the wording .
of p~ragraph IX of the schedule of the United States pro
posals be a.mend:d --l ine B7, page 20 --by the addition
of the VO!"d "ba:.een" after tho word "treating to~ con£orm.
to the 1937 agr e£m.ent A~rticle VIII, as amended by the 1938 ·
~greement,A .rti~le VI.
57. MR. lGLLOGG(Cha ir!!!a.n) : Tr..an.k you,Mz'.Edwa:-ds.
Would you be a~,reeab o elet · that go until we g~t to that
part 1cular 1tei1~ ·
58. MR. EDWARDS(Chile): Cer~inl. y
59. MR. ·.<ELLOGG(Chairman): We can take it later .and
1n order. I=. the meantime the propose.l wil l be in the
hands of our Technical Secretary.
Gentlemen: M.RAf~er DIreceivingrlathe)invi~atian..Ctoir~ttendanthe
Internatiocal Conference f or ·the Regulation of ,rlr.aling,
on which oc;cc.sion a simplifice tion of the Regulations
already pr·.Jposed at seve: ·c.l inter!'l ationameetings was to
be discussed, the Nethe rland Goverr~ent felt ~~1ous to
accept.
61. Whali~~ is of ?cracount i~por~anc te ~~ind;
tho :uJ.ny products which can be extracted from whales are of
course so well-known t o.you that it cay be consi dered
superfluous f or ne to enter into details with regard to
th i s subject. However, I especially want to draW' your
a.t~enti~ tn the fact that the world fat s~tuai ton is
largely dependent on successful wr~l ing. O~e of the
thtngs that is of the utmost conc~rn to many gover~ents
is the world fct situation.
62. Before the recent war, undernourishment ·existed
in meny parts of the world; that is t9 say, t he diets
consumed there were much belov the standard required for
good health. under t he present ci "('Cumste.nceI t he people.':!1
conc ern with everyd~Y. fe ed probleds has bec ome more
in~ans. a Not only in those countries ~here faci~e prevailed
before the war ,but also in countries vhich for~erly vera con
sidered to have high nut riti on standards.
63. ~he scarcity of f ood ~ust primarily be asc ribed
to the fact that the production of ~a~ybas~c foodstuffs
did r.ot keep pace vith the need s. Moreo ver , inter~etional
relations r2d not suffic:ently developed -- a ~act ~h1~h
caus ed ~ scarcity cf f orei gn curre ncy; so tr~t it was
~possit~e ~cr tne peo~le t o purchase the foodstuffs they
could not possibly dispc~se ~ith.
137Annex 17
Minutes of Second Meeti::.g P.ESTRICTED .
nr~.
- 9 -
6~. It would ap~ea o the Netherland Government
that all regulations with regard to wr~ling r~ve ·to be
discussed also in the light of the present world food
siguation.
65. If '<~ review the world food situation, the .
shortages of fats are found to be most alarmL-.g. Thes ·e
shortages can, to a considerable extent, be eliminated
through proper wr~ling w,hich ~plies that adequate con
sideration should be given to the conservation of a cer-
tain stock of wt:e.las so as to preV<;;!:.t the fat situation from -
becoming serious again in the fUture.
66. The Netherland Government, therefore, -;l.svery
·happy :ii:):deed tha.t e. Dutch. shipping company .r~s suc
ceeded in obtaining a ship. In taking .these and many
other measures, the-Netherlands have cooperated in mutual .
understanding and .are indeed p~epared to do so in the
future.
67. The Netherlands, however w ere highly astonished
at learning that one of the countries which plays en impor
tant part in · whaling, and which also has signed the Inter
national Agreement for the Regulation cf '..fhales, a country
which is, just e.s the Netherlands themselves, a full part
ner vith~ the framework of this agreement, has thought
fit to issue -a Royal Decree which forbids nationals and
establisr~ents of ~hat country from cooperating in enter
prises of coum::ries •.thich, before September, 1939, b..s.ve
not participilted in whnling.
68. Apart from the moral consequences of this Royal
~ecree--which need not be judged by us--it seems that this
Decree provides ~easures, which are almost ~~acceptable,
against a member country and •.thich, · to ::nake things worse,.
is on friendly terms with the country concerned.
69. The ifetherla.nd Goverr..ment highl:t dep ~ les this
Decree issued by a friendly nation, and it must be said
tr..tJ.t ialmost seems a hendicap to t:he promo·tion of
proper inter~~tionel cooperation in the field of wr~li~.
In spite of this, the Netherland Gover~ent is prepared
to coopere te, but 1 t iS 9f : the opini on that t he e:tis
tence of this ~ather unfortunate regul~tion ought to be
brought to the notice of the Conference.
70. It should once more be emphasized that the
!Tetherle.nd Gover~...r ir.eagntr to solve the technical
e~d economic proble~3 that are associated with wheling;
but, on the other hand, it would be appreciated if, once
cer·~c.i n"egula tions t:ave been agreed upcn, one -;,f the sig
;-~tor -ycountries shculd not take any measure ·..;hich :night
~eke it i~pcsssi~le for anot her of the other signatcr:r
countries to ad here to the I:lternaticn!l.l Regulations.
71. ~1r. C~...air: nepn:cpose t~at tl:erc be added to .
the agen~ e p:-oposel ttat the Conference agrees that ncne
138 Annex 17
:ci!..r..utor Second i.Yeeti.r..g RESTRICTED
rtlC/14
- 10 -
of the signatory countries be allowed to take any measure
that might work against one of the other sigr~tory coun
tries.
72. Mr. Cr..air!::An,I sincerely hope that this Confer-
ence may lead to fruitful results, assuri~~ you at the same
time tb~t the Netherlands Delegation vill do its utmost to
achieve the ~ost satisf'actory agreement . possible. - ·
73. . !viR.KELLOGG(Chair:ilan): Th~ iou, Dr. Van Dijk. · :_
74. This proposal is not on the agenda. Does the
Conference vis~ tc place the matter on the age.r..da?
75. (No response)
76. MR. ~OGG (C~~irman): I should state at this
tioe that the United States Delegation does not consider
this subject particularly appropriate for consideration
~t a conservation conference. Nevertheless, a proposal
r~s been made, and ve should ·decide wr~t to do with it.
Suppose I just start the ~ound with the delegations now
and ask whether or .r..ot they wis .h. toplsce it on t:he agenda • .
Ti"'~ 1 s according to our ·::-esol'.ltion · on procedure. l>.rgen- ·.
tina, is there any objection?
77. ARGENTINE DELEGAT2: No objection.
78. M."ltKELLOGG (Chairman): Australia?
79. AUSTRALIAN DELEGATE: '..te -,:-auld like f'or '!t.. to
be placed on the agenda.
80. MR. KELLOGG (Chairman): Canada?
. 81. CAliADIAN DFT:FGATE: No objection •
.
82 . MR. KELLOGG(Chair!IlB.n) : Chile?
83. Cr~~~ DELEGA~E: No objection.
8ll. ~1.R KELLOGG (Cb..airrnan): Denmark?
35. D).JUSH DELEGATE: !'Toobjection.
26. :r~, KEL-qO.GG( Ch~'!..rm .anh): Netherlands r~ve
already ~de their proposal.
87. New Zealand?
88. NEW ZEAL.;nn· :CFirGA'I'E: !To objection.
29 . V=.t.!GLLOGG (Chairman ) : Ncr-..·ay?
90. NOR~·lEGI AC:ET....ZGATEN: o objection.
91. ~'" 'Z"LL· GG (Chai.r!:.an): Portu.g<:l.l?
139Annex 17
!v!i11.utesof Second ~~ RESTRIST~
.Th'C/14
- 13 -
133. MR. K3LLOG<'( ~~irman : ) In ·the past, it hes been
customary for the Cc~.ttee to elec~ its ovn Cheirman, and tm
the Provis1ona! Rul(s <.f ?.•ocedure, Article 13, states:
"Each con:mittee sha: 1 ci~: natei~its ovn chairme.n. The
Secretary Gene:-e.l st.allf11nish a secreta::-y for ee.ch
cotr.mittee . " .
134. Were there any o~l:p ~ropos~ls.
135. As I stated this ·~~1r.ing, tt~ Secretary assigned
t~ a COII:!Ilittee villact as t·'l.r~eport.~r Sucb. Secretary
....-ill consul·.r!.th the Chair·m.:.:. and thtt Members before
the report is !"!..endedto th&~'t-:;mical Secret.:l!"Y fordup
lication .
136. May ve nov take up, te ~ave t·~e--i~ ts getting on
.tovard four--the Onited Stat~s ~~opo~a:s and go through
them provisionally to expedite t.l vork or tb.e Conference.
137. The Pree.mble, as is c· tst~l'e.ry, .explains t he pur-
poses and the objectives of t~ ·Cc~ven~i~ .n It is intended
to serve as a guide to tb.e Cot!~:ss ·.on in perfo rl:li.'lg it s
functions. The Preamble also I Oint s out specifically and
primarily that the.pur:pose Of tb.i· sConven~ion is to develop
a sound conservation program wtich will ~intain an ade
quate and healthy breeding stock .. 3y restoring depleted
stocks, as, for instance, the 1:lue ·'rha.le a:1~he hU!llp
backed whale., and by vise me.::1.rc.e; of the existing
stccks a ~Lmum sust~in. eydetli of this naturcl resource
can be assu=-ed . That, in a re·.; •.rorc.s, isthe general i!l
tent of the Preattble.
138. Are there any ob3ervatLons?
139 . MR. FLORY {O.S.) : In ~·..uosu ! !ntce l:latt eat
Mr. Dobson raised earlier, I ta~e it t hat it is the gene
r~l understanding of this Conf~rence that as ve go through
the American proposals we are con s~derir~ substance and
intent only and not the fo·r!ll.The f nm then ce.n be dec ided
upon later and would be a subjtct of discu ssion in the
drafting committee. Are we agreed tiat the Preamble is a
statement of tho principles and the Jbjectives of our con
servation progr~, but does not nece 3s~ril yepresent the
terms, in form, of ar.y agree~en the~ we =ay arrive atJ
140. (A long pause er..sued.)
1~1. MR. KELLOGG(Chairman): I ;uggest that anyone
vho vc.nts rccogntttcn will please ral~e his r~r.d. Maybe
that will ex;>edite thi:J.gs,pa~ti:ula~:y if you have any
potr.ts you wish to raise . {?euse)
142. If there ts no objection, s ~ll ~e adopt the
P~ea:nbl e>rcv!.s'!.ona.lar.d go on to ·:he ::ext item.
143. Article I. E..ooccet ~o ri:J.e ,, 45, 46the ·.;o!"d!.ngof
section (1) of Article I o;,t~is Ccn··enti on is teken from
A~t!.cl eI of' t;,.e1937 eg::-ee::ent. I·: provides t ."e.t the
140 Annex 17
l'i::.ut e s of Second Session _ _ RESTRICTED
25
r,rc;l4
.~ticle II I ? But, bef ore we proceed vith .~ticle III, I
U.'":.C.t;rsta.Ch~t A.;tel Kenr:ter of S'lleden has nov joined the
Coru~renc e.."la:..rsc, vould he please r!.se. (••!r.Hem!!!e..rrose.)
226. h~. K~IT.O (CGhairman ): Article III, lines 92 to
113. Art icle III is ne'll to these whal ir.g agreements but
~s s~~il~r to provisions in recent international fisheries
agreements and proposels. Tne ·.commission is to have res
ponsibility f or planning ~nd rec ommending research on
vhales and w~ling but not f or undertaking field or labora
tory in ve stiga tio n. It is believed tr~t this vill provide
coordination of reseerch progrl:'.ms end investigation in
fields net adequately covered, minimize duplication of
fun=tions, end avoid the establisr~ent of separete end du?
licatir~ research fac ilities by the Co~ission. The Comm is
sion has direct ~esponsibili~ for receiving end a~lyzi~
statistical end biological i~~or~tion and for the publica
tion of materials relating to whales end vhaling. ·
2~7. It 13 recognized thet t·he Commission vtil, in so
i"ar e.s possible, avoid eny dupl .ication of functions with
governcents of other agencie~ anc bodies.
228. :-lR. DOESON (U .K. ) Mr. Che.ir:!!en,:r.cyI say c 'lo l rd
on tb~t. I would t hr ow out a 'llarning at the openir~~ords,
"The Cot:'.mission sb..ell plan c.nd recol!l::lend". This is a very
wide power. They m!!.Yrec ·cn:mend, but .I would onl.y just men
tion th.c.t if you t~ke .t he example of 'the International
Co~~cil of the Exploration of the Sees, vhich covers ~·grset
~ny Euro~ee~ r.eti ons , but s~ply coordi~etes. I thi~~
coo rdincte is ·e better word. This Commission ~ight possi
bly run tvo indivtduel org~niz~tc ins 'llho are already plan
r.ir~. It is a drafting point, but I ~ent~on it nov without.
any idea of raising discussion on it. ·
229. The same applies to statistics which ere alreadT
covered not only by previous agree ments but ers covered by
en Act of Parliament so fer es we are conce rned. I think
t he Act puts the obligation of collecting statistics on
the I~tarr.ation ~ulrseu.
230. HR. KELLOGG (Chai rman ): :l·r.Flory.
231. :-.m. FLORY (U .S.): I believe the connotation of
the word "reco:nmend" "OC£.h!ve :;cme·,.rtct str o!"'.ge~eani ng
in the Unite d King dom th.c.n it does i n ~te United States.
The ieee behind the draft here wc.s that you ·.rould ha•re
some kin d of body t o keep in tcuch ?it h res ea rch develop
r..ents throug hout the ·.orld end oc.ke obs er vc.ti ons concer n
ir.g the areas that mcy not be given sufficient .c.ttenti on
end =all that to the s~ec ificatte~tio4 of certcin govern
~ents suggesting for the b~oc.cen cfinsope of the~r
inv est igc.tion s, et ceter a.
232. 1·1R. DCESON (U .X . ): It would be like the Intern e.-
tior.el Coul"!cil.
233 . !·!R.K:::LLCGG (CCa.i.::-::-.e.)l":'. Tt.c.!'~r.yo?:o.::-y.
~ie:- there c.r.y ether co:::.:ets on t his Article?
141Annex 17
Hinutes Q!. Second Sessi on RESTRICT:sD
rtlC/14
- 26 -
234. ~1R . ELLOGG (Ct.e.ir~a Dnr):Ve.n D1.jk.
235. M... ~ ANDIJX (i-Tetherl:.n ds): Mr. Che.1.rrt.e.n,l':Ave
several thoughts, but I do not ..think the.t it is necessary
or efficient to call tr..m to your e.tte .ntion just now. l1ay
we c.gree on something? Perr.aps it is necessary t"o call .for
co~ent. Otherwise, I really cannot see what we have to do
then .
sionc.l discus sionOGisChto rc.ise .any ~ttersrposof substantiveprovi~
ch.enge s vhtch ·ve may 'lish to consider tn the interim before
we co~e up to any definitive decision s. Tr~t is the purpose
of this prel1m1 nc.ry discussion.
237. Professor Bergersen.
238. MR. EERGERSEN(Norvc.y): l1r. Chc.irme.n, I think
th~t is vhat the Drafting Committee has to con sid er . I do
not think it is necessary to go into detail.
239. l.ffiKELLOGG(Chc.trmo.n) : Thc.nk you, Professor
Bergerson.
240. Dr. Vc.n Dijk.
241. HR. VANDIJK (Neth.e rle.n.ds ): l1r. Chc.ir!llc.n, ;;hc.t you
~ant nov to discuss.tn pri~ciple is the necessity ~hat
there should be estc.blished c.commission. As I ~~ve seen
here the commis si on will hc.ve all the powers. Let me say
until this morning a proposc.l the International 'tlhE.li!lg
Corderence hc.s these powers. Nov, I cannot see vhy ve
should set up just a co~~ission. Do you, in other words,
~·rc. tnt '..!r..al1ng Conferenceto consider it? Then I quite
agree, but. this commission only provides i~ having one
delegate f~om each country in its co~ission . I heard this
morning from Dr. Flory that also other observers of the
vc.rious countr1.es who have one delegate as r epresentative
in the co~1ssion can attend the meetings of this commission .
242 . Thc.t is, l·1r.Ci"'..ei:-::'"hYI should be very much
obliged if ycu could explc.in to ~c ~hy you have come to
t he idee just of a co~iss~on~stead of a Conference.
243. MR. ~CGG (Ch~irm: an Dr. Flory .
24!:.. !..YR.FLORY (U. S.): One of t he pr1nc1.pal reasons
for the idee. cf e co~~i3s oin wc.s ttet ve wo~ld thereby get
the regulation on c. per~enent ~nd ~out~nuing b~sis with
ree.cily est~blisted ~~chinery v~ercby c.ny proposc.ls could
be l!:~d be ar:.y of tts gc•,erl'.Jr.ents ~-:1 t7::.e,•..rreby the
co>.~issio wnould keep ~br&~st of ell the biologic~l ~nd
technical infor~~tionthe.~ ~cy be current . I~ other ~crds,
so ~r.~t some contin~i~g crgc.r.ization c~n keep ~ finger on
the pulse o~ vt~ling and wculd be prcp~red to step in at
ar.y ti;:-,e t o tc.t:e ·officicog:: iz ance of any :::ec.sures •.;hich
~1 be ::eecs3~ry in order to assure e. s~oothru:~ingre~ula~
ticn !cr t~a purposes vhich heve been .set forth in the Prec.ctle .
142 Annex 17
Minu~es of Seco~d Session RESTRICTED
I1riC?l1r
- 27 -
245. As it stands now, each individual government, more
or less ~ithout organization, is responsible for bringing
tc the atter.tion of the other goverr.,.,.,er:.ts any questions
that ~ay arise and necessitating this kind of full and
formal, I will call it, Diplomatic Conference.
2~6. Essentially, I think, we are agreed in terms on the
principles and objectives of whaling conservation, and cor:.
sequently the ~uestions of detailed regulations are more
or less a tec~~ical question which =ight very well be handled
by a less for~al gathcrir~ than we have here today.
247. The provision in the Ar-erican draft for one me~ber
was r:.ot at all dictated by the idea that there is only one
good man on whaling from each government, but rather that
you would have one formal representative from each . government
who will be, on a cor.tinuing basis, responsible for keepir~
currer.t all whaling de~, etcetera, and the cor:.servation
needs. At any meeting of the co~ission it would be under
stood that such member would be entitled to bring any tech
nical representatives alor:.g witt him th~t he may feel neces
sary in order to perform his job.
248. Really, the idea. behind the est~bl!.sr.r ·Jfea.tcom-
mission •.'as to facilitate the regulation of '.'haling and to pt.:t
it on a permaner.t basis wit~out the necessity~ goi~g through
,t·:ast.- ·~atic. for~al or-ced·restr~t we have had i~ the
249. HR. KELLOGG ( ha ir~~: an)l·lr.':'henson.
25 0 . HR. THO:•ISON (U.K.): If I unC.erste.z-.d the ft_lnerice.n
proposals correctly I think there is e.not her aC.vantage in the
C:):::0.1:ission •1hicpossibly Dr. Flory has not entirely cleared
1..:and that is that by setting up a co::-nissioc. instead of a
conference you ce.n ~ake certai~a.lter~tion sf a nincr chara~
ter i~ the whaling agreeme~ts and regulations which would
~ot have to go through a~l the for~al~tJ of ratification,
which at present is an action which has delayed a good deal
of the wr~ling regulation.
251. I c!.o not know '.'tethe r I a::: co::-::-ein this, o;.:t that,
I ~nc.!.rstood -....es atr.e ba~!.s o:' tt.e ~--:::z.r prcpo:ll, e.::cil:
'2.s certc.:.i11l'in fr ont of ;J.S'.-lhen we~t.: fO!''_.,e.c.cscl:lei,.·hat
similEr s~gg~s otniin 19~5. It wculd- ~e cethcd 0f speeding
•..:.par-swell a.ncr"C.7.ents .hic h :7!ight cc~e up e.s becor::e neces
.sary after ~.;halin ssasons.
252. .:~ C::LLOGG (Ch e.ir::-,a.z-.)You .:.re q~ite ri gh t, Hr.
Ticcsor:.. ~he! wcz b~hind our propcse.ls.
253. 1-l.R~/._:D,I:i:C (:::3t.tc-:::-l:..:I c:..:-. seew·::.:.:·~=.
7hc:::son ~ells ~s, but then I c:..n::ot u::c!.s::-sta::d ::cv anGov
~~~~e~t c~~ ~:ce~t ttat u cc~~iss~c~ccul~ ~~ke alte~~~ic~s
~~ich conflict ~it h the ~~inci~: efsthe Conve~ticn I .
3::.c·_;,o~l:r :i. k0to see .2.:ex':Cl..ltiv cc~ ...!si:-r:,0 ;.:!-:E.t.~ver
y0u c~ll it, t~:..c t~n only h~~e ~er ain po~crs in ~e erea
=n ~inor poin:s, s~~h as ~~e e~:ens on of the ~~e: ::g seescn
143Annex 17
Hinut:=s 2£ ~end Session n:SSTRICTED
r.vc/14
- 28 -
o:- other quese.i.ons ·Jy tbis co::-..:::1ission.
The no•,•er of the
CO!:".l:lission geess:. fr~r tt-..c.t I thinkit ~ill conflict also
~ith the pri~ciple ~f the Cc~venticns ~nd thew r~tifica
tion by the ·;arioa s ~o·-re::.. i,I: i'.rmy opinion, 11r.
Chair~~n ,ecessary.
254. Y!.. KELLOCJ (Ci1~ r.i1r:n Th.1nk you, Dr. Ven Dijl<.
255. Dr. Ge.bri<:.son.
256. DR. GABR!J:LSOH (U.S.): I ::lierhtclear u:;::>son:e po ints
in this 'oecause tll£ United States G'Overrunent is on e of' the
goverl'!ments that hLs eng.~ged in this kind of commission in
prier ye:~.rs. He hts e t"~< toe :J.ties, fishery treatte.!.l,that
do ex -'lctlwhet w1, ere proposing to do in this agreement.
Tha International ?isheries Cm:r.missi ~, which you have all
~ear~ of, is con~J3ed of ~em'oer aspointed by the Governnents
cf the two countl ~es signetories to th~t Convention, and t he
men from the two 1ountries actually draf't t 'ne changes in
the regulati ons ; d. by e.gre:emont prod•.!ce such changes in
tte regul~ti~ns ·~-are deened necessa ry from e biological
basis.
257. The cnl y f •.1rther~ction t=:at i s needed to r.:ake the
reg ·.:.l:.ticneffe::·.tve is sigr.~.tu by e:he ?reside nt of the
~nitedSt~t~s ez,i of t he Gove rnor Gene r~l, I belie ve, of'
C:cr:~d£. I do n·.·t re:cell.:. single '1.::1ste."'-ce1.:1 ;;heither one
of them ha•:e re f1.:::ed tosigr: ti1e egreer::!er:tst !ta ·,;eremade by
the C.eleg!ltes ~J:-_::)inte td ti'lisCcr.:.>::sis ion .
258. After al~, the QUestions that they are deciding in
thes e cc::..-r.issio:ere no·,r far ve can go 1.!teking :'ish fro;:1
th:s s~ock wt.thout depleting stock e.r.d~h~t ve ~us~ do fur
ther to build it u~ if ~re seEJ signs o!' depl<:tior.. ':'he o:r..ly
differ~r.ce I,thi~, between tte esser:cc of this proposel
and that or.e, which has ce:rtcinly ;;orked •;ery successfully
for the two countries thet are concerned, is th~t in case
o~ ~te Internatio~a lishert.es Cc~ission t.t hc.s its o~~
investig.:.tivc ~taf~.
259. It hcs been th~ feeling of tr.e-~e~icans who were
cc<c-er~ed in the work of that Co~iss:o:1 tt~t we were S3ttin&
es far as the Un~tcd States wcs concerned at :eas t, ~retty
f~r i:r..to thefic~d of s~t~ing up t oo ~e.ny rElSEl~ro chg~r.iza-·
ticns, so that in drc.fting t =:is;:::'op . .,,-etried to se! ·e
!!:'...:.tre.g£>..inst thesetting up of c.r:ct:o :.g~rnizc.ti: !:o-!1
~-!~:c1~.--w-8uld .~v~ to ~eques~c.;pr~prie~ic :or:s~esea.rch
·..·.c:-·,.rtried to craft -:tis :::ro:Josc.i:J.s•..:ca w.:.y :!S to
le~ ve the ~~~ryi~ c ~ 0f ~es ea;c~ to the exi~ti~ c~san1ze
ti~r:~ :~ t:J ~r:: ~aew resa=..~ g!=C:.Pth~t c.r:gove~ .:.-t~c~~eC.
t~ £;c~so~ ~~ ~~y ;~~~o~ the ~t~li~~ind~st~y.~tile ttecrc
tic~~l :ri~ -:.:-,~·e ~~::' -:C.t.:.:--_C.e:'standho;e;·:0::-~-- t::-c:t-.
~c:os~~e tC:!.sa~tt)ri yt, : c~~~s3~ re you it wor ks very well
"!..:·:c-::.ce .
-~.. :::u..L.:·(:t(li!") ':~.~!l=::! ,'u.k,Lr. G=..brielson.
144 Annex 17
I:i~~tesf §eccndSession RESTRICTED
Th'G/H
- 29 -
261. Are there~~?othec r~r.E.e o~ttis Art~cle I.
.!t,let us ::ons::..:..rtiI-V.Article IVis a neY
p:-ov:.sioSect:.on1give::: t:'le Coll:L...poYernto a.11end
the~·r:gulat: ~md.io::::..r:ilt..r tin Internati'Jnal
Fishe:'iesAgreencnt. Sect::..cr. 2 forththe C:'iter:to
be use:by theCc;:;-s.n ~.nforr:~.lla~t::..ng.dmeT!.i.is
a guide to the Corrx:isswten .:'rt:...'T.ir.gc.::1encL"llents to existing
..6._Q.,._...,~...:...:.:.•- ·~..;~.".....Cri;.;~.,.:..J
~t.:ltr. stst~:'lct~ct t~~o·ojecti·iseccnser7a.->and
de~,nJ:!.o o~:.ee!whal~l!fishc~:.as .r:~cri.ab., the.t
gecgrap~ical ~:dothersc::..crc e:v.:Lccnce shbe the
primo.rycr:.te~i ~-::..te()i~~hat the rcgulacic.nshall
n.ot restrict::-.c n·,u:n·oer c.ad rlof factorieor land
st<ltior.sCr.!.tcr (), t::: or..cl.,..:.sions on theecl
b<1sis of' gecgra.phc.nd sci cnt .infor:r..:.alonen:.ust
be developedbJ a ro~crenc3to ccte~porc.rworld roqu.!.rc
:nentsforfc.ts.:C.o::.C...todthe:!..:r.prc..ctL:forli':y
r·egulc.tictnat r;rop o!:e·'tcurt.:..!.Jof produci on,
The UnitedStates G0vr~~cnt ~astaken ~hepcsi~!c. nat such
all occ.tiis no~ in t::i~~c~e3to~ ~ree~~d cc~petit::..ve
ente r prio..nd i:.s n·::~ce::::ts:teryccnser •:c.ofon
>rh.:.lir~ourccs. s~c-:io;r•l!.r.133 to154, :?rovi.dthat
.:.ne:J.d.l::thetreO'..:.:c.t::..on·r;theCo:lr.:!.sarento
be bi.:".d.:!.ng C01:trc.c t0·;c::o;-.JUtct~St C.n;,;gover::
:;:e:ra.C.e:lj,!t::.~}:.c..:~\3::5:_.:n=.es.pl1 toit. 1..f'
t:::rre i~ch C.ccl c.rc.-o'":::3•;:r:~a~~sre gi"erthe o;
~c~t~~~ty~c ~~~es~=.il~ C3cl~ctio~s. ~owevr all sch Cec
lc.~"c.. ~uion~e mcde be:'ort::c.:.'=:..:Jn.ti~:oeffect.
25:2, I'~0t\1 gene~r.:zter:t :"::""'l'.!"-J. -.r.egt:-
:!..:. be bind!.:v:l. 2.:1y ":l.e.-:L': ito'.:t:e consent '?
Sect i o4s tetc s th:1.2~:.~cr.t~..:e.be e ffe c'ti ;·.e Cefc:'e
S··.l~0 1043 W"'ltl1.Yras~r:.!.f:1.c.\l.il~-cc~'..tse
"r:')~"'~.~r,.,+-,-~4;:":7~.-•,c-. e:e;lsh.JJtOe~!t'lG~
·-.J~---..._ .....- ·;7..,.......,.---.."··-' -· ..-
c~:eo~ ~~ tho l9~5protoccl. ~hat wcrdi.n~s onlyo. =atter
oz.dr~fti::g.
263. !·3.JOESOITU.:C.: .:.C:~1::.r~IJC!7.'·3-.to.t
~:=.~t·..;o cots-ontr..swr.-:::3-~"'lelp ot~c!"dclc:g:::es.
I c.rr..c~t:.~a2s isa =~t~:J!fert:::2r~ft:!.Cc..ttie. I
!'.:-: su::'c t"JU~·r'4lsr.to-:: ~e::--s:!.~::l:c£0 ~ur
:~1t l:..sc::1c ct:lc:el.zs~ cro'sd·.:::tab:e ";'a.·..r:.::~
to sec t~~~~o. ~~~t ~s& ca~~crfor disc~sicn ~utva feel
i:-~:~C::':it.:!.s::"!r::h~t~:-:3y-..c::cto cl~t.seJ
i-:a::.:r-~":!t..:=.c::..o£::!.=.c!.:·.;cccr- ~fetg ve :..::
t::c c"[~=.s,-e~~ovcr~~o!J.:""d!.z""~cciCin tr_cc.~c:~·
...~;-.~c:(!.,.-!er. ..... .,s..,....~--......~-- •:; ...,..
5
~ f ~~ ~~ ; ; I: !i~; ~~~! ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~i I ii ~ ;~ {: ~~ ~~ :: ~t ~~ ;;
~=~: :.~c~r:~~~l yJr~~;~::s ic~ 2· As~=~!~y, ~~ C~~~=-
=:.~t,~c~:.~a ;~r~g=~; ~h:s =~rely~ ~=~ti~; cnc .I~ ~~~
145Annex 17
::J.m.: ofe~Secolld Ses .sion RESTRICTED
--r11c/I4
-3o-
British suggest~o nbout 1947-48 is ~greed upon thut would
have to be altered. That :s ~ll I want to ·say.
264. 1·ffi. n-.LLOGG (Chairm an ): Tha.."lk you,!v'JJ:. obson.
265. !·1R.!GLLOGG (Chui.rzr.a..-.:;trFlory.
266. :·1R. F:.Ot\Y (U.S.): '..lith respect to ~he possibility
rn.er.tionedby :r~' :l.bs.n of the nati.ons tei:1g sc::.ddled by a.
!'ogc:.::.c:cion >·rr.ich tdid nc t l.:Ll(e, it ·,;us cur feeling this
was a decided irr.provement over t~e present set-~p whereby
if ~~y n~tion objects to ~~Y one regul~tion its only roco~se
is to denounce the entire ~grce~ont or to swallo~ the rcs~lc
tion. The present drcfting 1 of course, w~s a compromise mea
su:c. We felt, following in general the :pr~nciplc of dcnun
cic.ti-::nof O!!tir c.greements thc-..t r,;er!.n cr:por~to id the
1937 A~ec~ent whereby cny nc.tion thut ~kno~•ces its intention
to deno~~ce could thereby be followed by other den~~cic.tions.
As cnv:..sicned in c.ctuc.l prc.c ticc it vc::.s ourthought t.i:c.t the
Co!ili:lison in fornulc.-:ing cny .::r.er"dwor..ts wouldk::mr pretty
well 'I-Th.e1t.all of the vc.rious goverr..r.:cnts·.;arc in complete
accord. on the Q!l!endr.en t .:rcwe·;cr, ii' scr.:cthing shc~ld 'oe
a:::is3, c~c~ cf tha go,rcr:-.I::cn>rc~ld be in c. position to
·.rithdl,c.wt.l:C. consent -:o c.n c.=e::dr.:cnc.s ::.: c.ppec.!"ethe.t c.ll
cf ~he GO';crr-.:'l<:m'"'erG r:ot w:.lli::g ~o go .c.long with c. common
Qc:ision o~ the Co~Q:.ssion.
267. r-m. KELLOGG (C.i:ci.rr::c.n) Th~~ you, Dr. ?lory.
r:z.,-v:s s of Icrw~:r.
258. ER. VOSS (Ho~vc.y) L1:'w.y opinion t!:c Un.iteC. St~tas
;rc;, ·c::~ l!..objGc!: ~i.;Qcnd I thi:lk thw.t the !for'Jegi~ d,lega
ti:n v:.ll support 1t c.lcng tho~e lines.
!·:R• KELLOGG (Chair;: ::~T}h.en. y.u, 11r• Voss .
270. i•lL !CELLOGG (Chc.ir:lc.:n) : M:. Vc::.n Di jk , do you hc.ve
c.:::;-c~ t:i.s..; ;n tlli s?
27l. i·:1.V.'' JIJ~ (:·rcthGrle.nC.s)Cnl;..· t.=:is , r.":hat.you
r:.~· rs:.eJ r::e, I ag::-ee wi -:h tl:c . cor:r:erofs the iJ::.iteKing-
c.cn,
272. Thc.r 1~u, rr, v~~ Dijk.
146 Annex 17
i·iir:utesJf Sec~nd Session
RESTRICTED
r.{C/14
- 31 -
273. i'm. .K:;;'l',I,(Ch:!i!'na.n) : Are th ere any othe r dele-
gates who wish to co~ent on Article IV? If r.ot, suppose
ve go on to A~ticle V. It is also new, but it is similar
to those included in . recent fisheries agreements. This Arti
cle will enable the Ccnm~ssicn to take offic ial cogniz~nce
of gover~~enta. action or inaction which ~ff~ctsvh~les or
whaling and of r.£tters on which the Co~~ission is. ur.able to,
or does not vish to, regul~te.
274. Do any of the delegations care to cocment on
'Article V?
275. If there are·:w co~ents on Article V, we will now
consider Article VI.
276. ~~.DOBSON (U.K.): Mr. C~ir~an, I wonder whether
I ~ight ask your kindness on a small matter? I don't want
to miss t he post, so to speak, but ~t ~ay be appropriate
just to raise it nov between 5 and 6 p.n . . I em not sure it
husn' t been clrea.dy to•.lchcd upon by •·~. V~n Dijk, but we are
very interested ir. a proposc.l \,-hic hwC.S :nc.C.eby the united
Statas Delegation at the l945 Conf'e~en •eth regc.rd to the
sale, loan, or delive~y of vesse~s, equipcent, or supplies
designed especially ~or whaling ope rations to cour.tries who
e.re r:.ct parties to the Agre-ement. Y::::u-.;i11 r-::::<:::::1berthe
point, :.Yr. Ch:::.irr...:'N'h~ic.,-::..sone of co:1.si. d'e~ble substcnce,
ar:d ve decided to ex?rcss our views i:1.pcrc.gr~p 4c or
resoluticn 4, of the Final Act. You vill reffie~b iervas
not possible to give cr.y legal effect to that in the cor.ven
ticn ~ecause of the difficult~es that the Eritis~ Delegat ion
certcinly found beccuse they couldn't corr~it the 3ritish
Goverru:1ent to legislatior., which -,;auld ':::ne,cess£:.r;.rbecause
of the complete jam in Great Britain's legislative p~ogram.
277. M.r. Chairti:.C.n, I don't vant to be out of order, but
I vould ju st ~ike to give notice nov and. <;.sk your lcir:dness.
I =~J raise that point later, but I rianted to also r.:.ise it
ttis even~ng. I am net ir: a ;osit i on to s~y anything at
t::e ::~ow.e '::te.use I ~ave hc.d to t.:~egraphfo~ i.::.!::tructior:s
from rr.yGcv~r~ent, but I thought it ~::::u bed ki::.d to the
:ir_·i,tcd Statos Departu:ent of State if I as!ccd you ,.,-c-_etr_er
I =ight raise that point ~hich, normally, I s~ould. do at
sc~e apprcpriata ti~e, ~ith the idea of introducing c.r.~e
Lrticl6 if those ere the instr~cti::: I:set fro~ ~y govern
~c~t. 3ut ~s l ong ~s I ~~Y r~ise th c t l2ter I ~cnrtwa~t
;tc t~ke up your ti~o r:.ov. I ~il: confer the hcncr to you .
2'7'8. ;.:R. FLC:.Y (iJ .S. ): :~. Chaj·:-:::::_I,·o..l-d.like to
s£y now, in connectio n ~ith ~h~t ;o:~t,t~c.t t~e :~ited
St~te~ ~elegc.to ~n g~ve t~at q~esticn ve r y serio~sco~si~?r~
t~~ni~~o d.=a~~i~ o5~ t~ise~ree :e::t. L~stye n~ we ?r apcs cd
~~rJ s~r c~£l Y t~~t thct ~e ~~c~~pcr~~ed lc : tc ~;~e~:::ent,
":~t1 ·..;iths~!:·.~c.t~ere:=~t:.c :..:-o-r..~~8.e!"'z ,ei.b~>l~cve, or
c~~= to t~e cc~~:usi~~,~~ct i~ ~~e p~ep~~~~i~~ cf ttis
~c~~~ e~t. eccnc~ic sanctic~s c f this ~~t~re,~~~la pcssi~ly
147Annex 17
i·:t.:.tes of' SecondScssio:1 .REST:RIC?ED
rvTC/14
- 32 -
a;propri~t eor t~e short-run igreements, tte yoar-to-year
~greements which we h~ve had in the p~st oight be quite in
~ppropriete in a lor.ger-range agree~ent, and, buttressed by
a cor.tinuing ~echanism, lt might ve~y well be appropriate
tJ elimi~ate the q~estion of economic sanctions ~t this.
point ~nd resort to the usuel procedure of using persuasion
snd such ciplomatic representction as may be necessary in
order to get er.y refr~ctorg yover~ents to concede the prin
ciples set forth in the agreement.
279. 1>R. KELLOGG(ClleirilUln) : Ti:ank you, Dr. Flory.
280. N:R. DOBSON (U.K.): I will a>rait my instructions.
281. ~~. F~LLOG (Chairmen): Were there eny further
co~ents thet the delegations care t~ meke on Article V? I
note thet the clock is cpprocching the time when we should
~djourn in order to attend the reception, and, inasmuch
as Article VI is taken ~c~gely frow articles in previo~s
AgreE:Jments, with the perr.:issicn of the Conference, I propose
we let that go over until we cooe to the co~sidarction of
this pro;osel egutn.
232. I would li!-::eto req_uest ttat tt".e :uembers of each of
:hose c~~~ittecs ~Eletwith the Tec~~i:~l Se:retery a~ the
:lese of th~s sassi0n and arr~ngE orJ the t~e and pla:e of
t-..fieetings. Let '..r.ot :'orget that.
283. ~nless there is ob j0cticn, I p~opose thet we
~~Jour~ the ~~esent session end proceed to the reception.
Th~t will give us all cmple time to reach the Meyflower.
'I'herecc·~tio ;ill b~ held in the East ?.oon. The Hayflower
?.otel is.loc~te 0d CoP~E:Jct A Venue, I believe, bct~een
L cnC.:·li,
284. We will meat tomorrow at 10 a.m. in this room in
eccord~nce with tho proposals we ~~de ~his cornir~.
2~5. (The ~eetin egjourned at 5:20p.m.)
148 Annex 18
18. “Minutes of the Third Session”, IWC/20 (21 November 1946) pp. 1-2, 9-11, 14-15
RESTRICTED
IWC/20
Nove~ber 21, 1946
• WASHIJCG D .CO.• ,1946
MINUTES OF .:£!f§.THIRD SESSION
TIME: Thursday, November 21, 1946, 10:25 a.m.
PLACE: Main Con£e~ence Room
l. CHAIRMAN: The Con£erence ~ll please come to
order. It is now my pleasure to introduce the new arriv
als. When your name is called will you please stand.
~~. Anziani, Mr. Budker, and Mr. Le Gall. There was a
r~me omitted yesterday from the New Zealand list,
Mr. Hawthorne or the New Zealand Legation.
2. I wish to repeat again that when you wish to
speak, please hold up your hand and remaLn seated. Speak
into the microphone or pull it near enough to you so
that it will carry your voice.
3. Pending the receipt and the eAamination of the
Soviet and Brazilian credentials and full powers, I
suggest the indulgence or the Conference so that these
Delegations may be seated and participate in the work
Conference in the same manner that was recommended for
the Australian Delegation by the Credentials Committee
yesterday. I should state at this moment that these
Delegations have not as yet arrived. It is just a
follow the prsameurepracticeIf asheryesterday. objection, we will
4. The minutes of the Second Session have now
been mimeographed and the minutes of the Opening Ses
sion have already been distributed to the Delegations.
If any Delegation wishes to suggest any corrections,
they can be put up to the Conference. Ir accepted, the
corrections will be made by the addenda to the minutes.
So please examine the proceedings of yesterday's ses
sion. You have berore you Conference Documents IWC/8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. IWC/14 has not as yet been
duplicated. ·
5. I should announce at this ti~e that through
the generosity of the Norwegian De1ega tion ·.1e Yill .be
privileged to see the showing of a Yhaling film this
evening at 8 o'clock in this room. Some of you 4~Y have
heard the bread cas a: this mornir.g in which it '.las sug
gested that some cf the ruembers of the Conrerence ~ght
Yish to go to the s~~thscnian and see w~at the cast or
(18 pages)
149Annex 18
Minutes _££ the Third Session RESTRICTED
.J.WC/20
- 2 -
a whale looks l~ke~ but I think that seeing this movie
would be even better. You will see a film or actual
operations on the whaling grounds. Thank you~
Professor Bergersen.
6. Is there any new business to be considered be-
fore we commence the continued review or the proposals
that we were engaged in yesterday? I£ not, I propose to
commence with Article VI. I believe we completed
Article Vat yesterday's session. Article VI is taken
fr .om Art:icles I a.nd ~III of' the 1937 2.greement ~ with
some changes. Section 1 or Article vr~ lines 161 to 166
is taken f'rom Article 1 or the 1937 a.greement •. In lines
167 to 170, under paragraph "a", tvo inspe.:::tor:;; instead
of' one are ~equired ror ell £aotory ships. That matter
was discussed at some length at ~he 1945 Con£erence as
well as at pr.evio~s onesJ particula~ly the .l939 Con
re~ence. At that time a subccmrnit~ee ¥as ir-3tructed to
come iiJ.with the report at· the .ne:r.t Con.f'e-renceJ but the
war intervened at"..dI do not knov wl"'...a.tha:o-oened to that
particulac ~o~ttee. -·
7- The ::::a-::terof e.ppointn:.ent and pay of the in
spectors in lin~~ 170 to 172 is ~aken in ~Rrt from the
last part o.f' A:.•ticle I of ti:e 1937 agreement . rn lines
173 to 177 a.<lec:ruat:e · j_nspe(":t:i.cis indicateq for land
statio~s. Th 1.s i3 in ~ccord with the remarks of
Chairman .,.Iaurice when ·the 1937 agreement •.-ras berore the
Coru"'erence.
8. . The wording of ·section 2 of Article~. lines
178 to 182 is taken rrom Article III of the 1937 a.gree
~ent. Paragraph {a), sect~on 3, Article VI, lines 183
to 187, co~es from the last part of P~ticle XIII of the
1937 agreement. It should be noted nov that the first
half of Article XIII of the 1937 agreement has been
transferred to the Schedule, l~nes lll to 118.
9· With rererence to paragraph (b) of section 3
fei~ureicle provisionsat involvinge untherm proceedslty rromor illegal
~hales--that now becomes an established method of pro
cedure, if accepted. I may state that the substance
of this prov~sion is in cor1ormi~y with the statutory
provisions of the United States. This is also a ~atter
that was discussed at some length at the 1939 con£ar
ence. Reference was also made to so~e such provision
at !,)recedir..g conferer..ces. If this paregra;Jh meets vith
the a;J~rove.l of' the Conference, the pen alt~es for in
fra 0t ions i~posed by all contracting goverr~ents will
·oe ur..i.fcrm :!.n their seve:-i ty. '!'hs provision rr.ay re
;;uire ::ew do:r.est:!.c legislaticn :!.n son:e ccu..."'ltr.ies ...
There~cre, i n an effort to avoid ~~cue delays i n the
ratif'ic~ticn by such governmentsJ Article X, secticn 5,
Parag:-aph (b)J lines 261 to 264 of these Proposals,
prcvides that domes~ic·les:!.~latio s ~ot requi:-ed f or
a pericd of tvo yea:-s a~~er ra tifica t ion or access~cn
"c7 ar..y gcve:-r~'Tlent A.re there a:::.y cc:r:.-r..er..ts:·!r. -~--:.::ie.."1~.
150 Annex 18
Minutes of Third Sessio!'l RESTRICTED
IWG/20
- 9 -
90 . CHAlRHAN: Un.!.ted States?
91. DELEGATE OF UUIT:ED STATES : Yes.
92 . CHAIR!·tAl'l'::i:t is in accorda... le with t!'le us"Jal,pro -
cedure that the delegations which have signified t~~iP de - ·
sire to parti~ipate in tpis committee will designate thei r
representative and meet wit~ the Technical 3ecretary,
Mr. Ch~~ey , at the close of this session. He will arrange
for a room and you can then deci ·de on the hour of oeeting ..·
93. You will notice that in call~g for these repre -
sentatives I have purposely omitted the Observer De~egatiom!';
I hope that is understood. ·
94. Now, as to Article VII, line s 199 to 204 .Article VII
is based on a number of paragraphs of earlier agreements ~~
is expanded and revised to . cover all statistical reporting
requirements. The nature of the data required from t~e gov
err~ents will be specified in the schedule. The f oro and
manner of report~ng wil l be specified by the conmission .
95. Any co~ents'?
96. HR. DOBSOri (U.K. ) : The only point I w~~t to raise
here is that if there should be ~ -inter~m during wr~ch
there is no co~ssion, I take it the Drafting Co~ttee
will lock at this clause so as to make sure t~at 7hile there
-is no commission it will go to 3ome appropriate government .
97. CHAT.Rf.lA:;: That point has been noted, l!r. Dobson.
98. ~m. DOBSON (u.K.): Thank ycu.
99. HR. 3ERGERSEH (Norway): !·!!'Chair!I:~ I"lope ve
will have ~ th i sL~terim essent~ally the same prov1s~ons as
we have now . Everyone gives to the Coomit~e ef Internat1o~al
Whaling Statistics all the notificatlons &"'ld statistical in
for~atio. n In this Co~ss~on Gunnar J~~, th~ Governor of
the Bar~ of Norway, is President and I, also, have been a
~e~ber . We hooe that the ~r.for~atiw o~n~ch we have received
hitherto ~ill come to us in the fut~e.
100. CHAIRNA!i: ~~ank you~ P:-of'essor 3erge r sen.
101. HR. FLORY (U.S.): \.fe are 1r..co:: .teplagreeoent
with Professor 3ergersen on that ~oint. In eraft~n5t~s
proposal there was no intention of c~ar-g~n ghe present pro
cedure. Rowe ver, '"e th ou ght tha~ in draf'::.Z:£ tl"'..i.s proposal,
inas~ch as we are proposing t o est~olish a lo~g-r~geCu~
mis3~on, that it should not be deprived of the aut~orit yo
obtain such infc~oat~o nfJ , for any reason at all, the In
terr.ational Bureau shoul~ be ~~sbanded or any ot~e~ occ ur
rence of that ~atur~ sl':culd take ?lace. I~ is a ~ind of L~
surance rather -:ha. a.:j'i:hi.::g :1andato:-yor cl':a.'l he ng;;re
sent sche~e of tl':ings.
102. C?..A!:?J.:.AlTl':a.."'.k:;ou!:':' Florj'.
151Annex 18
Minutes of Third 3ession RESTP.!CTm
T.,FC/20
- 10 -
103. Were there any other comments? If not, I propose
that ve take un .AJ:ot:!.cle VII-I. Article v:ur extends from
lines 205 to 230. The first section of P~ticl v:II, lines
205 to 214 is the same as Article X or th~ 1937 agreement.
It exempts certain scientific investigation3 from the Con
servation Regulations applicable to ordinary commerc:!.al op
eration.
104. Lines 215 to 21S are in part nev and are acim.iiU.- .
st~at1ve in ch~acter. The remainder of Article VIII, that
is, secti ons 2 a.nd 3, is nev, and stresses t~e importance
of scientif~c research, end encourages disse~~ation of this
information. I should also point out that report~g is
covered partly in section 2 of Article !II, lines 105 to
113, and in section 2 of Article VIII , lines 219 to 224.
105. A.."lycotmlen ts?
106. HR. VAN DIJX (Netherlands): Mr. Chaircan, sec-
tion 1 of Article VIII, I don't see anything about the value
of those vhales vhich have been granted by ~~y governcent
to be taken for scientific purposes. I thL~ it.would be
best that the .Committee set up with regard to secti on 3 of
Article VI, should also study this ·question. And then, in
section 2 of Article VIII, ·vhen we draft that secti on, I
should like to ask you if it would not be a little better
that the results of ·scienti!'ic work by the various govern
ments or by the various governoent ~nstitutions oe reported,
not to the co~ssion but, f~st, . to the International Co·~
cil for the Exnlora.t~on of t~e Sea.. Tr.us when the cocmiss~cn
gets a certain -rep ort there vould oe a certain coord!r-a.tion
with all the biological vork vr~ch ha.s oeen done on tr.e ques
tion of whaling.
107. CRAIR!1AN: Thank you, Dr. V~"1 Dijk;
io8. HR. BERGERSE!I (nor•..ra.y) : Professor Ruud, ·.;ho is
head of the Whaling Institute, has a few comments.
109. MR. RUGD (Norvay) : As you knov, the No ~wegian
Goverru:1ent has for many year s had an Institute for '([haling
Research L~ addit~on to the International Cocmittee fo~
vrnaling Stat~stics. This instit~t~on sent out papers regu
larly and we have tried, as far as we have oeen aole to co
so, to send them to all co~"ltriei snte~ested~n wnaling ~d
whaling research. He •..rill A:eep 'J.P this p:coc edure in the fu
ture. Yfe hope, of couroe, to ca"t'ry these things on, as oen
tioned here in the p~eceding~arag~aph, when ve expect this
cowr-ission to des1~ate the ~nves~igacions to such agenciez
as the co:c-.oission should find useful ~o~r their in •esti a::icn
0
and purposes. If ~"1Y delegations do not ~ece~vetr~s ~~ o~
~ati~n and t~ese papers, Nc ~r. uld like t o near abo~t ~t ~~d
t~y to help the~ as f~ as we can.
11 0 . CE.A.· i.\n~i l'!lar..J·cu ,Profe~sor Ruud . I :!:ay say
that the publica~icn of yours is a ve~y exceller.t one . !
ha ve lea!'ned !':'!'.f~o!" :-.e various !:lez:.r:.ndaa.'1ci,:: a::!su:-'3,
all t!le delegations of the co~"1:rie e~g:.ge in whaling could
read theo with a g:-eat deal of pr~fit. ~~ . Gao~ie:scn.
152 Annex 18
!linutes £f. T!li:d Session RESTRICTED
HfC/20
- ll -
111. DR. GABRIELSON: I can 1t see that this proposed
provision would inter fere L~ any way with any scientific
papers or reports t~at oisht be oade by any agency, gove rn
ment or othe~~ise. The or~y provision is that th~s infor
metion should cooe to the cocmission. I thiru: it should
have all the Lnforoation as quickly as possible, if this
commission is going to do the job that it ought to do; and
I see no particular point in routing it through anothe~
agency first. If the commission wants to refer the i~or
mation to another agency, it would have that prerogative. ·
But I do thlrJc that, at times, it might be very import~"lt
for the information to come directly to the commission
froo the agency doing the research.
112. CEAIRHAU: Thank you, Dr. Gabrielson.
113. HR. DOBSON (U .K·.) : Mr. Chairman.
114. CEAIRl-!AN: Hr. Dobson.
115. :.ffiDOBSON (U.K.) :·· I would just like to mention
the existence of the Discovery Committee whose reports ere
available to all and sundry. On the point, perhaps, of
dr~fting, I would like to call attention to 'the fact that
under t~s article a cont~ac~ing governoent may taka certain
action and then rep ort it when it is ·a fait acco nnli to the
co~ssio n. I would sugg~st, for the consideration of the
Dreft~"lg Co~ttee, that they consider whether it wouldn't
be better to require a contrec .t.::..ng gove rnment to give these
dispensations after consultation ,,ith the col!!!!l:!.ssion,at'ld
not ~dependently of it . I tc~ it is a catter that should
be consider ed when che Draft~g Committe e come to tr~s po~t.
116. CF..AIRHftli: Thank you, Hz-. :C..b~o In.quite agree
vi th you tl:..at thls '.:latter could eppro:~;: tlyia be considered
by the Drafting Co.l%l!.:tltiee.
117. I should make it clear at teis noint that it is
n~t our intention or our belief that this-co~ssi o nuld
usurp any of the p!"evious prerogatives, lat us say, of these
various scient~ficorg~~izat1ons that have been ensaged in
research on whales. 'vTe certainly do not vant to interfere
with their work, because v e are :!.nthe !:lain dependent on
the factu al infor~tion ar.d on · the vo~k of their s~aff. I
thi:.L t~e Conference shou~d bear ~~ I~~d the great debt ve
oo;.;e to t~'les resee.:-ch orge.nizati ons, such as the Di~covery
Cor.:nitt ee and the Horwegian Cc::mittee ; an.d I only .hope teat
so~e of the o~her goverrucents may see fit to car~y on s~
le~ l~"les o~ investigation.
118. T~ose of 70u vho a~e not fem.ili w~ith th~ Discovery
Publications s~ould certa!nl7 ~ecoce so, or at least recom
mend to tee appr~priateag~~c:e .s. of your own Co~~try the de
sireoility of co~sulti~g ~~ese~ublications.
119. Az-e t=:ere a... frtyer cor.uner..ts? (No respo!'lse )
120. r:o;.;,as to t!'le prop osal by Dr. Ve."l D.!~k, ! propose
th~t it also ce referred to t~e ~raft:..! C'o~g~~tee, f or
153Annex 18
[.;tnutes of' Third Sossion RF.STEICTED
IWC/20 .
- ll+ -
of2.interim Tarrangemente whi chide~auldn operate havuntil svee should
get all the signatories vould~ I believe, be a ratner cum
bersome method. If ve should require t hat all of the · sig
natories to thi s Convention ratify before the agreement en~
te r s into force, we may find that one government would refuse
to ratify, and we then would be raced with a ~ituation of ·
b~ving to cell another international conference to adopt
a modification ~f t his entry into force provision.
134. Certainly, we have no ~tron geeling as to how
this should op erate. I thLnk we are agreed in principle
that this document should come into force as -qu~ckly as
possible end with the least legal dii' f'icultyr For the
United Sta t es· Delegation, we would be quite anxious to have
thi s question rei'erred to the Drafting Committee for a full
and thorough discussion of ·the ways end means whereby
this agreement could come into force as easily, quickly ,
and equi 'tably as possible.
135 . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr ·. Flory. M:L-. Dobson.
136. I>ffi.DOBSON (U.K .• ): I would like to thank Dr. Flory
for his explanation, end I am sure he realizes that I would
join in any attempt with him to circumvent the tedious
method of' ratii'tcation. But there i s possibly a middle
course. I emphasize tr~t the adoption of the proce dur e
under rat he r special circumstances last year was to insure
t~~~ there was no holding up of pelag ic whalin~. You
might m~dif'y the prop osal cere by eliminating tr~ee
whaling"nts". ButandI am prepared Govetollleave:s itnctor.your iDraftingic
Cct:=littee .
137. As I say, ve are both anxious to secure a good
method of getting the Convention ratified. ~e did not went
to leave it so that certain gover~_m nets might say the Con
ventLon is in for~e and we may sit beck ~nd take advantage
of it and not ratify. That is t he poin t I ~ant to ~ake.
138 . C~~If AJiL:~ Is there any f urther commect? . well,
if there is no objecti on , let us turn to Article~ .
139 . Article XI, lines 265 to 267. Article XI, whic h
contains the provision f or denunciation, is s~ilar in sub
stance to Article XXI of the 1937 Agreement .
149 . ~~. Dobs on.
141. HR. DOESOU (U.K. ) : On a po!.nt of drafti:lg I am
r..ot quite sure tt-_at it is clear from the cl ause t::a t "co n
tracting Gcver!"..n:ent" :t.us t als o ir.c!.u de adheriz:g Government .
142. C~..AIRHAN: Thar.k you, Mr. :!:obso n. I t hink you
are q\lite ri 0ht . Ju:.J f'.!:'ther co;.:mer.ts.
1.43. HoY let us ta ke uo the schedule. Let us have a.
bri ef r~vie before Ne teke-uo t he ite~s i n t~is schedule .
"':'he provisicne of t he Scheduie shal l net apply prior to
154 Annex 18
rHnutes of Third ~i on RESTRICTED
IWC/20
- 15 -
Jw:::.e30, 1947. 11 They shall apply in their present term:s or
as amended 1~om time to time in accordance with the provi
sions of Article IV. See lines 52 to 53 of the Convention.
144, In Artiele IV, section (4), on line 155 to 156:
"No amendments sb.a.ll become effec1;ive before .Tune 30 , 1948".
That, of course, is subject to change in drafting . For
e.mdending this schedule, see Article IV of t ·he Convention
on page 6 beginning ~ith l in e 114. Also, lines 126 to 130
and 138 to 156.
145 . DR. FLORY (U.S. ): I would like to explain briefly
the division of subject mat ter between the sc hedule and the·
body of the agreement proper. It vas the thought in dra£tLng
the body that therein would be contained the obligations of
governments, one to the other, and to the commission, whi le
~ the schedule there would be contained the provisions by
which the whaling companies and whaling operators would be
bound. It ~s only Lo the schedule tr~t there is any provi
sion for a~inistrative amendment.
146. The body of the agreement, that is the portion
coming before the schedule, could be amended only by anot her
protocol or a formal document such as we have here, subject
possibly to ratification--c ertainly in the United States
subject to reti£ication.
147. The items in the sc hedule, then, a~e the specific
~egulations for the conduct of whaling -hich are suscepti
ble of change from t~e to time depending on the cond iti ons ·
of the stocks of wbAles, of biol ogic al and scientific ev~
dence, vorld requirements for fats and oils, and othe r
ractors that may cr~e from time to time.
1~8. The s ch edule, of cours e , for~s a n integral part
of t he Conv ention pr op er, but havL~g been set up as a
schedul~ it becomes a more or less divisible part, a sepa
rate, clearly·defined secti on of the agreement.
149. CBAI~~: Thank you, Dr. Flory. Nov, as to this
schedule. Paragraph · (1), lines 1 to 2, we find the ...,ording
is taken from .~ticle rv of the 1937 agree~ent. I think
:nost of us will agree that t::e stocks of both cf these
species are at a critical level. Such prohibition is ~eeced
essential to any reco very , and there are some who hold tr~t
th e stocks of both species are now so lov that rec ove ry ~7
be impossible. Any comments~
15o. If r..ot, let us proceed "it:h pa::-agraph 2 .. Cn· liiles
3 to 5 the wording is here taken from Article VI of' the . 1937
agree~ent. Thi s parag ~eph is de signe d to pro~ect ~ature
whales of all species.
151. MR. TRGr 1SON (U .K. ) : With regard to this No.2 in
the schedu l e, it is q~ite true, az the Chai::-~~ snys , that
it is taken f::-om Ar~icle VI of the agree~ent of 1937 . 3ut
I should j ust like to ~enti on the pcint tha~ 1~ 1939, when
·.re n!'...,.. ., ,..,." .A""tr..'LI"",.. '"'\l:7~q ce ,.t.o•..nT'AfOlut-. o,.,.s
155156 Annex 19
19. “Minutes of the Fourth Session”, IWC/22 (21 November 1946) pp. 1, 7-10, 26
RESTRICTED
IWC/22
November 21, 1946
INTERNATIO WNHALALIN CGOHF'£RD• ICWl ASHIMST •O•~ID~ .C
MI!~ES OF TEE FOURTH SESSION
TI!-1E: ":'hursday, November 2~, 1946, 2:50 :p.m,
PLACE.: Main Conference Room
1. CEL~Rr~: W~~l the Conrer6nce please come to
order. First there is the matter of the showing or the
Norwegian r11m. I fL"ld that the ril.n is not of the safety
type and consequently cannot be shown in this room. How
same hour,he S8crp.m.,at thishasevening,"lgein . t he Auditoriumilm Building.
Ii' you wi~l, ta.ke down this address~ Aud.:!.torium Building,
1901 New York Avenue.
2. This ~s located at Eighteenth and New York Avenue.
If you go down this street about two blocks west and then
turn down t-.;o blocks south you come to the building. Un-
rortunately, the building does not have an elevator. It
will be necessary to ~alk up tr~ee or four flights of ste~s,
but arrangements have been mad~ for soceone there to guide
you and you follow the OSS projects signs that you will see
as you go up the steps. The showing will be there.
3. Let me repeat again, the Auditorium Building, at
19 01 New Yo~k Avenue. I understand the room is large enough
so that we can ta.ke care or all or the members oi' the dele
gations and oi' the Secreta~iat, in case tr.ey desire to know
Nhat a whale looks lL<e. The wives of the delegates are in
vited also.
4. There is another matte:::' that I think deserves tl:e
attention of the Conference. Inasmuch as the FAO has been
ofmithed executivee Cosessions are, aorobscourse, available thto cFAO.es
This, therefore , raises the question or >hether the !!li.nutes
of the execu~ive sessions should also be made available to
other gover~~ents on application with, of cou:se, the prcper
injunction of ~ecrecy .
5. It is ass~~ed tha~ the Confe=ence do es not wish to
ch~ge the Rules of P~o~ed~re so as t~ m~~e these ~atters
available to the gene~2l p~=lic . Are ~here ~~7 observations?
! clo net Jr.no'' Wh::!.t thepractice is in the ot her gove rr:.ents
or m::!.k~g such documents availatl~ :o governn~nt a0enc1es.
5 . ~·8. DOSSON (U.K . ) : Hr. Cl:air!::an, i'C ::1i3- '~elp :rcu
to know that on the o::ca.s i cn of t!'lele..st \·li!.al.inCc nf' erence
157Annex 19
[.!~n~te ois ~cu~th Session RESTRICTED
IWC/22
- 7 -
if you have not already received them .
54 . ~~at being the case, is there any _:lore · discussion
o:: A.rticle VI? If not, let us tu.rn to P~ticle VII, li.:1es
40 to 71. Pare 0raph 7 is essantially ~he s~e as Article
III, section 1 of the 1944 protocol, a."'ldA='ticle IV,
section l of ~he 1945 protocol . Acqording ~o the v.o~di _ng
of the Convention, the ··quota specified 1n S'..lbparagraph
(a} of paragraph ? remains Ln force until the Comcission
recc~ends an e.lte~atio n hich meets with the approval
of the ccntractL~g governments under the procedure outlined
L"'lA.rticle ZV, section 3 of the Conven~ion.
55 . This paragraph establishes a."'lover - allcatch limit
for the waters south of 40 south latit~de w,p~ch is
probably too high, from a conservation viewpoi~t , but
may appear to be the compro~se ~ost acceptable to all
parties, since the figure proposed here was adopted ~
1944 and 1945.
55. The total Antarctic production during the
1938-39 season berore the war, a."ld vhen there was
no ca .tch 1im.it, was 2,821,000 barre l s. Last year, that
is, during the 1945-46 season, the ~"'ltarct catch of
790,928 barrels constituted roughly one-~al ff the
amount e.1lo~e.b ~1~der the 16,000 blue-~hele ur~t li~te.tio .n
I am subject to cc~rection on that . rigure .
57. '!'l:wording of paragraph 7 (o) is ta..lcen from
paragraph 2, A~ticle IV or the 1945 ,rotocol. Certa~
wodificatior-s he.~e been mcde in the procedu.re ror report
ing catcnes.
58. In subparagraph (c) of pe.ra;raph 7, w~th refer -
ence to the prevision fer notiric -e.tion of the weekly catch,
the subs tanc .eof S\:.b;aregre.ph (c) of paragraph 7 has
been taken rrom secti on 3 of A:ticle ~V of ti::s1945
protocol.
59. Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 7 is e.~edification
of the prQVisions of the 1944 and 1945 protocols which
pro·tiC.es fer :'l.Ot1.::e or thAn"Va.rCtiC o:gerat.iO:'l.S to
ass~::e that ~•eei:l dyata are received for the p·..:rpcses
of ascerta~L"'lw g~en the ce.tc~l~t is ~eacned.
60 . !lOst of the wordir..g or this su":>paragrs.ph has
bee:'lte.k~n f~om section 3 of P~ticle rv of the 1945 pr otocol .
61. vlith rererence to subpara.gre.pi:: (e) of pe.re.gre.ph
7, tr.e substance is t~ce n, in par~, f~oo f.x~icle~ orf th e
1945 protocol. Are th~re ~"'l cYo~ents?
62 . ~:R.3ErtG~ E.!li(Ncr•.ay) : I e.~gce ;..th tho
Chair~~" t':t 15,000 bl~e~~e le ~"it~ is ;=etty c~gh .
Fr cr1: =.7 s':ud.7 of tl::e i'igt1recoveri!'lg l.::.st
yea..r s catch on ~pcrl!.t!.o innst,l:eir cr.'t~.:'e !t~,-,
go'; "Vhe i::pressio-'1 t::-.at iprett :r hig:., but I
158 Annex 19
Hinutes of ?ou~th Session RESTBICTED
J.IJC/22
- 8 -
~ill make no p~oposal. I think, as the C~~irman has
said, that ~e have to stick to this figure, 16,000
blue whal5 units.
63. There is one small ppint which I wish to mention
here. When we in 1944 introduced the 16,000 blue whale
units, it was understood that this figure applied to
pelagic whaling. Perhaps it is not enough to say south
of 40 degrees south latitude, but perhaps we should . say
the nucber of baleen w~les caught through pelagic wr~l
tng in any waters, if that is right. T~~t is all.
64. CHAIRMAN: Thar~ you, Professor Bergersen . . This is
a ~tter of drafting, and we can decide o~ t~At later.
65. :01R. THOMSON (U.k.): Nr. Cb.e.irman, it ts certainly
true, as Professor Bergersen has said, but it may not be
~uite clear in the initial words of the section as to
whether the limitation applies only to whale .f'actory ,
ships. But I think it . ts made quite claar later on,
because, in the later paragraphs only the ~hale factory
.ships are required to provide information as to their
catches to the Iaternatio~al Bureau. Therefore, obvi
ously, a catch of land stations ~s not . intended to be
included in this 16,000-blue-whale unit. ·
66. CEAIR.M..Mi: Thank yo1i 1 Mr •. Thomson.
67. ER. VAN DIJK (Netherlands): fu'. ·cr....s.irmanin
this draf~ schedule, we see that the limita~ion to .
16,000 blue whale units will work not only for the
short term, but .also for the long term. Now several
data which are taken up in the sc~edule are rather
fL~ed, and I think that the b i ological people r~d
their good experience in that. However, w~th regard to
16,000 blue-whale units, .I think that is different.
Isn't it quite an er~itrary figure? Is that the right
figure? Is it too great, o~ is it too · small? I think
nobody eight know. When ve accept a nucber like 16 00 0
o~ 12,000 cr 18,000, it might be, on the long term , 1
that it would •..rork out the wrong way. That is, 1-ir.
Chatrzan, why I should propo~t eb~t th~n~ber of 16 , 000
clue-whale units apply c~~y to the ne~t season, end
~ha.t we leave it to ~he Co~ission to fix the number of
blue-vb~le units for · the following seasons. Thank 70u.
68. CF.AI.RHAN: Thank you, Dr. Van Dijk . I.f r ·in.a.y
step out of character of Chairman for a moment, I vould
like to s~7 that practically ell of us who .hav e bee~
follo·.;i!lg ln this before the war ~ere agreed tb~ t pelagic
wrzling sou~h of 4c degrees south latitude · rzd been too
~~ ten siva , and ~~at something must be cone. We looked
ever t he catct~s cf the previous years and ~ecided on
a. figure ttat . -was apprcxi!!ls.tely- t;;o -th irds of the
average catch f or the precedi~g six or seven years.
159Annex 19
M~nutes of Fourth Session RESTRICTED
IWC/22
- 9 -
69. !iow there are others here far more competent
then I em, but let me suggest tr~t if ~e cb~nge this
~igure from year to year, we w~ll not r4ve a statis
t~cal basis for evaluatir~ the populations of wr~les
south of the 4o degrees south . In other words, ir we
are going to proceed on a ·logical basis , ~e will have
to let a figure run a few years to get a statistical
basis for ana -lysts. You ca.r.not do that if' you cba.nge
!'or a fewure y~arsom ireayou texpectr. to Itaccomplishhave anything.nd
70. I am sorry I have to speak o~t of character.
71. MR. DOBSON. (U.K.): r.:r. Chairman, vith regard
to the suggestion wh~ch has been made by Mr. Van Dijk,
I am glad he agrees for the first season, wbich we s~~ll
deal w1.th separatel.y ·, that he doesn •t wish to cut out
16,000 blue-whale units •• But I feel that there are·
two objections to h~s proposal that in the l.ong d1.stance
policy · we should say nothing and l.eave it to the Comm1.s
s1on to settl.e. In the first place, the Commission
might be rather hard put to dec1.de upon what should
be the number for the 1948-49 season. Ir there is any
chance of thet--I am afraid I am rather obsessed with
the idea of delay, but delay in these th~ng s does take
a long time to get through -- I thick 1.t would be very
unfortunate 1.f, for any one year, : ;;e had dropped out
wbat we had settled Ln 1943 as a principle.
72. I want to · say, Mr. Chairman, one other point.
In subarticle 7 (c), I think that the Drafting Com
m~~tee should address themselves to t1.ghtening up a
little the in£or=ation which must be given here. I
think that it should either be made quite clear that
this 1n!'orma.t1.on is supplied co nfident1.ally, or,
that 1.t shoul.d be available for s1.multaneous rel.ease
ve~yevegreaty. importance is to dit · in t he Brit1.sh butDelegation.t ach
73.' CHAIRl.'1AN: Thank you, Mr. Dobson .
74. HR . VA.. DIJX (Net herlands ) : Mr . Chair!!:.an, !::lAY
I raise ano~he~ point. I car~ot understand why, in
paragraph 7 (c), the~esb~ll be notification to the
Comoiss:ion. As I unders .tand it now, the procedure
is that we have to give notification to the Interna
ti~nal Bureau of Whaling Statistics~ and I th1~ that
the practice ~here is very ge e d. That is why I do not
understand why it should be alte~ed now, and in the
future there should be gi ven notiricati on to the Commis
sion.
75. CHAIR~ .A..: Thank you.
76. MR. VA! ( .D!J:-c (Netherls.r. d s ) : Tl:a t ...uld !"'equire
tr~t t he Cc~~ission ha ve s. sDeci a l bureau, and, rega~d
ing the questior. of the bureau, ~e have not yet ~~ni hed,
Y:.r cr...e.~:r.an.
77. C~IR~~~ : The.~< you, ~r. Van Dtjk.
160 Annex 19
10 -
78. HR. FLORY (.U.S. ) : On that point, 9f cou!'se, we
anticipated that the procecure would ~e precisely the
~ame as it is at the present t~e, and that notification
vc.1ld continue to be Jr.e.deto the International Buree.u .
79. CRA.IR.."'lANWe all recog."'lize the vond.erful
Whaling Stati3ticsrvicehas · performednain compilinge.u all
statistical de.te. relacing to whaling. They have
done a va!'y fine Job. Specific author1ze.t1on for
this vork has been included in previous conventions.
80. Were there ~Yother comments?
8L If there is no further discussion on p,a.re.graph 7,
let ~s t·ll'n to paragraph 8, lines 72-84. The wording of
paragraph 8 is take~ from Article V of the 1937 e.greemerit,
ex~..ep fr references to sei and spert:l whales. ·. It we.s
thoughc -desirable to introdl,l.ce a ::Unimtl!llength for the .
sei whales, since under pare.greph 7 subpa.ragl'aph (b) line
4.8,· ;;have taken 6 .sei wh1:1.i.as being the equivalent to
1 blue whale. ·
82. In accordance with certa~ proposals made at the
1945 conference, the minimum l~ng th of spore yhale ·s has_
been increased in this proposal as bei~g from 35 feet to ~0
feet In the case of spero whales, the incree.se ~n ~
length is suggested to p~r~t a greater · escape or ~ha
females and to provide add.:.tional prote~tion to the males-,.
~~o attain ·sexuel ~aturity betveen 38 and 41 faet. The
specified lengt:.s of whaJebor.e whales ~e, toughly put, in
all cases s:!.ightly under the ncr:nal sizes- at ·;hic h these whales
.r-.=ch sexual maturity.
83. The second portion of ·Article Vtrr,, lines 80 84,
is taken f"!'oo Article DT of the 1938 prot ocol, except
that an exc~ptio ncluded in the 1938 protocol, permitting
sperm vhales of 30 feet to be taken, is elimi;1e ~...ated
.satisfacto~ yvidence has been brought fo rth that the c~at
of sperm whales c~~ be eaten, e.s originally conte;1ded ~hen
this article was afopted. Japan insisted that they ~te ·ape=~
-.rhale :c1eat. None of us agreed. I t~ it voul.d ·oo ve-:y
herd to get anyone .to eat sper:n-vhs.le meat.
84. l1R. BERGERSErT (~or.t ayi-:- Chairca.?J..
85 . CHAI&m.- fa:J P!'ofessor Berga::-se n.
86. r,iR.BERGERSEN (1-io:;.r : Th3 sei •.h1 ale o.f 40 .feet,
ha•1e C:ata. enoug."l to be quite~ su':'e.ePers onally,.ovI fe el w•,;e
sho_ul d ha\'ee. little :1o:-e, a.."!d T1sh·Dr . Kellcgg,
:.fr.!·lack:!.:.tosa.~d i-::-Paul sen would lvok into t:'lis ques
ti ou . T~e No!''t·7egiaDel eg=ttion ! thi::k ,,.l; be prepa: ..ed
to c.dopt this pr:>posal vit~ :·egar ::i to the pelagic whali ng .
161Annex 19
Mi:;.utes ~Fourth Se3s1.on RESTRICTED
D lC/'22
- 26 -
277 . l,IR. IVAN!SSEVICH (ArgentU1a) : Argentina. also agrees
with &•gland, gross tonnage.
278. MR. BERGERSEN (Nor\ray) : 1·1r. Gf.a4.rman, I thi.r:k we
shculd stick to l·1r. Tho.nson' .s obser.vat;f.on, r;e can't gi ve
the dead weight on the catchers!
HR. VAN DI.n: (Nethe rlan ds) : Quite right.
280. CH.<\.IRHAN: CaptaU1 l1oore, would you like to say
anythl:1g at this point?
281. Mr. Thomson has ~armed me that gross to:1nage
would be agreeable to the United Kingdom. Are there any
other comments or objections? I!' not, we could L•sert ~he
words "gross tonnage" and sinlpli!'y the dra.fting. Then~
line 141 (a) •.rill read as .follows: "the name and gross
tonnage of each .factory ship", and line 142 (b) "the number
and aggregate gross tonnage o.f the whale catchers" .
282. Is that agreed?
283. Let us turn to paragraph 16.
'284. liffi.VAN DIJK (Ne therlands ) : Mr. Chairman, in
lines 133 t·o 138, I see that a noti!'ication should be. :::ade
to the Comz:dssion. No,.,-, as !'ar as ·w.a see, this thing ap
plies especially to biologica l questions. We th~ it better ,
there!'ore, that the noti.fication should not be made to the
Commission but only to a body like the International Coun -
cil !'or the ~~ploration o!' the Sea. It is not necessary
that the Commission have members vho are dealing with onl y
bi olo gical pur:;;;oses. I th~.l1.k t..'1.at there might be othe:
questions which are not in relation vi th biological ques
tions, and, there.fore, we pre!'er that the noti!'ication should
be ~ade to the International Cou.1ci l !'or the Exploration c.f
the Sea, which, as you know, has a co~ttee on whaling.
C:aAIRMAI'l: Thank you, Dr. Van Dijk.
286. r!-R.DEASON (U.S . ): Hany of the s.:!.gnatories to
the previous whaling agreements are not members o!' the In
ter~ational Council .for the Ehnl orat.:!.on o!' the Sea. !t was
the intent, I believe, .in the United Sta~es Pr oposa ls ~ot
to inter!'ere w~th the =epcrt1ng or biologica l ~or~at~ on
to any Lnter~ational organization or other bod7 . There is a. ·
provision i~ the proposed convention requiring that repor~
ing be to the Commi~sion or to any other agency ~hat the
Comcis3ion may designate. Dr. Gabrielson L~ co~antLng on
this point this ~orning L•dicated that the Co~ssion ~culd
have need for all c!' the biological L•f or=ation it could ob
tain !'rom all possible sources, ~ order that it ~ght take
such in.forr::ati.on into con.siderat!cn at the tir::e a.mend=ents
to the various pro vi.s:!.ons of: tl:e Schedule •,;ere ta.:.:en up.
287 . C~IAIR!1ft. Tlan:k you, Dr. ::::>eason.
288. iv!R. J:OBSON (U .K. ) : l•la.y I mS. .:.<u anobservation en
this? I ~ould call attention to the fa.ct ~~at ~~car the
Geneva convention the dcc~ents regarding s~atisti.cs and
162 Annex 20
20. “Minutes of the Seventh Session”, IWC/32 (25 November 1946) pp. 1, 4-5, 28-31
~"'s:Rr::::::>
r,.iC/ 32
x~vember 25, 1;46
INTERNATIONW ALHALING CONFEREN•CE WASHINGTON,D •.1. 4S
U?-iU~S o_-;TIIE SE'i1"3:NTHSESSICi:I
----
TI~IE: Mcr.day, Novet:l"ber 25, 1·946 , 2:50 p.m.
1 . CH.4.IRrWi: Will the Conf'ere.nce please come to
order. The r1rst item befo~e this pler.a~y session is the
French proposul. :•Ir.Anziani.
2. I'!R.A.r~ZIA (Nrar.ce) (I.:lterpreto.tion) : Mr.
Chair~£n, as I advised the Cc=Zerence in the l&at session,
I at:1presenting the rollowi.:lg ~otion: In .orde r t~
has~en the wcrk of the Ccnrerence the French Delegation
requests that working co=mittees meet, 1r possible, in night
sessions, in order to be able to present t~eir fi.:1alrep ort
wi~h the shorte st possible d~lay.
3 . CH..~I wru: T!:a.nk y~uJ i'!r.Anzia.::i. A.fter s tt:.dyin g
tJur ce.le .~ar :;!' a.": 11ti~s I 3l':culd oci:1t 'J"..t c ":..e F:'ench
:: >~gatic nac it rr.ay be a l:.ttle .difficult to t.ave r:.ight
sessior:s 'Tery often. I find ~hat arrangerr.er.ts of a sccial
:-"a'::ure ha •;e be en ::-,ace foT-:.1.esda:r ar.d '.-.-ed::esday.T:-_ecff i·~i:l
:.:i:-~ b'" ther U. S. gover:-..r:::ent •.;ibe held at the \v'illard
?.:ctel tcr:r :;.·c.;that is Tuescay, ever.ir.g . The icr~·ee;ia..'1
I:el-=g'"-tioc has re ::p.lested·:. r presence at a cocktail ]:arty
e.t "=~- ]ecr",.regia.E::.ba.ssy on J!eCnes~a.y ever ..i.r:g.'!'hurs-::!.~
of cour s e, is aU. S. natioLal holiday.
4. Hcwever 1£ the Confere4ce so desires, ~a ~ght
hold a sh ort plena ry session on ~hur~day mcrni~g, sa:r frc~
9 :30 t'=l12:00 . A·lso, i~ o!'de:- t.o s.i~ in expediting :::att.~· rs,
may :;: sug.;e st tl:'.pc s sioilit.y c:.'s cheduling .:cwmittee ~eeti.:l~
in the eveni.:1g at hours that. ·H·ill r1 t i.:1 ·..rich e :;Jlan cf
social f~'1ct ions .
5. It is prc~csed that th e Drafting Co~~ittee will
:r:eet this ev~r:.1r: fer i.'li='~h !''-9V!.s~onar~y..rcr en: the
8c~ve~~i Q~ that ~e h~ve t.ef ore us, ~f it ~eets wi tC th e i=
a.;:::::r':)Va.l.
~ ~hat ~ill~e t he desire c~ this Ccnrerence re~a r~i::g
~ol1i~g ~ ~~~~i~g c~ ~~~rsC~y) ~~~~ksgi vi~g DayJ ~~a~ ~5,
-t- tt.e =::::-:.-i.f~c!:l 9~30 ,~~til :..2 :·JC? Arge!:t~.: .:a
'T. :.!3 33.'~' .Arg'e"t:.._C).. T~ : A=ge~tine rele;a~icn
,..:=~-3~..::Gs t::a: r::'h.s.~ivi=~: 3 a~ - S . ~cli~ay snj
~~=ul1 t e re s; e: t ed . So ~e - ~cse tha~ .:1c sassi~ ::~ill ~e
::-_3l="'-:~E::..7
163Annex 20
:·!inutes of Seventh Scsst~:! R~3·l~Ir:TE~
I:'t!C/ 32
- 4 -
29. C:L.l.I?.!·LUTThe ~ction has been secondo:::d. I ta.~< ie
tr.at the Conference approves tC.e referenc e of t r.eseqt.!~stior:s
to u·.e Pez:alties Cor.unit"':ee. To make sure, I '-vill chec:<:;.rit~
t::.e delegati:Jns .
30 . Argentina?
31. DEW:GA?E OF AHGE~iTi A: Yes.
32- Canada?
DELEGATE OF c..~.~J:A: Yes.
34. CEAI:R!·WT:
35- DELEGATE OF CHILE: Yes.
CF.AIRNP..;:T: Dermark?
37. DELZGATE OF DEI~1.A.F .Ke:.
38. CH.llI.imAn: France?
39. I:ZLEGATE 05' FR.AlT'CE: Yes .
4o. Netherlands?
41. Yes .
42.
1..:-:: Yes .
.-'.
44 CF-.'HRHAl'T:
DEl...EGA'I·EOF r-:omTA"!:Yes .
.o .~ Per u?
DELEGATE OF ?E~U : Yes.
L3. CEAIRf-lAH: U.K . ?
50. U.S.S.H.?
51. ~ELEGATE 0? U.S.S.R. Yes.
:;.2.
53.
:-~es, f'~..: :r;:.:.~tar~ s- st1: c:: :9rc cessi::g ~:. ""=-.::c..:::
=e~t. :he va!~e o~ ~ta!es :ak~z:~or sct~~ti~i~ st~~~. =i!k
:·:.2.le~r le..~~at i..-.r~21~!:1.t:ee!!~he c.e..:;c:'!-al1. Jt~=---_=.:.::
o! ~~ale2, s~ac~a~~~ettcd of =eas~~i~; ~~~ =a:~~~g ~~ ~~al~s
164 Annex 20
RES~:qiC'I:SD
.LI-TC/32
- 5 -
:cilled by c:::ews ~f ;rl:alecatchers, ·.rillbe referred t::>the
?e!".alties Co:::nittee.
:J. I shc~ld also bring to t~e attention cf this Cc~-
ferenca tt:at tr"e hel!::poack limi.tati.cn has oeer:. cons:.d.ered.
informally oy the Biological Co~~ittee. I w~uld li~e to :::e
q_uest concur;:ence ir: this reference so that ue ::r.ay have e.
report before us.
56. Mr. Dobson.
57. YIR. D03SCr; (U.K.): ~~Ia Iy just say a '..:ordon this?
I d.id. raise :ti3 c_t.:.seticof t t:e h\.:..z::;;e~bargo I t~i:--.._tc
1
on tw-o ·::ccesicr:s, at a p:er:.arj- session.. I also :lade sc!:".e
P'J.rely general re::e.:::ks on the subject of tte ler:gth of the
f'.lture whali!"..g season tL."'ldert.he long-term convention. ~,re
had a long discussion on that. last ·ntgnt in -the Eritish_Dele2;e.
tion and I am afraid, ·without beir..g a':ile to '..rarn you, I
tock the liberty of asking our :::epresentative on the Biolo
gical Substance Co~ittee to ventilate this ~atter at ttis
~orning's meeting. I gather ttere was a very useful discus
sion, and at all events, the ot~er delegates k~ow ~hat is in
our ::~ind. I ·wo'.lld,t~erefore, s:.r;rportyou, ~'lrC .t:air~a: :.::,
~articularlyre~uest that these ~atters go for~ally to t~e
Biological S:...osta::::Con.-:::ittee. They ::!ayttus have a f~.;.ll
discussion, if they want :ore discussion, and issue a re;ort
cr: both those ma.tte!"s, tGe q'...iesti·:)::tt:ef::',J..,~ ;G:b..ck::
c.:-.:.dthquestion of t~..e. lengt::cf t~e ·.;.h=-.1'!.:.;: seur::ier
the lor~-ter:c :o1n":rent~o· Jn~.h:Lwe~ a.rs ccns:..C..eri I~~:1:pe
1
this may fir:.Cacc:e;;ta::lceby tG.a r::er::.bers of tieC-:r:fere:-.ce.
sa.
5;1. Is the::-es. secor::. to that ::1ot:..cr.?
6c.
o_.
Professor Ee:::gersen.
62. I secor.d.
63. C?... L.4.I:r~:e:'" ~a. bsee-n a secc:- ..·..TJ:1.less tt--_era
i3 :.n ~bjectio:1, let t;.s c-:JnsiC.e:r ttat.,.,.r:..::. re!.,thes~.:
-:,..'..) mat:::o t':1s s~~i.ttee c::. Ciolcg:.ce.l :ate:. t::at is,
t~e le~gt: :f ~~~e scc.::::>ra.~d tte pr·JM.ib'!..ti:·n on~~ill: :lEbe..
~illin~ so~th of ~C de~rees so~thleti~ude. You agree,
?~ofes; 3or ~ge:::s - e~?
s:;.. '.:s.
~s t~ere a~7 c~~sc~i:~ to tav~~g tte
st~dyt~ese~a:ters? C::-,w~~l~ ycu
~~
"J <J.
165Annex 20
RESTRT CT3:J
IWC/32
- 28 -
376. I as3u=.e it i3 approved. ~e c~~ go en to para-
g:::oe.ph 2 .,.hiisl.designed to protect ::...."'l lraeat~e of
all species. It is t~:en f~om Article VI of the 1937 aeree
::en-: .
3':"7. 11R. ?LOR:: (U.S.) I mo1:e that paragraph 2 of the
schedule be approved Ln substance and referred to th e D:::oaft
i.::!g Coz:-1'-ittee.
373 . CH.A.IRHAJ::f Mr. BogC.ar..ov.
379. ~,f•f30GDk' TC'T('J.S. S. R. ) :I second .
.:e;: CH.A.Im·t..l: Is t.!:ere any d2'scuss!.on? !t has 'bee!'!.
n:.ovedaz:.d seconded that pa.rc.grs.ph.2 .:ereferred to the .
Crafting Co~ttee . Are there ~~y ob~ections? If not , we
i.ri llt.::.lce ias appr 0·..red e...J.d re!itr to t:'le· Dra.ftL'Com
~~ttee end pr oc eed with paragraph 3.
381. In p arasraph 3, l~nes 6 to 10 are taken from
.~;: c:e IX of t~1. 1e37 agreemen~. Under (a.)f oll owing the
•.rcrC.s"in the •,;a~er rsort~ c1. 56° North La.titt!de", w·e have
deleted " except that frc;r. 1500 Sa.st Lon gitude ea.stward.s as
f:.;as 14.JO we st Long it'...:.C.e ttaking c r~:illi.. of1.·rhales
by su ch sh:..p or captu:-e s:J.a.llbe per~ tted be t:en.e 66°
~rort hatitude e...'.2° ::o ::-tl: Latit"" .deT~a' :s. essen
tially Lorth of 2e::-ing ~t::-ai:.
382. T!l.ege~e::- a~lter. o~f the de:e:~on c f th at parti-
cu la.r :;:hrase ~s to preve~t the :illin£; of grey -.rhales e..r.d
::>~~~ ~hales i~ the region r.orth of Ber~ng Strait by fac
~ol.-.~1-:i:_:ls.
523. ~he general L'1t entof t~e recainder of this
£~ti~le~s to g~ve ~~ctect~on, or g~ve so~e ~rotecti c~ a~
least to whales o~ their tro~~cal calving gro~'1.ds. Axe
t~:.e a::.y other col:lDents? -
Dr. F~ory.
3c5. :.ffi~CRY (U . 3.) I :::ave tl:a.tthe Cor:.ference
ap~r~v9 the su=stance of pa~e~aph 3 e=_d re~er it to t~e
~r2~ting Co~ttee.
336 . CF..AJ:R.N. Is.:trre a se~ond?
Er. Ec:..;ards.
I secc~d teat =oti on .
::89 . C:l_C...J:R:-LO:.i:ast"een :::aveC: a=.dsa:::o=.C.ed.Is
t:.-.;.ea....d:.sc·.l: ~:-1:~"e.":!rbjac~ia::? I! r:-:tlet ·.:.s
c..s~". t:.l.lt!c.eCc:-~a~·-=!e1.-cce~-:: sl:.e re. re :: cc~
-~ t:!.c2.I :! ,or :;.a.:- '~13='t=J--::-.e Dft:.=:.;C')=...;":-::i-:ee.
::~:. Pa.a~::' ~a-:;:. sa s::C!·.1r~: ;:r ·:.el . ~:-_ ·:r~i.::.g
:..s~9 :.eli "'r ..c":::.. ~~::~;.~.h~el 93-3~rc~ ~c-. :)S1:h.::~=r =--
:~;a;h :"'~es-::c... b::.~za.-cu.s..:'J...;~s.:....:::~s.,.a~as f~~
~~~7 s~~~ ~;e~~~!o~s s~a con~sr= ed.
166 Annex 20
j ~ )' ". ·· p J . 11
j :I-' ~ lD v1 II (IIc~ -:<0 :J •.oJ (Jl('r:n(})I () :..1 !.tJ•en 1] !-Ll(' I l U
· : . . \)
I ( .....'l
.
I 0
1 \0
-' t )' .. •• .. ·· -· J t ·) . I• -r t :I,
lJJ{)1 • :'~(1) r r_ 0 tF· ct t ct . CD (/l t:!{1o· 1-'ru rt0 1 : c 1 l) p r:0 co c : CD (ll !1() c J:Ill' .''
-' {b I" l-'· 0 c : I·'• po t'J (\l o l) (0tj < r.J(., 0 p fl(D {J l ~~ ~ <D 0'[\l( f lJ
'c:l 0 'tl 1\>1 (1'1 l\.' t_ · ' , : ~
fO{Jl(/l,~l CDUl l ro ()0 ~ 1-'·' I o;_:Jr::0 t--t.Jcr :'(D 'dtj I ~~o I 'Up-Jill () .... (1> UJ ~ ,10 (t r ( lj (,.
()<)
H ct r (\)-j (0 B ' p. ~0 UlUl I'· rJ·.>
vJ\!)ru. (}) 1 <A 1-'- r:
J
vJ\Q \.;.) t >j '•1-J) ~ '""l
W .f'. .... tf l u ~ ( . (Jl ...•• 1-1 iJ 0 <j CD ("'I {I ct ct r CD n 0 :JI CDIJ iO : 0 ro lb'U I
'0 J , :! = • ·
l-j0 ..(0 rtp· CD (J cT I",_:1)(1)~ 0----. '1IU1-jfl ()1' lb ' p· -r Illp (1. •.!roI~ w 1-j 1 ct n 0 ct ::r1)
· 'l .o·· ·
t)lr1jO ...J I'·::O, Cl0 pr:!1-'·Ulrt{{J10
I J' J 1 f ·
~ \f)\Jl ~J. ~:(tJr.lt- ........._I11p. l 'j . 1-l (})CD 0 u ~lp. rt ~ tO 11u <t I'0 :1
• · · .. ,
o 01. ~:, 1-t!u•..'i:~ ct ~J (1(}) o co l:l !10 .. CD p (U : fL (llljo 0 ~Jp (lj P• rtt:""J.c
\. ' .. . · t
:r <o u (/lrt ~0 0(1) o HJ •n Jl;"(\l O<JHI>'(1~j ,_ (J'(O ~~ CD.. Q) t-:•;(ljp rt 0 ,·trJ co l:li Il~-~c 1'•::sOQ C) () 'i
.....
rf,tWct rt(1)1/.
)· .. ' 1 · ..
vJ\0 • H {Jl rt : ID ti <D Ill"J'--1 p. , Ul 0 ~~ (II I 0 :J 0 1-j tc () o·c..CU ~ ~ 0 ~ ·-.> HJ ;.:J ct..
,. ·'• ) · r 0 · - 'J ~· ' ·
t-1 rt-Il' CD I rt e-t (lcl ct :- <0 0 0 P ~-<~ l tO r.1 rom (11l1•1 1-j()<; (0 (D~ 1 lDI CDt-j':! t tn r; <t I 0 ~·Hm l ....:o
c 0 ct~J Cil t'J'.!\l~~c ~·J (' ()'1 D IJ·v rt(1)lD
l)l)
t ·· ...: )' · ' ' . i· : j l· '· j
v> \();.·) c I . 1-Jro <: >'Jco (\1-J(}) ~~ ·", : ~ f: ;.f•'tl (\lo t".Ul... ( ,J p rt~ co ::.: I ~ · ~ l"J'
1~ w n (\l\ CU !J HJ rl •, lj c •• - < H o ·J ctr.r<o I' O • o c 0 () 0 , • t- : I·(J' i ":ic-1I·() 1 10
: r \[) 'cJ t ~ I ·· 1 t J
IU ~ 1-;1o (ll. r :/{0 a· CD ;:l ~ ron'-roI1 '> p. rt 0 ct ~ <U lrJI'·l I o U 1-'- (ll• () <J p • I c c <0 CO r1 I p.
· ·J - · •· ~ t .r ~ " t · _ ~ t ·•
n rrCD >:JCDt () lj <D t~((liP·CD rf(I rt u·CD 0 OlDl:IllI p.lU >:JCD fl· HJ f I r <n · I" Cl r •r I , r I II CD•
.. " • ' l ... ' I J , .
,) \.t\U• ., lj rt I () I (U ~ H ~~ lb (/} tj I n· rD l ~ (0 fJ(\)[\r1 (J :,J . ,Jt-j ' { lj (), jl 0
:" - ;· j t .... 1 c--•n j ·Vl : I> ll J · ,· n - ·j ·,-
:Z:· ·l1 ! 0 '<1{)l IO · , 0 p r : .,jt-(l. o m fll : { [II ;iI !'•· () · d : 1 HJt:1 U L) l (t·: '~
O , :J<D Jj (1.(~) d , t. rtJ· CO 1. a, (l:J () l1 l r : II 1! 0 c :.tD t- I· t..c1(0 c ~ .,; .' 0·{n....; ()ltJ r) <D0 {0 n I
· :r' t : . ~ • .. 4tJ : t
d lU '> fJ rtr.-ClJ H) 0 ~;j , ru CD :Jrt r)· p. (llt.4 () ... • ill':!() t'
~-( 0 ~: ij' u 0 u 0 0 p
. ( .
-,. : · =- . l l : 1 -' _. j
~ () 1-'. •: !iJ. tJC)ti1(Jll ~ l. • : . . H ~f (~t(1) H ! IU p.Ill ; < r w 1 l~ ()1 lllo ·
IDIll~.!-' I <0 rt ' ~ .. r .-1· · H :-,Ill. U ... c CJ·..(0 fU l t ;TII>ct I•~
: 1 ' l;j !J l>' .. ( (0 {JlJ . 0 ~-.'-. ()c rt._.1-1 t· 1 tJ., " Il 'I , · I f l '·l t
l"(. < I ro ~ rtllJ' ur IillO ( r::1-s.-1. (\}' (Jl() u ct 0 t :)' (D ld I ~ 0 IJ I 0 l\1 I· [Ir U' 0 0 : t 1 c ( \.JC~
J ... l. ~ lh · t · t j l t t l .. ) . 1 j I
IUj1 P· I rt 1 0 :1 (J) 0 t-IJ ct: 10 ct : .0- rJ Ilrl c l~t- l f •j c ,• I" f f), Il() r:, (II(0 p I'·~ H, () • ·
iJ(\> -' . , · I·Ul .. " : I 1 ' ~jt P. p. ~ ~ rn c.., ~~ ~ ct0 ( , cl
1-·' <. ::_, (}) t1 0 tj :J · l.J(l< {11rt n [Jjr:()lJ lU())( I ~ I ' '.1 <) '
I'·~ I !J (l lj O·{ lj 1-1ll ~ (ll t-jlDt-•,Qllj.':!0 P·li•c1 0 ~-•(U ~ (J I t) ,. 0 \ll1 () 0 :.1t .1.ctrt m {1,)
(])tO
.,.. jl1 ~ ~ JI '
(_ r. 0 •H" ? r,; ~ .. ' I ~~ ID
· f' t ' t ·.. i , :.. .. -' : ) '
+ 0 • ~:~: Il( I) I"t1 u· CD lU~j r (ll,,co ' :) 1\1r , 0 .. 'tlj ct, n 1 co ..-H : (l(/l u w lU ;.
kw · • - -~ · t
1-j10t-(j)lj t <Up. c-() rt~)'w lLJ•(l 1 0 O<l 0 (1I" n (J n 1 t!r (IJco
- )4 '· . : · ' ·
.r()-~ • 'd 1u1-jIll t-:) 1C'" I (Jl CO Ul(Jl{{Jj ...I ln1-1I_C.; d·~)'<lJ rJ :1~~ Il,Ill 'rlj tt I 0 1·-'u H 1 ~·I~
Jl · ·· t .(irJ -' r 1 ·:J I .J ,. t .. •tu . • t ' ··
· f.D0 c I , ;_1 1-' 0 1-t> c : tiJ I \{). ~-:~~ ' f 0 , ()(} 0 t ' !":1 P• . ljl: t-'( I < H .. •.,. ! H.0 ( ():l " · I)I·IJ
r1!J'CO 1l \ . ~IJI. J lj o d·( n () }J 1-]~ I (Jt <l!c~i. {\1)"' I·1l : Cl{Jo !l: ' · r.lj I ro 1 I 1-•· u 1'·1 jl)(I 1'Ct ::t
y• t( r "· ! t t · ( ~ • . · '· '
t):-J ... ({) 0 I" (J : J ~1 < {I>c <U'1 (lj fJI 0 1·:r iJ' 0 IIJI . t' u c.r: cl : t ,. d f (',: p. ll.J
':" • : : : J - I . · I · ·
. \YI. ~.J. tJ0 (~l ' ~ \J- ...c. • (i fl& :) • - I : (I '~ • I:;<I1'1! _. ' :i •• I ' :.I' ; I).
~() · '· · '· t ..J: l ...·. ••• t ,_/ ~ • I : ;· ~ -l-' · •
~r I" I rt 1 {J) r o 0 <I•lfl · < r (J 0 '~rn I :J ~) (.( 01 , I \l'IW : c 0 t 1 l.''"" (..):) ~ :, ll I.tl ''
· ' · · i ,·I · : : _..·(fl \ :r ; 1 · I : IJ i \':'()··J' • .0 I'
tJ ·: :)'('I : (I ~ • = •lJ p. (J' tt : :1(.1:... {\l, I J. : {{J -.n (l:I i , '" ·'>I .::: ~ I (II(/.... l'l: f. I
c ~'JI·:I r· [iln 0 1$ p. I· :I d (J (. /' I.(.. '.1.:t I·0 1 <11 1·C i.I10,•i 1 , r i.\'\ld :o:l {!•j (0 tl>• tl t)~' : t.lI
'- t ~~ ·nl I I l >' .. l 1 1 i''· t ;· l 1 1)1 ' i
1 01 r :Y'- 1 l'l}·; I 10 1-'IYI-....(.() ( t11j l UJ l•l: l[{ : • 1 ( : I i , "i :)·I•l'l f. : t[l .u l: [ :i tlI (.I'
'J!~ l" ·' 0 i' ... .· J · .. } l'tL. .. > :.. J ; . " }, • ' . · . 1 . ) "'l'' ·
0 .. ~ : 1n1 ( tn .:!<!1 0 : (J; (J ~:I I l < , ('. ;w : !! ~ 1l', (l ! lO l I'·ll : ''>l (l.f\ 11\ I q ' (.,;
c 1i ~~ lJ0 lJ l'I p l-': ~l rt () l' :·t[) I q • 0 • t ( ()I> f•1I IJ ( f!Dj ,,., I- (U J '"· I < t •'(J• \.II_,
lil· · tt '· -4 ' j ) I · 1t ; t ' . : ~· ' : I' 1n
(llJ I t':/~~ UJ() I'Cl ~ c I tl_I 0 I : ( I I' t' I , I l) : (,J (I 1! : : Il l' I l l1
167Annex 20
rt3~~R:r:r:::s:n
i~v;..:
406.
4;-_:~. ! ~;ctll: d.:..t ~:ep:J:_ntc·..1t ti:a::.!r.~.~ ..leets ~:.·o
-:.!...:.:.""'i f..:igi~~or.l.::=:e:i-- 1:, :OnG v~r::.e ·~:e,:,:~.·~:o
~ lue lr::.:'.le 'ts--ie:~d cor:.-::...tha.t l~~ t ~vr e.. a-r,:;-a :..:.:~
,,-e ·,r::~ave no s':2.tist:..cal ossis on ·,..-h::.ch':o C·3':e:::>r.-.::.::e
ho~.!;J.a: 1·.9..lasti1.ere a.re ~...t..e cor:di~i;:n 0f t:-:eN'::.-~.:...e
s-:cck. :l:t:..s very necessarj- tr:a.t'Je ~s..ir.:. tcd..:3:..':1.:.!.~:3
l:...r.-..::.tf o:r a:feT,;yee:::os tcget the ::uch neeC.'Sd..:':..:._""lds.-
::.e:-_tadata.
:1r. BosG.anov?
~;:9. ·rR. ECGD:.:TO.V (U.S.S.R.) (:i:nta~pret ....t:..~r
~~.,.3o;C.::.~~ cv;c'_1:l:d.cao hear the o;;i-~.io on~c ~::e~ C.ele-
5D.':es c:: t:-~Ceonference.
4l ·J. C~R:LU1: Is thare any further ?O~ent?
'T..:.._. ~. 3o6C.c:.r has.ore~~.leste d~:e op:..r:.:Lo!"lt:-:e
otl:er G.eleset~o rs regard ~o this lo,COO ~luew~al8li~t.
412. F~ofesscr Berge::osen?
41 3. :8. :SE2G~S3I (T~orva; ):,. -=. Ch 3.:..r:.:aI,hope t:-::::.t
t~e Scviet Dele;:::.tionvill join w:..~a h~. It is e~sctly as
o1..:o:~air:: h:..astaed.. It -;vv'.l2oe. preci:icall:; i:-.:;:ossi-cle
to .f:..r:.e..t.Jriu~e, tl:at is s-:e.~ist.:. !.:..:0..-:c ~.~;:.:-:c,.c,_~:,
ha.vi:-,:t~.:_ lirr..:..t~h.:. se-:s t~e fis-:...:I ~~es.:. r~~:.l:r
!'"'.;.ecess.::.!-!.=..v·eit.~hls 16,~-:c ·ol~e 'TH-!la2,J...._l.,:rG3-
pon.~ to s:~eth:.. lie~ 1,78C,0 00 or l,Ecc,cao ba:'rels, :::.~cut
3CO,OGO ::~r..s T.:1.a is the ::43<3-"l.io~ ~:~:. i'~5:.1re :.tis
ccr-::a.i.;-nc~esser; ,r l:e..-:,-e ssc!""":o:~:.::......- ::.i1.s~~o.:l,
h:.vor .t':l.:'ather. fi.;--~r to p!'c~ se. It is 'C:le 88 t o:-_e
that ¥e c~~ ~ake,
~14-.
415. !-1t. I:CES:.::r (U.K.): i ~'tJ o:p't·,.;:1Profe;;s:;:L'3cr:;e::'-
sen hcs said, a.."1dI :::ope ve--:y :::uch tl:e..t 1::he U.S.S.Dele~-:.
tion w:.11· :r-.;.otprestr.;.i.s po:!...B1.1t::he::'cis P-.J.ot:: tt::..::~
: wc,.ll:il:!.1=e tocall. atter.tion tv. I ar:.~ot q·~:..s :~ae
~.rh.:;t 2.: he....-:'~icle sre !:O\JC:.CJ.1·,.r:.".'.,.::et:·.~~"1e~;s
=.e..J:e 1zt::.w:1. atha result cf ~:1e ~:'J.!'..r::J!sid o:~t~:e ,:c::.
::.it~e tl:c..ycu £:eve set 'J.Pto r:~ee .;; 2 p.:: ..-c~~::., -Jr.s;
wr_e-:~e :::e'Co:r=.iss:.. Tl'f"'c-.c.vet~a ;o;;e:.,to a: :..e-:~.:..s
l6,'.JC."'olue-'.-:--_tL""lit.
.,._.:), If t~~ Cor.~izs~cn is g~ve~ t~at ;c~a~,
,-..-...:...,
=-~~stc~~a ~ ~a~te~ fer 7.:-S.:.~:-_-:: t.-:'..;----·-J-.....o.-
168 Annex 20
~E.:~~ :TE:J
J..iC/32
- 31 -
4l9. .. .J.__•..} .(\_' ........I ;:;e.v-e that the substa."1ce of
7 be referred to t he 3iologicel Co~ttee f or a
pe.= .1~~ra.;~:
re:~c.rt.
420.
421. ::..qV.\::TDITt: (Netherlan.ds )
donrt see the ~eces~ity fo~ refe~ri~g pe~~gr~ph 7 to tho
Bi.slagica.l Cor,~ ~tae. ~;. s.-Ir, Dc'bscn of the t7rr t~d ?C.i:1gC.o~
has :;co.::.:t:eout, it is .,;:_thin t.h.e ce.pac:. ty and tl:e c.ut::.o:::-
ized. ::,J~ve ofs the Co""r~ssion ,f t hat Com,...,is~ isioe.Jo.pted,
t .o C.eciC.e o.::: the rn2:1ber of whales e.:=.ch year. I Q'...;;e c.;ree
i·i:.t:yo~r poir..t cf vie~; ths.t it is qui':.e necess2.::'J i:1 crc'.er
to ge~ sc=e geed ~r~8rmet~o~ en the wh~le st cck th~t t~e~ e
sh.tJ-.:...1::e c. certai:-_fi~ed :: .::1ber E..:lce-..r orr~ a ::e~-ca.i.::.
period, -:<hie:;, s:'loill':Je fL"'.:ed L"l ord.Gr that •.;9 c.s.r. get the
necessary statistical C.ata.
422. C:-L.UR1·1AH: Thank -ycu, iv!r. V2.n Di }:..:.'.-fl:l I n~d.
in :::i.."ld wasthat if '"e ref•Jrred this :;:ntter to t::;.e 3i0:cgi
cal Con=ittee, t::e Represent.:v l~tif~o~ the U.S.S.R. ~o~:Q
_g~t t i"lebenefit of, let US s2.y, fu:'ther ventilaticn cf ;,-h,c_t
is t:ehind the set'!::ing up of the 16,800 bh1e-whcle 1..lni.'C c:..""ld.
t hus prevent undue delsy in the Ccr~erence deliberations.
Th8.t i s •.rl1at I hc.d 1.::1r:ind •.rhen I :::ace the sc:.ggcsti c::, C'..it;
I ll.'e!l t i.rely at the C.isposal of the Cor-.fe:::- c .r:~;oei: -n
h.:1s been ;:::~ t:.:2t.pc.rsgr.:1ph. 7 ·oe referrad to the B:!....:;i.:c.l
Ccrw':littee.
4.23. 1;ffi. BOGBAXOV (U.S. S.R. ) (I:1ter:,Jre t ctio.::1) :
i··~C ~h.air:l~"' il, is very d.::.ffic; o .ls~y th.2.t t:':equc~a. C:'
the nw.":lber cf •.;hales won 1 t c:=:a.."l :~e .s very di.ffio u2.t t c
saj- tl'lat the n~":lbe o!f'wr .=.le.s ;.J'onit cha.-_ge at all. ~o I
prcpo~e, f0r the second ti:s, that the quota of whales ~ill
be desig.::ed or -:.;ill be eppu~!lte dr:l:r fer one y:ar 1 a..::1CI..
propose that t~is catter will be give:: fer ccnsiC.erati cn of
t~e Biological Co=~ittee.
424. CK.UR:•LC·i: The stat~:r.e ofr. he 'U.S.S.R. I:'ele;::?..te
'•1-.J.-...;..__ ,...~.-.J -s aad sec~-·.~. ""' t...."-.•o..1- ..~_....c~--::..- -:·-1
be refer!'ed to the Biol ogical Coi.r.."littea. Is there any C.is
cussior:.? I.f t:.~. eree no sbjec t :.cr:s, I ass~e t:-::.t t::e ~0:1-
fe~ence a~prover seferri~ tl:e ~atter of t he :6,:0 ~ bl~e
wha.:-:; li.~t;a.ti con ·e;::e3i.cl:;gi.C :~eL.~:.-:ee.I:-.a ~.c!~:~s
1
it :..s!'10""5 o c2.oc lc, I propcse t!:at tl:e Cor...fe:'e:-_c.e..C., :~:::-t.:.:.
a.:...c.a.t wa :r..e t !le:'e to::.orrcw =~l"'!l. it..18":JlOg a. ::::1.
425. 6:tJC p.!'2.)
:c:;..,:_JJ.. c:-:_~..:~~
.~ec:..:.:.:i.:3ec::"'-=~:.r:t
169170 Annex 21
21. “Address by the Honorable C. Girard Davidson, Assistant Secretary of the United
States Department of the Interior at a Dinner in Honor of the Delegates to the
International Whaling Conference”, IWC/42 (26 November 1946)
RSST~ICT3~
I1·1C/42
INTERNATION W AHLALING CONFERENCE WASHINGT D.C. . 194S
A.!:TRESS E~ ~:i: :C:IORi....B:g_. GIR ARD I.:..VI:::30CI,
).s_s~s?;.'.·TSECPE ..~;_.· ~y'~??2 -J:7ITED S'!:"~.. :SEP~~~~:.7:1T
T!-" r::rE?. C~R ;-r ===:'I:-!:·TII ·I no r-;oR OF TS DELEG __::~:s
T!--3I!?E~R:;._:.O..~.I...rL:~!.:G_..~I:F..LI:C3~
-{:.S~It;O G':!'£. g_., NO\lE!~l B6E, lQ46
I feel deeply grat~fied to have the pri v ilege of
b eing wi t h you this even i ng . I should like to teke a~van
tage cf this oppor~un~ty ~o say a fe w wcrds about conser
vation as a~a ppro?r iate f ield fo r internati on al coopera
tion.
'!'he task ycu hcva 3et f or yoursel ves is t r..t of
c~ncluding an i nternational convention ¥hich ~ill g~ve fu r
ther impetus to world - wide coc~eration in the conse r vation
of ~-.el,e r escu r ces . T"::e success of you r ef'f'8 r t is v ite..l
to t'::.S"..!!"Vi"":of a-:r-_e wt:::.li::~ndustry. I wish to sa3r-
~are~thetic£lly that I h~d t~e gQcC f ortune this efternco~
t o see tt:e ren.::rkable sot:..!!filo e n :ncde rn ~Nha.ling in tt:e
)..nt.s.l..c ,.,;hich·11.s mad e £.e..'!.labletr-roue;h the co'-...:.=tee:f
tr..e:::.e::-.beof th e Nc rwe gic. r:. Le:. egs. tl. o':he pic tare ::::-e
vse..ls Z:Qt cn l y the rnagnit'..!.C.e.r.. i:;:porte.nce of t "-. '..rhaling
i~dustry, b~t also pays ju st ~rib~te to t he skill and
co'..lr :=.a.r:dsa..cri !'ices of' the ~er.. ~t.:ome..ke ll:; tt:ec:-e~.; os
the whal i ng flsets. I a.m.sure t":1Q.t itmustOe e. s ource of
g r eet satis:fc. -c~ion to c.l l of' you that in t.::l:ir:gr!e:esure:s
t o co nser ve whsl~ re sc,..:.r ceyou are protecti:::g tr.e i:::terssts
of th ese b rs. ·,re :r.er:.. · ·
Y~ur t~sk i s =os~ sig~iric ~~t in c~ cther res pect .
The worlC tod ay h~s ~cce~teC tee pri~ci~le t~at t~e v~~ious
r.2..tions ::1ust get tc;e~~er .::.:,,.,~ =u--~ t e i:- :[::''Jble=.in
cocper c.t i onand :'·:Jt~e'!.~ ~ut.le.:.".J-.le:~f.0-'~~:ss~~cess vf
t~is ~rinciple de~en~s ~~o~ i t s~recti:~~ a~~licetic~ to
s~e~1~ic ~roble~s effectin~ t~e i :::t erests c f t~s ~~ric~s
neticns . E~ch c f y~u ~~st feel proud to ~:::ow t~at yc~r
~ork he r e is ccntrtbutin~ to the vit~l1t7 ~~~ ~e£lth o~
ir:te:'r-.t'!..-J, g~c~c-·.;~:!.~.
Ccnserv~t~c:: :f w ld:.ife r esou r ce s offer~ e n e~"e~
lent o; p crtunity for s uco esful :o~certed s:~i=~ J~ e n i~ter-
r_.s. ~::::ll2.·J<3l . ·-·.;.-::) :..:.. -at:--~.Fes:,e:-:1:-:s::!is: = :--~1.:.·.:~
elrec~y e~joyed the te~ef1 s of 1nterna~1ona: :Jc;er ti:n
i~ ~~is f ie l dan~ c£n ~=1~ ~tth p r ide tc res~:ts ~r s in;
=~t :f c or e tha~ 3C ye s r s ~ ex~e::::- cee.:::
171Annex 21
~~s:?!:::~
r.·-c·2.
- 2
For exam;:e, i~ tte Bering Sea, off t~e coast ~~
A:~aka, is a grsu~ o~ isla&ds--t he Pribilofs--wcLch are t~e
(:o:.cf :::ort~:e. 3o ;:ercent ::fall ti!efur se.s.lsi:-t:-_e
~o~ld. These bar~en and treeless islands are ~~e only
~lE.ce in tte vorld where the Al.s.skaf urseals eve~ come
astor~. s~~i~g t~e winter ccntts the herd lives at sa~.
?rob~tly sene of its cacbers migrate south as far as t~e
cc.s.sof southe:::>r.. Cali.f'o::i-_ftersi..:<:t~i~e :-:\Onths
of this ~E.ndering at sea, the fur seals re~urn to the
?rioilof Isl.!lndsin t~e s~ring. There the older :::ales
este.blis..t.e.re~O:::sool<eli:s comprising m=.r.j""fer:sles.
:~e~e ~~e ;u;s are bcrr:. .After several cont~s o~ this
cc:cnial e~ia~ence, the seals go to sea agai~.
At the ti~e of the discovery of the ?ribi!of Islsnds
by the Russi an r:.evigato::Gerassi~ ?ribilof , in 1786, the
:::r c:, see.::on the Is 'lands:or·obabl y n n;;.beabout 4
.:-.il2..ir;n .:o.niD~rir.. t-.ene;~ ..a.lf centuryabout 2
:::il!ionpelts Yere t~~en by seelers. This so seriou~ly
~ed~:~c ~he ~ere t~~t ~ur1~6 the follcwir~ 30 yee.rs--frc~
a~o~~ 1835 to '1867 -- cnlyabout 600 , 000skins were taken .
I~ 2..667~ha Cnited St~tesca~e into possassicr.
~~ -:~e f·_:r sealherd tC:!"oug ::uch a.seof .~lasl< c..::tr~e
~~j~cent islsnds f~o~R~ssis. During the next ~0 yes~s.
on~e eg~in the explo:.tctian of the fur seal :::>escur css
T~e ~os~ Cestr~c-
-:~-i;'e.,2..c-~:ic2.s.;tw:s.~lc::c ,.,.;r:e.s ;>see.:i::g,:J~t~:
~!ll:.~g cf ssals c~ the hig~ seas . T~is was csrrisd en by
~~a fis~er~en cf sevsrcl cc~nt~ias. It ~~s parti:ularly
::.z:::.r:.:C. "..;c..s:bc .cc_·J.::e~est.!.~ nedt~e ::i~2.~r:g
o~ ~~e mot~er seals and indir~ctly led to the ~est~ of tne
~~~s t~rc~gh s~arvation.
Sy pel:.gic sc-=.~:1g=..:ct :-:et.l.r.!."tlise :r.etr:c .=..s ::f
e~p:citsttcn,t~c f~:: so>ls ~e~e red~ced ~o t~e ~e:::> cfe
G::t-Lr:.-;t:.Ir:.l~:c, t:-~ eerd nt.:.!:.bered one:.'..-l3 G,:ca
~~:.=cls. ?ort~n~tely, e.t t~is derk per io d int~e ~istory
-:.:f th.a ::-es-::·::. prcgrecfn~ntern.D.ticncC ..l;~~c.ti..:.:ls
~~~er~cken~ Under ~ t~eety which became effective in !?!1,
t~e ~~tions i~volved in the fu:::> seafishery cg reed to c~~
:~w p~le.i ;csealing. One cf t~e ~~tions--t~e Cni tei 3tat2s --
t::>~:-:-~.t~~ =..::.::-_.:::.,.=xJe~-.t ..""r:~;-1~.~(:,:::t"-'~-yr
:.~:£~:;-:~e-::>thesig:1-c:rics o..-...e:_e-;-~-~ ....._c-~'-.-----~
::r'Jfts . ~ba .sccess :Jf ~--_~:;.~.t:.:t~__:..;~_o··:.=-o~_·~---:~
:~~;~~ ty t~ep~enc~encl --~··=~~ -- - ·7 - - - - ·~
t ·:.~--0:sne~c. 912.. ··::e~~::1Q¢i:::~ ~f t::o]!. -:ed.t!:.ts-s
:e;s:::>t=~ cf~ttt~ =n~ertor took c ce~s~so~ t~e ~~r se~ls
::. :..~:r:-:t.:_o, ti::o:""::..::::! tr-~e -:~;-:!C-:::.::t::.:.::
~ =tl:~ ~~ ~~ ~~2~. ~~i~ ~e~resents en incr3S2? =f ~50~
;c~· ~=-·-·-:lr-~:-_--=;-.:C.:..:-:.~:: .. :..-;:-.~-::.2,.:-~~-~:_
~: ~~~~=t b? s~:cess~~:~~ =~~scrv~~; ~~e ~~~:2 ~~s=~~~~
172 Annex 21
l' ~ ·.. • :]
(II; <Util() j l-- ·cFl r~:~1 ,. i-j' r,: ·, p. (,)C :J ~~1·1/)1 ~tj~-I) •JIj l'1
··· j
1 ~ 0 -.../\).
.
I w I
·
(1· rt ~r 0 : <l! rt;· IU 't t'·: ;-.- CJ' rl {JJ I~ ;r<l) ;tct I' 10:~t.-t.. 0 u' 'j k Ul J·j;;:0 ~"_ ()
Cil ,.J'· . {)]10:,1<D lilrt •"· :J (II
()•_, :I OJ ;J ;Y(Ll<: Vl CllClt;:l ct;-:CD · I UJID n t-t; J • l[)fnr-t t-t,) 'T int-;: 1,() 'i ct ~)-<1> ttJI'(J •~. Hj• 4)
J : r ~ 1 '· ·(J'.J '-~ ~ r
;T!.lI r'·U r <t H<l> <D <.. ; !\l< t'D Ul<b (\):J I c.T p. (ll0 1- a'~l Cl! rt~T1::l C !PlJ [I <:(j\tj ·I-'(/}~ ,~.: 0'l rp ~~
.•. · . t r · · I - ~ -- ; l J ·
'i, (II(]l P {J'JllI... c · lj 0 ~~l1'1J I w ct (\1lj OCJo ...ro.I ') h mtJ <tJ 1 l1 fU•tJP>Ut (!l;1 <J"I ,;
·
Ul (!1: (]I"j rt .:I ~ t-'<:cu ro(')I::J j\J 0 < ;J't-'- 0 ' r: I-'l I'· ;:1 o HJ - t UJ ;:.r >.:~ Vl
j l · I ) ~ ~ ·-I f lYl ~ l(J t .~. • r
<:...l ct r( I « t-rj ( ''· ,,.: W 4 ', ~ (~ c1 (ll• Ul0 {U r :l p.r> t'1< r C/1 • c (I;yt( rt (.'1 <D
. - > · . -' ..J. . -) ,
HJ...t-jC/1 rt ·~ 1I(\)(!lrten () t•, ,..U ;Tt :- 11! <: co UJflU1!1I w 0 'CJro 'i rt • :J()' t 'i o<-:rt rt rrro l(j •:lc1(~ o ...
<:l :J 0 o ~~<: en'i p ~j p. Ul CIJPHctict 1 (0 "~ '$ <Tl u' ~ ru ct0 rt rt (j) t''1 o--; I .......,0 CJ p.
,_ (l,' ()Q ;; " J
0 ~ I rt '" o 1'(l C £:) rt 0 ~ ;:J<U 1:>1 (\);:l Ul lj 0 CO ;J rt (ltn 6 \0 1 ct:J·m : rt 0 0 ::-;·
1 - ... t ~ '· 'ffi j '-'~ 1 C-
0'() iJ ·"·f·' a·() ;1 () r: ~:CL CIIO <:t' l ;J I ::s tn UtfJI1>11-'l· Pl l (!lPl-'rII•>:'m Cl!: (1,...t'(}I]~ p 0 U 0 t-j(ll
.Y ·) ·0 t . t ·
ct; ! 1::1 \))n o fj I''~ 01 Ul rt O l ., <ll ;:J l:i, ;J
: J t t · . .~
j:ct 1 O n rn rtiT,..;:J ;; ('ltJ> t:"r '('o.Jo :1t- ~I r ( ;1~ Ul ·~t'-(/., <1>t c..: :r Ul
~ ... j t , ~ " ~ · . J
t ... (1)I (\)-~-· t-'t'r : 111~·rt,... <tlIJCIJ t t w ,..(11j u (!:1 ~((j)I H) o •.s0 ro p. rt0 ·~ (lt-j,,;•
:~
1-'t.;1l(/1(\)-j (\l-1P.::SWT (i'i 4ro •1 t·~) 'i ct;:r(])t'·-j o ~~ct o ;TCD Ul .. fU p. cr0 0 ·...,'i rt ;:r])'i r., I·~i
t-~c.~:l cT~_,ro il• f-]~-I•> ::1P.Cl! rt0 rt ;-ro- CD~~ o ro I'1-'<11:_rt lOo lj p. m ..;rlnI·0 ;J cr ;:r(ll ~ I'•J ~y I
1 4 ·· .t-j ._,
ro tj' ;T! w I•>1-J<:Ill~.:: ~. r0(1 rt .. o f.J Ul0 t-'m ::1l·, (iJt ~ ro 'iO::Srou:ll'1-'CIJ rt 0 1 o 1-'_,0 ~:
-' ., ·• t J
rt ~r(~ ().})o 1 .,.~~ Cl! 0 , rt ~r(j) ~Tp I-'t u' s::< o> <-t(lo r, C/1 ~·(,..ct;J' ()<) Q (J ct (ll0 0 r:~J 1~ 0
::.:: ·(~~ p1 r: ·'rt 0 •• j L p. (lr~ ~frt o r :1 [1.L'l ~, 1-' o < ...lt•.c..~
t.1 :1 l O•lllf.1.. ::r{ 0 ·f~l l•l) 0 'rJ t · :j \0 · '
o c ()if 1Jc. \JJ< '00 j:::1 n.[/} I\) · ro (!ltj VI ~. (•'t ci•tj. l..U r rt ~·1-'•l 0 ; p :J0 (lJ~ t-':J P.lU s:::1I
l 1 t ~".., • '· n · ~ .
(1,l'tJ () (ll :~l to m f~ u'< e:~ ;; (J10 cto ()~ c1- 0 , i-1· :1 p. o' <-1 (p n 1-'! 'i ~ :1 rt ;JCll ·-1_. (D ,
' . -- · T --: - · $ - ·· ··(~) t t<U ,, ct
!".l.1.L (.( H f'l·. I ;J Wt rtf-' {II ...<1.• (/J(ll (II I";J p. .n (l• ~~ U • m <ll1 ••,·)o() I ·fl:,1c • ~-·r I·' Ul
{IJ<"Cll:j rt ~rt-J· p,((J.:;J·0 Cll ...(•1t.~·U(])p, I ~Jp. rt;llm) (1 0 rt I~1 0 {o rt0 ;J I"·-ttn roI· t-t;}u' <1>' 10i..1 <I0
. '• ~ (I
ll•..1.1I. t :J :n.
·
) · 0 · - ~ · s c ~-·v cr
~ fr rt () 0 r: 1-'. (J'G) (). !.11 cf() t~ro U> rt • <U ct ~ I_.. ~ : (). (Jl lj ( I-I
...!1 (it ! :j •·p ct Cl'i ; l'lt ..... ;1:' f·' IJ 1· Utr1lD tj ._ 1'1.)1J 1-'o ~ c:•(J. fl 1-'I':· (0 o· 0 :n t 1'0· t·(•l; {I)
l j ), -· J 1 1. O r ·· ~ 1-1l · 1' '
't f ({It-jJ.n 1-'1 U> • a I 111 ·~• I ; ct;f (~,U w CD t-1 :ro UJ ~; C!ltjro t-'• rt lU ·~: f rl I 0 r.-1>I· ·-
•• · ·· 1 ) ' ..i 1 · J · ... -- t I
H 1 ' rtI ~ (Jl) L(fo.o :'; I' :1 P. 1-f.lt-jct D n C (' :0(lltlJ:J ct rr C'J £1 :..: 0 C ~-::.1rtt-j, ell{I)~ ..;J c ;r
0 r: () 0 ~ ~ f.l <t o ~-' I 1-'l:en 0 0'~ 1I 0 ~ Vl t- •
· cHI'J I} ro~~ 'ol'Jo rt l"l 'i 't · (J.. IJ t-<D lJJ 0 ":l ;J fJ t'- :J r
ct i W l(j~-~ o ...<:'ll o I) ~ fl. u CJ (n 0 1 < tfJ. 0 ~1 1..c..1 n· ::sctCl ":l::J.l(t.•, ();1 (:1J ()0 .-tt..():j .
· t •· ' J. ), .~. '4
; : (), ()Iu f:, c. o I ;:.1t 1-1)1-' ;T <~ • (()w o () q !1I w en• o ;:1 l'iJ~ ~$ll ,, ;TCD (JJrtJ'~p.(~ 0 ,..., ti·;r(j)
u · •• - • ~, ·• ·
1 ~ r) t"·HJ • {) ~ fl ~ I-'·' r:rt ~: PenJ "'() l'jil, pj t :s J..·,1\) rfc..:: o (J r1 <:CJ ~.1l; t'0 :J (}~(!l1· ~ li1(1i.:l
ct i (J <.:: •.lct(11f~ (JJ I r (',) i~ :1 ll c; •:1 {> r lll'':l f"p t-•·l..o.J
ct m
:] t ·- . t · .l ~ j . l
1 0 () 0 :1Ul lH '.l~ (Jc t o ~J .....JI (JJ ("t;.P· n .: l IJJ r) H 0 (/) m :-J() 0 ~ .. ('crJ~- : I}
1 : : t . ~ p l
Ul 4.(]1(j tJI::(t lY(1)HJ 0 l'jC p ~1.:....r"I' :.1ll) '-J0 ~ ~- ~J.. "')n ct~ rJ •....t....ir (!)rtn. 0 ~J (i; ('t0 H f':-1 O (\J
r ;Y~'-Ul lj o Ul() j • 0 ro !<~t11 jY f.l, rt0 I'ro {~lIJ :.J fJ •s <'Dl rt P. m (:1" 0 () l (~ P tt 0 s: ct 1-'-'
, 1 t · · 1,)1) · l' 1 t $ 1 t
,-t; ( :1 ::~(1> < ~,-,~.p p.:j·ID .t:• (J)CJ t-Ill~1 rtr· UJ r1 UJ fJ 'JIt)o t-'_jrt C>~. r.(...1 rti (\ H ~s c CI• :: {'1t t-'l)~ I
-4 · I '• .. ·' . 1"
(\11 n () ~ t I Ul rn ~ I) :1 '0 t-ji.0l (J\lJ(l,\~). ~~, rt ;Y r_, ·Jj')t'·tJtn ct f:1 t"':-(.)t Ulc ~: (l. o ,_~ rt ;Y(ll
i. '• . 1 · :. · - • • · 0 r: - J p. 4t-, ·~ -'0 :' (:I1.
· I I I l.l' ...- 1 ;T(} t-: 0 i p ·j rtd, >1. ('(;) (l't Ul P :. ;·l1 ~'jm 0<)t 1 : I (.;) l'p • • ·
d :" t:• p,Ih$w U (~I tJJP I~ 0 tJ c ;-~( Ill. (Jl p ~1 p.•;j~ u 1 n • I ;T C~; [Jm r , ~.~<r•f.l n ;-(:,
! ' t ' r t :)' · r .. O<; t <. t
(; f 'I;.~ctJ" l;f-IJ c ;Tw t-~I L•lr.~ (J)c '-p.l)'jr:p. rl ; n> H J-kll'li ,.t1'Cl : Ul 0 1tJ c ;YI/Jl fl fl.,;1-'ctUl
· · - ; "' 1 I
() C' n1 I~·~tc:•p. ;:Jo ·~r-tflI 1"-ct t. 'ip C'trl.I ... ('l:1 il. (1)~ <1i.Jci ~:P{lI·'~ •.. I :1 l-\!)w O ,1·;.Yfcr.:.:10 '':l~
) r. : o ) · · lll1·•· o j 0 t-j u1 0 t- Gl :1c1 t' H, I''J (J! p.
0· n .. i'l· : m C ;:r1\J).r:f-''!J I• tj {!)o 0 p : (~ :t II J 1 : ut 1
ill') (J: , ol1• I) ;'J0 r1ct ..0 f ("') ; f}Cio ~ illp 1·11 .... 1-.:1• ci~;:>('Ct t" P 1-j ['.1 p Ill>:
t l • 1 : l · · '· .n 1 '" 1· 1· '-' . ...... I
t'1 t:i , ·- >:tl L'J p p. .J10 (1'. II.J' ~:I :J ("! I I·'·..: < ~' ,;·u .- ;:('I rtn ,_,j;I CJ('Jrt () ;T '11:1I:J
J ·· : ._ · j • ~ · ·
i t (tct u (, t':.1 p ' CJP tj~ i,'flCJJ(J n. tJ r• a'l;1 '''/Jc• I I[ n n '.1l I :.1p,( t'fI'·) ;1 Ll
· l 1 f r I .
:·.,>d 1 •j .... \)I l n ' 1 , U 1"'1;r ,; ( ;T H !'~:J fltr 1; H () ~ ct rt ; ll1 CJ0 it: I''o{)}, () rJ
j i ,. · • '1 ) · I , j : t 1 1• t ~ J ·'· J·•· I 1 IJ . )
I ,:l '·' I \. II Jl (I)(i (I( ' r. IJ•; , j ') <I· f, :s1.. I \ ,:, C 0 :1p. t <I I : \ I ,, ; ~~
t,~• · J ~ • : 'i l : , .. 1 J :' ~ , I : t ; 1 ) J .. J j i fl.l ;. · rJ. :
I 1 I;J ( ' t I ;f t ~ r}·1 :1 ,,, ~ i • OllltJ ; · l (,. · l ; ! I t ~I C I 0()p ( (11f'L' 'l • · I_
( : p II) I t). : f , • \" ( :s ' 1 ~) ( I .. ; (!,I'·:!1',, ;'f·,I . ~' P L) l I- 1'1~ I t c'h1 I : I :J
i i : • :(/•J 1 . i '· I 'I•. , : J ' t l ; J. j ~ " I
p : : ~ ! I ...1 • t.Jp. ;t ~ ~ t.JI ; I I f , :.J •cJI'1 :j n.I li'l HI !'(. l1 .. c ;\\ :1 ~ :' ~ r, I ~::II fllUJ
· J t • IJ .. ~I . '• 'I . I,. - . •l: · · t '
a1 I ,,.(J I • ,t. I j4U ;t I'!i IYl , !f ll ( (1I t ..litI (. ';j· 1[(J ~~p,, : 0!'J l (: CiiJ: I 1 (.I II :a
173Annex 21
- 4 -
T':lese are t·~· eo::'.-!cs of successt'..ll co~se::-<.·stic::
of e. renevrc:ble resou::.•ce t1:-o~i i::tarnet'!..cn.:=e.ctic~. I
could c-.s ec.sil:rgive ycu. :~er. :1yre. 3ut the 2.e:=:so:2s ·,;e
learn from such successes in conservation as ttese. ere
r..o more significc.r..t t t!e.n those w-e have lsc:rned f:::-'Jw cu r
failures. A tr'..l2.y intarne.tioncl r0source ce.r..r..ot be effac
ti'Jely co r..served by t=:e unilc.te re.l c.cticn of cr..e nc:ti;Jn .
This ~1e. been proved ti=le e.nd tin!e egein.
Tte conse~vetion story is essenti~lly tte sc=e t~e
world over . 'He in ti:e iJniteG. StD..tes t.e.ve (-.2diffi~u.lty
ir.. leernir..git, end cnce having laerr..ed i~, ~e o~tan t e.7e
tsd difficulty in ap~lyir. tg bec&'..lse cf o'..l~eculiar ;eli
tical orger..iz. o£r..i.As c.young cc•.mtry stretct-~ir ecro~s
en entire continent, we possessed resources wt:ich our c.nces
t;:,rsfelt were so e..::1ple th.c.they could n~ver rur.. out.
Little more t :-:.:~!.l~ from ...,herel<e sit ton"!.gt:.t
a huge seine ~•e. sper&ted in the P--:>to~e rver. ·,.re are
told t~t in a single sweep of t~c.t huge net ~s ~~~Y ss
3,600 sh.£.d vere t o.i<en! "n'i':hO'le:'fi.'3hing, a::d •..rith the
pollution which f ol lowed the rise of O'..lr cities o.~d ·
increasing industrielizeticn, it is no wonder t he t tod~y
c;;:;.se rv.:>.tionistsare hevir:g to strugg le to restore tt-~e
s~ad to e ven less then~ fourth of its for~e~ n~=e~s.
I cite this ex~~~~e baccuse it i~lust~ctes so
clec..rly t~e d.i.ffic,..ti83 ~e t.c.-:re h£.d ins0l7i:lS ::::=.:r
ccnserv :.ti on problems in t'::"!.s cct:..'1tr.?irst, ab~nC..e.:;.ce
·which. lec..ds O"'J-:ntt: r.toll·...,~cs- Seeo::..C., tC:c".~~-cc:_ :e~:-
ci~li::.::.t •ironh lea.C..s s::::-.e r::en etter::~ tt e:ql.::>it
::: resource tt-.J::r.:ch r.::.rC.er ,,.,e C.ec}.in.e :.n t t:.=r~sct.:.zt:.=
becor::es obvious. Third, ger..er~ relluctance t o do enyth~ng
effecti·.;e s·cc'..lt consarv£.tic:: ur:ti.l the reso:..:..rci-L.s beer.
s.:- er:d .:;.ng::r'=d £.mel-:e c ::::1se::c"r.::.tion pic es e i t'::er
uselessJ cr lo~g a~d ~rduous.
In the United Sta.tes, as .,·ell, ""';;; h.::.'J-3a pr ob.:..e:n
mu~h like which f~c~s 6~0ups cf nations atten pti~g to
epply ccnserveticn. It is ju st about as ~iffic~:t to
ccr:.serve.the sh:ld :.n e.rive:- '·t.!.chf~-:·sr t~. ~.=...se't,:"-!:.1
s~~tes as i~ wo~lC be to do ~~~ s~~e tt~~g ~~ 2 ri7er
¥ihich flawed t'"".roug'sa·.;e~: r:=.ins. Tr_ro'.. c:::e.cts
betweer: the s tates we are achiev1r..g sc:::c~ec.sur of ~hat
cne day ~e hope to be able ta ~o fully.
7-h·.:s,even t::oJ.g::~er kr_o.r ·~2.t -::.:'":'req~.!..r:ed.
:::>~et~::: e": er..c::w·:!...: rc-s ·:ut.J::..tsr:o~ .:.:s:·,~~C..z. J:-_::e
t':-_e s..pp:i.c:..tio~:tt.!!.t~(:,...r;gc .~s:r : e C.i.:"l.::..,icu.. s: -'J:.,
tG Cri!'!g e..~c'...:t.
Cf coursa, ~a de ~ot al~C:.J ~r:=~ ~~st ~~ ~~-
is pe~t.S.? :0 E:~es ::'"'b:.l~g:: ·"'.::--·_.~.:..=::·~-~:-
:..s,;~ G.u i:1t':: esse 'Jf li~.a ir: ":::e.s~:. s::-_::c~:s :::-l
·.-t-'J:'l!. t.:c~,::: .-:tc-. c~.,:·er!'"' ..~~::·:.:;:::.:2=.
·:.:~ :.:t:-_·~·..:.::'.e.o:::1..:cr:.~v!to ·....:..::2:'~
174 Annex 21
- ~.,-
b:r:oltledge i:J.tj~s :':.elC. . I ~'Jpe that -:7!e go-:rerr_"':lents of
other ~~ttons, sc~e of ~tich ~ave a:rea~y done More i~
this dir·3cti Jn t '..L'cur own, :rill als o pr :::::ptly resu:::a
sc:e:1ti.fic resea.~: c i ::t~:is f:.eld, e..::: r.;:.soor: c.e;ai!! .,,~
s~all t"'.J:.free, co::: :at:e,~and unrestri:ted disser::ir:a.t::.on
of this k.-.c•.rledget:-.rougt:out the ·..rorl.d.
Cor.servat~o in one of the ~ruestsj~b ols of ~::
kind's ho~e . ~o one without conviction cf a peaceful an~
r:.cre r.:a.pp:f'..:.ture fo r~.:"a.:.k.'t.Uld s:;:er:.:iti..!::e a:;.d th oug': t
a nd a:;.ergy in tryi~g to provide for future gener~ticns . So,
·..-:;:ay trib'..:.-to y:Ju ·..rho are here tc •.;.:-:.an::Jt'::.e!' c ::apter
in : (:e i'""istor:..- of conservation . I hcf:e t~£t we ·..rill a:;;pl :t
t'::G sae1e pri:-.ciple::: -..rhich::ave guided you in your delibera
tions in othe r fields. Ar..d I hope that, inc r easingl;-j •..re
·..rillsettle prcole:ns which involve more than Pne nation
in the same a.:.i a.bl e atmospl :ere ,.i,~h ha s :r.a:.'kedthis
:t.eeti.:1g.
- EN:J -
175176 Annex 22
22. “Report of Committee on Penalties”, IWC/45 (27 November 1946) pp. 1-2
RES'!'RIC': ·-::-D
r,,·c/45
INTERNAT1 0~H ALLlNGCONFERENC •EWASHIHiiTUH,D.C •. l9-4S
2E?CRT OF CC~~·!TT':EE ON ?E: LI../7"~IES
[AF ·I:'~E-vr-I -5 (b)
Hovember 27, 19L.6
·'te Cor."'-r.itteon Perralties ·was apr.:ointed to consider
the proposals regarding ~ticle VI - 3 (b ) in the P~erican
~aft. Its jurisdiction was extended to include:
(e.) The value of "..rha2.as takeru..TJ.deper~i t
for scientific p~ rp oses.
(b) The treat=.ent or ot herwise of le~n back
!:leate.I!cthe 1.1se of -;·rles as fe~ders.
(c) The penalty for t a king ~ilk-filled or lactating
·,·hales.
(C.) The :::.ethcC. of:neasu.ring ·.rt:ales.
(e) ~he rep orting of t8e ti=.e of killing of
~hales by w~ale c~tc~ers .
(f) The a rrans err.e:::tfo1• the distributio!:l. of
cop ies of the J..a;.rs a.::.G.regt.:.la tgJVe!'n
ing the taking, killing, arrd treat ment cf
'"hales in different countries .
Tt.e Cor..=~itte :v"t on se· -rersl :::>ccasionsU..."1det(:e
Ct:ai~r.:~ a:~:of ~!:4:?'. ? . E:--i8 er: (De r...:na::-k'I't.c t ~-er
~e:::ber sreser:t ·.-.,e~·Ir l .Sa Drost ar:d Ga G. Ha -v--on ?elde
(: ·re -rle.rrds), i·,!r::r~:-F3"-"~l'c..l(lCr:·~-)a.:~y~I~:.'t:c ~ns
(U::it -e!dC.i n~):,:l·!E~ogd=.r:a".s.r:d:~rr T.eri .=..;:o"ric( U.S.S.P..) ,
c:::t:Cr. Gc.t·rie:s::nJ :r~a ?lcry-J ar:d Ce..::;Jte-~!oo( !:"e~:1ited
States). .
Articl9 ~I- 3(b). T~e a~optiorr o~ t~e fc j_j_c·..;ir--5
s.rt:...cle.::s:...:.".J:;tit:.;.t:. -'Jr.-. :""'::!"'b) c f tt:e ..._'T'r.-.e
·~c.~ c r:~ra.c-c~ .-r·;::g~=--~ s...:t. -::--o2.:-_s::-_i::
t) t~e :.~~1~Si:?_!:'·.J..:...i;:.e·::f~~~:: :..~._s:"i".:=:
of t~e ~ov si~~s of ~hts Cc~ve~t~ oc by ~~~s o~s
177Annex 22
I J J ~ -:J
l:. < , 11-j I')IJ n C,, !i <t ;; < :.ul [/)13 :.u l·1<:t
, " ~ · il ·' ' i I ~ I
< l ;:If' : • t I(. I iDlw 1-1C.on "'-..\J
l
1.
, . ·
0 l G Cb ( UlillI' 1 ~ ::111·CDl rt~)'Cl> (, r:'1 r'·(lfl.,..n rt t u lJ I-IJ c ;r Illc ,,)()~ lb 'i p I
0 :i J t ~ - r ··'· )
;J ({) cr ' ()l 1 <D•;:o 1-jr IDp. u'c ct;J <D t"·:::1 'll(1o ct (l '1 t-t_,,_;; (\lI I n Q l ;.1
b t-j 1 ~1 {11 ·· rJ o , 'I '
ct ;:f 1-<) ()tt 0 1-'-<j ());J"I''0 o 1-{.J l1[1. ct ct1 () () ::J c 'i ;1 <Dp . I rY I
1-'• ~~Qor,.j:1 (\c 1-'- ;:.1 (O ;-r1\1--' t-1.1 0 l-J ~ p, <P Ill· Ulrt Illct ill :.1 o )-IJ rt ~r CD '1 co UJ I rt
1_j ~ j ;· ~ -' '
t) f f\11 ;<~:.H (()PJUl r; I .o lll rtl ~' CD ::1 • 0 'i P• <P (\· ......QIJ ..:iD(to;Y rt ;:Cr t ., t<;1-JroOS:{!J
ct J..olo;:-J : .
0 .J. · ~ . ' ,
f 1-]• m t ;:-1Jm 1-jrt 1-'- ~~ 1-':1 lt ;-:\') .. ...~.(\)f-' ;t() ct 0 ·~ <T ;T(f) I".0 , ~..J ~ I ~ O'l
C11\1lj Ill lj IP ;:rUl
1 lH ICJ
J .r J .. . J. -
t ; CU n o ;:1~ <l>1 ID n o <P •.iCD o 0 (~) ......D Ul ct; W ()ru {11, 'i Ill0' t 1-'r~·rt "-1
\) 1 ~' 0 ;:1-'Ill<: 1·::; 1\ f-'!il <V H ro IllUlL 'J CD () HJ ~: :1I""·HJ0 ~~ n ,•.ct (\l;:10 l1
· r '- ljl) t 1 O<l i · «.:
<i ; ro <: (n<:!t 0 r:~' 0 ;.1c • ,1 n rtt-J:.1m t;() -::(()"j'J b <0j1 d (JJ >: t'·c p >j CDUJ •cjW 0 rtl}l
. '•
c-tu rt ;.rro ;J Illrtr: t-j Ill:1 p Ul W ~ i~ •;~t ct~ 0 H; td ((;J (1,_. c1~· ((I (J) 1-'!J 0 rtJro p,"
H; 0 tj (J 0 lJ rt 1-J, -::ill ct t• 0 ;:JJ 0 t+;, rt ;T t-w- n () jJ <: il>J c .....J::J ~ 0 0 ::1't1
. ~ • •. 1
ell·~Ul 0 rJUl 0 o;; UJ ~- 'U Ul I) 'd Ill P' ct 1-'-1Qq t-:,1(1.CD 'i rt;1' IDt-'1-j ~ lj t"Ul fl.1_.()rt 1-'- ;1
j : t \)
H'dct 1 ill()0 lrl:1 1-'- (I) n· ;:r1\Jt <D t'Dl1 1:~J ~" CTtj < ;Ylll R 0 Ul ·t r~cIll<; 0 1-:! o' f-(!I
rf fb lJ11'l ([I] Cll;t rt IP p, >-:~-rt ;-1· ct.i: m H 0 Cllct () 0 ;J!fl() (1) < t.0 r.;Ul (o r1 (1.
l~ . · ·
(])>l 'clo lj 1'(])j:10 roP. f-;,J j:1(j)j UJ (b ~l r.> 0 tiw ·~Ul ~ t'rt ~,..Ul,. !-'p Ill<.:t..'-t\lct f-'<D
- ·· 1 "' r . _. · ..
rt ~~ (\ct en0 Ll ill t 1-' (()0' IP f ~ ; 111t-Jro 'l :i!1 f-... 0~ ro rtfll ~·W :J Ill~1 ~1. e1 ~'lIllrt
(11 o <D I~ rtll~t'·:_t f-'111 I'-ct i~ n.IT• UJ;.r0 r 1 P. a' (]) "' ...1·-' ~ CD p. t· ~1 f\:UJ IJ(])m Ul I
. • -' -t
1_,P IN 1CJ 10;1 (11f-',;t·'Ill H' () •:1 Ul J:C1 J)' F , fll-:;()I..(:L~l'o·1· Ill rtIlll':t"ll • 1 C't
iJ t rn .. . J. '· · t •· <: ......
{ll«l o' CD < ;T f\,·t ;1JO'l f-' f\lj1p 111P· ; 1 ~ t Ul ct t-jI".- t ~~ 'J,, 1-~HJICD t-<D ~1 o COUJ
P' ;J n ;1 rt ;T ID o 0 ;:1~Uirt~~~oI~~r1n ; o (l ~ lU '"Jj.;1 (]):J rtU• .i! t'1-'I 'cJI) <D <.lllH rl
t ... - 10~!.! 1 I
t:"; <D llll}l 1C1 ct , u j.l (I 1 1\J r; ~~J t o 1-j;J •n '-'!}d 11>! 0 ..... 'liIllp (u 1-·' <D w
Cl'r: tl I ct 1-'-! r ;r ~ t-'· >~ 0 t rt ;Y 1\1 n I)~ I ()1-:~~ j1() l~ ct ~ (u ct t·c-~_,,1~ !Jl
' t o l· OJ l ~ ' •·.
11·W r r• I$ (o0' I lD r ;- r ct r-Cl> c,() < <11lj ~1(i w l1rt·In ti;-r0 ~.. I p. 't1-;i <; t p ro
· $ t D '- ' i • 1· J •• ·· -
t n 1 t:";T< I" i1 0 t rt I o p 0 ''-' 'cJIi t1f!l, Ilt (U W ro ~:....H,t () t m ;J ..-t '"-l
CitW ' Ill Cll rt 0 P.'U- Cl o ~: •1[o < ct ;T (J 4 :},1..I ~.Jt_.t. ()lj ct 1\1;>:)": 0 '~
'· · 1-j 1 CJl O<l Otl
I 1 I-'o (l'.j~_, "~ p·1n 1· roww~ru
..~'!;r (\) n 0 ~ "'' •; (f)t1 m ( n o () lj CL tJ.:J t I:J(1n :1 ~ Ot :J r:1J c-t;TIllrt
t l)q' '-<1 ,
; CD n 0 q !Jt"·< VJ 1·J· ;J (j};-1' ,:: p, {))i }; ~L "-'1 c:tl'01 'i <D1 tj ct~~ !1Illru 'l> , 0
·c· 1 ·1 ·• t ...... .J, I
; <\1n 1 co ll'll• IL t-',Jlll I p 'j "'0' c , 0 j:Jrn ~~ ,_.. ;j- fb I (])-: c1o rJ fbh'
;-1 (Jlil 0 [! :1 (()~ p rn rtI, 0 u1 ct n (J 0 .. il1-j: !'IJ•IJ ct 1JJ f\lUl:n1<J ~ l.l-~,....tIllL
()<) • : · ~ r ,
o IJ !-;1':! :rI; rt , n f-m f o e1 iT(jj •c·i li 'u f)UJ co U ...,, P1 o ; ,. cD,,;,...J
0 · - · (1 ~1 10 ·ll'l In
~r CD t-jw [ rt 1J {IJrt 10 ()(I)(/) n' l'li) r~~l t'·HJ 0 1-jtf t-ct t. J-;1 c ;1·u 1!J l :: I' Cll
1-'-r'd;t-"-r(()1). H:lo 'i ()o p rt t-jlb...-ffi,j1t•,on· ;J Q H) cl·:......l n u f'1G ro p ctt"·c; n
1-:l ~~ fO j r: p, rtj.J' <P•i [J 1·ct {IJ •jriJt) (l•1 11 ID (1. r1-0
;r rt p ;T f\1-•10(.1 rt !·..;: l1 (0 11 (Tl -'
1-'-l..U:r:':ict1-'o ~.(Jl ...H.H111 UJ;::r .::1-', Ll I";(nI ~~)w 'Utj {11Cl ctt..()(IJ o'•11<u c' 1r.i'=' 0 ([)UJ Ul 11 f.
S .r · I t ......
l\1~'fl. ct· UJ '<' o 10<D (Jl Ul j .0 r:Ip. D'O({) n.Cl•{l.... ·~, rt ;Y ...:j.. f\1o o 0 rs().Ill:.Jo Ill ::r·Jrt :Y
il·t•fj <D I·'- en t•O r:P.Hfl. rt (J I(~ I ct ~ ;J. t•·Clrr ct;- (!)I" (b 1-jiJt·J·t ,~ Ill/1
I () :-1 l•Ul <0 o' t.,~ ;r(Jl Q<j (\)f·l h (IJ;:1 IT «.; 'rj
t·'· 1'1J·;(]lrLrt;Y
-1 1] ~.rID UJ r:()' {/J-tI' ct ):,j.a(J :J H.) <I IT\) I·~ 0 I 1'() >:r'·:1 01I fb 11(b ;T cro "' 'i
• · J .· · O•l t(j IJ.r '{)
'()rJI l'lil'l ,,)I!J;l t·-I 0 1-<.J 'tj1'I]) r-,!•D lj I·'{) "'0J I ·~ II,f
·
(j,., ;,·•lp. , 1-'w .,,jlllj)ll)'., u';J ,__, 1--'
1 l 1 '
~ , · t r .. I ,, '"
~ I_ I' ~:;·lIllf n•(IJ I {n~~·u1 ~1 !Jl; 11f-'t ()'a f)tV I I'·-~ W lj •a r·rt () t ;T '"
IJ () cr l).. f,);r1 n lj I f;: n. (/1 I'' t-J') lJ flJ~1 ·~ rn I 1-' '" •s lil U ''J fJJ~ f) ;
~ ' ~-: "(J i · J '• J 'd · •.
~ ;•"11"1 (~(11 V1 ;T 11.. I cr,lJ '~ '"1, o 11)"'vJ (1:p.ct o· t.: q• n t"t I 1r~ () • 0 '1 ;) : .•: ,,,l!~
j l 1" •• t j · · : l .• ), llj I )
(il~ ( Cil "'I d ;T w ' I :1 < fiJI :·11vI () l 1:•,11!1l .... 2::: 1\), liJ rf:11 '1 1[1 ':1 1 I•JCIIJ•' '<tlllj Ul
l Hj {ll ' I J::;T i"I· I{Jtn .. l ; ci : (IJ'",' \)I·~ {q cl'•:s :.J ~: ;··111I '" w 11): fJ, II t-IJ
1 • '· 1_ '(Jr : , '·
1(; I' ct ()J () I'; >.;, P• I (lJJJ t :1,.,.1•: 1.]II•n. I c, lj ; c i!I!J:,.; ...U (, fl. \.)fj ltJlJliJp, t :j 1~1
J, ...
\I);tIllIf ilI Ul
178 Annex 23
23. “Minutes of the Tenth Session”, IWC/47 (27 November 1946) pp. 1, 10-11
::t:ssT:r_-:--
:.:.iC/"-7
T:ovewber 27, 1?~:)
INTERNATION WAHLALINCONFEREN •CWEASHINGT D.N.,• 194S
PL~CE: c•lain Conf'ere::Rocl"!!
l. Cnh.I2[~A2r~ni.2.1e Conference please ccr!l.e tc
c::-C.er.
2. -~eha.~rethe repcr ts. of :'!...roC'JrTJ:f ·Jt~es
consi~erat~ in of ~te Confe~ence. ~~ h~ve bee~ ~rc~ised
~ta~ t he ~uplicat capi es o~ these ~epo rts wi!i be ava~:
atle s~cr~ly. ~a thought t~et ~e shculd ~o~ de:ay th e
delegations,~h ~is~ed to ~:~er~ a so cial ~~gags~e~t t~is
ever_i~gJ s.::d. .ec:-.a.'.-.gC.e-::.::e:-~t:·~r:=ec~c-:.l
Se~reta~y ~eed ~r~= ~~e csr~c~ c~;~es of t tes ~epc~~s;
t~e =s;Jrts ~te=se:ves will ~e c~r:u:ated as soc~ as
they c:=e fr~~ t~~ ~~~li:at~~;==c~.
3. that of ~te Cc~~ittee
?e~alties,A~ticle Cha~ey.
11
4 :.:R.CE!~.~ (7e-cr~·is.SJe~.reta.:-:: 'Ie"Cow~~tt.'=e
~ ?e~alties~;ase~;cinte d to ccns~der t te~rcpos~ls ~e~ard
=o ~rt~:l Ve-3 (G) in t~e;~er~cD a~a~t. Its j~r:s di
ior:~as ext enC.eC. ":c iuC.=:
(a ) The val.e.':>f h·tale:Oaken U...'":d.erpeforlscie nti
f!.c~:..:~;;.oses
(b) treat=e~t or =t~~~~ise of :ea~ back =ea t
use of ~h~les es fe~~ers.
~) The pe r.=.lf er t~kirg:r:2~-<!'ie~d:c::- l e.cte.: i.::,g
;vr..a.le s.
(e) ~~9~e; c~t~g ~ 0 ftje ~~~s c~ ki ::~~g=~ w~~ les
~y ~~a:~ CE~:te~3.
. ...J e~~..::..2.~:~:~ :::~;:·:.:z.~:~::~)
~---.:=) a..:...:=s.:.:~:J:·,.<:.s.~::.:.:"":"'-=:e:-_::
:.::s .
179Annex 23
'· ~ I - r I I . ) I 1
I ;l I , fllIll ~, ~·1;l ct ; (I iU Ul !I, (J :J : 1•1(.1 !J ( I 1·lj
J - I:II · : J
1-.:(; ' · .
I"\
· · ' ·
().., () o· .• 0 (l t: < t· ct rr,. : l. ; ( IJ ·- l r.lc -.o0 (l.(\l· UJ r p il 0 l' ;/ <Dt-j 0 u rt ' ' 1 10 t/)
c t IJIJ ·· .. , If r 1'· . ...
>;(()l (ll lt oru :J 1,) t..t.J;:.10- ct ;), (I) 0 u· c. (! 0 c:tt-'·o P ct ; CD "-· rt o 0 0 l)r; j..p '\I'~w () 0 o· ( cv (I rl•
• r - -_ ~ J· 1 1 I
..!.1 rl ; ([) 1 u ·, 0 . :•. ~ ()< \()0 (l.(n ' en
l l" l • t t ' ' •
\.J tJ• (1lc t-'II> (J r_ w 0 1.._, < p- (l>~1 lll~ ro1-jUJ <" (b cr iT ro L o (\1(j)jJ t ·~Cl !'J It 0
- · " L t . · ~ Lrx -' .: · ~ r 11
L1fj)... n· r.:·t 1 -. () r: 1- f. 'UI) t-'.1 (t ' o r::< iT Jll, · • {o (/1t (D I ·-' o () j :1cl lj c. . ,1-(Jtl ct I'·(.~
:10 l't t-'l1 (i w • ( (} <1"(LIp. .... ~: ;J {!J~ t· !J Octo'l 0> 0 t w ct .) <11 o rt jT ,~ lj n 0 c :j .. l 1, <oUt r f'l·~
. t : t]\) · - '· 1) I, \
l10 d· ct if ...:..:'l t..c • 0 IJ rt; :)~,~,t-"1--'o c 0 o't'. (j) rt o· ro 0 rn1 Illll o HJ rt;' (]) J !'Jw r~1 H) I I
· _.. t D · '· .1 : h l ' ..J· r --· -: . J t \ - t
()t-'(ilCJ ct , :.Jc 10~ < (/)<1 I : rt i ( ct o 0 co t':r ·~ '- t ;J =<:; (b f I ;-()'... 0,.J. r-t ...H "' r- rt ; U) · ~ : (I)
;J" :J f\•I <o p. en 10---1[1:1 a --1I ([1'-i ;.rc ;' p. 1\> r.1 ~ CIJ-j - t' d o o rtP• : c 0 o r.::1 c •j - p,£1>() I 1' i; l'l
•. • 1 l· ~ O · ' I '- IJ ·' t • • ' . :
c-IJ (J IT ll o (. ' c :f 1u !J Jl1 <! •J lj <-:j r.1. 1-t_.~~ n , f f. ' o w t c 1· < !1 1 (ll lj(I)p () j (!I(J IJ'( () ,.,! l'tw
' ~ f s l · '·U J t •. · 1. t- , · · J I
d ; fD r, ct(· lU • (J <) r: t1 r I 1 I en j Jll-: co :.1L)Ic1- (Jtj f. rt ,. H tl) rl o 0 u c. lD o c fllrt p c"~• (j)I <D
HJ1) ..,JD rr ~: m - (lllj (I (11I·.1- 0 o, p (ll ,... i:l. P> rt c ;Y(!) 1!\ 11(I CJ 0 HJ l ;-.1'l ( :: .:> (')( l; :1 I
.. " 4' I·' IIQl ·l ~~ 'll .
l"tj , IV Ul ~~ ; ,..();.r j)'ru ~ lll () 0 LJ.en 0 rt n• I'.... 0 ;:1(1) •.J.p rt ; (lJ H, ,_•. Ul rt \()o (l r~ ~..~I 10p fl.•
Y '' · , : l
ct; CD Ul m 0 n ::tp. t-j t_~~~j rt PI ct rt [T m Cll p. o H, ct ; ({) Ill(1)o 0 il~J. \LI•0 p.{\l' (Jl
: " .. . ·
\JIf-'• ::w I ._.... t::J :c• • 0 iTl'l, .. iJ ~~ p ... H ct ; ,...~1 J-1 01 10 -: ll.l IIl r. fll II '--1
· : ..... ...... i 1 ' · .. T l> 1 t
111 o t-'J rt ,0 ~ , r (lJ () , rJ (lt (0 !1 1- (U ~ m r.Jct t l CJ JJ ~ ,... t...r~; 'i i l ; fl.l. 0 ~J r ;r ·I.1·
p 1\>rlct Cll1-j H n u ;J H, (11)) UJ rt r-t ct ~:CD o - f/lr.(I} 'i en IJ{11 c : l rt o ctp· <v Ul (1)c rt I ::,1
l '· .J 'J I '- '- ·~ 1 • :J!)
~~1d U l"'.l rt.;T t-1! 0 0 '1 !1 1'en (l1 () 1\>" n 0 ~ (l f 11t rtf(J p. t (I} 1 ' ,I 'L1CJ o j-r. c...:1 0) rt () s: w
· j ~ il 1• · . : 1 ' -- 1 1 I
"' : fl. 1-t PI H 0 r 1-'(, " f! l j•·;t : 1~1 r (j)n Cll t-jm iJ l'l·j: .. '"'0 r....: ~~1..I.,1\ r: ;:Jf'en •L ct (~ ~ f),- 1/ cr:
I) p1 ~:(IItO H ;f ( ...(]) ;:Jp1 p.. <!(U 'J n ..... I ~j ~ 1 (' c lj r:u() ct ) 0 p Ul t-,'J <.)Fl H "') <: (IIt'jj-': 1(1:..•
~rt:Jf~P.i] ·~
\) I t · • .. l : _, 1
VI I H fiJ iJ ; 0 c l (IJ'J {llI~ fllp., r: : , rJ lnlll : U r "1 r;J W ct o n 0 '.:-: ~':
(\1f1 (0 ;:1n.! (1)1 ( 11 (L (} ~-r•rst~Cll<~ 101J iY(n · ru fn;J f'i o,P r,.:J([t ;1ct• H o o ~~ I 'L !I() ·1(1
] ' l ~ .... t..1 ~ , ' t '" l : r
1 i'YI H Il.:... :J o rt o' Q\ " : w Ill'J1Ci 'i 0 1d • t'( ( l I i ftJ ()'~ , H ;T 0 •cJ<D ::f)
- ·Vl IJ t 1" b t ·i .T t j :{ · ll J t j' · i
0 11 r.1 ''1 ( iJ < 0 J c 1 ; rn<! co , p 0 c en 1 I (j)n~'l {•1 I t ~J,.u>ci' c ; 0:• n () : 'c) r:'i1 llj:1 () ~~
0 HJ tt r/1'- Ul n-.U p 1-._CIJ-Jm :,:o < p1 :-s( ct ; ~)(" -: (J •= =-:.J·(J 1.1 ' t I ([I11 11 ct (o I r-•I ~ l j'lI• Il
l r tc I.J I • ' 1 1 , t L j .• ' f
!1 (i c c m l ct 0 n·<D .. <D tj n'I t-4(l I t• " p, t fllo r: <• (iW f), 1 ( :..: PI: ~ 1"-HJ ".: o ~; t: IJ.' I " lb :1
"":-- · u -'l...; 0 J I • I --- : t : "'· l;
'i s 1 <V 1.1 I'T ct 1-1 Ulrr 0 ~ f (.L LJ o <; ((J 1 it !! m :1 lL ii11 rt. 1 ~: r,' I-'J. i1 (I c • t Ul p· <1·0 ' (I
Ul () r:::1ct 1'rJ l.·ru ; (b ·~ tl) d ;T(J) (l.lj I t-~( 0 (.)r• .. <V :.1 I; ~_)1 tJ·r, 1- 1 w HJ a-•:.1 "', t- 0 t-:il IJJ~; d'
"' ; J · r ' I )
J-1 [11i.:J t :-J c..o r:lj ;T IlltJ f"Lt () n c+ ;:T.(]1 . ! n c-tro 'i :< l • CJ i (nt I~! f !J
~ l 1 J ' •
lAJ 'I''• ~.t'":~~·· :.. I ; II>;;J~~ o ~ '·'· t-J0 ()'tn !.1 tJ () ~ : ()I IJ Ill"'~~ J Ill t1I tt t'(j :I
l ; t -.:•·f - '-1 'o ~ 1 ;.: , I I
\)VHj cT ; Cl ; I~(, m i1·;,: 1 ' ,)q Jl1) if Ul •n 0 tn r'·t t· () '1 I :t:I <t rtn;-r0 '1(0 ( il ~ : . . . j ClJtj I)t) ;
b ·-> : ...,;.
IJ f p c.""t(11 : >j I",._. ! (\)
~ · : J : . ~ : J • t '· 1 '·
\JI.r •..~ll t"'1 .--;I (,j ..-.,. • ~ (1(._.._.• ...;T W ~ o •J :::til(tt-lIllW t f1JI' f(}(I)llc I l) ~ 1 (J)
... J:,: - l J ' ~ t l- ·"'- ·' l r · · I ·i_j -; :c.: •;.: ;'J\l I'j I
, :·J I~ Pl • CD CD.. ~) r1 (1 " ,.J, ct ; <D tJ11-j' rt t U ; •o(J t :J , ( t .. t-4I]; ' • () I
il f ~J ~1(J) t-t;O't"'[J,... c i)1P l t'·I-IJ;_YO (() lJlIl I. ! ( 1\ o I)If tJ ,.(j L'J1_ r t'-:j U t fl (IIlj ( (J
t l . t : l J J. .1, 1 1 . i t 'J I
IJ.: 1J1r: f~(j) (II () <) l d ,..: ~ (} 1~(11 t f: '·'LI•l"-', (J)t r-t i :' p. p (l.i th...._,•t:; o ~' r 0 I () 0 :J Ut (llj
1 t -· r · ... · j ··Ol : '· I f ~ I j ' •. l · ClJ
<: l\ c ~ 0 11 ,J I~ rt i CO =~ ;T ~) 1-'() en d 0 o ; ·... d j t I c-)l'J: ~1t I f t-()-·j i {.)l; 1- fL ( (ll ;
d o • " lj cf0 rt (n h' Ill o' ,. : fl,..:1 (\c. ~ t-•C) :J 1J ( 1j o (j rtll <0 lj ..{·l( t-4ucnrJ)
1 OCI
ll l : ~) l J · l) ~ i) ' •) · I 'J11 ~ l ;r Ill
U !: ~~( t .>.CV 11,f.l i t1Jrh ,-1CI(j ~ '" iJ l ~ () 'Sl'·ct · l ' !'I· l""j C(J) 1 lj · t
i·l;1 I) lj ~ w 1 r (J il~-.:~ l r, :1. 0 ; tn i (!JU t.: { ~~t! Ul o ;r.::-1 s_; 1 ( . : IV rt (J I · ; c -
) 1 1 • • t } ..1 · · ) ' ' i ,: ll'l l · '1 o I , J : · -· ·1 . ,, t . ; · I
1\l;\ ' U t' J I·' c j , : l' ... ( ; ~ d ( . j Ul p, (i) i t· : {l ( ; I 1 t ~ ••_th I}tJ p IJ I"Lirf ; . I) " :
• , \1 ' t : r, , J J 'l f I 1- t f l ·. •p: . 1: ( • H_~t'· fj,t
(1 '.Sf II)lf11 I ;1 VI c ()rY 11 :I (I . l•J , :;J ,.J( f l lj ,,, : ~ , , ; (,)•1 :. riJ I ( C..J II I' <v
Jl t . ' · t · t t · l' ; . j ) .L ' '' l
\ (,,• .. . ~; ~:1 fl. 1' I (I t} li ·::1c I'I) : l ; Il t ~ j i.•J , (1· I t () 1_1·I 0· •; I !It
: . ' : J .. k · 1. , - j ' ~~f ' - 1J ,
i1( fJ <II o (, ij' I fl 0' (JJ() ~i I t_ j) 'S ·i)IJ • p. ., (I lt · ll l 1\ lj tt . : t l.1l·- 1 . lj
· t.: l1 ·~ ll I• ' : ... I n (1 t l) ,, (.j t- tf t·'·(. ( , ! d ( ~ I'·:j ( ;."Iii (1.. ( l c
•I
· I .'! 1 . . I : j I ' ·, '
Ill ,, ill1·I ~ I , .. 1 'l i !I " (I , l I" j "
· j ' j · I . '• l .. "
Ul iu :1I (I <Ij) " •il ') ..;r q, lj I~ i 'J(I ' ~ lj (I II' ,,, IJ I o , !I(lo .
\~I t.s :1·!III I p : I
,,,
180 Annex 23
. · · : ) D . 0 •.fl 1 · 1
. I' : ~ .-w {Jl 1~-~ I I :.tT ;J' (j)roIl(q,.., ;:J !tJ1 ( I ~d 1--1 o 1• l-;j
_ - I 1
. 1 (") "-
(--I-'
· • J •· ~ ... t ' I
0\ · ~ !.J :t·j.i1 ~•-~ -------.(U H () ([...._...H ~J (t-o ' 'c~ C ct Illt I 0 ~ :rl ( I'·) 1 <b 11 I
- _, - l . ll : . l t j · l
[llO P. ~~lj ct& ()I ((l t ~ n. OH ::.sH c (lCD f 1--' ~ t..l p·..-c..;.(!) IJlo :J<D 'I •j<) o'IJ CD H IJ.
· ' .. ' , t
O\ ~ :•• ctI 0 - <D H H ,,Jt-'- co(/) ct :Y(J) · > 0 ~- ~~> t o I _ () ~ W p. ()'r-li c ;T < C) o n I
- 1 1 1 > '· t · ~. I .
;J t' Ul• ,..,.~ Ul 0 ctll'(ll ct ; <U 'ri•j 0 '0 en1 J-Ul1 t:;-r-'c..o; ru>:tmro w r: o' I rtc Illn. r1 0 • < :' ri .;
'· j ll _ .. t t •I j Y
o' (!) n' en ;-1 t t"Jct0 ();::IJI1~·.CD t l ct, 0 p • •·;:r w, c.0 ~ 1--'-<--: on,I"'.)c "I'1--j[J0 I 0 1:I ct r {/)C
o .... r <: ct...:.s (l)J ()'CDtjUl 1--'- n ll>o '"IU~lD . t- r"t'·Ul IllUl ct;-1(!) · 1j CD ~ 0 j'
J ()q · ~ · '
t (!)t~ ;)11 ct r-'- p f;~J n. •;Ul ct (t;:J. ID 1..ct ; Il(!) a'C (J) n. 0 (0 ct~0 'Jl'j0 rt Cll 0 ( ;f CD
j 'l. 1
n () 1---'· r-0000-1 t-~ 0 CD ::,'..:lD ~:1-j'llt,..., Ill fbUllll fll ~ CD t-1--'.Jll[JJ ct0 (I>·~ 001 p, rt 0 0
, r: . t () o-' - I t · ::r U ;:I ~~...
....j .-,OtJCDttttUlCll:>;'O p. ·t•()C[lLcnc1l0 :j Ul t" :1 .-lUI<O o f£n. , il.
'' ·- · _. : ~ _., - r ' '• ' , f
c rv . > ~ d I"') , (!) H .:: · 1 :~((Iw ,1; 'cJ ~~ 1 Ul l) t~ (t ; Cll 0 0 tJ !1 1 vlt1 I n ;.1 ~ I'.. ;
0 j , 1 P t - ~ r ' )"
•.·0 ll'J ~ ct o , j"(l)· t"'·-ru H UJ i C ;1c r'l) ::~ p.((Jt"· ctiD OJ · Ul 0 ;T0 ().r.I <ll ~ ;1fl. 0 ~- ,_~; I o '
t·c n (\>I I"'•.l t.1 ct I H Cll <t 0 <t1--'-CD ~ •t r:(0 w ct;:JO 0 f).t"H t'n l "< 4t 0 ;: Ill' r-'~ ct ;Yru 1 1. l ;· C'
«j .. t · .oro l l
o HJ ct 0 CD 0 o'. m 0 < t-'-:(!) ct 0 a Cll (b ctl'tru, ~ C p, I' 0 <:,_.ct~ o o ;::Ul (11 ~~ ( ct.... iJ (l :J
o - I' t -j b · - '
~ ct t-~--'-N (\ct ,__._p 0 Hj ~~ ;T ( 1 m I-jllUl0 c:1-10 (!)IJl o'ctf1 1---'· 1 n.(!)l'l ct 0 l ct rtIll~~-:t ctf).()'/J
o <: t t [ t.. u ~ ~ IQ t ·0 o > ~ :;:~·~ 0 ~:1- p.
o o' ·~- 0 ct ~~- m () CD r-1 tJ • 0 p, ~ (J) !:l , o' ru HJ 1 1--' CDp, ',_, 1--'- l
m • n t-ct c ; (!) !](!)8 u <l1-j o 0 ~~~~ ctO t'IllUl C 0 Ul1\J• CO ~ Il 1-P.O c ~rCD I"'j 1(0 ,~ ct1--'-1\lct (!)
''ci t l (!\1 (J\1
1 ::.ct-'!) CD Ulc L
CJ\ • •J;T(!)· CD ,.. '" o 0 p (JlD w p o C (b p....l.I"')Jtj (!)~ IU 0 l (J p (I)(JJr:' !1I
lAJ t 'l ' t ] · · t ·
rt .....1--' p P>c 1jtO Q ct.-: CD;J ;l"m ID(!) <1-~..0 ~ 1-c t-()'I'(I)Ul• I rr OJ 1-1,)0 Ul 0 p (0 t , ~.wlUUl
- t "'.)(i)(JI .:J ...1 • .
ct IT OJ c: 1 C\J c o o'(!) I u 1 1--' ~ rop, ct 0 o' cT f\t-'~ (D ()<D 0 . 1 J 0 ;:.... ct r-1' rn ({() - !1 ~L
o P (!) H,~--}:CO ct ;:CD ~ r. m ,---t a'(l) 1 0 1-'1--'00~ < p. I ~ 0 ~ p, lj ct U 0 (J'<I t';::1 rt ,, ll>
· ' t > ,
m ~~ ru() r::l t.0a.. 0 t-•J ct' lb n.w t..'"t-'();._• t--;) coUl(l) < ~:0 : ~Illt t'n I'<D (Jl 0 O(b!l•(lI (0 n (l) ct..
. 1 t J j
o' ~ c-t n 0 : O;:lUlUlu:'II'.1 (/llDc~f-- 0J ::(0ooctp : 0 ct ~rru• .
] J '• ~ • t t '
0\ ~- I ;J(J '""J •o:1 o ; I < 1-10 en( ct ()~ rJ l I· ·~(!)n. t : :.:tb 1/;-r1 :1 , 0 ; ~ t.< ;r0 r d
.... ) , t r t :1 ~ j J' ---'
~;-r1 0•1: t p ct ;T(0 fJ f\<U n n. to o ,_, r ; OJ n Or-:1t w 1 ::() ro• :::<ll ( t <0 r (D o-'-(()l} () 'n 1-1-'!ItI·
, o o <:;()! · i · 111 -:1 - ) : O ~ '
Ul ,f--' lV 1-H-''J0 '"rt 1 - n •u' 0 o't-'01 w • ~~ 11 ct <D>{ <1-11 ct: ·\>· ~r(\>..l o' <DIt>~ Ill1:ll'
U ......T w l) ct- ~ Ul ~:(() ~ 1\l...-o (l 0 o cu<JHrt(\1p, Ul U illc ; i CD V ~~t.Jl ;s (\: llt: r,·.'(lj~ c (ll
• r .. .... 1 t i I
n' r::ct- ~ ..... jT0 r:CT () ;T( n !Flt :-04 ct ; ro n 'j () • ct ru::t,-CDmIl({)p v) 10 o HJ ct;r 0 (/)(1) c 01~4 t:V •
J O - ~ t n t r • " il -.tj . ll t- S
o r: .j ~-'_.: o o·I () U :.Jp.~ o c co iJ(o t--'·, c ; a ( iJ Cll t-'- .-;rcp UJ tD o t I r , I t.flli () ·D Ul.
{U :1 p :.(() ''$O ~ (0(JIct c ~r ill ('J.0-:J .---t4 :-1 0 •J :•'1ra , 1--' H ~ I Ul t' rt r~IJ)l) 1 f CDUl c[l1 '-1(((l
t ,n t ~ '0 t 'r
o· '-' ,· rr(1) tJflo1 co ~ Illr I' I): 0 · ct ;Tro c:o:ttI"<-tl'r1. C/J< r.,do Illl.
·~ ~J ~;;;~ .. ~ : :~ ....
0\\JI 0 H 1-];J"f::1I',. c..:.: ~ .. 1-j' ;-1l ....p 1
' ~...'
0\0\. t1lj <: 1\>'~ t:...(1 '
J , · ·
0\- • ?:~.l• ..t:.~:'l l:,..:';:>1 ~ ( ~rc ~ t' jU :1jl.[/l..•. ;; lj• 0 ; ,u,. I ! ~1 .. .:D {llj lD
'·t I ; ' · l' ..... -' l '- .. '
~ J < CD (It--~ ct:r (!) (/)\>! (!) (J •, t : 1' () Ul r.t; <U '-, lO~1 0 I;Im I l]Jll[ IIf ('1:"J 1r pl u
,.;n ll· .,. 1- - t : "j-' ) .. ll _.., · Q n
. f I c 'l 0 , p ct•D ( u ~ < ' - 1 jlCO' ~~ C1 ;:tnJt I I" ·.1l·IJ l':l . 01I l"t, 0 w t'·.. r f-Jll_ 0 ·-t.l
,tc.YCll 0 d I : t'·0 rJ ct j"(llct d ; Cll r •J ~ (t'1 i.)0 ,:.1j .-:r (II ! (J om;r·1 t 1 1.~ ct 01"co n 0 q ~ I (/JI
' 1 ' t ,_ •,c.~ '-- ' : _.
u1t (J;1 fn '!1i 1' 1 illUl 0 ;1 I'c.. ct u , t"lro~jrrw('.I p ·~r: ..<D C) 1 'Jt '-'11llln.1 1j ('l) 1'~ ( ;rCD ~ (l >jt\
1.1 T S ' : 1 1 .. I .~o ' 11: , • - • · l't~ · 1 j ...·I,
0 t ct-; co () o '"'! 1J·l (/}~ \.: u r '- t-1:. :c tj< J o 1 (!) 1·..:: £1>(j'j lll ,..~.1 t-r-: d j'l<11 f J ct; (•I , rI"
- .' t a. J 1 I () j 1 - J l • 1 t J , "·• c ;
o 1 tU I"n j o · ~~ c •'j'\() .-1 : - C,\ ...t.:I ~ tiJ' c 1--' (J l)i1 () lj;J c~ (1. I ! n.. ( ~ (IJ ' I ( '·I ~
>:tD < H •1 ; n,u1 r'N Ol <t' 1\t-t ,-i; t·I :r l c t ortl w U ;' 0 ;. I.~. n'<OJ ;-rP ~ 1.I' tD!) fllUl n '1\ I• i I '·
' · ' • '· 1 I ' l - f j 4 : J .. , '~ $ t ! ~ J
fn(I} '!'J)on UJ •'o 1 w I ! \ 1 j)< •:; ct') b .---t<f' CD l >~.-1; () I I l'~ ( ~· ((I"'o ; 0 '.. (jJ' : ; ((, (
• . - . t ' ~ ' t l" t j II l , :~ .) I r '· '· 1
u ; !~· ·-' ; u c o CD (lI I ([1n , <P CL l t...j0 : roil.() I { :It, l i (fl IJ , ( : (l> (1.(II() Iw I '': u
u r c ; 01 o '' p : 1·( (/I· ():
J: . - - ' · , J J ... J · -
fJ\0> n j ,•H ~ ~ ~ . .. 11 lt:1 ~\· <-:' ~;~ l t-j ~~:I t J' '....
· ·
0\ . >lj l ( ifHIlj <0 (ll:I. ·1:I ...; o'I 0 n'( •1-j- p l I , ;r "'
''.J c
I ~- , l
--0 i lJll()' L !J
181182 Annex 24
24. “Amendments of United States Proposals for a Whaling Convention Recommended
by the Drafting Committee”, IWC/49 (27 November 1946) pp. 1-3, 8-10, 14-16
F.~:3R::~:~3D
~:.r :c/4
CtiNFtJEMCE WASHING DTOc.,1948
1
2 Recognizi~gthe 1~tarast of t~e ~ations o~ the~orld
183Annex 24
~c~~~~e~t3 of J~ited Stctes RZS?;i!G!:::J
? :·:';'CS3.f._"J~ ::,a·l/i~::~ :",,7'.:.:;
~::--:i:~en. ?...~;;--_-::e Er:C.ed
~~= ~: 2.: :.-_.c::--:i t==
- 2 -
=-3
14 susceptible of ~atura il~creas efs~~ali~ ig proper!y
!'egul~te ad:C. tt a:i::c:::eases in the si:a cf' ·..rhale stcc: ·:s
-o-
•.r:.ll perni tincreases in t;:e nu:::bers .;.;teles ···-J
17 be ca:;;tured 'Jit~.~ oultdar:.ge teser: t.gt ·:.a.turalrescurc_~~;
19 Raccgni:i~g ttat it is in :he c0r.:.on interest :o
28
..•• .::lo
~-" ....
.~.,·.-.~f~,, ..,..~~ ;-
184 Annex 24
1 , 1
· :I !) -1 ' ~1 ...IJ ~IJ lIJ ··1111 u'ct!J '<J "' :J l.(f) ~1·~ 1 1-
!:' ~ ~~ 1 j'1 l 1 '.)~ ..~ y ) ; I ; l ..
1) l) r~ ; pl1- jt 1' (jf-:1 li_ l · ,.. i:P~ I-lC. ' , \.UU
- ' J l · ~
·C·i''IJ J~ :11<. .( . ~~·) i:1 w ;••' ~~~.UJ I.
ct;l <D I '!1,H; ,", :s n -( H:1 }·tfd ~~
l I '
l_o.)
j t • ·'· _r , . i I
lAJ\) rJl]lJl.~t t"j Uti I 0 <D(JJ( t\)· t-I ( ;- '., l(lJ ill';lD~ l:~ Ul ·~1nrt(fl;') , ...., It'·::1T\1' ~~
•• I.;J ... j D ') .-t i]I>:J(\l ( H 1];)(t .... 'i rt;.J<D >:;r .~'"ll HJ,.... ~ ,J.(])Ul IT0
lAlAl tct I 'Ill tI•' ~~ 1,....N (~}
w -!='" r:~ ~D ttl~ (JJ(:~j(j) 'd 'i0 ' a; ~1 r•it >. (J)tJI w (} C , ~ lD 0 0 i(j)lDlj <: P-',.... ::t [ ::p. fl(D ~~ru I-'
J - J l , l .. j .
I \Jl ()'CIfllh il 0 "• >r)' lI (\) (})t 0 0 i U• 0 ~~ rt ; (j) r)• U,.... 0 ~ rt ;T(j) 'dI ,..t10 ,. •o 1--'UJ
D .. · . ·' .. t .. D j)
lAl) < i1rr0 fl, lD fl. I' :.:trt ;-(j) 'U"1 0 ..t; I, 0 ;.J.0 0 1-~ ct;T(]) H D ,-(j)'i;:tP-rt, 0 ;1ro f-' :<m '1< ( 8 CDtJ IT
·
H]() 'i l rr<D ~ (j) 1 I-'!lt.....!'l 0 .....,.j:JroI-,.... (/)' ;1(\)~ ,..::t 1.'0 ;:Ip.0 ::t 0 ::-t['_..::_, m
l_o.) OCI ch M
' t .. .
lAJX) I \.\J,)-1 (0 it. ct ;TlD 'dtj 0 IT0 0 0 ,~(J) IT() ctry (:,c : U'li lDlD n <D;JIT (J, n"I:\)p. !J·· t"' ;1p.u ;:J
) t:l i~ I : · - l 1
Le'l) ():~t <1 ~~n "'1\.)F I\.1I) ():> ... ~->,j,r:~l ·~ 'r..~I ~~...... ;? ¢t0 crII> 'iJI{JJ l.· ~, I;J [ :J >1
· () ·, i~· • ()) ~" · il;, '"' [~ t) ; I' . !'.:;,·, r';Ip.
·<0 (!) ,,,l ll\ 1-•o •n 1-- \)I \.1.)
·I.~ .,h)-4 1''Q<, flIll I'fl.j). ct 0 0 () ; () I'I:p. <V {\1 n 0 ~1 ;;;~ ct1-' ;1 ctu 'cl•j0<.41'-l,<D
.. j $ l'J. !, ·.
.r1\) ~~<) 'i , iT(]) lcJ 6 1 tDl (j'i....)'1 <t n t);1(IIw I <!Ill •. 0 ;1 ~ Ip, 'i-' ~J) u ~; r' l~
t ~- . , ~ 0 .... -: (\l fl. <:m r~ 0 ;I(]) r:'t u I~ <T;.lo
.roL<> : •'1 !u~ "l !!''~o ;JI 1.01I1 o· ~ I;;D In 'i, :o:lj1-' ;1 0· 10 lc_j
,. r-- ~,1 t~Cl.~ 1 .-tj i~ :rII l A
~·l I.L 1 ~-~
.f\YI :t..:~ ·~ p ll'.ltl,,,... '"l I·~()1-'I-!)~: Ul
ro · l I
O) :•=d1- Ii) ·1 1. 1-1
~ ~:· ·· fj .·,, ~· I Il t') "t J10 ·::1)fl..
-!-·..J II 1'.1"I'1t ,) (l ; oil1 I;, :I I ;'() p. Ill "' .1 ~~1 l":; 1 : 1 1
. ,
ro(D •!l·jt\1' u .· : ,, ;r I, d lj :1rn ;I I''.s'tt : 1-' ·I I"• " :• () 'l() 0).. :·I'
I~~ l I l' I I 1 [ 1 l II~ '
c OJ ' , I t .. }, .. 1
.f•L) l:i; •II :.~;1o)liJ1JI oto} I o) :!•,tl';,, I'' ':< , ·y h 1-'1 ,,.lil fi~.t·1'll/1ct,),, II• {0 U1 , :•} 1'':· , :lr~
l
185Annex 24
~.!.:::~r.: ~::;:~r:tSt~.~es F.:::sn:c:=::::
r-:'~:c =s--.~·"';.li:w: :·.;c/-?
C~:::r_:o::R:C~:---::e : :C.eC..
~ :r~=~--;C=c;i~~ a~
- 8 -
130 (5) -The - crov"ent:c! ths-Ur~.ed Stetes of A:er1c ~hell
131 cc~vene tte ~irst=e~ti~g tbe C0r:;:;tssi~n,
1-'-'t'Jsuch c~Jnvcn- .il-0
136
137
w
186 Annex 24
.
;~~~~~~~~5 of u~ite~s~a~es
?rQoos.:.!.s t or e. ·li:..~;: _ C!-~
ccr:v0::1:1c'" ~c"O--s:r 3:Yd~d
t~9 J~~r~:::£ Co~itt~e
- q_,-
1=+2
concerr.ic.g the c·J.rre~t
----
147
150
sue~ r.::~~rt .:.s
_....___
··--,_.:--.....
157
..~·.... ·~ -
;....,_£- .l
"'J ~----""·-
187Annex 24
.t-_r.C.::-:::.s -::· :.-:--_:Si:::.::s.-~e
-:,.....) ~7,.~":~' :£:·.1r:•:::.;:
C::v-c_n::.~ c :1:: ~z ~~ ..Cc:d.3:
~ :~.:;.=-c ~~..:_':-t=-;:-:::
- :o -
155
:.sa (c)
1?2 su:;: -.-;,.,,v-,... ....
• 7"7
.!.., (
· -::>
- .J (: } t:::.!
.. ...~--~
188 Annex 24
· J
ld l:tP·:J tru d (JJ I HJ q 'I ;.~..())1. ,.:..ct(LL1 :u t•(I>'I l---'1
'll(~·c1 1 > , ·r ·'• j -: .I•.J
t-j o u t (J) ,.0 I 1:.: I'II :\l(/l H,:_:(""- . 'l"•ltJ
Cl(t :.-~~: '-1·():-j):1~11I·~o '' h ; '(-~·(). '-
I ; . · l 1-'· : ·" IIJIl
' j Ic.~1 l. ! H,c It : YJ <)() "I lJt'·'1<( '"
-=-
1-'1
·
'\lAlJl ~1::0-1 0 h~ ~ H H
..
1\)L00\ >]• co ()0 p c1 '1 "0 rt, ::{)0: 0 0 . () 'i' !JJ j.ctUr Ul;:rn 1-1' (]):J{il~~ljCJ (l ~1 t ~ 'T1 n [J'dct
1\) --.J .... 1 t - · ,- . ·..
l.>J ci•'1llp liu . Ul L t'·0 p IT 0 r.,. Cv l--IrJ (;lj;1 p ct ~ (ln p ~-- tr1:',, p ~~ t-~u I ~...; I, !:l'i
'\lU (X> (Ulr p ct,J,U,,. t-0 Ut p c-t (Jll p n(!)..1....~ p. ,. ()''1 ~ rl-< i ~ 0 tj IT 0
l 15' 1 1 ·~
1\) t b ... .
w V:t {IIr:0 ~.r .of "T ~I;'1 I';O •Pkl !(#) ~· ~ 't'l( Ul rt;:r'J 0 0 R , UlU, (j :1 fJfly p.(!)Ul...m D (11rtru
. .
'\)f-0 0 ....'1 0 IT,.H, t'n p c...0 ::Ill p !:1. (/lctp ct t'•l,;- ··r>1-' p :j n. 0 ··t~Cl'1 ~ ~1I")0 lj fIl ct1-'- ;:1
r-- ·.· ~
1\J 1--' '(i) .g t I~{'J. o'y I~ r 1J·fJ ·~<0f/lf)~t('1' Cl0 ;::J:(Jp ....... :.J f):·:si. (/0 rrQ p.j;:~cdl t-:.:1
.
'\)-10 rn r:();)· ...)tj ~~ p ;:1.. f~ [1:J')'1 l'lUl H < n' D L1l ({Ul0 ':I"··(i)p. o rt ;s(!l 0 (''I II. Ultn I'(op
' 1 '-4
"·'l r.H H n ~.~- ;i H H
l
1\) ·."' I' . a rt:rI~<1"~ (/I1'1':Jp.) ;l < Cl :1 r· ;rI~ 0 0 -1IT{l,_ w p. ..:j ...... UI ,.,...; 1.{lljl:~ ~·
. 0 '. :J(Jil : :, . ;p,, · '<J
; ~
1\)..\Jl 0 (J ~Jcc ill1ct~ 0 ~1 ~ "" g> t (.J p tl '-~ ()0 ;:1t• ()'rt1-':1m 0 0 <0(I/• ':J!Il/~ ct n p c:_~
-
1\)~ -~... ... - ~.. .. I
0\ 0'11p :; c1' ct 0 ·~b '<l 0 · , <1(/l p p c, ();1 [l1-'t p <nltJ') .....p1-' '<Ijlj ~1j4, f1 , ·r0 lj, II
•
1\).J-..J t';:0<1 ct;:Y rt ;::J ct~ n '1 b 1-' c10 ~~t'I 1-' <'., ~.0 p '"1n. ct t;jG>p ct «:'T b I··')ll HJ0 1--j
-<-· - f ..- ... ....
1\) w '0~ •s'U 0 LlClt '"0 · Co()14(;)~ ct, I ~ () '1(,)Ulc~[llj 0 ;l· Iii:C)( ll,.l"• .~- w r~0 .T '1n Ulct', ()c·t4 0 :J,,,
; ·
'\) \(J p UJ ct u ;1 r: i~0 lj i> :.p. C!JI,,...('() , ct (j l•J1:n ;> (jc "T hilj n (): 1,· rtI' IJ;-1/I p UJ c1·y(u
(
,) . • ; , - .. ... J ..' • '• . ..
r U1(j () (J;l.- '1p (J ctI'.1Ool c ()c , lj'IlJh) :J <1' ;", ~.:; "' lo, , p ;1n. "IC' p I I~ I I 'I(~I , [l:\,·;I fiCI
• ' - ·
'\\flt~ p 'I~. c1'J(]p ct,_;I ')• < ;1" I <1•Jo t·~ p (JII 0 I p.(1 ;J()(') >: tcl ;J ( ; C· l () -~tku.t (\ : U
IFI 'U
·.1 '.. " ·· a -' -~· 'J l · . , '
\":d\) () 1 d i, L) p I$<I I'()I c. U1 ;; 1 I' n· IIi n "'~ '~cl I •J() i. t"fT i>l (J'(J0 'jp c, 0 :J r,.. ''"I Il
189Annex 24
, ~
;.. !"'fl! O~ ol1_l c •j~ .- P. (I ,.,/) ::n•(l1· I • t I l
·. · n I_J •i .,)j ' l~ ; -'.• I lrtP l , l
I'$1HJr PI ( I'It- I ~ ~ : , :Il~ -~IHI......_
nj' u;-!0 ;s <1J'· :(l) n 0 "l n ;-(Iti. tJJ
• ..) J :~~ .J, l 1 '- l 'J l ~-:
rt. l<V l •- PH ~ ; J<J n Ul'f I, "l( l
1-Vi
) t ~ J - j ; J <:I . ~ j
I\Ulw k• ~J t] ID,~J' (")0 p -.( ; r1 ()p [<> p, [/() i<r0· I 0 I p () ;T 0 0 fj rt p 0 ct, :1{1
)
1,\j'j-- 0 CJ<:('J;' fJ<Dp ct IllYp 1-~1-' '( ' (J 'lrt j:,~ 18 rr0 rt;r "() 0 ' tJ1-'-","' 0 ~ p ~' f--' "'() ;:r
,g
.... · · ' ...
f\VIVI r> ~~c+;:r tj, N !>1 ..... (JJ ~ ..ll.;:r ..... ~r b to OQf'jfJ~ <T()p, tr{J 0 ;.J 0 0 p rttj p n n·. ;:O'l
) l ; t
1 U 0\ (,") ~ tt• ' h <D;l 't !Ip ~ , ~ p . c:: { t"llG •J()<:(J(:)(J p tj r . . , ; . ~ (ll'<IJ0 ,_..'1-' 'd ·'jil(•4ct
10 ~;.Tt'n ;:r ,_... ;J" UJ p ;:-1
Ul-·l 0'1'l 1\p,
j I .
f\VI(X) ~I~ i~1:-J'1 .· ~ritJIt '"'c." 1·<llj I,,:l< lI rt:;-0!ulIO lU I'J~~,,,p II-''<jiltj ;g i~.h :wo;TfI1'.. Ul l
f\l..n{) ~~ I'I I(/) l t ~ :;[> iJ l?o' ~1 ~ fr ~ b lg, I~ 'd () •,[J) (/);:[l 1'I-' p'f)
IP I 1 liT. l•j lo leaj)
t ,.
1\0\ 0 flIo ,~ 't I,~ I~;:r lt-4] ~~0 <):o i'"1l. ·lo t ~ ,.t( ~ .•• ~~·ro l~...0 ..w .... tflI~(Jfl. 'n'k rt.. im
t
f\0\.. ~ ,,~ ., ~] w,r o· -1 ·1 ~:();1· d·!;-"( td I.1 ~~~ l(ilUI n I~, ~ ...J r:..
l
-
\) 1\) - ~t 0 f1 ... .-li)j b (J)~( [J) [J,. p ~ il;1 ~1!If· tt
0\ ~~ 1~ f t>;p•tJ:._, ~J () :1,.lj ()rt, ., Otl (,'() '1 I 1-' ICl"i
: l ..
'\U\ t...v ~ ·~~ ~· ct() UlI;<)I;T ()' 18.! lp lu> l Ill'-1I,.,. Jl),~~ 1, P.J 1;.:o .l. ·o'1-1,.,;_r~ (")CJ 'Illt'·>Ul,_.. u
f\) ~-- I'•:·1O0 t fl tj f(JJ tjf'() ct....p o'J lD p ~~11. "' t• :•('t'D'j~~p ..(JJ 0 ·-~ 'J0 rt il) I~m rt~-~.:.:s():1(1J
(}) 'd
~ · -
f\r)lUl <J(])[llj lh() t-'·;Jrtt'· ,'"0. t-:j HJ0 lj fp ct,_Ll :·; i·~lI -;--:(J...•1!Ict •o :ct : ct (,') --;('":lk,d I'~ 1t
J .
[\)U\0\ ~ (> !.L .:,.rt ~.r 'J0 (J)'Cj (J~ ~ 0 ....IT f-'J UJ p ;1 fl. ~.;,, i-14. 0;J I'•:1} I'1.:., '1ri•J
j ~ L j '
'\)U\-~ rt rr(!J • •1>>r:1-'ctUl ()) >j0 (.)<Ip ljCl jT 0 •.l>1fl.:(';t(j)I '(j~ ) Ll1:r·1:-1 tc;ot 'II :j· DJ ';p ~);\" II
.. I 1 .. 1
f\)U\UJ lo !'!l c111-!l ;rIl ..I'Il I'I) t>'1IJ. rt(J ;rt clI'·0 I·'J ill1 ,..I'H I>~ ~'·~ 1> qt ~: '<Jjf)(,,, C!1'-
1\) ,, ,, ) j1 t ".-
"' "' ,h ·p If) 'li
J .. r '· ' · "
1\... ) ~~ lt) 't(,()I) I;Jt,.II ' :Itrt 't 'll n,, ;1.;·l :JI;() . IJ) ,, l>I I·'\• "tI'():j ! ;l 1-L
~-~~
' . '
h)· I '1 } ,--:,l ,,, \)I<; ct I'·~I'()~·I. ()p ,. p.'j,, , .. ;1 " : ;I (•(), ,.,, :• ·:I...; tt~"l(l )).,,:,'J I>o'I,, ;J "'
· I
190 Annex 24
ro p. fl - J ..- .l·t t . 1 r · ) I 1 J
;tCo :1 r1 ( ~1c.1/ !...., ~ c ro :, l(· p ( ,0· ~;.II(1I ro: , 1• l
l 0 ( ,,) 1 )~.1/J 1;' iP I~YfI I: ,Jl'l r ; 0C......._,
1 <! '· I J.) - ' •• .
'l; Jl· t I '1'l l:t1 i·"t1 ~~· • ll.I
;"Cl ,'j ~ ·~' l ~~;on ~~: lt"r ;J <:·
' l
I U
I.J t . l t . · .
:\)·-.J.) Q ....,f p n c (} •... Ul ~ ,..'(j ,- ;1p. .... ;J(1. Ulr p rt, 0 ; IJl p 'J0 t";J n, Ul 'fj~' infl(I't·<'J rt0
1_ "' c ~ (1. il;Jp. ()0 ;Jttlrt'1 r() ctt4 .::'J iJp ;.:I. l u 0'' ~ 0 t~ rt~ <:; ., · , ..n u ....
w ()<I b :· I C> .. , e .,.( 1-j Ql Ul
--I=" r .., . · . • ' ~
II.· · l1"; <D () (l ;Jrt 'i, n ct. .. ,jq 1;1n ~ CD '$ ,t (., ~t U1 . JJ. 1' Ul ~.61 ~f.-' rtI.,..(~ f.lI 1 '<l I>() d,..()['l(j' (!l
1\)J Jl !(~ p uo r.IJ 0 UJ c 0 0 0' rtp ~ ~ Ul r:() iY g. r,,
- ~
I l
"- ~ 0\ ;t.!.U H n [ l- :--:
I
>: · '
"-l-1--J ~: 1-H n t t<.t < ~-i
1 - , p u p rt jJ n· ·· ) 0 <:( . .-t :~ -.• . . ' ' ; (J clj ·· I·'
ru t<J CJiT (). •s (J t :t()<) (, 'l' 11 b ;t :l - li f , fJh'('J !l' 'r.:l0 ' I I d (J
- : t · ' · · , ' . o ~
f))-·\() lJl\, Ul, •;10 Ill c u en:ten ~ ljlO n·;-r0 p '1.1 '"t <) p tl,..0 p o)~-~ ct :J(~' . I~l\ -~J l1, I)p t 0 I
()() c ~ {q c <? . ~ (~ :,"' n () ;~' •:J c,..() ~· r ·'1L ~ ~~ & ~ ~ n • ~ ~ 'ij u p p fL rt :Y(')
I ~~.
) T , .. l · " ' , j ~ "· .
1\ 1)1-' ':-,:!J~ co' !Jl):JtT 0 ··~~.;t..'$p ()ct, 0 : on ,, Ol :,. :•<I<1" · '\b ~1p I p '(I 0 ~ , Ill n.. IJl
' • '
1\)())\) ,. ; J 0 . C'Jjp ct, l);1 ~·()p 'l •s~m p. 0 ,- u c..:..:j'J ·(~< I ,!Jl I ,;-•1• ~p c:t-,, 'I i.I I<J 0 • 1.-:~--;
l -' ... . j ·· . ,..· · -' . . j
f\.0)LoJ ~ CJ(JUt({)I Ul F,1 p.C.Jj , ctUl c r:I t (I(1. n rtr'·) ~1 I· t> ~J~;~: , : 'olI'I t"t1 t:l I'~ I
: · ·
0\)U,) fP 'T "-.'.1-'. "'~ ,..:.J-p ,~ ;:J f',;- I'('!) (IIct , > ci t" :•.., t l ... l !:1 0 H,
<\)<) ~ -'~. j I~ ~1 ' .. ~ )' J J. r ... ~- ~ ·~~ ,..t?.J,. b ;1
\.)I H I . :J1/ C) :~ o') d ;? I '~, () I <.;: Ill •r·''-? :.;, 't' ·!:'f '
'J 1 tJ .. r • 1.. · . : ~ .. • · '·
h) 1)1Ul .. o;"' ,- ;Jt~· 'u,:Oj 'I)),,,(:J (jl !l!", :J 'p I :. :J ro ,,) . : r I . : (i'j •I• ''.1 (, ;J
J
1\ lJ) 1!.. · l I) t' :,,,ol(),- d (J ·u~ on ;.: j I· Co'(J 'I: (),. ;J ' .",1l· :'·:JJ, I', ,. u ( 'IJ
' , .,, ';i
I) ,. ; o ".1: ' , j ~ ! .., .. o , , ., " '.
'I( U) ~ ~''d ;i ifr, ;J, ; ~ ';I,. ''·:l . {', , ', ( :i u , •s 't;>I' .. I' , (0 •J I ', '(j
· i' : , . o :
h) fn\(.} r)' ~:1 Ii I il, I :•(t:I t· :• :,, I ·\ • ;_;r.: r ;i I .•I .., I!, ; ,, d ' !,, ;. 1 ; oo ·~j
191192 Annex 25
25. “Minutes of the Twelfth Session”, IWC/56 (29 November 1946) pp. 1, 6, 10-11
R:2::~:-:~:
:·4/5b
INTERNATION WAHLALINGCONFEREN •CEASHINGT D. . ,• 1946
CF
: r:.:.::?:'ida.y ,::ve::;.be r 1946' 3:23 ~ .:::.
1.
2. ?he fi~s~ ~att~r Cefore the C:~ferer-ce ~3 Locu=.~~t
I'N'/ 53,'~Ie St at:::::er:. t ::e Dele;a-:1c:cf t t.e U. S . S c:.
:he prGpcsa l of the Da?~gat1c~ cf ~he U~ited ~i~gdc~ Cc~ce~~
!.rJ.g thPr cl::r.g a tic.rthe I:-..ter:- _a..tAgre'=:1e: t:.:.:he
R-=eu;l a t:. c:.._a ..g.,!::.gnedi :::.937-32 e-d Its St:.bse :;ue::t
.Ajler~ .s~,cI:1 cl c.d.::.r:P~:;tcool of' l9 45 .
-·
it. ~1:1 .!.JC?.Y (G . S .!·.~CI-~ ~a:::a..~:.eva tl-_e :::s -'..;:::..g
~~nta~~ed !~ s~bsta.nce .::ac~rovis~c~ :f the fi~al a~-
ir .3U.bs ticuti:l c.:;a.rgr~~h IA!' c:: ;a .3e 2 c:·,rc/ 5'5:
5. 1At th~re~~est of t!:e~el~ ~a~:c: -f-t!: eu.s.s .n.1
7;he f'cl-:".J~isto.-:_eet-:ar e :!..r.:.c.luCeCi r?:.e.:"l~t ::.:...
tr:-=Co:1~frer::.:
l . Owi~g t~ '..:..!f"o'rJc.:..rc~~sta.r~ _cessc~/:.et
fa.ct:ry s:~:p.~11 :,eur:a.-t:t c~each the ·:.;.~l::-_g
grcurs ~by ~l:'c?c~.ar-:-=r. c:~ h-tlS t6-~; s es.scrl
in wate=s s:ut~ c f ~a d~g~ess3ou~h la~!t ~~9.
AcccTdi~gl7 , they re~uestt~at t~eyt~ ;e~ ~~tted
t:Jc;e~a.te ..: :1 afu .lc c·rr:p:...:., c:'tc~ers
f': r a~:.:-. ~::t!--e~:cd. :;f!' •.::cr..:.!'ls ft~e :dc.te
or: ·ot'.:jth~:..f!".tc:'yship ~,;eabls t o ccr:er.~.ce
c;erat~c~s !~ th at are a . ?ict~.:..~ad~ tha~ a
s :.::t:.ls..: s ~:1.~-so::.-e to:c.: t.eg·~ver::.: ::;-==---
fer tt a se~s=~ 1?~5-46.
2 . :~~ 5:7i~tDele~~ticn als ors~~es~s~ t~at :~~~r
fe'..::':s::.:.c~ -;-=::..d--.tc :::::::: ~;~:eo.t.._s:-.-:
t~:se ~a:~rs ~(~ ~~~ ~~u ~-~=~:~ ;e~: cd ~~~~=~~
1
~'=gs.t~ ( --::.2.-5J•:·':~l:-~.a2;-~;~.:.:uca~.::.::-~t.
s-=a:.::?~·a-L-.
~~~ ::~f~~~~ ..~ s~~~c=:s :~es ~ ~~:~es ~3 a~:
-c~sid~r s ~~~~ :us ~~~~d ~~: ~~ ~;d: ~{ :~ ~;~~s:~~ ~=s.
:: ~s ~~~s s: :: j ty~h~ Cc~~s~~~:e tts~ ~~s s~~~~r:
c~ ~~ese r ~~e3:s s~al l ~~t ~e ~~~;~~sd ~~ s
--"l~~.~-.
.·....""....
193Annex 25
' ·
r.-iC/S o
G -
~ffi ~.OES ON ( U.K. ): Notnir:g .f'.:1'ther tt:.an that?
74. C?..P.lP.Y:.).1T:!·ic tt:ir.g.:'urt ::1ert :a:: t:-:at. Are tt:ere ar:y
r~...:. C::J::.::r.s?:r "I.rti-.ere is r:o fL.:.::'ther objection, If ..., a3S'~":le
t~..e..-=~~e C:Jr:.ferer_ce approves the fi::st page.
75 . :-row "'e cor;:e to t~e dcct:::.er.t itself'. Since tt:e :;:i:::eo-
61'Bphir:g is r:ct very clear, I pro;ose in goi::g thro~gh t~e docu
ment to ir.C.i ·:ate the portior:s t c:at ha•;e been C.eleted ar:d tr,e
alterations that r~ve beer: ~ade.
76. 0::1. lir:e 4 the word "stocks" has been added and 1f'ishe:"-
ies" deleted. Or: lir ..e 7 tee •..rord. · i:ci:1.d" has ceen deleted ar:d also
:;tr.a.t::;any". Li:J.es 8 and 9 ·::ave been entirely deleted. Cr.. l'!.r.e
10 ''::;akir:6'' :-.as oee:J. deleteC11 a:J.d also tte ~.-or "dt hat " . On lir.e ll
''kind.s:t ar.d. ;;'":Jpr~tec1:ed t-2.·ve been deleteC.. Line :..2r_as bee!!
er:tirel:r de:!.eted. Or: line 13 " in some areas" r:.as 'ceen C.e:.ete ·.:..
On lir-.e 17 tr.e word "these " has been added, "that " :-.as beer: dele
ted, and "resou r ces" ~as been added. On 18 tte ·~·or "desource"
has been deleted. Cn line 20 "restore ,t =:e" r.a.s· been deleted. Or.
line 22 ';e.r:d that the ultizr.ate ob j e ·::-=!.vshould" r..a.s been deleted .
!.i::es 23, 24, ar.d 25 r.z1te also been deleted. On lir:e 27 "res to r
i::g the st-::cks" has bee!l de,;,.eted. On line 2'3 "certai:J." has been
deleted. On l~r.e 29 tt:e word "of'" after the ·.;ord "fo r" has beer:
. ·::.eleteC.. Cn line 30 "certain species" has been deleted . Line
3 0 shot.;.2.d read "to certain species or~ ·.;r..a.lesno•.;.de;=~let e:1. .
Line 32, " pe1'~:J.en tts" beer.. d.eleteC.. On lin e 33 "!r:ana~e" :::ent
has been deleted. On line 31+ "assure" tas been :ieleteC.. Cr"
l"!.n.e 39 ~F'ebruary 7? 1944 11E.~d "Cct::ber 5, 1945 :' ta·.re beer! C.8-
11
leteC.. On li..ne 2-Q 'e.~ -!arc- h 15) 191.;.6 hZ!s been de2.eteC.. Cn
line !.;.2 '"orderly" has been del-:;ted . Line L3 delete "a::d". Line
44 dele::e "w-hale fisheries".
7T. c•1r .~lcrj-.
78 . :•1R. FLORY (U .5.): I r:1ove tte ado}:ticn of the ?ree.:::ole
as reC.::s.fted.
79.
3c . I secor:d that ~oticn.
8::.. CH;._IR~LA! -sT:ths:'e any discussior .. If !:Ot~ I take it
the Ccnfare~ce approves t he w-ordi~g that has been f~rnished us by
the Drafti~g Co~7.ittee.
11 11 11
C2. ...u_rticle I. Cn li::e 52 C.elete !'(1) , The present ,
:''!..r:clud. i.:-_g t t:e On li::.e 53 C.elete the '"Jo.le li!:.e. Lir.:.e 55,
C..elete ::.S.!"'toC.la.z:d s:.atio!!.sn , li :1e 53, Cela-:e ne..::d.;'o!'" . Li~es
59 t~-rc-: 62 :...r~ a:.so C.e:e-:::cC..
I ~o~e tt:e aC.o~tio~ cf Article I es
CG.-
C :
be acce~~e~. I~ there a~y de:ege.ti c n tta: is ~ot ~=v satisfied
~~~~ ~~:s ~:~c~~s?
J~jectio~s, E~d ~e ~1::
t~ere are ~o C.ele::tc::s.
194 Annex 25
'
' ( t([)(f) 0 r•·, t·] '·< I t ti( Ill ~ ;1
I 'l J: H1)< let ,I I~ ' :r I I ~·1•lf) •Jf{J i:,,.,
l ~ ()l)
" \"I'.·'
1-'0
. :
l-•..1--' h~ II 'd...!• '' 1-tcT t-rl:Ul o '])(Jl;:l ::10 ~ u p, ~Jp. (J (j 0 01 p.,, f.L ct:·rIDct
0 t t .UJ
f.! I·'·} {l~-~..:(\1'i{l:,t·n ~~·;:t l)~ <T> I() () (lJ'U( (II1.
.) -.1 1 t v
1-' 1 .. t-(J) rt~r <h 'i \l• p1 ~1 ~~ r~l"jrt :r '1 p. Il() s:In(J)1-J. ~1 D'~ ct :>'V r.L(',)-(l)(1 ~~l" J-l, IJl·
H l.)t j_j t {1h--' .... cl- [n t't·twt-.1CJ 0 1 lj tD o~ [D 0 (I ru p. r~dJ ..(j t'·U.
0 ct c CU , c1 rt ;:l J'!> () ct ct •-:s
1-'- n ,-ttJ W• l.•jH{l:t-(!}I·•01 0 ()sr-r J,.rt rt(J w !J'IU(llj)(p''i;O<DI-J. ~J c"t r: UlUlOH 0 lj P'dljct ~o· 1-J(IJ <!
: oc;, ():.}()
,) ..b i \-0
,..l•.._. :<·j .... , t "'1 ~ ()~) 1-'-'·.JD [\)1.51 rLro 1-'o ct(il ~-lj ,-,.... 1--' < •:J: 1
· · t ·
lj d}(j)<."1 0 I ,;-~) ((I ~,.'ict.j.J0 ,._Jw IJ,-. I":1p, Ul {l:IJJ f-'(Ill\)
)
,. l..·-=' ~~ '~ ::t'JfL~
, _
(AIu-~ !:a ~10 u t:J n ID;J f~.I" H fJ0 <:(]) ,;-~:(]) (lp, 0. c,t 0 p 0 H, c"t~- ~(ll
~I-' 0 1-'<P
'1,;-1...0..
\
1-w 0 (") rr:J'1--l f!;J-•:: ::-.: I~ .:jll a til
J
I-t_d---4 5~ I>Jt -<~r"~I t:(lJ ~....-'(]J H [/)ro() ()•j b. c"tt-(J ct f-(J L,, 0 ;_t
-
~J V.l()) n ~ H ~I ~.;r>- H 1/) c,t iD '"::) (II;:1'<I p. j-.o.() r~(/) IJI•·u ;1 ·v
0 v · ·' ...~
1-•-~'- H (.1)>'0 ~ t..J. (t ID ct< rt:·.!"c-1 0 1-o...o.(\)ll' I\w 0 ct 0 1\)l.•li- ct·· (]> j]d (_ ·
rrJ rt n·llJ >~j..p..,If:J (\) •"tl cr-,.(t; 0 o 11 ...,fo <lo;:() (lo.. :1•J ,,, lLlr.t ' 0 H.> ct~ ~ID p,{;•J-•<IJ
I'• IJ or1 '· t (..
f. <1-'·,_,::J :·j c (b c1·I'UJ1-1I' ((J ~ ~ l.,~)" (T ~11-k(/) 0 • p. ~ :J ..., 1-1--t.Jc t-r(o •:S(II jl•-s(]l : ,
0'1 1 r' } sJI.l t4 -~
0 o· •:• ()\)()-~0 ,.(JJ~ c (oh.(.[) ....tP•;"JU:rsu 'I f' . (II n o~fJi1·;,>0-j(j ;.() (() {•'• '0 r-() ,~!(liVJ c !"1((o >:(")t f)I'·;J 0)
._, j t J I , - ..JI(j
(), !r::.(ll1--'· 1 (lJ "'~HHUl (lJ' }i >: <I> 0 (u ~-' '<1•·:s n (j <I>p, ~ 1-'t ~.J' ~-.'j fl1 (), ll c.:1-l1-1
-=-0 ~i 1-__J;.1..... 1'.\ o-. a: lli w -: 'lim ~~ I <I>-: ~ 1·-'1-h.1w f\)C•l (j) p. ,,,I~<I•o"t(/•
.1--' ::0 (_,_) : .-'() -
Cl l) n. j.J.l 1-"'rJ • 0 ;J t.J p '" l p,.,.1--'V d(Jl I"0•1Ill~1() '-I (. ~ 1-·'.!:1 "' (\)·1 I·'
=Ult ".~. ~\L11·..··J "
'p,I>1·' :~ (IJ c t)"'ll 'd'i (jua (])P t.."l ,,;J P·h'lP· U1() r ((;p. ~I-·'·
~'~ ;j n I--'ll~:p. w 1-'
1-' ...
:
t--• 1\l ~\j CJ l''' c~LJt;1 li "'lj(n ;r 0 (p H q 0 <-;(\) CT 'f'} (llfl.) •c_jl1-'I} ;J 0 I~
:1..,ctf-L() 1-'cu <: ~·1-1
• '
1-'~•J @ ......~:: t_iH c.,;.>; . Cu'ct ll'rolj ~-I·~ ~.L) H Ul,,,() u ':In. ct :rIll :J0 ct~.0.) ;l
<
r: :: .
~-·l:. cjI ~• H :.n ,l~ I d :1·t)U.1 n· (1\ •l 0 (1,-.~, 10n fl. r,_!1•0 (_:-p.( tin ;,;,.;
t I I;< .. .,:, · .•• t ~ j
ID0 ()t]l ~ !!-~Jcl l--().. (jl ...I·1··1 1-1l•} ll :-r\)t-~<P II•• ~ ,.J. ()r_:(J)(o...() ;l. ·-, I..>':·~ li• -\.• <D
.. s ~·).~ (U 'J Ct, 0 ::JIll.: ([r1 () <P Illt_fi"'1,., '~I!(Jj (1.,.:i.
;·() () o'l(...I.1 c.,"tu 1 IJ)~ ~-~ 11 :~(L) 1·"'- ct:} ~ ct cl' np.u ~-·J ':1 1 1
•-:;i(11«'"·:fr ::.:!lj ~-~· ll 0 H_. :ulj (T iLj"J1-J(() .. H 11
~J I.J<l
n L J) I • _ .J · l 1 1
)·If:\ • ~> •j(·t.._0 I-'( ·-I~1-·J (");-J :--Jj ;j (l1 ·\)..,..:- fl,(jlI 'i'ct lU r rJil 'd ·"iIJ(J}tJ.: (
"# •· > .lo j .J ~ '4 •
ltcr- ct~)'tl) q, tJ ~L n ' ,-t:1•fo I_. • ;-Jl· ( ~J 1·-' ~-sH.1 h) \.JI ((•,_ tlct tl\ . :' p. ljl) : (j.fl.r; I·-'
l:l. i ll• h_)l IIJr1n ~~1- fl. 'i tfI" p. ,_;/) ·.;C) 0 ~j ...to ; l1t• t) ;-s·:Jl.1\l~1f!. :-·{'.; f)lI l·.t.
·: '- t_...._l : ~ • ....1 · I .'\) . I)~I"
fill-)o p· () () 4..•"ftl0 (r J-':·1 ()Lt,. I·• tl ( l~ 1o..1p.ti d• ,1C1• - ,..:,_'.~d .... ( : d \D I ,.t! t
·,: )' 1 ..<I l ~ j ! :I - l · ,) ~ I
(i}Jil~J: ... ~·nf'"r.L ( :T (]• ( <) (,J1).. ~I·•-i : C!•;.JJ(tl ( )~1 1 1•;- 0• n'(i \ I (I•J-.11:1 (!I
,: j 1 .J '•I !J t ..: J - _. -!.: -~ ' ' l.J
t) d• •.I) (I l~); I I ; l~J h)o~(h: ~J. 1-' l (lo c f ~ , l:l() (I·j•~ • C} ;1 , J·"; (, IJJ 1\)t)1~
J. ... .. r ·:I 'I t j · 1 1 (0 P • 1,1i :\'- :' "'
llJs ~ I\)n·I.L) 1()• :!•~ (i,; I I· 1--1• ·'''1I·~ 0 t :1·j)J •u I (-, ·: ,,.p.1 ~ q}cj 'r! •.< 0'1 I(
J\.) () J ll•t lllc1·U') r ! ; {ll h)._tw._ fl.: 1- {I)•1tl.l -: u. :r\D t I
· ....--f ..
•• ~ j '.
1·-' fh ~:d ~"'1:1 1·1 1•1I''o().. c Ul I (J ~ (0 I•••i l!in :s
(7 ( ~ J '~ I"u· •$ tl"I-L' () ;1
I' ···l •r• 1·.,,I'~~; t (,) I'·
195Annex 25
J
. ~ . O .. tJ" - I; , .t () il inI) · ] j (/l .·~') · •
. ··I'·.1 r; II>ll 0 ,1 'C ~I H ; t-lo • .~- ! •:) ~l$ : , ( 1 ll i
1~ (') l
''' 'CJ.
1'I~
":" j t {) • ) : l · J) f b . 1 . .._ l
t-'1 C1). ~ C;J'· L ~ H t>:t f () ~ c () J--1 if0 ~ < t"t~ < II:p 0 ., ,, ~ 0 ~ u "•
~~ J t - \1 .
: I ._ ~ () 1-' H :.:::
'"
)--'· \ ~ ~1 0 '.CJ,
-' ~ J -1 " . ~ t ··
1 \JI0 ~ . ~ (.)l d Cljll:_.Ill. (b H (/)CD 0 0 ::J) ct rr(].1 ~ (I c I 0 ~~
;;:oo -:! J r l :
1-'\..flJ 0 p1 ,r.H:.~tI :; ~ .. H UJ ct m ··< (\:~-, p. 1-' () s: (ItU ~~ 0 !:1• 1-i/) ( t: (Jlt <0 l} :I...
. • 1 j t '· t r l J t .r t · i t 'l - > ' t . I ~ . J -J .
f d 1 (ir(l ( 1 U : r. l) • m r r (b < I'(!} P o;CTr Ii P'( t-'· t ~- <I ~: 1 ct;r c ;-1"-(II ..; ( ~ -n- I·-~I • ....
· -.;..· t r r j P 'j / ' P · ·- 1 . ·J ) > • · 1 Tl)I
rt Ul : " '"- t" c ;- ·' < fI tO :-10 n l ' < n n 1 0 ~ (Jl (\>i1'n. >:(J)lll0 ~ , '1 • 0 0 (j<I fl :.:I l j
:• •· 11· ()-1 ' H ~:
\ ' u ....J 1 ll :: _ I ~ = ... , 1 · I " l.J -: : · _t ·
1--Ul I • t< I !iHI r ·" - P~ iU f-(( r:·< •, 1'1H n t l•l < H • l~ I· r.<P f c ~J. '''..J cl ( ~ I ~ I
- j P - · = · · ~!i! ~ , ~ t r I J l :: 1 · ~
l 1J- w 1\)•n o P. < . m l1 ({I ct;:r<l• 'd• Jn w :::: rt · ·{?.,1p, (l)~1 p <.)~- c ~,<1,= Ul o . < p. ·:.... • t f ~J (
Illr (\)! p. , 1 <1'ctffi ~-c- W : (llt ...0 t:( t- U • t I :"~(~' f•[ Vl 0.il>I-' t <'» I :' p I :J (1 f t-f t-0··~ I
: 1 • J • · 1: -
111t U <D1--'> rJ-0 P' 1 t-' 0 HJ .1--'! m rl f\ (YJ-f7 ctp" • 0 r: (}l;T {\)\) ·)W• C) : 1 I :J <l! 1J \L,..J..:.
.. {> = 1 1 t :;: ::f t 1 J ~ =f -t . I \ -' t-
P.I-' f ( (].1 cl~~·<~ • t-jCD (ll<D ~ c IIH rJ. 0 t-·•J r ;: co U 0 ; <ll~!.r.~~ <I• .. t f--'- (\) I' •o0 f).•J t-(fJ c W
:: o l-j . t: ffi: 1 t- 1l <: " t ~~\• ~1 t :;• t (( J o 0 11_ {1 c tlJ
:= :':<J'ct•{ll ' (l1-jrJ-.-;((;: rt c+ ·I ci" (,)0 ' •l ( :; ..-'".1 .:v. n1 I .)
r ~ .. 111, ct ;T <U ~lJ~~ n 0 t-~ ;::1' 1 1..! ti • n d I <Irt <1J Ul 0 i l(ln L ,__. () : · .. : (l l ()1' •
; t > ..JrtO · r ' 1 j ' > J - '1- : ·. •· ) -
1.:) \Ic()10 P 1-I-' 0 t-1J I-'f--'- (1Ul l .0 u c ~ tj 0 ~ {YJ;Y I.lr ·-• 'Jb p. 0 n ...I :1 <I l, 1 0 !'1:: d I ( ~ (j)
- ::t---J . · - J l · o l· ' :s . ) J
H ~ n> ~.1p (bI ~ o HJ ~-~1-J: 1D CJl l.A \ r ;-J.. 0 r: (J\Js \ [\\
I
1' \J (I rt l>lf.L~ [» I n.{J)
-' Jl f :J • .. -~ ~ - l ~~ .. .. - ; t I> .
1 I ! 1 l). "'L•111t:J(fl 0 p I"· l t- t () - (~ i'jd·, () , <U I-I' o· ~~ (11n ( (0l ' • p
' i . > 1 I • ) l' J
I ~n Ul ;l . I iJ 1 ~l { c) ......~ :J 1:(j)It IJ ~ ~J ~Il >J' n ' ~ I·lj r- io :I
~ (I · "• , :
IJI01 () 1'1vH ~ ;~ I' ; t ,I n.,,, 'j 1.nl :
' ll I · .. . t1 ., , ·. · -~.. t '
1 ' ~ ...~ u t•l fll ." r :r 1:(/,l'f-_;;)~ , ' t 10 0" <)'I n.
J ) ' '
1 .( • () fr,r ~ ; [ ~ ti ·r (U w o ([)tb ;.1 iJ,-, · [">. '"'' \l)o 0l n t~ · t1"l i t't d j"l,,
: 1 • · , 1 f .-t : . 10 '"n .cn ' : .
:..-(I.(p I' ( .. :.•:; t! 0 I'H 1- ...u'.<ll (b 0 (J •rLI tT ll'l t-tw '"~ n (f I "' (b t 1-'-P : ~J 0 ...
t ·JJ!l l t j . 1 ,) 1 ~ (~l
en 'C 1· (Jl1- f-J·t("L ~.. t.(:_ ::r rt·::Y- (/J ~..0..> fl...:. 0<1.
• ·
~'.flD t - ' :1" t:lI' ..~
~ ' ·
· l ' 'l - ~ ·• · -..! ' " • ·i" J t ' :
1-l ( '.!u -- ~ u 1t· ·~r ~ ll(1 ;y·ttJ·~1-•p1 rtp. {IJ •. ~J· ,, j 1\lI"ljil rn : . t ;-)(Ll. Ql
. . ' : : . , - - • J -, 1· · j 1 Y .. : l. )
• , 11l '':• Ill 'J (Ii1jll•:;' • ,-i r . {l til/ f1'. ·I': ! , ·)p ,·t '.:J>I ,,,O•tlj li·i ; h). lfl: u r ' ·) < ;J <D
r ,1 I (})'j jlI) II' 11 :•> ;-1' '" t1 ll : 1 r • ;. '-• f..•Jo <:{\>(Jl rn fl0' rl <'II (/J() 1-":jJ c-1;r((
l(j IJlj ·'rt lAJ ,- O •,J
(-1.)P>IIJct· I·:J 0<1 0 l):I!J }' ct ~: Cl
· ..: I : I . : ~ r. -· ..; . .
I <T11-' Cl ; ,I.H ~-·;~ ~ t ·- b~: ~-.· t•(J . ~ ;~· <'c b u 1 ' :
' \ ! · · 'I , _J
I 0 h) :r:( :. j\ln·() ~; rt I'It i'.s' I ~( n ,, , () :I ..
I-' · 1 : ... - i , · , · • • ' !J ·• t .. l'
1)(__, l - 1 ! , ! it() I > ll r. I CJ " I 1•1(I 1-'1 :-.( '";! I lJ r:,, 01> • <) , ,, ,, { ..
I- d' lj ( ;",, 1 Ij ii I•'~
·
·- . ~.
IJ '" 'l f,, H ~~~ I- 1: ;r.I' I' I~ I' !i'l <I
I I I J , ' : • ' ' ' .
I ~ 'I i t !•i :: c..J. .. :~ . ~i'I ~ :· ~-,;1 1h d' '. pl : l t· • w
J I 1 •· - . , i : • 1 _, . . •. f ; : i ; ) I t
1oi I I : ll 1 (,J i!.l ~~t.)'•) (' ~ l!... C O• tJ11'• (;j1 .· j,...·t t I : : u {) :' - •.t.:f i ~ IJ; ()'·· I c 1\•'5
t I ~ .. -. : .. ; .: t ' ..; l ~ ! .. I i ~ ...•.... ' I , J J ) 1
l I t•J· -·--..~~ -: I :)'))f d c ;) tl• 1 : .-~d I •-II':J , () ~ I ...- ... • Jn • I Cd~ I li .j (J)·
tl';' l(I~ •I·I.;, l_i.r I ~\'t ti• J, . · • j _,, · . , ·.', I ) I : I I
•0 ... ;,·• :-li·-ti'JI'i..l ! I~( 'd · :)'lt . ~ ~- l\l:.', ,..) ..... ·J·1 , ; 1;1 ;: : I I ·1• <I
fl J ')I Cr•t tnli·l.J11 ;' ,' lld \ fD: !i- :; I·: o' l I l : (]. ( II)I 1n , •· 1':( ~)· ,,.11 I·., i· : : ~
, · J 1 -'<·' · :- ) : I ,• ' · 1 · )'JJ 1) ll-t ~ ')I) I '• i l
Cl'~ : i I•' I : 1 I :i d1 j,\ 1\ .... t ; Il~j ;·,(1) II 1 ( • ill' II'tl·J)!lllcJ <>'1:,I• I : ~ I : I)
• ! I '· " i. •) ": IJ ;.) I '· I 'J1 ill- ; I I t· o,, ; I : : 1 . ';,· '
196 Annex 26
26. “Final Act”, The Final Documents of the Conference, IWC/64 (1 December
1946), pp. 1-20
.
H ,' "U\·lc'
0 :z)» .- ~ ::)»r- :z In C"Cl :z...,::0.:z,.., ~ );(/:X: :z In-i0 :z p n co -t(J'I
H • n t· ~.. ~ H H 0 ~-::•r• ; ~ ... ~ , • , !
:·l~ l:.H. 0 0 ~ ,, l : I•~ (J I•J
•
;; (b' ::...!J()ol 0 !:J ( <'~ tltr: I 1\ () tJ(J)() Co n o'I lj l\) ~· · ()
<j)
"lH ~ ~ f ;p(J t-]
' ,
>-;T •n {,'0 ·~co•i ~ ID ~ rt(J) 0 ~ r ()\)D ::Jt 1-'~ jll :<>~ In rtI'( I I·· [) · I tJ I'1 () n> ~, p (
... " 1 j · · p '-1 ' '
()p', ...... I ,t i:l( l ~ .,.,'1il:,_, ID ~cu'ci ;:rlD'1 ...... !.l./o ' ; .: t 1 ~l 1 I" llo ()I : .( ••
'•( >J, c:'I .....j (\ h) ( 0 < ..<l,, (J10 0 1-' 1-'I (I rt J ~ · · n 1 1 " ' . , ... . ', .
. !:J. '1:(T I I"C. e < :· I ( (0p , ~ ,,. t. I, H l).
l · I ,
0 •JIPil,, Ill'1I'r {\I' :J Il: '~ ·;(Jlj ct ;>((lj ;J I ' •llI'jr.!1 I lo'1p ,. ;xi r:! , ('IIll· r}l. I .0 1>1 0 t . ~
~ 1 · ' , ' j i ' , t I l. · ' • • , · l
l' I~lj I f) (1 •iw ' 'JIU w t n 'r() o <. • 1-' !11-' 'rl0 "( :1 .- ~-- •' ' ..((,! •Pt·,.,It I () : ' I :, , : t
· ll I I · · o ·, • · " " ~ . .. · : •· { : .J n .. I 'i'
(,}0 .:I lj' h~~ ~ ,.,. "' ()I 1 ()l I· :.tI I lj I' I : p . Co lj .t~ VI I I' ( > l[,,,o,, t :tJ < ; .~
.( 'I..... :• 0 ... { II s r ~j :<>~1-jI'IJ ill lj · • e < ~~t!(( r• r.J' o\ ()'IJI 'l<,I. •; p.( I' •II I I'0 : "'
'd "' 1¥
. · ' ' ' . · ·
',I) I''1 I ll>0 0 ll)'1.1 ~~(:l. ct . w I :~., I ol li"I'() ! ! u, •p.· I ., () ,.;~ ti il u '-:: ct •
. t ' o - ." J) · J · I 1 ' > I...j '· '•I ' l · J
l;lu·: (0 •J 'I tJIll r 0 ·~ fi;.\. , !1I',, p' { ,, r'Ill(J u ... ( · : 'iI <lr ot; ', l tT I, I ' j' oli I':
:1 H : , o ·!1 {,, I < r 10 1-' :_:;:-. I' t ~I ( v :J1 , 'i. :1(J '"
O'r
~.7 •l() ~, ItII ~· It;:!'iI"lj l'j~~In ' <D 0 ,, I'· .u 'i ••'I'J I, l : c l •I I w ; ll ~• ID
,' ' ) ~ - ',. 1 ' o j
1'I' ," illlJ• C•(0 1-') ...,(f '-4 (J 0 r ;.> ' I ~~ CJl t•:,_, r" ,p ()>j 11· ·•j 1,\. ~) 1 'd;'l', ( < I (Jj 1-' 'fl 1 I
~ - ~~
() I I'1\: "
> J ; ' . . . ..
't ~ < ! , ~, . ;a
lJ I">II :~ , d '"
l I
l I · t 1 r ' •
t (/t 111S I ~ : I' "'l•til< I'•' ;- i' n'p.11 I.•Ill'l "l ,, u r.; < < r I, >IIIL (/. { <I • Ul
( )' : • f
. • : :: ~' •J:'p:!:1 I o . ) -'~
J (l,. tl.l :-• ~ !]IJ : 'l ::<II. ;t•' () t)~.l f,, 1 : 'l · · · ·
( 1 jl :1,n ~ il :~ r, j I'· t• :i:; f loJlj, ',:.... ,, jJ I·' I "oI' .,. I " ~l ;i' ! u ,, l) :I
ttlI•,,,1 l : ~ 1 f (l .ot · .
• ; . IJ 1 ,1 ···• ...I'
·
:1r. I', ·•
. , '· , .. i : i ; · ·
,.l ,, I'!1 , ,-;I "'l, !{ dt~J : I( •"1(: , I'·;t ·~ 1•1 ";·!-> "'~.: : " I';t
197Annex 26
T'"'","-'1
.1·~ c~
- 2 -
AUS~R-~IA
?ra~cis F. Ander!c~, Director , Fi~~eries :~visic~,
.l:epartmer:c::' Comnercea...A::;r:i. -"r.eJ.lt
Cedric G. Setter, Research Cf~icer, Fis~eriesDivi~io~ .
!::epa:.."t:::lent :J.:' a.~d).gricu:·:::.lre
Faulo Froes .O.eCr·.1z, Agri c•.1l'!;._ttache,8re.zil.:! .a!1
::!:rsy,a Wa.snir.gto!1
CAILli.DA
:Ce:!.e~ates
h. Wrong ~ ~~t~ssad~~ t o theLLit~dState~; C~~;~~ c~
H. .. s~o~t J Ccr.:!:ic: c c.:relc~s'CS!"'_Fc.-n~l~.J:;;..
~~s:'1ir-.gtcr!
.
A6..!.s~R.nEd"',.r-E..!'~3
P~ter ?riedrich ~~i~~sa~. A~7i3er~!1 ?:i.s~i~s cf ~~~
!i,IrJy .ics-_c:'::.cl·,:;:,::?j::. ·s~te;~~s~~:::~
198 Annex 26
J , i
·· · ' I~ :,-., . 1-::lJ (
''I : ! 1 1
oJ
L
~~ •
.,_j~ ~ () l
u w ~-.'I )(, rt w (I
; ~ · l ' l> 1 · • '• $
~ ':lJ f\:·P. 't:f.sN >-"J1 ~·t.J.. ;•~JC/.J (/)CTlJ il rt· t'J• tj t 0 ctu t-~j t=0 0 () i 1'0 ~ .1J. !'J t {J~
,;;. ... ~J o:: · · ·'"- ll
: 1 :.:1J W d l·j'~~ () .Jl·j •or10 ;::r 0 10 1-jll((.\lIll • (:·t.:lj~.Jc-t tj I"·<IUl.. :J'io. '"u!( :J
"-(]) b <--1 w {) ;r. t ,t L-;11--._J tj..1'1 10o <i-()•:J. Ul0 1-'·>:-Jrl·..>~ 1-'()!..J0Lip ..(})o1.J ! I•rl () 1--'
'd · · 1 '• · ' ..
IJJr:'""l Jlc; \utj >-rt,... ([) •1.I Ilrr (])t-Ij 1.{J)
i ~,. ......... t · :: t· ll - I '
"'>I~1-' I ~~~ : (]'--j 'L CnUJ >-"·I'1"rob~ c U I •J (])0 ct 0 t--j t:'/)~~ u 0 l<j ~ (0r .~ 'jj 1 h...I"•
( 0 •s
c.,~
j ... > • •· 1 · j ' ~ /l •
'tl ,n ~j()1-' "' , f\lo 0 0) rt (] . j:.~1.....ct ~~ tj 'l1-'(b:1 I"·'Ll0 t q, ~ ci'I·P>I c. '•J'J~ ~1 (J~r 1•1 n'"O ( <..•
·
,-: ;-j·L:l ·t 0 H j · '
•'(t,'J ·~1-'- C1--'U.: n. (]t-I~ :.CCTct (tl0 ;r !D·. '•I ·(]) 0 ;-J. ( t~o (l>IJJ(ll· ~..(JJ(llp I'· 4 .-t ~~
' (1'.
ll EJ
1-1) ~~
!
0 o'(/) <lj - -~•j
.
0 ~.il...,I~l oJ ... lj :.1/}(J)0 ;::J Ul(])() •Jollrt t'"j H () (0 1--'>~Jf.J1-'0 t·•<» {lot I) :1 ~·(.0;:r
~ l~l
f-L'Iaq £i00:.
1-1"11l•Jt' ?.~H
0 o'Ul ·0lj : <(I'j
L j .L > t ' ·
;~ ()q illiJ <! C) <'n I t:J/) () 0 q fj <:> ()I {I>fJ :I <t ' (J'r\~<0 H ., 1-'J;r· I' ·> r~<r I'·u w
~: r"lJJ . Oq
p·. 1-' O<J,f);f
~j
.. t:i :) I.!. i' i';(j {fj
t
t'1<01--' J',.,c ,f)l<l
lJ "-! ·"! _ ~ ! , ..... ·· ... -
1 _ . ~j t::t-('?--. ~: IT>f\1--.... t'l (]) (ll·~ i cj)'J :-t . ... •ctJ (/!-:1 I~ I'(D (I... :~ I 'Ji (ct l'j·
()I p.O•••i t:{),:::..c.f. 1 'D IJ.1-'·"'..w-·'1,.1-,"f" '":.Jn .,, •·.s...••.(f1' u ! I L ..~\~ '"'"I{ !1~1 :•
~ ~ ; .1 '· (~)... 1
:·J (',1 t·-Ij u {il( .. 1-·1J L)'d ([),,ct...l_j 11 I·'·';-/tl<~ I O•{JJ
, 1- - - )
~:·J '-.1 ~~ • -=-() ~, •• tl)f r).(jl :•;;.(t' 0•·1:_1(1~ ·~·(u("':f,. ''.1-' ''Jb. Ul ~; I" I'· :) v'i n f t-j
j () t-j tll f"·0 ~j
't
I.J~: r·11•'I:1-<L1--1t.J
J t
t ;o ~~·l r~.. .I.
' '
l,)-; •·u'·() ;}· I) :•1(t ;J ~~ ..1::'I.)') '•:·- U"( t (f)lb.-)~: (d {ll•.: oil: 11II•fn I f., !:
<--: lj 1 .: ''
illIJIJ'")I>'()J! ~!~(r;}',•1'1l:.,. 0 :..J
~< .,, ~. ,p
I 1•.;
I 1 J
~ ')fl'JI>'~ .,. i·:·';y•(l 'j :J •» aJl~: I Illfo1-'jl):•n. t·•J { p ,, I'· :• r. lo;I I'·:,,,,,,, :•
199Annex 26
'· ' l ' ·
I :Ip 1 ,, C H :> d ..... r
1'>1 r
·
.-.
.' ')1 - .:
·. ( ?, .,-:t....
cJ<llI'•l }I":1rt c 1
·· ; > l . l D · t
lJ1 t- ('JI •j ~t lj (fl( ~~ C :j ... ~ ~·!"".l-(/(" (0 1-:j rt 0 (Jl~ ro 0. a!D
~ _j . :l I> ) j - Q l I : J' -
r-, c; ct (.' f,'! . s ~ :1 Ulrt 1--0 t .. · ~~~ (J•l j-L(ll: tTl? rJ' toID ·.... :i ·ll · ....~. , () :J
::p : Ul •1;rc ~I (IIVl r~~ i=r c N 0 i-1 0 p 1--'0H.l ()H., [ (J 0 < ~ OlD~1 .,.'I,: t UJ(.,lj 0 HJ
.... •-:
CJd [' <llrJ (J (1)
: t I ..J . j) ~ , ; - j
.,,,.j tl !1 o t ~~ <! U Ul 'wo(J)~::.. rt (J-j: (])«j [ ~ 'd •1 ,n:g(J) 0 r.:'ict 0 t ~ l ~ ru<.~
0.: · lJ - 11 r •j S ·~ c:1 ...·~ ) ..no
( ;l l : t-] ~ i= ~L f 1 O (Jj{/)Ul O 1-j~' ~ . (0>j (/)~·0ci(.: ( HJ () Ul •
- . '·
: n -.:i l/)ol'j Vl
• -:::I !1 (U Ul 0 I <D ~j[n CD ::J t:1~·1-j!) 0 r+() l-:j
,n .• '
H;!t:(I! n f-...J :l: j.)Q (0 :.~:: ;-10: s o Cll'j 0 t..l rt ~ CD ';;(j>j ~ ( .....l:.,1 "T1!1tj 1-'.O('.n < r:s<
( rn
v ~ 0 l i
(} rt(\> ~
I J
~~(!l'ij1l1-p. tJ <-t(0 r:f <nro ~.. 0 1--'j(!)0 rt 0 t
•rJ1•1~lC1
l> ~ II
u I~" ' lfJl). <
J : :
::O () ;..;) :I~- : I'1-jj;}1--' Cl t 1 t--• iJ ~d () .-1f ~-~(').l.. '-ro>j ~ .:,...fl: ~. Ill ·t
> · r It
j!J). I \ '~
, o s - ' 1 .
n (J II: I'' J) t!)•-j £;)r;I•·1--'-CD • :~< l'j1.lj I'('L) . 1tJIIJ-jI'~<:I Ill~ , ru .:::
J : 1
'V n ~l • c (,. L
l 0 · "
( (J'L( l '
• t '·
r-f..w.~-~,t II;s !1':--:" C 0.,i. :'1" :1,f'.D 1-j 0:-j l:jl)':I I ~ 0 :: ~ 'j t·. ~{\)l u 1-Jt tl)
: ,. ...: · .• . t ' : j • J(JJ !".' :c...n Y .... l t
~ , < iht- ;( , ( r (} ;r(~ ~ ''tu 1-jt ~ ( ~~() (f111 I":~ ()'i t!J '"=.. :.(!le ;:, iJr"c ,, :t
· J
Ul ~ ~it Pl
d ': '"I; · 'j "'
1 1' r
J ~ ; . --<IJ ~ t ~ J
t• 0>I'··1J ~lo 'Ill•I>f.J''J I) O •0 0 0 H ll <P>j 0 1-'·l1 C,, r ~'jjIJt-•I) 'i.. (f)>: "'I~,., :r t ' lJJ , I ;) :
· ·· · ) ~
1 : I ~I;I :' IJ.I ~ ~ . ·
!~;tOf : •i !' 1 I :- fi•!Io· •It rn : •l,-.I l'J;· IJJ(\ tj :· :J)J'( ( ...j 1" I., ;
.e.. ·.,'·( - ' I l t .... i:t J • . o, I ·· • I
!I t IJ n. flo 1 I ( , c: ~ ::·t ( 1 :)'((~ U •I (1f ( ~ t·<•.('JtJ rt.... : ::[lllh : I :t U•J t( :
~ I . , .. : I
~ I () .. c·· '>I fl)( .~ I :t . rq :t I ( •
l :
• C)'1 '" (j l:j
J • : ,
r:_i, ..(l ()' (I): I'·t '- I' I'J'J1'~ I'·l i .:1I'· ';s (1 ''• (II " •. :' :.1 • I OJ I ~ u - (\ • ;I ;i :I ••
• 1 1 i ) .J.J · j
(I)~ ' '1I ~. (".I , 1'{ l•
200 Annex 26
5
u::;r:rOF SOVIET SC:;I..U,IST ::.:SP'L·'C:i:.ICS
-------~e..!-?s
~-eXE~der S. Eogdanov,
~!~~stry cf ?ishe~ies of the U~i0n ~f So7iet
Soc~~l!st ~eputli2s.
~~r~ct~r R~sea~~hI~stit~ta of Fis ~!~g s~~
~ce~~cg=~;hy; Ctai~~~n
~u;i~e !. ~ikishi~.
~inistry of Fiste~ies of the Union c~ So7 i et
Sccialist 2e-:: li1bs
Vlacir::.iA. T·le::"is..c.o'Jic~l,
~-::.::~ o:-.::-tries of t he U::.!.c~flSo"riet
Socislis~Re;ubli~s
G2.2.ir_-..
::.._.? . .:.l... Dc1i!!.:!.stcf _~_g!u'itt!..!=..._::.s~.:-:.5r;
G:~:::'~l:
....:-:.-~~:-::-trs. of ~--~riu:±;e u~c.::d::_~r~ -.-=;r-s
.-_. :·.·:sck:sh.Di~ect cr .:.?.ase.s.~ .-:J:h.s~c·. r=:~y-~-
_.........c.o
.;...................
~J~~s, Dc~inicns Offi~e
:.~l.vil:_..e.:.:·!.l.. .f.~e
V Cress :~in.!.:: c.tTyra~s:;::crt
:.. !. E~~tcn, ~i~!s:ry of ?o~d
J •7....:-~l)c:;:init~..o£' Fe ed
T'?::-.?.:J.J.ep!"esc~t.z.t ~i7 he C.r:..:::i.ss~:::
}':·-:~-:-=:r:. :·;:ew:r:.i~.::~
3. Ee!~, ~r~~is~~~t2ssy, ~as ti~~~=~
s
Gee::~ ..S~i~:.~h ~:tac.ss..~r:..shi.::gt:-r-.:.
--.....__.
-_ ._,..~~~~~ ~ ~ssis:~~: C~i~~~
:ic~s~?~J:~r~ os :i~isi~~.~~;~~t~e~: ~~
201Annex 26
' ; ' , ' · :-:,
,I I, I; :1 1: 41""! ') c. "
J\
... · .
b 1'I< . lojI,
, J S . . !J '... J ' • ·
:- c. l <1f\ll'I ~ r ~~~1 <l t .. Q • H.lt-o- CD 0 ,_., .. 0 tj < ~ ::J :lJo rt 1_,<:I , 1, 1> U1~ '•.1"Ul ;r
1 · · .....·- · "· J t j t i i "'
"' p. j • t-•I_Jn t-1 t ~1· ()lll~ ..t::C <D~ U CD·~1llt-j • ;.1CD: rtO~ 0 11.1 r ;:r"0 • : ct ,p·j 0 tj
t" ::m' :·Sl·:I1 • rJ~!Jl~ \1 til (fl c. 0 .....,j-J1.IllI tjt- ~ 1-'w f.t( 0 0 ''J .. ~ · w ~ : ll>1 t-() : Ill1'
1 t ... ...~ •• t . .' t-
o •1 O<l\l: f N (n . t..J..~1 ~ t 1l l}.....,.l~ t':i ' p 1-j r H CD:1 rt (J ... i c- C\1t•111
, . · -:-). ·) ) ·.: _j -'o 1 :J . - -t-
,- ~ !"~ 1- 111l l''1 t' F. ,J0. , ~ 1- (b I - I '•·1 O Q, v•ct . HJ "'W 1 I~ < 1 liJ 0 i1 · n 1" p : o n I c • CD "'
IJ'i ID; (J: ... ()t-t;)'I~0 li: ('1HJ I I .-1CU 'j ::, ,.I 0 : r~f •-• ! D·l-'"' ll ii1 11 I .t ; ,, : ,,.
): f 1 • ~ 'r1
(,''J C 1): f ·i · r) ll'
t~'> (!l•·i j 1 - C) • .:) 0 j · o j ..., lf .- tV ..,.
n 'd rt , : tr: 1 0 .- P : t. t-j~,• Cl () 1 n. t-to (bc-t- I ) 0 : • ·J •1p, r •(j •j,
r t"D; r pifl ! :1(. 1i. ..(llt-j: tn c~ 1... :101\1~-' :~1;. 1-1,)I Ij L? .. c H ~ rl 4-TI(l)(Jl( l <til>"(/)
'l.t ~ G ~
n U (\r .. Cl J f · rl•
1'" p,"' c.•., : t.(J I • ~c.n) t-j• :r0 ,-tf.~l.o Ul CD 0 • Illrtf\l 1-j.. 1r] ' rt (J) () I"1-'w f'"! [()OJm p (/j
t · · 0<1' c ·- · I
n :I lt ••. t; ro cD. t-: ctl\)I ~1Ul,_,.I 0 (0 1-' ttl ll'~ o:o1)! ()'-1 •rU··() p, n n f o!.J • .
J .1t ; : ~·
r-(11·rlllljrt ~ ,, : r 0 '~ ' d •"t-•n r:1-'<t!1 'i<0
·· ~j ~ . • - ·
j:•. q l.·'·I!'- l l ~ d j-J• •l :.(0)Ul 1 :~ .t ~1:s <l
I . J : ' I 'J
I (.J•, lj O ! (J}d ....... ii·~ · tJ• ..:..... • :1Ill :r (,(Jl~..UJ r p .. :-r t:1..· I (J t ()~ () I
~ :: :1 t · 1 •l t 1 - O ..
HPl d ( ~ ! \1"1 I 0 :-- 1-' ~0 CIJC:0 r:~n() lf•WI-' l-(])I( l ~ , q jD ! l't 0 1 (./ct ! c llo
. \
' , ;' " l ll- ' l :- ~ (l ' \) ~ · . ·
1 ;.\,, n i) :·jI '' <i'I 0 lll F 10,-;- I ( ;.[b. Ill;:I'.I D<lt () : 0 !J ~ {: t' ii'IIl·j 1 ( I \p
; . r j · r I I 1 j I J r •.: •· . · J . 01 ·
I : p. • ' d ; I I (· : 'd01• (I)l,, C);;,,, I'· H (" ~-(,),, 'd () • ;II !J I ~~ (i r"u' :.I :"'lI, I u P li'l , ;1( I lj
OJ I · ~ ·
'1r, :> () I ' :Y <1> t:J• 1-'D m Ill ' I'(\ : I),., 'p· Ill c ~:I' (~ !'L (jl(t rn,,,,, '" 0 I<J !'I'll' I,() '
' • ' .
;. Cl' II ;l'1) 0 : CJ 'I 1 'I1l (/}Il. (i)t-'- : ,~ !11 ,.,.I () :J 4 (J) E,J ! I H ( ,.IllI · I"n.I) 't!IIn
' l: t... 'I'J
~ : t J. I> t · 'J· ~ j v • ) · j ' 1)lj
' (.) "'·• \1) ~ I :J I'·!I •..~ ol p ' I' I): ·(.\1'1 () f I I ()(C I ~· () H) ,, ;)'• I/): • l"jIll of!I I'· '"
t _, , " _ j .... . t J ~ J . .._, ... ·- ' t )
c fl(JJ , ,, 0 p I :1!"-'·, b I , (J ~ 1-'I j:.: (j n 'J O Il !J I•n ..'"I'u ~-1 l). , ;J·f!l I' :II'·'t<I•!'L (i o I'· :IIn ('.
~ , . , '
Illrt("t(1':Ip, ' ,, l[o ('J0 !lH; <II ·~!l' ( {ll rn (J)w <, (J : {, Ill~~p " :l ttI ,t r-t•1(J 'I m (J It I '1 .~.1/1 ('"
· I :>
I'n 1/J.~ ' - I I~ '" I : 1 Jilot o {11'1 ~, :I"' ,l) I !. r >I!-,,, 0 P' (l(} I fl · ()• rt ; <D ,, '',J I "! ' l
'tl '
' l · f • ·' - · · ~ ' \ j s ~ .: LOII 'i r1 !In.
;.() f1I !1p 't1\1p, o' ~.. " •0 .-.1;() IllflI rn · ~ 0 • u 11.1 'tI i • :•: I • l . . . :I':I
~- :. t f - • ) . O tr J I
:q ' ; l); ... ~ 1•1J} f 'd'.1'll' '•10p. cf<..; rt·;,-··~,. 0 : lo,'10IJi '1;) (I> n !I c : co • lb() () 'I Lt<II!J
. . '·. ,) · . '· ·
n 1:. I .. !I II, rt;l'Ill n " q i .I 'Ifi••D I) p 0 ~ CD p (~ !I o'1- f\)i·IJI
' ' l
I'·'Ij) ...,. '"r. I~ " ,.~~J () lo, rt ;I'0 'l• 10 IllI'II· !I.. I 1• rt:· Iii I' :j·I ol I~ p. l , t• 't<II
.,,'1'1
. ! :1 : ~ J . · .. .. · j · J '· ' ; 'I ) 'J r l .. '· I ', I
,, ! ! \ t I'· !:l ' I •"' t , , I I'p, ~ ( ...I !I u. t ; il)I ( I ... '"I , I I, !
~ · \ I ·- ' '' J • , . ' I I , /) r ~ -
I 1' ! , ·I•'~ ·. I'· ' 'I I 'l'~ :I .. 'J~J !1() i!\(Jl l> .I l'IJ ' :t,,..'.' ,, .. ( ctf', il• "· <1;) "'
j '· ·, ) I . . ,,
:' I 'I. !. { :..., . • (I '~ (•I p "' I : , '" ~' (I' (•1 .:.'J 10<I : 1 - L) .: !I "'j:l I' I ol :• ·I·
l''J '
.
' 1I !I I •II oi : ,- f:i :··. p. ! , !1 f'I· fl. c. c:.; 01 " n ;\'· •I·., ( I 1 rrI ''I l ; 1.>: I"
. ;i ' I' '' :•
·,, ' ' t• · I · · · I .. l ·' •, , '· r ;. J
I, I I ',,• In 'l I' I 'iI 'J 'I :• !I'. (> ' ·',·•I• I .. o .. I',, ,. II ' 'I .. '.:I I ' . :
• I ' : ' ' I . ' 1 • ' . , ' • \ ,
Col r' 'q, 11 I" 1 Sl.· Iiij i,l ·' ' tjl > I ,;,, . ' I,, ,,, 1/ C ' ,(ol I ' ., o '., .t; , :•I · : , '"
202 Annex 26
' -
'ojI ! I I~ o) ' 3 f-·
r II C "-..,_
-..1
~ < f f1.i . · 0 ~ w tJ -' l 0 ~."' p ' Cll t:Jll (1)'1IDc I 0 ~--~ ~ (
(]<t ;-1 1 0 IJ'l :r l·j :J : 0 H) <T ::r 1--' 0 ;::! 0 ,..
: t . t t , ~ -.. ~ '- ·J !j j ' '· j ll J
c ;J1-'- <ll Ulc (llc ,, Ul 0 ~- ~- ~ (1)' f- 0 .."' ~ II(/) (JII (I() ct Olp. • () • iJr~ p ;" rt C) :-rIf- > n I p 0 H
: ·
r r ([) r)0 ;:1 ·~> '1CDp () Il I c rt ::r It(1() 0 r1 p. Ill•'IllUl1-40 ::~ ::r)1'p. () ;:l ~ 0 -~Cl)H u w lj 1\)0 ..
-'l_. i\ p p. ·~" . . P> $.0. il' Ul0 · (1)l 0 t ttl - , (0 ' ..~~ ~ c-r (J
1 ~ .. I" H I . c; n' '1 t- ;:~ ~tf:]r/ H.l c :> ( , 1--' en I·, 0 ;J l) :
. '- . l ) , t J J ~' "· U ' r l . . -r . ~ J , )
. :}1 d ..f (j d· c (J Ill (JH, !-• i I" I 0 (l~ :cI (JJ m t-c () rtt p, ..,: () (~ Cl r p ~ · ! I"[ () H rt~ ([l
) , .
.- (> ~ H <I' w p (){jl IU <t .-r..<II '")u II• VJqi en Ul.....;J.
. .
~ rJ(~ n (Vp lllj II)f c f\ u i• (I .-(JIi Ul (U r+{lla' f-1-4rt:- a. rt :><0• ~1 ~ 1 (/1Ul 0 •a1j () l
· r It> p. o' <4 H:>
j V ll . · > l. i1 · " . · t o :l · ll ' . • j I
() rop. ..' < I n C) ' M llj '<I'( I'Cl I () ..!ll t-1-<..j {llrt c r:r 0 ' CD ::1-': m I I"lUl~ ll ;:l :£;0 !"_II () () ~
t · ~ · I · • j · · ,
Cl ' ".t.r:·t i fJ n '-- c ~,.<ll H C fl'l u •i~ · <. 0 ~' 1-l' u p ;:.1{llUl H:>o 1 1-'g < V..
·
. : ~ ] ·
.0n r-~: n d d t>L•J ()..·-·(J ~ u tt1~ f- H !r L'(/)
J '
~ . : . ' : > l (jVI ~ w ~ "'Clln I Il : p. I n il' 1-'- ~ ...p
.. I f4 ~ .. ' - ~
~. :>J l ~,.•, Il· t.(Jl .-.. : I 1-"t~
tl : • j ). [I
l ··. l l._._ 0 : Il( p ~ l":J '1ltI"t-.,- '~
1 J '- J · ' t
'Jt p p n • [I) t . ' t-j1 ~ ~~ I· ( I (j)I)0 • C c (I 'j<..
] l J ... > . J
() 0 :~ ~1I ·t•L 0 ~ ~~ n.,.,H. - : 1:1H f~ (J
· I j · - '
:• ... :. • t 0 q' Clu jl . f :.s..f 1 0 P ...: p, I) n l ('"~) 1..' f1IO p
J. ,) : '•i , , ; J s - m ~
o 1 l'•l,: I I. r l ' ; <l( ();1 ..----) w • I i ~~ ......
J. ~ l - JJ : j .. - - ~
UJl ' ltll t l f!• (iJ; t-[JI(1: ,--~ 0 ,..._( '-~...-
· ~ l ' ~
- ~: 1'...I-'- [' t" trt-(\ Cl( OJ I (j) " • Ilc- ~~t <.
r > -'· ' · r J ·· • l 1 J '· .. ' J 1'
1) : ,, ~-~( 1 1· n .. I :ltil d < D : : f D p 1-' () ()q !tI ct •T• llU ~ ~ lj <" I"0 • 0 I ;t.. " '"n· <- ol ~ ....
·
' : I 1. tj f,,,;1.
l i 1 l ., · l l - ~ ~
n n ~ f ' • 1•1 n ~ . N I ·h· ~r ~ i_ (j) 'L1: () 'I) [J)> L'
~ J :... , · • r . . ) , ) ! 1 r • j
~ • I:- : u n o·) n ;J ,..( ; I t p : ..:. . p ( . ~- I 1 : p I I :t:l p
• .~ J . •· . ' · I ·..'.~ J . ) J('> .._..
I t \.I1,,, l'J 'rt •; p ~j :(I)': -- :1~ (J , . p I I , ,
l - ..,..,: t 1•'_,, ......l ( :·el I I·IJ : f~~ ,
:, I } ..· ; ~\ J : ) l : ·
:I: ; ( •J :-: I .( (.II! .-~ t •.s.;: ( · .
: -'·, J ~ - ' ;l ~ : -..~.1 ..J. l• "J . ! ..
: 1 I I I'· H I v• J I t ' 1 ..-( i , .. t p. (II 'I c-t. ( ...
, · , . l • ) · '
lJ, ;t 1'1- ~" l. () :r' : IT'- (J I!( 'l ctp •J
203Annex 26
- 8 -
CCMMITTE.E ON DRAFTI:.JG
J. Thc·n:scn(Unit:d Kingdc!U) - Cl'.airn;.c.n
A. R. Ed~ards(C ~ila)
Ar~~~d Anz~~ni (?renee)
?~ul Budk:r (?r~nce)
Je~n J. La G~ll(Fr~nce)
~. J. v~n D1 j (Netherl::.nds)
G. :i.?m..rl (!we Zeal.:J..nd)
:C:cutykka (Ncrwc.y)
E~ns T. Knudtzon (Norway)
v~1;::i., ..,+s~.'~r"'·"~)
~:-~~E -e;t :l~~1~ Kngdom)
¥!lli~ Em. S. F:ory (United States )
H. J. De~scn (United States)
Cherlas I. Eevc.ns
- Secret'!!"iEs
i·iR. Val l ·J.nce
CC!(!o!ITT:=::P:SI1ALri.E.AND FO::tF:SIT'C'RE
? •:s'::::richse(Den;na.rk)- Cl:a1 r!:.::l.n
J os ~. Monet~ (Argentina)
E. S. Dro st Uiat l:erl::n)s
G. G. E . von Felde (~atharl~ns d)
E"J.r~. :{n~dtzo( n:rr·:l~·-)
h .~. 2cgd~ncv (Union of Sovi~t S6ci s l1sRepublics )
~- A .Tve~lanov1 Union of So~iet Soci::list Re;u~l~cs )
J. :"!:c cm~(T;nitedKin~d::>:::)
? . V.Cr~ss (Unit edKir.o ~~)
C:..~:~:-1. K. S.:.lves:::.n. ( lKi .:!g=.:Jr!'l)
Ir~ ~. G.:J..rbials(Uni ted St~tas )
~1lli.~:J...3 .Flory (Un1~ad St~te) s
C~pt~!n Harold C. ~core (United Stat e s)
~. R. V~ll~nce - Secretary
CCl<1Ivli?TC~TBIOI..CGIC A::.;T
:'rft.:~!:k!nt~sl (: r.i taS:ing: ):.~C~.~ri~n-~
~edrc E~ B~uno V!d~l~ (Argentic )~
4.---....-• •. -;,....(l'1.-;,_.-
C~dric G. Setter (Ausrt::l)i~
A. R. 2dw~r~s (:~ilc)
?. ?. Eric::r_( ~-=~r:.')..l!l
?~~la~~~sr(?r~ nce)
J~:~ : . ~= G2ll (Fr~~ cc)
G. ~- ~o¥l~s(~ew Ze~l~nd )
E . S . :r =s(~atharl~~ds)
3i!" 3~ 3~rg.::: :::c!".·:jj
J·:...:r .?.'..4:cr~"'"-"
~. S. Ecg~~~C7(U~!~~ ~f Sc?~et 5cci ~~!st?~;~~l!~ )s
?. ~- :v~ri~~ ~i=~ ( ~~icR0~ Soviet Scc!~l!st ?~;~ ~l!~s)
~- ~- A .~~ts:~(~ ~!t~dK~~gd:) c
c~~~~i~ E. ~- S~lv~ss~ (Unit edK!~gdc= )
?.=!~st~c~ell:gg (G~ited St~tes)
204 Annex 26
F:::::.l Act
- 9 -
CG!·I:IITTEE CITRENT.!1fERi>,::riHF GUI:-I'i'ERS
D. J. van Dijk (~Tetherla. -nd sar:r.e.n
Francis F. hn~erso nAustralia)
?. F. lrichsen (~e~ark)
G. G. H. van Felde (Neth ele.n) ~s
Hans T. Knudtzcn (Norway )
I!:.gvald Eaugen (Norway)
V. A. Tverianovich (Union of Soviet Socialist ?.epublics )
'~rT e::.;;lerr.a.n (:initKir.gdorn)
Captain ~. K. ~a.lvese (United Ki~gdo) n
Willie. E~ S. ?lory (~nited States)
Ca.~t nai~arold C. Moore (United States)
A. T. A. Dobson (United ~ingdc) m - C~air~a~
Francis F .. .U:derson (Aust ralia )
F.arry A. Scott (Canada )
J. A. Ro~ ~ (C ana.~a)
P. F. Erictsen (Den~a.rk)
hrnand ~nzia.n (irance)
Jean J. Le Gall (France )
"JJ T ~,., ,..i'.-('"et'"'e""'""''d-)
· u • -1<;!.!.l....t. L.- J..1..::.
"J.R • ..~w..;s.(.~."·"£.~.L.::...L.:.
.......~ ~ !\...\~;;;C.JJ
Ingvald Ea.ugen ~Norway )
~. S. Bas~a.n~ oUvnio nf Soviet Socialist ?e,ublics~
~.I. :.rikisC.in (iJr:ion ::;3c~ti~~Scci.al~s-2 :e;n.:'bli.~3)
v•~•,• .J"'..'-..e"..~.l,J•-nc~."o' Shcti."v."'o __ ~.....~ie-~.._\-_.1i~~)
A. F. Geolot (United Ki~gdc ~
":.~.,.-...~. ~. :~ ..J.;(u ___ved s+_.c... ):\
L. 'fler..dellna:.·es('Jr.ited Stat-es )
if. R. Ve.~.ianc - eSecret.e.ry
:cten ~. ~uud(J~rwaJ -)C~a!r=a~
?a~l Eudker (Fr=-~ )~e
Jean J. :e Gall (Fra~c )e
'.-A . -7'·~ _::~..-.-- "o--~..."c;"-:,o~;iS ecti£.lis Rt'?.~_.;.: ,·-l:..::s'
- · r..a.'.Lc.~"",........ -._~.J1..-•-e:.:.-........_')
Reci~g c~ Kellogg (~nite ~tates)
205Annex 26
IWC /6'"
10
CO'!HIT'!'S:: CN ?..;CTCRY S:C:I'?Swl:T::nr TERR!TGFIX~ ..'.·:':S?S
A. T. A . Dol:so (Un.!ted K!ng-:!.oz;,) Ct.-:c.:ir::-.~n
Francis ?. Andersen (Austr~li )~
A. R. Edv~rds (Chile)
P. F . Ericr_sen (:;)<3nn1.rk)
ArT.~~ d nzi~ni (France)
?~ul 3udksr (F~~nce)
J2~n J. Le G~ll (Fr~nco)
:~h~n T. Ruud (~orw~y)
Ad-":1!":1 Ca :..,1cs F. .J.l'ie { ?.rt:.)
A. ~- Eogd~ncv (C~!~~ cf Soviet Scc!~list Ee;~~:ic ) s
v. n. Tv6~!~novic~ (U~~o~ cf Scv1et Scci~liss?s~ub!ic) :
N. A. ~a ckinto=h (7 nitGd Ki~gdcc)
E. J. Deason (Unitad Stat~s )
'" . R. v~:lan ec Secr::;t:lry
T!:0 fir"~l sessic .r:·..r h~ls on De-:::e:::ber2, 19'-:-6.
~·-·-·-
1946,
-l J~•. . ::__:,.--_.. .1.-.0..·--·-- .....::~ f:.:!.-._.--.-..--.--
-- ------;
------.···..)., ·- ":'
--·-.: ,._ -- :"'
---
206 Annex 26
q .. '1J 1
: l ; , I 1 h-.- .
t-1 - ~ o .
'
~~
.. · t J fJ t j i
L 1-)0 ro ><•<J"1(J(/)Ll c 0 rt•r(i, 0 ~...,..()(j;•-sto 1.;-p. In(t (.l ·l~ 0 t~,;tc rr<I'· Ul 0 0 I < J
J .. J , ·
,-t(:lt-.1p. lt I-'•t(ll p •(j 'd1-jff0 1- p rt1-' ;:J ,.._, lj rt:Y(,).J1-j r:p c, •s...;I(Yl Ill ·~,. () Il(ll IJ •jj.~, j1I• f-....
I t t . j 1
Oll p·~rt ( •~ ·-~ 'j c-(f) ,...;:J () 0 ;:1 1-j~.rr r:rt I-"::()Q rt 0 rt~r(!I p ( c-p , · [Jt!J;-JcT t) H, rt rrl1J 0 rT''. ' 0 I
• ·
rt I <; (!ow 0,.._, rtw~ CD 0 0 [l I~ <D1-j ~)() (j)
H H
3 ' · ,
• r.rill H >Jc1w >j;::l:·c1. 0 ;:1 1--' ~ p I I-"p Ol 0 0 p HJ ( t-((•j b (&
l
:u t<( 0 t• ~ Ul
; .. , ·
>-:1r ct cTtl'ro Q 0 -.C: '1• b (J ;j rt 0,.._, rtp· (l> c::J, rt(~ p. (/)rt(0 .-t. Ul 0 ~ ~ !1 ~• I-'• I~ o·(;J
· ·
p r::: : I) •:I-"tlQ p. r 0 'd(. D'~ I"(ll~r tT ~ (<) '-....:J ~ ~() c·t 0 ·~ rt rr1-'/) 0 () ;JH.:~:1-j(!';:J a.• r r (\>
l ·
rt CD~ ct 0 H rt : (II () 0 ;I ~ (ji;:1t'IJ 0 p iJ 01 11· 0 ~-~ rt tlco 'tl~s 0 t () 0 0 ~ (J~~ n. <T 0 fl, ?~<:J .'" I'1- 1'I
· ' ·
p o·1· u ·~0 •J .~ t:1 f-'o0p ctf'-0 ;:J Ul r:()~}· p p, s:,>-11I..0. a'p f-' p. 0 0 § p""rl(!) I p 0 0 •J h (\ 0 ll t 0 p
'li
;_;.t tr rtrr tD .. 0 t-~; 0 ~-·J rt :,.. Ul () 0•:j1-.,.tt ((J;::J(i) p (/) I'·w ,. ('IUt ..,: fl, fl(J;.1t- rl I'. . .u·Q;
. c: (;tj .
l) 0 [:lt<.... ~~1-jllJ_), · c ~.(i\ l r: - ~·· H ( tl
1-':l ' IJ1 i-';I ct ";< 0
H H H
·
ll rrtJ H ;:, tl1-j;-(J ctf-'G p "1' ;::·,p 1-'· ''cYi () ()p '.,:'l <i;J() II'
•
~ I•Jrn0 r ;~{/1
• ' .
:]ITtJ cT p 1-~ (/,.. ;:J ct(J :1 0 ·~(jlj Pd :L;.:,;(/) Ul :rn r:1 (.1. f•·( il -<: II:. l, ,; t t : ttj. 0 ;1
ll'l '-4 ()<.]
,
0 .....rtt- CD H•>j . r:J/) CT0 rt0 •-(ll 'Jn p 0 · c1t·J~ '" ~·rri 1-'. ~~ l-1 0 <) u p p •. (II(J) 0 tT•'j;> , I, '1
'rJ l 'U '<1 frl
r:;-1, 1.1•:t rt:.rc.•. ~1 ~. .~•s1-'- ''I'· 0 cT I·() ;:J c-1) •_jt:-<:..() r:Ill (') (1"(()Ul 0 .. rt:• n ·~i n,, I'(! (!I~
< '<J , (j
- ~I · .) ~: ·• :I
:J· ~ i~w •"1 c-t (!) 0 ~ () 1\p. In<llp (/)()p () ;:J ,, :--r 'rjlj(I d (jl~-~tt 0 ... '<i"() r~p.I lrl
~ . ~ , - > ·-' .. $ J~ · . ·
.. C!tf.1 1.•-jrn ~-0 >j ('(:rC.• o· r:: ,' (,)"J1 ;.(It] 0..., >: : j.l1 (11 0 p ·c1()n <I• rn 1-:.i <1• n (J;I t-o, 'j (!• .-:.
·· ' 1 - .• . - t • . · .
p.,,; 10I <,-,(/) ( 0 0 q 't !Y, (/,_.. t; ~,I p rt < rYI·'w 'II',; (),.,.I'I) (. ()() n L,, I 't,:,,(:.(Jl p ;1
J j IJ J - Y ll ~ ; ;, J - :•
(h • ~~ I 1-'-,,..,ilif(,,;1ll' I)I •:j, I ,) 0'i$ •) •:J) --J () I~ <'' ; (I,, ;;· p. , 1-' :•;t ~,;.. c•~i. II I) "l'"
: J. • , I ,. .. • , ... , '· ·
C) (l ;1- l) ;I ct () ;I ,, 1-l· 'l <), !i !l(.., h.Ul , ~ ,.> 't , t . 't I" l•l jl,, c I •$1:11'- rtI) (ll ".<ll :r I" I' '·'
- ~.. · ' . :J ) .
<l 1-'d () :J'.•'1(jl ~ n ;-11)4 p. I·'·'l ·';J,, (• Ll ,. ;1 <'I ,, ,-,I C• ;I l'l 1-' (I( I ,,., I' t"l. n. ()• :j h .; ;I(J li•
. ~ . . •
i! ;,J (). () IS iJ,_,...'> '$ ,. !It:l , .,,J, ,, '"rt : \; ;.::r I'·:•il'l f..1·i"IJJ!);f ," I• ,",, I
· '
'ii I ,. \ 1 il( ;1 d (/) H J u ct o',,, i1!l P·,. ''•)I ( I .-.p,. (·;t ' ~•: I''il ,._,,.:r() I·tl ,, • '" , lll
i '
'
()IJ n ,; 1:)\J:.l ,,,,. Ll l1I (I'(1 I r. ; ;:~ 1 (: (I)
207Annex 26
r:-:c; c:.
':'r_::.:; the; cl:o.:::-t of :·:-.:::er:cl.o.ture cf 'W1:o.les ::. .~:r.;C. tc :.hi.s
_r::_:::.l _c._.ctb0 :1CCeptGd 2S :::.gu.iC.e by the gover!"'..I:l<;,:C.tS !'s:;:r.;-
-·
in Art:!..::le III
._·..:,.
~ li:!l! -::: ":i.-:n
~·-
.~.._-- ...__
.._.. .......n ._w..·--·_._..._...
...._,..........,....:
-C..:..~ .,;_::;--..: :.3 --- - ..--. ·-.-.
...·..
208 Annex 26
I .
'1 ;t p ,. :, rl'
I ) · ',r
~ ( ' ().
...w...
<::H H
'
1 ~,,, H p .-tC••j 11p ct H 1.):.1 1--' - f;)p 1-.. r.J 0 0 il,.,,i•'l(; j] l)(I
()Q
0 ( ::-(flH l'Jt;J~.(/l
1:l:-rJ ( rt :-r "'() u .. p. ~tt ~. 0 p Ill '1(! 1-' ct 1-':l rt 0 rt:.·(~ ~ (IJl]l 0 .... ·.,n ,-r0 'j - < ';.,I(JIll
(j(J '
·
.. .;.rt: t. p rt ('lj lj .....0 ~ ...l!.l~ >-: c O• ~ Ul 0 ....,() () p rt11 ; () rt1-':l 0 () ~ C.•J p :l((liJ rtUl p Ul lj 0 I
(jlj lcJ
· ·
-.::'"L (I11 n· ' : 'Jp IQ ~ ,, : :-r I..-I1 ( I~ rt :rm (/,, ~r(i!p. ~;I.,, ( r.l0 r 1 p o C ;~ IllC <T .j p. <: 'l
'cl I • '
' ·
1;jm ..;I ('•<: () ~ r r) w 0 u l:f!I1 (I Ul1-'(J j] tn () [~ UJ r 0 I-'- I"l~ lj (.1 d ~' p l'T cl'' <• Ill<I· 0 Gl >jp rt I'·0 ;J Ul
'lJ
I~l w (l 0 p p. r.(l ,-rIT•P• 0 p p ;J m () 0 ;1u r.. n·p tn I (IJ
<: H H H
t '· ·.... ,
1-3:-r(\) H ;:l rtG lj ;:l,J r I () jJil 1-' ;? iJ 1 1-'.OQ 0 (.)p ~-~lollj, ;1 lJ(J
I ~; .
~ 1•1()f) ; F. H (I)
, t · , I .. '• I ' : -' - •T I l I
t-'1J.. l ~ ~ (]I;:I , p. (],()r: i'r't( , ;1 '"() lj !:-l ctI ( i1 u· (]() (l fJ llUl - p I'· p n· 1 < () ( ;1 IJ ti '1j._l
t t ~ . · - · ' · j · ..... I .
1-' Ill) rt~(') !3IJ·(~)~ p c I'() p •J0 ~~ r l:(IJ ,, p" (0 (]) (IJI');:1IJ I ;.J 1 (l() IJ ,J rt1-'w Ul > tl,, I t! ~ ,, I p
~) .. I , t J I _. j t ; ' ~ j . ~ ..
IIct <"t u p Ul lj(] H,. ....:1r 1-'-:C.(J, , jl fl· ()'U (:I. oJ ( n n. •rl (J I ~ 14 0 ~ ~ ,; 1-. 0 't),1;I
! J· ..-' · : j • j '·_ ~' • j · ~)' t~ .:I
·n·< 'jI u(l, Ill ,..(I •s : p I ~·;-:0<< UI. 1.1r I'p. ()(0 •rJ ( tn() I I ( ( p, I : &I ITC •\b. 0 ''J (I ,, c IJ'l
t J · ~ · ;1 t ~.Col . ~1~ : J · -r 0 · l' I (· d · Ill
1-'J c 1-'· ;-1 I'·: n I ~ . Ill. I•· ( (j, ., p. r ~'(], ,o 1-1 'lj~ 'Jp I~/ ,, •,J I' I :)
<:p. (J<; ()·_) (t~,·(~ 0 ;J Ci1-j(: ;l(J Ut (1 : I'ct (i":-)·'• 0 0 · ) _,_ ;1 C (\ ~ I p, (,•: p.,, 1.1<:0 ti C (
t n HJ ' i':1 I•(/)(/, n :l'
0 ()4l'l I) C"t c• (0p t' t...o.. 't !1 0 1.tn i,·...(\1 c ·• . <• (J)() t• 1 , I. () ;1.-4.) :s:l lJ c · () iJ I (JJ
I'·:1 (t :)"· lj 1 1-'· , I ! ......; , HJ I' I' I
(J (l iJ(ll..L:l I) 0 I r (0 •J n'·· 'l ~ Ill {p (J,, '~I () (/) 1 l u I (IJ .. , j ....;1 ~·:) I "~1' -' I jJ w.
, 'l111 () 1-' I 1 ~ ; i I , Qll 1
m l •'rtI· (l;:1l·l (Q 'Tj, I 1-' (0 o·~ • t t [II~~. ' () · • ... <:jl I · 1' p lj ( ,, (J
n' 'd ~ !l1 c ( () '(j •JII rt <: , iJ 't:)'('; I"II ,:
-
1-t:
)~ t t l' j t • ·
:1.:rt <T~ C• 'J ~ ,: ..w Illl 0 HJ ( : tiJ t• (!'1-'il(j(J) ( I () ;:J n H; r i.l.l r• w' 1 u ;.l 0 "• (I)0 • 1..(V.rt
i · ..... t ll , · j ' ,
r ( (J I j.1 I tn rt !JJo 'cJ,: IJ'I'• t Ill l ! ,.. Hj~_ 1-'I 0 >'~..!ll. I' tTjJ ct,. il; ;J,, (; I'I t; . (J I ,; ....' p.
• t :, I , ' ~ l > ' .. ' I .., •
t ' 0 .. I •j (~l ( 0 ,: L. ( I <i, C! i ~J (l,. 'l IJ,: il(IIt ; ; •• f tl., ( (fl0 ·~1•{ d . 1 (J I
j .1 . ' -' . : ; · ' ' . t • i· J ' t ' : ~ ·
rt t)I <. (.1:r, •;J >:!J·1 1 ,, t , ;I I [) I {jl <I u ,, , :l n :r ~,, <' t' : I I'!l 1¥1 l'•j() !:. Jttl (\ ·- : •I
''• '• t r - '' · } l , I tJ . '
(J 0 !f !II,;t u t !tI,;J ,, I) I l : f! I, \{) tJ\I - " ro C.·> (/1t ;t ..;J. ; "r 1. ' V , ; r ,, :,. n l , 'I)
I , ' : · . '· I 1 : l' · ' , :
((j(I r:• !l' , •It l",t , I', :.t) (; ()I j1.~ :J II'1. ~ C' :rC l'l< I (• l~ :> .-,., ;t (),, , :r,;, ( :,. ;J () '.,
•1, . '/ . " t I ; ' · , . I , . t l .. '
, , - !'·( ,, (/(J (l I,, 1-' ''~c ~ 11 '<I II'1 I ,,, I (,, ,_; ,:,, ,, l r : ,, •T o :, 1 ~',II•., ()' " 1il 'I I
' t , t ( ; ' ' , ·
!II I.(/ ('I.L , 0 n 'd u 'l, 't,, .. ~- r : IJ '•~ I' I , () il '<1 (• il.' :l,, ().. (),, .t ( :\ d. • ( ''• 'J
209Annex 26
.:. 11;. -
ccnti .r...uous peri:;d cf four mc-:1.ths f:-cw. t:t:e dc.ta en :."t.:.cit
Not<; :s ;:;:;.::C.s
th:..t-: simil~.r conc;:ssion -r.r.sr.,~" oe ot:t:ar gcvdrr.r.snts fe r
t:t:ese~son 1945- 46.
2 . Tbe Deleg~ticn of t:t: ~ ni on of Sov1~t Soci:..list
to conduct cper~tio ns in t:t::..~re~ f or the fcur-~cnt:t period
during the seeson 1946-4 7 -r,.rithoutreg:..rd to the si xteen
t:t:ous:..r:dblue--r,.rh u~ite cc.tch :1:n1t~tion.
tl:.em ju s t:U'iec! in ttc- spec.i:.l ci rcums t.:..r.c ee . It is ur:der -
stco:i t:t::.supp or t by tl:e Ccn1e ~r:no-e of th e:se r .ou.ss t s st.::-.::.1
r.ot b~ ::'·:Jg:..rc.:::s ·pro:~;;ecc.t for future ~e.:.scns.
X
T!-.0 Int.s-rn:..ton-:.: :~1::.l1 C::g;.r,;:,r c-nc e
of the G~ion cf Soviet Scc .i:..l!st Re~ublicst:t:~ tt:t: ~~kir...g
of gr-:y vh.:.les in t:t: !:r.-:!. ~ngd Chukots:.:: se:..s shc...:.:ca
p·.:r!:tt~d ~ w .-?nt t_-;mo:. t:.~cp .~·::c!:.! cctSs:!C~ '.·.:les :.r...~:J
C;3 us-.:c! excl u.:;iv -::.ly felcc.:.:::l const:!!: p':t:rct t e:.":::J::".:.g.i:-."'"s
cf the Ct.uk otsk c...rd Kc r j.::.\c :;k . -:r·:J:..s.
ZI
n·.0 Int& rn:-~:o!n:~ . ·..,~=-:g C o!" ':-c:r-:
P.c:c=:~::z:=:s:
210 Annex 26
I • . 1 l '
' I ; jJ 1-'.....), 1--. c 0' I-
1
-'
I Vl
• . · , . . ~
~,, p. <ltj (I t·J" I· ' ..., l'jI (lp ~ () C•t. (.J0:1 H c tjl(lI) 0 ; I· N 0 Ul c ~' ~.J<1' 01...;:;- r~; 1fl.(>j , : c
.: (J'l
-J ~ · - t l • · t • · '· -
!=I Ul rt ·I <:;0 '1 ~ o 1 C: fl!l;:1' rRI0•n a p , l"j'p. ,~...r :J"' rt::-rI fln ,,,, n 0 p (/J0 I C•;.,.,.~ (l~ ())
J i ) I j .. l ... '
I ;Jn. <! ~ '0()tj...(. ;:J) (\p, ll'- § r."'S1) j) OlP· () >j <:•:;(I) ,_...'t ....n IJ• i1( ~, ct~ o, <I• rt~ p <1'
(J 0 f1Ill r. rrp 1--'1<n ..,.. 1-1-' CJ'm cti I';' ;.:J~ 1-'1--' p t-(..J i" g. < :-lj c ~ 0 <IJ ·lj,..;J t I c I
m «
..... · - ;, - - .,. •
, ctr:p. CD Illh'' 1::1--' n m p 1 1-' :(! p. ·0:1 1-.Ul(JJ<1UlUl,_... m •J{,•;:l 1-' I·(!)(I) ·0 "'S co,_:0 ~-I'
= ' : ' J · ) ' J t · J -. t t ·
~ ;:I· < 0 ,~ n-1 c:1-'J t1' ;":l U H t1 i1I '-'j n'(l) C1'~J' r t- II(jr} 1-' IJ ;J 1-l.p ll.. r ;:I" (Il I 'Jl I' <: It•
p..~ ·H, lj'w ;.1 ((;LO p t1() '1 l <T t'(] 0 0 ; ct>j p () C1,_... 1 l,(I · (1 '1 rI (!) :-lten .-;1-'1-'-' c •J(jJ..::>;:1t
tl< , 1~ '
t r I j ~ -, ' t
c ::(] p p. 0 'd(:"t 0 ~ 0 HJ ~ r:;,_....,, tj a UJ«l enn (]I !J 0._, 'd(!>;_p 1-'('t...)(I) 0 r::t ..... f-J/1 c i1'll
r I . · s l > ·
~ ~ 0 =<: 0 HJ ct • (: C) 0 '1t-:,jlj t) ;.() (]l rt ~'p rt 1"t ~ (I) p, (])<n~ t l.'o' 1-'( c-f!Tp rt ct !TC• (,"J)<: Gllj ;!I
,
:-c.1p <1'n en ::r c: 1p. ltJj ()~ ~-~n. <l' '".l 'i c ::r)) ~; 0 Ul t-~,.t 0 ;:l 0 H.. (]I;:1 1-'-t!-'·.(I) Ill~ .~ I·I
'd 'ti
J · ~. l '$ · '.
0 .. 01;:Jrt 1-'-< enC]O <:]l 'iC] rt() p. f-J·() 0 ~ tjp OllD rt !":1' ,_..1-'1-'jllfl."1-' l>1-'-~ 1-' p O: 0 • rt :~. "' .rl
J
(,_,, ~ !TI 1-'1'1n
~ •
1-j:I(' C) u P. I!tj IT: (, (:·· IJ(), n ·,..~~-;,, 1-f'"'-1 ·<:>lJn q b flp !L(I) l ~J"' ct ::!.1• Cl ( : !J ~llI
rr
. 0 i tJ"' ~ p. rt~ c (. ( 0 t IJ ( :· . -· '• •, -s~,; t ·· ~JLO l-''·tl · (J
I,l ;1 t I-' Ul p. '1 ::r lj 'cl 'j c ":( (,lj • n. ~ ;1 !h I ;-,I • (l c I u r~ I rl
. .J) , J j t ). t J ~ s t - ,
.-t... tJ I~ ;:J f ( I) 0 lj n, i ( (~ ~ ~ c ~ c ~-() 'd>j() -~14 Ul~ 0 ~- Ill "J ~~I~ c >-"() 1 (b H ~ _ l)t-tJ
· . > ; t • ; • , ' t ·
, :( l ( p ~ 10;J ctI < r .-:) • tr .-' -~~ I! ~ c- 0 H ! ~. ~ :-JO<J t (((J n p .:1"jl p I l .. () :s( <t ()
·
r·J(I ~ P. 'l rl ( ; c (I) ljIll '.1.)<:I·'-· l n- lj 0 'j ~-~>J :1· .-I• () 1---''"~ 1 ()·~, ( :J<(I 0 ('): j-:(,;1,, 1-·();:_1
'd ,
, ::r , · \' , t r ;: (I · • · j .. · · I• ~ ·J t
.... 'J rt: <D •:J~ lj·:;I)(I)(j) ().. p (Jp (~ <;_ i1O: 'tr <1! IJil ( p rtP. ( c1 •_"0 coUl, o t ( ~::i1l t <)>j :,_... (~
, J · '• ·
I~ jJ rt ::f lcJ1!1i1p 1-C"t w (J ,,, :J 'ri Ul c,(1. ,_, ()tj () 0 ;Jcl ljjl -~<; i1d·,..(J :_-Jn 0 ~-~ <'1'( C) 0 :• <';l,; •·" ;1
~ J r l J ~ ·l. • t • .
H ~ ::;t-1 :- ~Ifil(Jl :.:I,1.•1•l•n •i d ~ ( H (J t-• (J ~l- '1oq t (i>·nlj (1() <t ;1C1'i•l I' --<: UJ IlI'·:~;I
J · ·
lt :,_, (If · ,. [I. ~ ~() <t
;1 - 1 , f ~ J ·1 ' • ~ · r
t'JCl f 1-'J :.::, :· ·;Jor,<t( ; .-t,_.../I en c c. 0 ;:11-l.p, i '·~ 0,., tJ(1(l u ! 6 f 1-\() o,
... f I , I ' ) r · , • • , ', ;~ J ' ;
~ >1 ct r (.. P ~ ,, 1-~( ~ ~.·'In. i~ ,J(j(., ,.,.~)'iJ 0 1 (¥,~. •, (),, .. : I·( !>' Ul rr1' ~,. f; t;
" :
n. •1•c 0 .'"ct p. ~·;J ,. ~l·(. !lt 0 j.J•. < c Ill u ·J <:.,-l• r:,C.•..t:I '1 t.ri ;.ct 0 ~- rl ;I' ~ ,, ( t 11-
'
t J - • _, . ' · ; l f l )' J " i l. ) . , ,
(J:( : . 1. Ul (, ~ flC.l ·I 0 :.,;, c 0 -~< '.'1 tll.,, ,t (.)HJ r : ( t:~~ ·r (\>l (j ttJl,, (, (JJ (I..
211Annex 26
-~ .J..;..
r../ 64
- 16 -
rt:;:;rss~ntsd.... l,.,
FOR ARGEN'riNA:
FOR FR.A!-TC:S:
?C~ ':'EE !ETEEELA.l\!:S:
FCR I~'w ZEALA :m:
::rcP.vL4
FCR
c b s e ~ v e ~ Q
FCR ICEL~]!J:
FOR IRELL IC: :
ETR PC~~CG.C..L:
212 Annex 26
.J; ..1
u.: 1;
4
1:;11 Ar fH
~'Ji t:~a
S L rkdn
G ,llem o
IJ ECiclna J
: I1 ) ! I i , I I I, ) I
S):;) S)· N) s
(N)(H)(D)~( ( N (N) ( Uj) ( (ll(l (S)I
l (D
1 .lh/1
li h.:-i
... 1ur ;l l Vl. iw lL
b.k ilnthlva t'Hhvr.l v ll:aa n''a
nJ t.hvaluc< kc lv kcl ~•
rC:nlav;-.!lwnh•d .o :rdk.;vJ.kajJO:-e iilJ",o c ··~--uWI..
SGAi'ID:!iib.'IUN G ~htN GrN R lb Bi.N Biocuya~ Kn llukn Pu ~
r I ! I '
.
.
ki
kit chtCikii
kit . i n
i .. t
h.ld lant kl
s -..'l.tb
R:JSSIAN eo c.l.;'
renlandski -N ob<>t:/i
0 tlastoSev G <Zorbach
---
ich
Halvisch r
--- pe
'll11!LE·- Wttlv
E - ;-Likii tnJi;
O o
Nt'rl!iliLMIIJS Gro~nlc.nJ. Nu llul
7 -- · 1- 1 j i I I I I ! I'Jlw~:r~
1
---
ANNEX ruine:
,lauri
~wyo
IIOM'.!itlCJJ,TUR";; Gr,J lli ul:urte
J
II frnJuhe llu frandte
;'C e c e t;c
iu i in
Fm c l: t;aJ•
- ]
BalBc~lcinu iJal Bd M,
1 I I i.I
---- tl
·- ae
· e Wh Rieht Whlll c
- e: i.1le
Whal W! Wl"'le Whal
-- 'lli>ul le e. Wh1le Wbalu
le a Rigl•t le ;t Ril':hgt
l.u wr. .al [J,;I'J:Jnli: t.:ktd
GISII W PvlurWl Atl<mtiJ t:aWl Wl Rit Ri Wltllle
Eti eadtc ·c cU.1clr.t:d
e-hwh r Wl><llo·th ~:puarundt
GreRinlllAd Greatlhr;htcuyllnNuNr Scrbl~NilckuthePig1ny lhunpilllllulli
1--·I-~-·l I I I i i I I I
--
------- ·
- ·
GnJy
Limlilous
-- C ~ li.1
I r.a li "a •.Wtu1lcL) ;l
lulini ·l ~'.! ~ w
. : tc.::tu~ c on l1 rgi td n
Bl1TIF ''"' ..
SC! :iJ l)'t>t ~li..Jap ·1U,; u~~ JIIJtJ'Cu1\t,
1'it ll ud~ ·, n t.:: :
,, ,:r i;rlim
----- Ha n1/:iit~li:.Td nnuturrr.1lu~r.a >lacr~~] 'fJI.lIli(
- ( :~1o.::i'.H · . : l~I: D.::r.;uoulin~ ! ' lJ;. nn
- kcl (~'un~w-thn 1.:.
}~:~ 1~uh.1luLr.HEul.t;m; l F t
213Annex 26
alda
ICtl•, oa
Azul de B lJrydu-1pequ~iia
n ntl
-· ll
- Ballen Ballcllfl a
SPAN~-- l Balltna i : I I Iallena
I s), )I
( (D)!(S)l .l.s) (il) (N)ll,),I
(D.N.)' (n.u.)l (D (D,
---
-- <n
- l "
IAVIAN u hval !1 ··:h
- c 2V 1nb·~'!l'<
-i -
SGA.-ID BlDlaval FinRorhvalvnl Scihevjvul Dryd MinkeVikvul D Ms--sw
I r- . I I I i '
kit
kit nol polosHti.k
---RUSSIAN 1 v
- val ival kit
SiBluvul Sel~'in. S Malyi
I I I I i I II
J c sc
-----~--- e nvis
Vinvisch Vinvisch Vi Vinvi
-- N1'l'HEHL\NI rg
-- Vmvisch c,
Illauwe Gcwone Noordsch llrydc Dw
I 1' . I I I I
1 I I I I I I
-
Hudol: Dryde
Llablcu conumm de: de rqUAl
1 ) R
FlmlCII
-- it
Rorwwl lloraual RorqW~ llnlf:in,ut
I I I llllaleinc
-+-
- l
llorqual rqual
t : o l WhaWhale
--- RoreJUAl ,lWh<,Je e
1s Bot Finl~ttrRurqw1l % 1 Whrt RoProurtdl.-!Jinke
WhalNorthern ih 1s l.\JL~d
EliGLlSII \li1r~le Whal1:1 iVh;;ls.; t>
- erin~; Co~H !yda L~s Pik
--- SilBlueGr;;at~'}'innernRII:O!'\;ICkollAckJolThi Little
I r-:------ 1 I
- n ta
e lrn
s , ,ti
.;-;-,:,~~ lns
;;:Wl111l;:;s) rli lltorr
,, (SilJl~,lJ.usfhysn 't. llryJt:la:
, Linuuuu~ i
, ~ .'l n
llumtnclillureITIFIC-ltw;leJ es n rtl :tc~J(<ie
- ,l~J~ rw ,,u;LL"ra :rt• nop:,'l''' H,r, <:
l/r wu, Linna l.:L 'b brnLac
nf ;;:;:;;.~P'·; r;,l;-a l D 1:;,
Ar.n~x
214 Annex 26
s
-
~i
l de
AIHSII t:l'li.
S --- ll utdla
D, CacLalote Hocico
-- i I
·1
·
r --
- (i:l()s) .S.)S(ll)S) (S)(li)
l
- (D.N
etiva sh
-
- vl rmc D:ni~hSwt:di
SCANDIN.to.VB.i~ -- -
Gr Gr KasSp0p~Potlvul NabBottlenose D N--Norwt:gian
kit
RUSSIAll
Stryi K11sh~lot Ilutyllconos
sch
ch
vi
11is Pot
W
N1'ri!ERLANns
Gryze Potvisch Snwe:l
- ·-
1~ ·
- -
-·
-- griae~
~'RENCH
---
~- Baleine Cachalot
I 1 ; I i I.
-T· )
· ---+ )
- . While c
~rctic
\'!hale
--- Gr11y (Arctit
~ !!,ger li e !
_ le llro1y•:iDi nos·~
__ W!!i•;1~,;k'Fille Wh e cm
.. EJ'{}Lisu 1y y Suclc lt'h>l~
. <~
- Gr~GrG-~PllDevil.MmTtip SpPota1H:hnlut Bc.ttltl
f '
~-
--
_l ·- Cope a.-us
tu.r"
l: - Linn hlus
·u ·· ~
,,IL - HJ...;lr•ut:us e
:·r~ - t i11 n•npulifruns
· 1:: ····- -Ei¥P~~l. i· C:ttudon .
. ·· ~G :n r \c ,,JoJ,
\i! - - ~et , c,hiioo,e
- ,,.},J Py :' :o•
Ann.,x fl] hi1clti.•rh'•:t.;!
· 'l l'hysd, llypcrp,
215Annex 26
."..DDEHDUH
~= ~ result or the discussion of certain matters ~aisej
a~ the C:nference, the Netl::e:::O:l.ar:.d.s"relein·:i~ hed C'on-
fere~ce tc !nclude in its Final A;t a resolution in the fol-
"T:J.eCcr.ference r:Jco:rr.end::that in the 1n':ergst
ssr·1a.t.io:of <Ih:'1.stocks. :r
216 Annex 27
27. Verbatim Record, Document XIVC (28 June 1957) pp. 44-49
- 4L-
Ses:!"-9Jo1'l'rj.daz,2Bt!lJune, 1!!57
In the ()udr: Dx-.G.J. Lienesob (!lrihe:r:WW.)
Ib OfL!p!IA'!I:Centle.en, ;leu., oo» "Jo Ol'd= . 'l'.bo thl:Jll.enar7
saasion :ismw open IU\4! hope yvu ue ~ "JJat 'lb>J!epw:ts •
are prcaen-..ed. -to tColm:l.a!don. r quote Daaw:ont m, ;a,port ~ the
!!'e~\m Clcma11;t.eelloco.me.'.rm, !1eport ~ tM S<».elrtii'ioOe:::rl.tteo,
Doow:ao tuIIVil,Ve:rbaUa lillpc-rt c£tile~ S...Sic::of tM 27~ .!>mo.
ICq I call upon the ~ ':<:eee1''6tMse lloc"...,.<mts?
tlr.!. 1!11~ UIZDCC ( 1.1S,A ): 1 ao 110\"C,
~e <J!.UJ!IWr: Dr. Xalio13 :sf th= ITs.A. t~DV th&t tl>e 'Beparta bs
reae1-.!.
l!la CSIJ"RMtl'!I te.k6 !.1; thAiti i.snca:xfWJls],y Lgnu•d ~ l'ho.nlt
;rou., ...m.
I prepcsa -to the ....... isMnthAt ,..,lri:r1rt dollberatiQoon Docwsout Xlll,
1mport ~ t:be SciAntifio Ca:::l1two, <mi 1 ClheWdlil1! to ...n \IP"l' til&
Ola1:raJl ot Ul4 S<:!.~~ ec-ittce to gin bia ra:aub or ~a?:lAJ: I thtinns
regard to ths couhnta d tbe Repor-;ot the Saien':U"i.na..:-ttee. Dr. llack1ntos:b
b&i 1ho f'lo=.
lh'.N. J.. IU.CXIllWS!:f(IJ'Qited Jti!!&dca)llr. ~ .there :is ootbi.ng
te aa;r about ~ 1, but 11>pa:r«grqlh 2 - '~~! lii-._ tb e Usc ot ·~
~ the o.=ttea - ~- ia jUst one point to .-clltian: -th&-; lll'r'aDeia,
repn•utir.g ~ Ze~ =a =a.ipated by the ar:.rlssion u an ob"""""
on~. ::~. am"" )'tlUwill ...... ±l .. ldcpart of tM ~. there
waa a quaation rsi.aed ~ llo'WAll erli:th to vote . I think HI .a
cnt1r•l3' an •cada:lo q~<Gnio be , all.I tbi1llthe Qoc:lld.srlo.....nito
lalaw :is wh&tna the divU:!.an ot ap1cion. 11:1tho Oocrllihe.on~ po_~
que.ati.on.
Ita:. ~give she .lgellU. In dt• tgend!l.::toa1 'R.1 ot course, -the~ec:tioc
or Ola.1ran, 'Ltea 2, ~ ot tba ~. and rte,.3 cmwa... ..as aeU>al.
J.c!O!IlIo.ch ,..hu! to ~.
~ !genda .,...u:!ls],ytha So!.ontit'iQlb-Oo;aoi.ttee• s~rt, wi.tb ol><5'
-two additie=1 1ta~e b'O!I~ Ca:a bsio-'115 Aaerula.
~ 5 em tM fir.:s:pap ot tha &pc>rt dea.:.n~ the stat=rtie.s
or ttw l35Rl557 seuc.n, and we t:llc:uaftt t.h"...w. interaat - tro. the
Oc:amhee' a p:dnt ~ -n.-, jn eo tar ll.5- have b.e.~-- to read tbroiJ.gb
all these sta::Ut:LcG - 'li1tho di.6tr'..butic>or c:A<;ahingo3llrint:isat-en.
Tha o&tch.Ulg bad ~ been m ~· .fonllCl~ =ea. and the ~
Area n. I think 1t 'llill~ 'ba ~~ to ""'' bow the =tchin&
b ~.nr!.bo: lr:ed• ........n and ~n ..,.,.,,..,
'rlllargeat catch 1IU Ul Area n end r.sry ,_..~ e.s ~ -='0 taken in
.Aro&I, the :fcmaer ~'Y; n:ry ~- .maJ.ea ..ere tuen in Areas m aDi ri .
217Annex 27
- 1;.5-
The te.ot that then ,.... a large catchin boa I UW: yu:r ~a D>t ~~~. o£
oc:urs,.,tho.-:; tho:-e 1IC..a.blu!!• catch n=t ~ or in otb«r ;reu"S·
*t ye&r in tU Ccalrl.aaioa...did.~ that the:e ..-aa. .tall1n -:.be
o.verage si.se G? tin ~. Cld w- thcAJsh .bllt}'O!alb ;;U ,...-.ething
1;0tau mto of, end t.ha.if tbf:N wu a 1'\Jrthetall 111'l:hialAst aeuon
'then" u1gbt ::lrlJ·h _, oi' _. "'BJ''I'1eanoe. l!ut, in tact, tbar-e ...,.,.
a.~t riao in the averaa• au. ot tin 'lb&l.e:oi,ewo ~ :-esaz-this o.a
an UIOakr•.W..to ari.t..-i.cm.
!!'here are signaage.in :hA~ 't.heb:U..lihale stock ia 3till goU!g dolm.
.. peo'!allyb~ - I think I !UIr'.glt;in a-r~ thU - ~ w.a a s"Ull
Sl8llAir~ent.ge o£ blue '<hal:s in."tlla ca.Ular blue end t"..~r.
call.i>i.tlea.
On the teoo.n4 p&ge, the it~ to~ were ;aken in lila Soi.eut"..fic
Sur-Co::ll!ttees lillpGr"l an'ft comi4En4 fint of all blue 1'bal.GSin. tbe
Hor--4 Atlantic. llr. ~ thii:'G a=thil>o ,,.. "to 383 :sere. lie sa!.d
vor:r IIlah the "'"'" aa wa Uid..lA:n:ye= t.ad.s1Jipl:rei7e:r·o.:<e~" op:lni.cn
o£ ~ .. Sel.onti.t'~Ooiadi: t:elcl» Q:.naittee or 1&$ yur. ""
reit«ra.1:ri <Ur resret that there 'R5 still. a.ca-t&1.n mlltbe:r o£ blue1lba..las
bemg ta.lcen 1.nthe Nartb Atlantic; that 'i.ea. poir.'llhicb -...4ee.lt nth
:r~ .
1iha.l:.:in the Narlh l'ac1fic; I ~ III.that biolosioe.liJ' th1$ it
a vtt7 i.:rteN&rlJiaarea and S?'*'Di: ~ I ..mu.ld be DOot ~e:::eated
in i'ollcr.ing ~ho resulta o~ th" reseerah, eop~ b;y th~Je;.anna a."Jd
tbe llu!e!.aa:...tor!.l:!.in tho Jlorlh !'ecll'!e . We ba~r n:>reoo=e~tilln
'flrl.caftects tho C<mt1•sion'•qol.iey; tb.ouih it a1ght be o£ ilite"~ to
Ca.n&dt.&nlitho United stat~ to mte tlnt tb.ere are 30IIe prelt.dnny ~
tbo.t u..stocl<3 o£ o;bl.ea on "the ~'!= .d_'/fe¢t sil!eao£ the Monb l'llc'....tio-
~ ~·~• 'that i.ato ~ tll .o&tao:-a.atha wmt. aor~ sl:c<i1l at
,;pres::nthey appear JlOt to ba ""PC= to at~· ll<l_.,,...,,.ave noc:reuoc
~ th1.%llca.t p:reac<; "±atthe stocka U1 the l'lc:rt.'d a'ea'<:~~i o'."eZ"
f'Uherl.
!hen ,..,~t nth wbal.e IIArld.!>g a:111I. th1tha ~ thing r.en !.a
the 1l1lChinare""od l=!lber o1'la!!rlal :reOO'tU'~d the past "essen, v:hlch.
1.aver, p~ :rc. the actetr"..ii'1'0~ o1'vi,... ~ a_; note• on
as-<cnl. marl of 'a~e<:Ul. ~ which ....ret-ew•u-ed., Out I tb:i.Dwe shauld
!'<lprd thaeo 8Ulp~ as brl.Ob 1n the acUfi.ce o£ •o1ent:Lfi.clcnoWle4Ga whiDh
..., aro~ ._,.,,,., ~· I 'III:!Uu.-y thU, that 1lba.l.::oa:rlt1r,gllD~
justll'led.~ by ~OOV'< o!rcertain car'.ooor parl;ic1lAr un:ereat; -
bcpe to ,~~ aoeot apo.-..ant.r...Ut. ,.;, we have su:N'icient ruabln' of
recoorerle3 1:0:!Do:.a:t'lb- all as a 11bole, intep'ate tho tb.-w. and~t
it in o. ato.tiaticaJ.or u l.uat in" .soll£-sw.r .eaD!~%", aml tne.D. we
bopio to ,~~ m;c:t~e rssnlb .
I ...,..drmv .,ttu;eon to the uhiri ~ unilu ecction 9, ~
~· - t!ri=* tb:>tthJI ~ ~ .. ba:Ytdcxle t. g:roo.t dealto
~ ... tho~n o! the aan .....rld.j,Qti>e 1'M>tories ix>~ ..,.4to
oot&l"<ltor ~~.~ .r'Oblala ~t aro te.JrJm, butve hAd eoae :roaeon to thi:M
tbtt a certll.!~n o1' IO!rb ve:re :stm onrloo'Joed. It a, of ocur.e,
ve:cy dJ.1'ticultc :i.nd the ll4lic inA 1lha.J.e Mlen the mar..t U buried 1rt
lha :uaa1ss , a.n:!thare a.re atill ~~<~ ll.ks enot roocverod. =tU boi.l.era
ue cl.eanoa up. lib«:> a. aa.1a fcand.i.n the boiler, on sti.ll hroe ""'~
o1'the i.zltarM.tior....want, wldch b l:il~to poaibon and date
o1' rewve:tj, 11\. :~',.:ursa, 1~ u EUCb batter i1' we)ln,y i:ho actual.
'ilb6la:s bdltm1ch they are :reoo•er.d, and bette: artll ~ Ye have
~· of the """-le a.nd ""'•terial. !%a= it wb1oh '""¥sp«ci •1,~
218 Annex 27
-r.6 -
vn s clue to 1-;& ~&. Bo "'" ~ it a.is he~p Lf' the J.nspaeto>--.
CXIU1dbo u1cd U> ~ all t.'ley~. I bape tllh lloea nat in ~ Wtr,t
l'Ot'leat: upon the Q)-opet'ationof the •b&li:>g oompa:dea, bcC-"lle they l:'.aTG
c~ been ~i;; belpi\tl 1n arrar~ the recovery of ...-leo.
'lbat -n feU fta '~ba te 100r0J>OOP 1e L-factory 1i;bo .,.&...-arof tha
FO"JJ"Ctl Gr f'inditl& ~>er -k and if ttw =~ lc::loor!her1& a :reRrd. - tb•
..,..., inereues 1ho clluces of'f'i:ldi..caz'.las Anrotlu:u tbe cbmo;ee o!:
-.rb being ~loobd.
On the q.tUticn ~ ~ u&i.st&rco by the Coarl.odcr;. I th1:W:'II'IS
.aid all. tha1: .Uroa2l:r nedlasary on ~t yen=r&.y , IUld- ~UEpl ;ould be
gl&d or &eytb:1n,gtil" c-mia&J..on ooul.ii affordto beJ.:ls.
I aight .PO~ ~e the g::>od~as of llftl"ldnin_ Al.ustn1i a all4
N-.r Zeal.a.'ld, tlhoIeunde:rwta.nd t.hoyha'vc ~>~>rk atogether SOJ:Iethinglib
;oo wh.alo a,
Poxhaps -:rought also to sa:. tha~ '1!Dhave bad- & JV•a~ dea1 ct: ~l.p tro:ll
tt.e ~so !'a.ctaries"inthe :lAJ>ta-n; th!JY ban aarlred 'l_Ui't~t~=
or ~15 in W J..ntaretioa.nd.NCOYUed e. m.ber or l3ll:rialI-th.in<t! 110rll#lt in
111.Ting- in tbo J!aatem regi.cn, .A..-e1:0o.ndVI, ~ to om· muberillg
d t.heso o.:r'e&.a'lllhe.carpue.±inl;r ll1>tl.e~ ~- l>Hll iltme before,
a.nd share .., have no~ve:rf IIDCh data on ..mal.e...,.;...,'11·
Then 'Wfaoaa to aeotion 1 of -the&port, "Ooctcbi.q; ~ t'cr bll!!!Jlbac!cs
in the J.nta:=tic"; I qpso tlli -ms be-t ccm::zvvC'd&l point 1lbi.c-:.b"
~~ee bad ~ oond.der . I tlU.llI can U¥ tba.t aoieuti!'io o¢.nion on
th1a ~estio in :!10very atrol!g . It ia a.c1S:f'ti,uJpstio:n, one of'
~ae u.rgb:laJ.pmb~ ltbichone he.a tut to ocno1.,.,. en ~" Mle""" of
~- Of OC>IU'n,;bO ~Oocai:tt eeeIIOl"t t:il>e tooonn•c!er thU
thAn tbe ~t'!ia ,eand the Sul>-Oo1:c-=tee 'OttO oertainl;r or:;e.;red'by the
consideration that !.t ~~~a ""rbeob,....... ~abc .n tha Ant&retio i~.-~
to _, ext.mt rel.i.efttllapr~ an 'b:lll&DC :!'ln9b81ea.
/!i:twthe \'Ot1."'8...704J .........
219Annex 27
- 47 -
N~:Wt! uot!Dg, a:.s ;;os~ ~the~. 71!3 f'a.=in fa."vur af
a.:1ru:1re ca+ci~ill -;he .m:taro at:~'tbree ag;e.:i.nsw.Lth SC!IIah s~OI'..s,
bu"t.i;;u f aL- "to ~Y ~hat I rol.~d '""t"lRr ,~s of life;; Zeal.e.ll'a:JO'C
em-.;i.tleft to ?Ot:e, as h?ill!d~t-ea .3.San o':lserv-er, 'cru'fidid =t-c
~"t :he--was ~ -.:lm F=?03cl. eo t::,.ain !'ectt1te Cazi:l!..tts-aap::.n!!m.
10a.5eqaCly O.v:iaeii aet:::wile-t-he:-t:-,e~cuJ. de:.an increas o~ not . I
~ou.l .li t!:Lt :: dida.cln ~tfiaCa:zoi:tteethat as. a. Sciertifio Oomm;:..ttee
we we'I'I~ oc.n:::a::lw:i±h nati.CIIl.ll.l..intereon -;.lu.quest~, '!ltich
cmv-:.LOUS.';IO'.re =n.cc-rned lid 't;h.
F:::1:-;.he poim o'? :froposal (b). that tha subje :h01lld "oe ::-eca!:S.:.aered.
·tJ>rt.ru; C=i.ss!..next r-ar .in~_e .1.!.gno! the u.t ches o-? l::'.JJL?baclc.sin
1957 tc l9.58, thm"ll is co::ts.i.d.e:rahe U!lC!Irl.aiasy-tg the .results 1.!" itis
dec:i.i1c11t~rea..s -he tllJIIIlof- cat~ daye. :t tight be tba~ it will
rr::a:ng au:'e::-ence-to the catch l:n.f"ut>..zr"in ~.:..san vith the ~t-c! bJ.
_previotiS ~-s . On t-.t.e othebmd., if t'actoriel!b .ppen ~o C3 in reg!.lln.3
wtere ~ba.ckaa:re cxmc~ed it ~&ht double \:he ca·tdl l.f"""fd.JI.!hlth!!
ca.toll!:l&ys. &1; -we thought tr...·"-as- ore .a c:atierfox tb:sTecl'm:ical.
Ctl:i::t!.l;:ucl the Camrd.es:!-an,so -.e t:~etr .er"ecJ~'-:i by a prot:J.ema1;.iJJal
I!IB.joritytr.a--t;b~ sh<Jtil.';)an. i:nnre!!.Sof the catch to d-0'.1ble ;he
RVe:ra g~er taken s±n~e l~L.9to :950. \
(, ,,._.....) .
On Se.ctia::ll.,~ch ! supp~~ was the mos-: imp:u-t.e.ntq-.Jestion-.m.:clt
the Com:i•..ec. had t'O ~:..de, :rp!Jri.cn~ real.J.;· vermuch ti:e ~ as
l.a.s-t 7ear · we had :nat very !!lll:l.e<ev.i.dence ~ 01':. ~ probl.em,
except sooneccw ev.l.d.enc,;h.a-:; ~hco:JStitu1;.ionof ttte !li;ockh.u been
st-rtm&17 E-"'i'e.cted i-..he. o1.d v.ts114r""-B1 i.!' "thestock i.r.thosa E--ea.s-
ana especie1Jy the age distribution of ~'le stock i.e the ol.d !I.Z"5a- is
0'-.'"'l!lwit b. l;ho eged!.st--i.bc :~nt.ean.:1B'i7openeil.SE.n.C"t ,>m.e..-e.aecy
can assume the stock ~s s-ane-:;hing rather l:ii!e 1;be. naturalst;:x:.,.:,
ks befGr'e> Il!' . Slljp.e!or.. "b!!ha"rf the N"E:tber 1 ani!:s , lltt=<~edr..:
le.!iScorullus!.ve evidence be:3lre we made a rec~.d.d:.an ;;o reduce me catch,
l:ut -:be :::-e:rl;usf-:;l--"'g:"tb.at we sh:m..ld againsay t1:.a:t -mere :is su:!i'ia:ient
p:ro'babi.l.i-tb&..--:h.e stocl:as a il:lole i.s declimne; tz ;jus"t;tiaywa.J:ni..ntm~-t
tll.catch u substa.nt"la:..:...y~-coo
S EC'tl.Ci:.2,"liba:.es~;!!k ~e=n pto:?OS aT~ scd.e ifc t :resear--.il I T.hi.r.k:
three pouts e...-rise on t!rl.a. r-:.r.:twe do nat "ttu.:nres~--c WQlld -:reelly
S'.ll' :u"e::;enti1>2 wersrestn.C'ted to ~s "aken in the open season . :Jlou,gi-_
:ur.esum.a.bJ.y tone Conver.til.eaV"'-SGo-;~ qu:i;-;~ to d!l what they w:t.al::.
on ~'t p.oir..t . We em:.anJ..:1""=nnenil . Secondly , ~ n~n- teat i'e=y ~f· !.!J'It
o~ the per:d.ts ba....-eresul"t" ~Zlr::porl:s, :;r l!"u.y rats ::-epnrts .nicll ar..y
~ us Ce;ve seen . Vie tlwu~.t it migbi; ~lp :ii'i-:a.cn.Jlbe :=ilrlealee= -:o
--whom~he reJ.l'oGs.sb:;Jld":>eS1il::l:l.-t'".'El.Convent~c appeare -to 'be a b :1;1;le
-:E.pl.on. "Ulatp~ ,bJt i=' :.tlK!re c.le~.l st"a:~e 'tat t-l:m :eyorl3on. the
~ :J:~ of> .resea...a.nCs~nS :fr= 3peCial. :Pe.rmi.TiS .:'t"aki:tQ-.6aJ.a5should 0e
scl: :~-tedb. the Secretar;,· o! ~<> Cnmrrriss1on then -.here would be :10dellbt;
a.:boktu . Tr.-i...-c..ly,we 'l•.IIlW"-ll.itolma.ke any O.efinin=. of wh£~
should re L'U:l.udeC. ::scie~: :.-'::.aearch. We -.!'el.t tha :t i.".: w::r.lld. be anti..-
3Ci.e!:.:~ :.: kl~ arry lim:..ts= sci.enti..U.c~-cl:. Cife.n;y-ld::ui, and,t-he::-e
fln"e, we t.htr-Wtt "that ~ ~e .shcu. bl~cons.id.ereit.:m.:its:7111merits, end
--:-honly JF--C?1.ewh::l !:on.,t.:dga "\'6eth:e..-hp-=-ojcc" r::resee-""C!l m:.ul.justil'y
a !;peciaJ. penni-::=~ be ;:l::e C:::nt:ra.c:~t.-:I-6
0
So~l.o :ll, 'Ti.l~ :Jate af tho Se.a&CEL ; ~n generg.l, wh.a;we u.y
he~ !mlaUit3 !;o t:ha v'..;;hat t!-le JEter t?:e whaling the ~er from Tihe
scier.t-L-'::pain~ of -,:.eo;but I ~"'Sta.:1 fr.m -;he Teclmical. Comm:ttteets
Report t:ha..an a.C:~ in. tt6 ~g date of -che sea.sCii.s .not l..il:.ely -co
be~
220 Annex 27
- 48 -
Secti:on :14-deals w:ith -tbe c:cntim:led clpeni.ng of the sanatu.aly . We
thou.gllt<Ill ~ "llhole that ii:~ not be pr-..tdentt'.rllmthepoiJrt; 1rl' vi'ew
o£ oa:o-ss=ntim1 i'oD the Commission to be ~~ed to having the saoc~
opBI!Bd for as ~!Bl asht'QUT ye~U" Srom llO'i"'hi-c:his '1'1}-!-he proposal em
th.ec=i.ssion' a A_geuda amounts -to, though -we mruld emphasise that as
~ e...":!.t w:nlld probably be yen f'roma1J..poi.nts of-v}..ew1io ~ the
E>!lllCtwuy O?erlf'gr III!IJyears- to CCI!le . I th±nk ~ onJJr f e11; "thatif
lihe.re isa, ce.ta.at.ramiD m:leticm of the ~:!.-c at~ck t3en. :it lll.i.ght
fer one .re.!l.S:;r .moth be rdetdrabl.e tp ::l.os.e tbs.in.ct\il.a._oycagain,
~ the mri:ntemmce of -the san.ctuel;y might be looked upan as -tbe
l!mt defa=e of ihe stocl: aglrlnst ~ :caJ..am;t ous :reduction. J:th
a.rather <li.i'f'iculand rather CO!llplica:telqueati0l1 1 and perhaps. ~tat is
enough t.ose.y at the 1lu:mte:nt,Dllt:ifyen i(ttl).J..ikeme ~ on to
ampl.i:t'y tha.t "'riTTbe Cj!li 'riJ.eillg.
Secnon 15 i.s on "Frogress !teparts on.lle~a.rob nU.s i.e rea!J.;r
a matter o£ lnt=st ~ to the "S~tbts, b~ the:$8 progress
:reports are belptu:L in letting bi.cilogists working on "lihal.esknl:l'lf wb;s..t
their ooll.eegnea ~ doing ~ k:eap i:n tcuch \'ld.th their progt:ess. :I
think it is not c. question of invo1.ving the Ccmnnssion's ::?Olioy . The
synopsis or dai:a on '~hal Yesh.icbi.&prepared by tbs Food .and J',gricul :tura
Qrgani s~ was pc..s .oun;. hbc Ctt!rni.tteeand. ;retbru.¢ thrl ilia Shocl.d
be!come of ir=:es.sing ~ -to Bli a£ us. ae time goes on. ,re uruierstood
that it is a firstd:::eft:a great deal. pf -..ork bas been pUt into j_i; and
we: were v>ery iDte:Featea to :seo ~t. J?ersonaJ.lsr. I have not had tiJre to
read it th:rol::g)'et' rut ±t loclcs a I!Dst va:llie.bleOOo!!MOt. ll"ee..re
intited to mala! ron~l1..1t tgo."t, aod we think that .itm.n be- of
great vsl.l.\ein ~.
Under ~otheI r!Ua~.a I~t"tus \18$:re!illy ;tu.s.a 'teobni.c.al.jlomt. It
:is i:ai"a.ctveyy useful. .i:n sarab:rnnclws ~ research ·H--. can feel. t:!ra:t; the
nwnbered <;maHng areas i:n the!>c:ta..-ctic-ba?e certa±n Ull.l:l!!:rstol.!m£1;& .
They'I!la7 he.ve to be =vi.s.ed = day"but i-t :islJ,lldasirableto .hltvell'hanges
Utttl.l they ~x-e :reallyJmcessa.z:y. Ii' i.t mul.d. suit everybody ~.
,.-e-11'01.like to propcae th.e.t the 1Xumrurries g;lven t.o -these areas. in th:is
~ ~d be 15-cce,pted 1mtll there :i.e same X'8aSCinto change thsm..
lir .Cll:au:man, I !ll!-sorry • there i6 ona point 'l'lhi.has been e:coiWmlly _
cmi:tteA :1'ro:::i~~ ~ and that is tb questi<ll! t~C fC'lJVelilistileSc:ientifio
~ee ~ at' a "SU:ita'ble tilDe,proba:lily eu-Jy- next yeu- . I think
that the Caa::i~ WOJ.ld probably ~ w-4--±lliBtb&t we shCIIJ.lbe ~
in ~ dii'ficult.i&s U' all ill:ese proble= ~nat. c::msi@:red some time in
a.d:nnce . I llhtlcld il.!reto suggest -t<batl<b:eSCientit'io Sub-Ccmnittee ~be
heU.d as llSU&l some t-i!Dain -the ea:rJ.y spr1llg. o~tterl-)'e= . - - '
~ EEATRI. M.'f~~you ve:ry ~:lU S):,,l1Allki:ntosh, £or ytTar
tu;~>'lan e' tteiooon.wrls of Doou!Dent XIII. I l:e-li.eve 1:ha:t thlhas been
a ·veJ:uahle cam.ribu:tim:t to~t i.s in the J!epon;. NQII''i'ecan oont:i.mle the
de.li~ in "the Plen=;:r- Seaa:ion..
nr. A. Remi:a.gt;on !ELUXlG (u.s.A. ) : tt=. Cb2..i=ea, ~ :b oe.r:n
order D!1Vft.o ma-re that the Cam:rd:s.sii:mauthoti.se the ~ of ~ Ati Hoc
Sul:i-Call :1!ri~tte~ and dispose af the -qo.esti=.'?
XbB CH!IP.!fAll; 'I think that is ~ good scl.utian , I s1lould l.i.lcato
ac.cept h. Til= sett:e:a one o~ the :p.Qci.ntsof ;;lusRep:>rt ai.rea.dy. I think
there 1a no. crbjec.t:ion to i'ilrla i-tem 'libwash nat EclllC.ea in the Repo..-t.
Th:is baS Deen aeamrlsd by Mr. vau a£ the Drlted lf1ngdnm. 5o .I -take it that
iv !.se.ccepted by the 0cmmissiml t?av the Scim:rtiilic Sub-Commit-t-ee 1ld..l1meet
221Annex 27
- 49 -
nex1; year agajn, 8.1has been t.he case b the pa8t.
liDch. !orthat .
';ent1~. it ytlUba.vE a1l rsad and ca..~ru: ~J.y the oonte:at
ot the Report of "W!eScientitic Comm:ttee, '!l'hiccove::-a.good deal. of
ite=3 Ql -a Agemla ~till open, ~ I call~ the t}arrris•iODtar a:r:q
o:ml'!nt:san the Report?
K.r. R. G. R. WJG:. (Uni:tec. Kingdcmh ll.i.ghI aslc;rcu, Kr.
Cba1TIIllln, whetherit.1I'Qil1be a good thing to reoeive the .Report of th3
!~ Cocd.ttee so ths:t we 1lig\1tdiscus t~4"two 't'og~ .areoause ill
~a.a ot e. ='ber o~ queaticna both Ccamittees bavs vien to expre5s.
The CBAllil!'.: I am ~1' in the bands of "theCoaaissl.on, o-t
cow:"Se, and i1'this moticn u secnrded -
'Ihe ®.IEIUN: Then I taka i<;; th1d: itiB ~by "theCtrmiu1(W)
that we aJ.ao deaJ. 11'1ttbe Bcport of --; reclmi.cal.Com:Dittee. Perilaps
the bert thing 110-uldbe that; tlrl.s Reportbe lnt:odu.ced.'t!:i:h [lbaT!!!!m S!)
...=e deal. dizeetJ;rwith 1:h4 i-temsot the P.geD!la1:I:Jaoverlap in
bof!h iepox'ts. ?on-haps t;t-.!l.t wa.void a good ~al of duplication o!
e.xpl.aDAtimb by Ca:missi=a en 1ihe same it= mentiQiled in both Repc::rts .
:ttayI osll an the Chainum of the :iee:!m±ca1cc-n~ee to gi'fe1m
introduction "';o t)le Reportot t:le !l'ecbc:ica.l. Comadttoe?
Mr. R. G. R. WAIL (Uniteci.ltillg&:a): Thank you, K.r. Cba n~ m.
~ 'l'~cal Ccmnittee bad a great deal at d.i.acunie& md m.etOA
!'our1!1\lceea!rlCJI.Ya ,nd they ~ me the b:a:lour ofelect"..ngce as
Cbaimwon, bin= ahculd expl..a.in tha:t I hato be ~ect !ram the oanc1wJing
session, l'd:ultr.Drost ~ actcedk lilY place. '!:he.retore~~~&ttars
wide &.-ed.iscnased ~ pa.&ea 5 snd.6 of thb P.eport ~re deal Wi.thtmi1er lfrDlxlsl;'s
.- /Cha.i:r nn~ B nm y . • p..•
222 Annex 28
28. Verbatim Record, IWC/25/13-1 (25 June 1973) pp. 46-47
111/05/13 - 1
.·
lllTEilNA.'l'WLHALINGCOIIUSSION
25tb MEETING
PillS'? PLEmiiY SBSSI!!I
10. }0aa MONDA.2Y5 JliNB 1973
...
RIVERWAIK HOUSELONDON SWl
223Annex 28
- ~t -6
Finance Committee that they also meet tomorrow morning, that they go
through that part of the report submitted to them as to how the
secretariat should be constituted and that this question could be
decided by the plenary session tomorrow after 2 o'clock.
Then if we
8gree on the main general outline of the constitution : of the Secretariat
we could leave to the Finance Committee the pleasant task of finding
how they will finance it.
Is th~re any other question delegates would like to take·up nov ·
before we receive the first part of the Scientific Committee's report.
I am sorry to keep youwaiting, but the Secretariat is doing all it can
to speed matters up as much as possible and in a couple of minutes we
should have the report here.
(Pause)
Dr. D.G. CH AR-IAN: I am sorry Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that
this has been considerably delayed. We have bad considerable discuaaion
of this section of our report. Let me note that I have not been able to
re-read it in full yet, but I see that the last word of the first paragraph
is clearly mis-spelt, it should be 'stocks'.
lie returned to the original convention and the quotations in the firat
paragraph refer to that original conTention. As stated the Committee takes
the preamble to the original convention to imply that the original whale
species are to be regarded by .the Commission as resources, which would be
so managed as to keep them in a condition which will enable them to .proTide
the optimum yield on a continuing basis. Of course, these are points which
have been discussed extensively, but the concept of individual 5pecies
management is now operative, the Scientific Committee agreed that at the
pr esent ttme there is no biological requirement for the imposition of a
blanket moratorium on all commercial whaling. The word 'require•ent'
caused some difficulty. A m jority further consider ed that for the ... e
224 Annex 28
- Z.7-
reason there ia, at present, no biological juatification for auch a
blanket moratorium - a slightly stronger statement.
The COliiDittee baa repeatedly pointed out to the CO!IIaiaaion, particularly
with regard to the blue whale unit but with regard to other atocka alao,
that effective management can only be achieved if each species, and
indeed each individual stock ia managed and exploited separately in a way
appropriate to its condition. Any blanket management, such as a global
moratorium,would be in direct contradiction to this principle.
In addition, the Committee was fortunate in having prepared for it
two documents related to this. One of these was 'fhe effect of a mora-
torium on stock sizes of all of the major stocks in the world!. This
Annexa G
was prepared by Hr. Allen frOR Australiajand I am afraid it is not
available to the full committee aa yet, but will be, as it is alao being
worked on. The other document, Annexe B, discusses the relationship of
the moratorium to the research programme. This will also be available
very shortly.
The CHAIRMAN: Wehave before us the document which is
necessary and fundamental to the discussion in the Technical Committee,
and I assume that the two annexes referred to in the last paragraph of
the document will be ready by tomorrow morning.
Would the Committee be agreeable to submit t hia document to the
Technical Committee for it to debate.
Dr. CHAalAN: Yea, Mr. Chairman_. we are very happy for them to
have it, and we shall provide them with Annexe G and B aa aoon as possible,
certainly by tomorrow morning.
The CHAII!MAN: Well, Ladies and Gentl-en, I think that completes
our work aa a plenary committee today, and we shall then proceed with more
225226 Annex 29
29. Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-1 (24 June 1974) pp. 5-6
IIC/26/12 - 1
INTEllNATI()IALIIHAUNO C<»ttSSION
'!'wenty-$ixth Meeting
'hdd at
Riverwalk l[ouse, London, S •II•1
on
24th - 2Bth June 1974
fi rst Plonazy Session
Monda.y, 24th June 1974
227Annex 29
these facts are added to those we presented last year and to the
Jhetl .
. patterns which have :esulted over the past century in the systematic
JdS~rical .
-•ction of successive whale stocks, you have the basic reason why thE!'dele
d,. ~.. .
the united States will again seek at this meeting, first,.a 10-year
ptioO of . . .
on all commerc~ w hll1ngt s~condl y ,trengthening of the secretari~t
~~wrl~ .
· h activities of the International·Whaling Commission, and, thirdly,
IIlresearo
~t on.steps which will l~a o a revision of the Convention under which
tblc-ss ion, operates. I hope that all nations will ·join us in the efforts
~ reach these objectives.
'l'lCHAIRMAN! Thank you, Dr. White.
I'R·!,G, BOLLEN(Australia)z The Australian delegation wishes to take this
~nmdt.Y of making a short opening statement on some of.the more important
~.at !cing this meeting of the Commission and outlining the Australian
tt1tudt to these issues.
1
~t, on behalf of the Australian delegation I should like to welcome the
~~t1~ehed representatives of Br~zil to the Commission., It is manifest to
~ ~~t the future effectiveness of the International \Vhaling Commission will be
c:.'Wlcld the adherence of all whaling nations to the Convention. l'lcomm~nd
~.:-~O:f:'l 'ra'iltfulattkng this step and look forward to the remaining
:·.o:.~ c~~ntdies joining us in the near future.
ktthe 25th meeting of the International Whaling Commission Australia voted
::. !uouof the moratorium on all whaling and undertook to implement it if all
:·~'c~ountries were prepared to do likewise. As we all know, the moratorium
tU !lOobt&i,nthe required majority. .Whenthe moratorium issue is being
t!~at dhi8
week, the Australian delegation will be moving an amendment to
,. tN'tetthat
moratoria on catching should be imposed in respect of those
~t.. or stoc'La for wh1ch the Scientific Committee determines that stock
~ar. .
~,., ._ undesirably low, based on estimates of initial numbers, and that
- abouldce118
in order to restore them to levels producing a maximum
--~l 7ttld.
- 5 -
228 Annex 29
I should add that the Austral dele~ation will actively support ~
initiative to have the constitution of the International 'Nhailng Co'IDIIliasioll
· upgraded to enhance the standing qf the .commission in the inte'rnationai
commuriity. Further, the Australian delegation ·would .welcome a:ny move to a
. . . .. · . ~
to the Commission's secretariat scientific staff 'charged With the responsibh
. . ~
of collec •.anal~sng and dis .semina.ting .allscientific· data available on
whales, with a view to managing stocks on the basis ·or objective scientific
principles designed to conserve the species.
The Australian delegation, with the friendly co-operation of other del~
will do its best to achieve these aims and la;y the foundations for the succeaat(
continuation of the work of the +nternational \Vhaling Commission .
DR. L.V. NIKONORO {USSR)I It .is ·agreat pleasure for me to express grati~
to the Government of Grea~ Britain on behal~ of the Soviet delegation for ita
traditional hospitality, which provides most favourable conditions for succ"1
in the present IWC ,meeting. We fully· share the point of view of Mr. Buolwt
that we are to resolve a number of complicated· 'problems. Resolving many of
them will be of decisive importance for the future activities of this Corudse~
The joint efforts of our Commissioners in recent years have led ·to the adoptioa
and successful fulfilment of the most important decisions regarding thec~
out of whaling on a rational basis and conservation of whale stocks. For
example, the taking of right, blue and· humpback whales was prohibited; quotas
for species were established; catches of fin whales and sei whales l'ferecoM~
ably decreased from year to yea:r. The international observer scheme wasinUilll
The role of the Scientific Committee has .grown greatly ·and its recommendatioJ\1
are strictly complied with by the Commission in its activities.
These achievements of the Commission have resulted from the joint efforW
of all member countries of !VIC. . Wewould hardly have been able to achieve r#
positive results if the mutual interests of all member countries of this c~
- 6 -
229230 Annex 30
30. Verbatim Record, IWC/26/12-2 (25 June 1974) pp. 1-4, 9-10
JYJ/26/12 - 2
INTERNATIONA WLHALINC GOMMISSlON
'l'wenty-SixthMeeting
neld at
RiverwalK House, London, S.W.l.
on
24th - 28th June 1974
Second Plenary Session
Tuesday 25th June 1974
231Annex 30
Tue&Sua'o25th June 1974•-.
-
The CHAIRMAN:Ladies and Gentlemen, aa you will r.eme11ber·we
asked the Technical Committee yesterday to review O\ll'Agenda Point 10,
the.provis oo~ a.world-w i1oatoriwil on c~m~~er c iaing. I
would ask ~he chairman of t~e Technical Colllllit .to report _to ilsas to
the outcome of the deliberations in that committe .e~r. Bollen please.
Mr. A.G ·BOLLEN (Australia): The Technical :committee . has
considered Agenda item 10 :-'hich refers. to the ··World-widemoratoriull ·on
whaling, and recommends the adoption of a resolution which was submitted
by the Australian delegation and hae been well and truly circulated. I
rill read it if' you wish, Mr. Chairman • .
The CHAIRMAN: The chairman of the Technical •Committee offers
to read out the resolution again. I ass1111e that you have all read it
'"f"1caref'ully and that there should be no necessity to repeat it • I
take it that .we are all fully aware of what it contains so we know what we
u. talking about.
Mr. BOLLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should mention that
thef'eaaibili"tyof this proposal waa discua by~thedScientific Committee
•lUch reported that it was within the terms of referenc 'e of that Committee
'Aca11111ar to the advice being given by that Colllllli.ttee to the Commission.
The Scientific Committee reported that the procedure enviaaged in the
,..e~nd. tatths onplenary session was in order.
The CHAIRMAN: .,.__,_
T~ you, Mr. Bollen. Mr. Fujita, did you wish
~ 8af SO-thing?
232 Annex 30
- 2-
Mr. IWAO FUJITA (Japan): (Tranel.ated): I understand tro•
"'-t
has been reported by the chairman o~ the Technical. Co~ttee that he
1111~
1ike to introduce, or he i.nt:t'oduced, I am not quite sure, an aaendaent t.
the last ite•. We would like to have the exact wording o~ thi.a.
The CHAIRMAN: If you so desire, Mr. Fu~ita, I am qu:Lte eur,
~
Mr. Bollen wil.l. be happy to read the recomaendation as proposed by 4114
aa an amebd!Dent to the •erican proposal. .•
Mr. BOLLEN: As the chairman of the Technical. Committee, allt
can report i:s the reco-endation of the Technical. Colllillittee, and vhat '1111
the·JAustral.ian amendment is now the proposal. by the Technical. Co~tt•,
I wil.l. read ·it.
Mr. FUJITA (translated): .It is only the l.ast part which vu
repl.aced by a new sentence, I understand.
Mr • J. MOSS (Uni. ted Kingdom): I think it woul.d be helpful at tit
stage if we were to have formal.l.y recorded and read out by the AustrLUa
the full. amendment that was carried this morning, that is to say the
substantive resolution. It woul.d be hel.pful. i~ .we could have it read ell
a nd .then there is no peradYenture and doubt about it. It might taka a
minute or two of th e committee • s t::l.IDe, but neverthel.ess I t~nk it w1114
be worth while having .it ~irlll olny record, and I woul.d propose this.
The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Moss. I have al.ready asked Ill'~
to read out the operative part o~ the amendment.
Mr. BOLLEN: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that you need the preubl'
as well..
eolflll'
"The Technical. Collllllittee, noting that whal.e stocks are a -~·
t~
concern to mankind, concerned that some species of gr.-
233Annex 30
- 3 -
11are at present conaiderab~y dep~eted bel.ov. their optimwn
popuJ.ation l.evela ·, reca~l. ihang the historic decl.ine in
vhale population occurred not only because of excessive
exploitation but al.so because knovledge was inadequate to
protect the . species, motivated by the need to preserve and
enhance vhale stocks as a resource for future use when food
needs of the world vil~ be greater becau5e of increased human
population and by the need to m81ntain marine eco-systems in
a well-balanced condi~ion capable of high productivity, taking
·i~to consideration the long-range interests or the consumers
of whale products and of the vhal.ing industry as cited in
Article 5 of the Convention, and_ ·recognising that the
management of whal.e stocks should be ba5ed not only on the
concept · of maximum sustainable yield and n.umbered by species
but should also include such considerations as total. veight
of whales and interactions between species in the marine
eco-sys ·tem, re ·commencis it "shall. classify ali stocks of vhales
into one of three categories according to the advice of the
Scientific Colllll!ittee: (a) i .ni ti.a.lmanagement stocks which may
be reduced in a controlled manner to achieve may levels and
then optimum levels as these are determined; ~b) sustained
management stocks vhich should be maintained at or near msy
levels and then at optimum levels as they are determined;
(c) Protection stocks which are belov the level of s~stained
management stocks as described in (b) which should be fully
protected. The Commission should now define stocks for this
purpose as the units which can be most-effectively managed
indi vidual ·ly.
"2(a.) Commercial whaling shall. be perrirl.tted on initial. management
stocks subject to the ad~ce of the Scientific Committee as to
measures necessary to bring the stocks to the may level and then
optimum level. in an efficient manner and without risk of
reducing them belov this level.
" Commercial ·whaling shall. be permitted on sustained management
stocke eubject to the advice of the Scientific Committee. There
shall be no commercial vhal.ing on species or stocks classified
aa protected stocks including those species listed for full.
protection in the current schedule.
" The Committee a'1so rec"ommends the implementation of this
recomeendation by requesting the Scientific Committee to
proVide ad V1ce on the criteria vhich should be used in defining
234 Annex 30
- 4 -
"categories of whale stocks which should be treated as in
Section 1 above. This advice to be provided as soon ae
with a view to its incorporation in the. schedu le, dire ctingelte·
Scientific Committee to arrange to prov the Comemissi ~
011'111"-
annually updated ad vice on these criteria and on the allo ~
eatt'lll
of stocks to categories, making all necessary amendments tott.
schedule not later than the 27th Meeting of the Collll!i.seion,n
The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hr. Bollen.
Mr. FUJITA (Translated): A point of clarification: I underetoo.
this morning that the la s t item, that ·is 3(c), has been deleted and repllc.c
by something else. This was my understanding . Am I correct?
Mr. BOLLEN: Mr. Chairman, the point of clarification: in ~
opening address to the Technical Conuni.ttee this morning, I mentioned 811
alternate way to handle this situation if it was not accepted. That liU
for the Scientific Committee to be asked to discuss this at some fut~
date and Australia would put the item on the agenda 6o days before t he
.<i!7th Meeting . That was the alternative, and it was not carried on.
The CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks on this parti,cular point?
South Africa.
Mr. R.W. RAND (South Africa): Mr. chairman, the south Africaa
stand on this matter is somewhat complicated as we have very serio~
reservations untii the Scientific Committee has defined the crite !r~ia
establishing the categories of whales. we would reserve our posit<on b1
stating that our support for the J4otion would be cond itional upon coll]lllt'
compliance with the outcome by all other member governments.
~
The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, .South Africa. I shall take it~
rig ht that everyone will adhere to the decisions when we arr1ve . st til...
235Annex 30
- 9-
~co.-itte tee,Australian representative told us that it was not at all
Contradiction of the first proposal. It is therefore an amendment.
ill . . .
ot know what to do now. You are not a legal man, but please prompt
w• do n
\Ill•
The CHAIRMAN:In that ca-se. I can probab1y do what is not
completely correct, I do not know. This is a recommendation from t he
technical pollllli tntet~m . lO. It is the only recommendation before us
on Item 10 on the Agenda. No other proposals have been moved and seconded.
Therefore the only item under Article 10 9f the Agenda is the recommendation
troa tbe Technical Committee. May I ask that someone propose that this
reco.-endat beoaccepted?
Mr. BOLLEN(Australia): I propose that this recolllllendationbe
accepted.
The CHAIRMAN:It is recommended by the Australian delegation
that the resolution be accepted by the Plenary Session. Is there a
seconder? France seconds the motion. We will therefore now proceed to
Yote on the only item that is before us under Agenda Article 10, and no
others. By voting on this recommendation, Article 10 has been met.
Please answer "yes" or "no" when the secretary polls you.
(The vote was ta ken): Ar~ntina Yes
Australia Yes
Brazil Yes
canada Yes
Denmark Yes
France Yes
Iceland Yes
Japan · No
Mexico Yes
Norway Yes
Panama Yes
South Africa Yes
USSR No
UK Yes
USA Yes
236 Annex 30
- 10
Ladies and Gentlemen, the result is that two··countries ·vOtel
1
11 'llo".,.
al.l the rest voted nyes • The recommendation from the Technical CO· :
~tt ..
is therefore accepted by the.Plenary Session~ Thank you. The Ullitec~
States.
Dr. R.M. WHITE (USA): Mr. Chairllllln, I should like to take the
opportunity of explaining the vo.te of the United States since we ort~
proposed quite a different action by this Commission, namely a 10-:Fear
moratorium on all commercial whaling. I should like to stat ·e 'forthe
other eommissioners .and for the record that the United States contin~e
to support a 10-year moratorium. We have voted · for the amended us pro!lalll
by the Australians because we feel that it represents a significant at~
forward in the management of the world's whales. I wanted to explau
our vote.
The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. White. That strikes off ~intW
on our Agenda. United Kingdom?
Mr. J. MOSS (UK): On behalf of the United Kingdom, I wish to
state that we subscribe entirely to the ·v:i.ews expressed by the delegate
from the United states.
The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, . Mr. Moss• Mexico?
Miss S. F1JENTES-BERAIN (Mexi .co): My position is exactly tbf.,.
We would have liked a moratorium to be voted for and to be passed, bUt..
feel that the Australian proposal can be a first step to the achieYelfll
of the moratorium in future.
The CHAIRMAN: You may be going a little too far, but you-r
have your hopes.
237238 Annex 31
31. Verbatim Record (9-13 July 1979) pp. 1-5, 29-31, 33-34, 57-60
lntemational Whaling Commission
~
\@7
V E ~R B A T I M R E C 0 R D
of the
THIRTY-FIRST MEETING
LONDON
9-p July 19 79
x~~
(.
·The Red House,
'stationRoad, Histon,
Cambridge. CB4 4NP Septemb er 1979
239Annex 31
- 1 -
Chairman
Ladies and gentlemen I welcome all of you to the
thirty-first Annual Meeting of the International
Whaling Commission which I now declare open. I
wish to extend a special welcome to representatives
from the six new member countries which have joined
the Commission since the last Annual Meeting. These
countries are the Republic of Korea, the Republic of
Seychelles, Sweden, Peru, Chile and Spain . The
adherence of these countries to the International
Whaling Convention does indeed increase the capabi lit y
of this international body to properly conserve and
manage the harvesting of the world's whale stocks
and I hope that the new membership of these countries
will inspire the very few whaling countries which are
still not members of this group to join in the very
near future so that all the whale stocks can be pro
tected and conserved through this Commission.
The meeting place once ag~in is the United Kingdom's
capital, London, and I take great pleasure in welcoming
on behalf of the Commission Mr. Buchanan-Smith, the
Minister of State for the Ministry of Agriculture,
who has been kind enough to come here in order to
address us. Since we are all looking forward to
hearing what you want to tell us please take the floor .
Mr. A. Buchanan-Smith Opening
Address
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me very
great pleasure this morning to welcome you all here
on behalf of Her Majesty's Government fer what is of
course as you know, the Thirty-First Annual Meeting
of the Internation a l Whaling Commission and I would
also like to repeat what our Chairman has said in
extending a very particular welcome to all those
delegations from co~ntries who have joined the Whal ing
Commission as full members for the first time and
certainly I believe that their membershjp can onl y
help t o ~ssist the work of the Commission in making
240 Annex 31
- 2 -
it more effective in conserving the world's whales.
As you know th e United Kingdom Govern ment - we only
came t o power just over two month's ag~ but I must
say that in that short period of time I have certainly
learned ~ great deal a bout the work of the Commisson.
I've also leaned a gre a t deal about the strength of
feeling that there is in this country and elsewhere
of the work which you carry out and in this period
and against this backg=ound of general interest and
general concern my Government has, as you know, been
reviewing its policy in relation to whaling and in
relati on t o the part which it plays in the Inter
national Wh2ling Commission.
I'd just like to say straight away that I certainly
recognise and acknowledge that the establishment of
this Commission in 1946 was of course a very major
advance in ensuring the effective conservation of
whales. However, equally, I am aware that since
that time there has been a growing awareness of
man's resp.ons ibili ty t.o conser ve hi s environment
and in particular wild life, and indeed I think it
was back at the Conference in Stockholm on the
Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 that my
Minister, Mr. Peter Walker, made clear the interest
at that time of the British Government.
Now whales, of course, have a very special signifi-
cance for man, but in recent years we have come to
realise that large scale commercial whaling has, of
course, placed th e sur v ival of some species of whal e
at risk and I think we owe it to future generations
to ensure that st ocks are not over- exploited.
241Annex 31
- 3 -
Now successive governments in the United Kingdom have
believed that th e world's whales can best be conserved
by out continuing membership of the IWC and I certainl y
want to make that plain this morning. We still believe
this to be so and we certair.ly intend to continue to
play a constructive and active part in the wor k of
this Commission. However, we have also to recognise
that since the time when the Commission was first
established nearly every whale stock has declined and
some species of course, as we all know, have to be
total ly protected. In this period some of th ose
stocks that have been protected have in fact shown
little signs of real recovery. These of course
include the blue, the humpback and the bowhea d whales .
The largest stocks have been reduced to a mere fraction
of their original size and of the great whales only
~he sperm and minke whales are still found in large
numbers, but even in relation to s ome of the s tocks
of these species we believe th at they have been
reduced to levels which of co urse do cause us concern
today.
Now I cert ainly recognise that in rec ent yea rs the
Commission has very greatly improved its pro cedures.
I recognise too that these are sufficiently developed
now to prevent currently exploited stocks from becoming
extinct, but frankly from the study that I and others
in government have made we do not believe that this
is enough in itself. Indeed, experi en ce in recent
year s has shown that the quo tas set by the Commissi on
have often had to be reduced subsequently as better
data has become av a i lable to the Sc i enti fic Committee.
The Committ ee cer t ainly ha s a difficult task but there
are st i ll gaps in our knowl~dge of the behaviour of
whale populations and we c an not afford t o ignore these
242 Annex 31
- 4 -
gaps in our knowledge at the present time. Y.-Jhat
also concerns us very much indeed is that there is
data collected from whaling operations which is
still awa~ting analysis at the present time. We
are also very concerned about the methods used for
killing whales. Whilst of course the explosive
harpoon is the most effective method currently
available, and I know many people in this conference
room also recognise, this method is of course fa r
from satisfactory as evidence shows in relation
to the time taken from strike to death.
Now it is against all this background that the
United Kingdom Government has been reviewing its
policy in relation to whaling, and it is as a result
of the analyses that we have been making in recent
months that we believe, and have come to the con
clusion, that there bhould be a moratorium on
commercial whaling in order t~ allow a thorough
reassessment of whale numbers and of their biology.
Accordingly, in this conference the United Kingdom
delegation will be supporting the proposal for a
moratorium on commercial whaling. We believe that
resumption of whaling should onl y be co nsidered if
evidence of recover y of stocks and improvement in
methods of killing justif y it.
I'd like to say also that we support in principle
th e s ugg es tion f r om the Seychelles del e gation for
a whale sanctu a ry. In addition to this we also
beli ev e that we ha v e g ot to gi v e sp e ci al c onsid e ration
to a boriginal whaling. We hav e to consider the
ne ed s o f t h e p o pul a tion, the human po p ulatio n, th a t
are in v ol v ed in this a nd we acc e p t ther e f o re that
a bori g i nal whaling under sui ta bl e co ntrol should be
allo wed t o co ntinu e . We 've a lso been looking at
th e im p lic at i o n s o f thi s p oli cy a nd o f c ourse thi s
h a s a dir ect effect o n the ma tt er of imp o r ts o f whale
pr od ucts in the Uni t ed Ki n g d om.
243Annex 31
~ 5 -
As you know the United Kingdom banned the imports of
whale product~ except for those derived from the sperm
whale, in 1973. However, in spite of the policy
which I announced this morning we now propose to enter
immediately into discussion with our partners in the
F.uropean Community, and with the Commission, with the
aim of securing their agreement to imposing a Community
wide ban on imports of sperm whale oil and other
derivatives. We also, of course, propose having
discussions shortly with the user industries within
the United Kingdom.
Mr. Chairman, I recognise that in the conference this
week you've a lot of work to do and a lot of data to
analyse and to discuss. In conclusion I would simply
like to wish you well in this your first Annual Meeting
over which you have presided. I understand that you've
had the advantage of a dress rehearsal so to speak
in Tokyo already, and I'm told that you very effectively
chaired a somewhat difficult and controversial meeting.
I wish you and all other delegations her e a very
successful and useful conference and I look forward
to meetir.g you this evening at the reception in
Lancaster House.
Chairman
Thank you very much Minister for what you have said
and for the good wishes and w~ certainly all are
looking forward to seeing you again at the reception
tonight. While we would, of course, like to have
you stay with us for a little longer, but I understand
that you are a very busy man and that you have other
engagements so if yo u wish to lea ve us now then that's
all right.
244 Annex 31
- 29 -
Chairman
Thank you Mr. Lemche. South Africa.
South Africa
Mr. Chairman. I'll abide with your request as far
as possible about not mentioning matters which should
be touched upon but I am afraid that the - if - I will
keep the repetition to the minimum but if there is
such repetition it will be necessary to mention these
things as they affect my position. We agree with
the shortcomings which Mr. Frank has ably identified
in his statement but we also realise that at the
present time there are some rather sincere attempts
being made to rectify these shortcomings and in par
ticular my own country has gone to great lengths to
ensure that the pirate whaling operation which was
associated with us is not functioning as smoothly as
been in the past and we are also impressed by the
stand which has been taken by the Japanese and also
by the fact that at this meeting we have welcomed
a number of members, new whaling member nations.
We realise that there are severe problems with the
New Management Procedure but I would like to remind
you, Mr. Chairman, that these problems are being
tackled by a very prominent group of scientists and
the Working Group of our Technical Committee has
itself commended these scientists on their efforts
and in fact endorsed the approaches which they are
taking. So we feel that the management procedures
a r e in the process of being reviewed by very competent
people.
We deplore the failure of nation s to provide adequate
data for scientific assessments and we are also
extremely concerned about the lack of funding by
member nati ons of the IWC. But I think you will
245Annex 31
- 30 -
recall, Mr. Chairman, that at the Special Meeting
which we held in Tokyo we took a very strong and a
very active stand on this matter and we'll be
watching very carefully how nations vote with regard
to the budget which we should be discussing later on
during this seision, but I think this will give us
some indication as to whether there has been a
change in heart and a change in attitude.
Mr. Chairman, there are two part ic ular aspects about
the United States proposal which concern us. Firstly,
we note the observation by the Scientific Committee
that the proposal does not deal with the aboriginal /
subsistence whaling and we riotice that most scientists
in the Committee - I believe there's only one dissenting
voice - feel that certain of the stocks which are not
covered by this proposal are in a position of greatest
risk and so we cannot reconcile this situation with
a genuine desire to improve the status of the whale
stocks. And, secondly, the second particular point
I wish to addres s is that we do get the impression
from the Scient ific Committee's r eport - although
there is a lot of dissention and controversy within
the report - that not all the whale stocks are in
fact in the same bad state, and in particular the
minke whales I notice from tables which the scientists
have produced - and I think they have some confidence in
these tables - the minke whales have more than doubled
since 1930. And, Mr. Chairman , we are very, very
interested and in fact enthusiastic about the Australian
proposal which, in effect, amounts to conducting a
study of the social and the economic ramifications
of the ef fect of a ban or moratorium on whaling
nations and we feel that this is something which should
be encouraged and this is something which will be a
246 Annex 31
- 31 -
source of very, very valuable information and wi ll
enable us to make a rational decision .
So taking all the above arguments into account, Mr .
Chairman, my delegation in fact will reserve its
decision on the us proposal, but we will be watching
very closely the developments in the immediate
future and the way in which the severe short-comings
whic h have been mentioned by Mr . Frank- the way in
which attempts are being made to rectify these funda
mental problems in the Commission is going to shape
our attitude in the future. Thank you, Mr . Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you. Norway , then USA.
Norway
Mr. Chair man. As we a l l know th e question of a total
moratorium was first taken up in 1972. The Commis
sion was under considerabl~ pressure at the time but
the Scientific Committee courageously came ou t with
a unanimous recommendation that there was no scien-
tific basis for a blanket moratorium . As in the
years past it has been the practice of the Commission
to treat the que st ion of this nature on a stock - by
stock and area-by-a r ea basis and I think we may all
agree that this procedure has brought a maj or i mprove
ment and several de fac to moratoria. My delegation
agrees that a discussion on moratoria along t hese
lines would be necessary, and indeed co nst ructi ve.
We find it difficult to go along with a general and
undifferentiate d moratorium on all commerc i al whaling .
That is a special case as regards the North Atlantic
region where whaling has been taking place for at
least half a ce ntury under strict regulation and
contro l by the Governments concerned. The 'ef fort
247Annex 31
- 33 -
between this division is that the use of factory
ships is much more dangerous than a coastal station.
Factory ships can go anywhere in the ocean and hunt
any population of whales. Historically, the over
exploitation of whale population has been the re
sponsibility of factory ship much more than coastal
station. Also, our knowledge of whale population
that move alongside the coast is better than our
knowledge of whale population that stay in the ocean
completely, far out in the ocean. Also, the control
of operation with factory ship is more difficult than
control over land whaling station.
I woulq like to answer an objection that will be
certainly made by somebody, that there is a paragraph
in the Commission's Schedule that says that the
Commission will not put limits to the number of
factory ships used. My proposal does not put any
limits to the number of factory ships but to the
use of factory ships. Also I would like to point
that there has been many case of prohibition of use
of factory ship, or several case of prohibition of
the use of factory ship, in the past history of the
Commission. Therefore, to make things perfectly
clear, I do not change anything to the American
proposal, I am simply calling for a vote in two parts.
All the countries that have voted "yes" to the Ameri
can proposal only have to vote "yes" to both parts
and that will be the same proposal. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you. Well, I have a slight problem here.
Although you said that what you did was to split the
Technical Committee's recommendation in two parts, and
248 Annex 31
- 34 -
that your proposal to vote first on prohibition of
the use of factory ships doesn't constitute any
change in the proposal w~ are dealing with, I see
this as a fundamentally different approach to the
problem and I can - in my opinion this is an
approach that is contrary to rule G in our order
of business which provides for a 60 days advance
notice of any proposals to be discussed for a change
of the Schedule. I remind you that the prohibition
of use of factory ships has not been considered by
the Scientific Committee; it was not discussed at
all in the Technical Committee and there might be
many delegations around this table who don't know the
exact effects of splitting these proposals so, in
two parts; and I for one haven't had sufficient time
to think about it or time to get proper instructions
as to how to act to such division of this proposal.
So I ha ve to rule Panama that your amendment proposal
is out of order and that we only have got one pro posal
on the f l oor, namely the proposal recommended by the
Technical Committee. The Netherlands.
Netherlands
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I have some doub ts about
your reference Rule G of the Rules of Procedure since
I think that the subject matter, bringing a moratorium,
has been included in the provisional order of business.
I don't think that the proposal which was just made
by Panama would need notification for 60 _days in
advance . I think that we can indeed put it to the
vote here. Thank you.
Chai rman
Well I think I explained my r easo ns and of course my
ruling can be ch allen ged by any Commissioner around
this table, but if I don 't get that challenge we will
proceed on the basis that we only have one proposal
in front of us.
The floor is op en to discuss the
249Annex 31
- 57 -
the original one and the "Pa namanian one. It is just
a point of clarification - I mean I have no strong
feeling against, but I would like to be clear this
way. If the Committee agree to vote only the first
paragraph, th e case of this paragraph will be included
or accepted, you will put this paragrap~ in t he
Schedule like that?
Chairman
Yes
Argentina
All right, thank you.
Chairman
Is everybody clear now what we are doing? The
Secretary please.
Secretary
Mr. Chairman, the vote requiring three quarter's
majority is the first part of the amended addition
to the Schedule as previously identified, th e
amended sub -p ar agraph 1 , what happens to paragraph
2 and the resolution will be voted on next. So we
are voting now on the amended paragraph 1, and the
vote starts at Iceland. Iceland, yes . Japan.
Japan
I'd like to vote at the end if I may. Thank you .
Secretary
Korea, abstain. Mexico, yes. Netherlands, yes.
New Zealand, yes. Norway, yes. Panama , yes .
Peru, ye s . Seych e lles , yes . South Africa, yes .
Spain , abstain. Sweden, yes. USSR, no. UK, yes.
250 Annex 31
- 58 -
USA, yes. Argentine, yes. Australia, yes. Brazil,
abstain, Canada, yes. Chile, yes. Denmark, yes.
France, yes. Japan- I'm sorry I didn't hear -
Japan? No. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, there were 18 votes in favour and three
against - the motion therefore received the required
three quarter's majority to amend the Schedule.
Two against and three abstentions - I'm sorry.
Chairman
Thank you. We will then deal with the latter part
of the US proposal as amended and we will go straight
to the voting. I'll ask the Secretary to explain
the vote and call the roll.
Secretary
Mr. Chairman, we are now voting on sub-paragraph 2
of the Panamanian amendment. The addition to the
Schedul e of a part of paragraph B(d) to read "There
shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing, or
treating of whales by land stations or whale catchers
attached to land stations, except as provided for in
pa ragraph 11. This is an amendment to the Schedule
requiring a three quarter's majority to pass in
plenary. The roll starts at Japan. No. Korea, no.
Mexico, yes. Netherlands, yes. New Zealand, yes.
Norway, abstain. Panama, yes. Peru, no. Seychelles,
yes. South Africa, abstain. Spain, absta in.
Sweden, yes. USSR,
USSR
Sir , we want to reserve our opinion at the end , be last.
Sec r e tary
Be last ? UK, yes . USA, yes . Arge ntina, yes.
Aust ral i a , yes . Braz il, abstain. Canada , absta in.
251Annex 31
- 59 -
Chile, no. Denmark, abstain. France, yes. Iceland,
no. USSR, abstain.
Mr. Chairman, there were 11 votes in favour and five
votes against so that the motion did not receive the
three quarter's majority and therefore does not
amend the Schedule.
Chairman
Thank you. In the light of the result of this voting
it doesn't seem to me that the resolution proposed
by the US is relevant any longer. Can I have the
US delegation view on this?
USA
That is correct.
Chairman
So it means that we won ' t have a voting on the World-Wida
resolution and we then turn to the other part of this Ban
agenda item, the world -wide ban on whaling, which was
also discussed in the Technical Committee this morning
and I call upon the Chairman of the Technical Committee
to report to us. Japan.
Japan
Thank you very much. I would like to make a short
statement on this occasion. I like to register my
sense of resentment and displeasure on the discrimi
natory measure which was introduced by the most
irregular way by some member of the Commission.
This process deprived of the normal course of action
so that the matter be brought to the attention of the
Scientific Committee and Technical Committee, but this
modification of the Schedule was abruptly introduced
at the beginning of the plenary session. We understand
252 Annex 31
- 60 -
that the significance of this meeting should be that
our decision should be based on scientific grounds
because we also, we are from various countries with
different philosophies and different approaches to
the questions. The only thing we are united is
that we are going to act solely through scientific
evidence which is available to us, by virtue of
vote. The , Japanese plea for fair treatment and
justice has now been disregarded. I like to record
my sense of resentment at this and hope that this
will not happen ever again and the order of business
would be conducted as in same way as we do in other
multilateral government meetings. We. are minority
so if we are deprived of opportunity of having it
discussed in detail on a scientific basis we have
nothing to protect ourselves and we find no signi
ficance in sitting with you in good faith. Thank you .
Chairman
Thank you . The USSR.
USSR
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The decision adopted by
the Commission now have a strictly discriminative
corrector, not only between the two kind of
operations but between the whaling countries and
other countries . Inside the framework of Convention
this create a very severe circumstance inside the
convention and should be reflected in specific
displeasings of countries, members of IWC, to such
kind of activiti e s of Commission . Thank you Mr .
Chairman .
Chai rman
Thank you . Korea.
253254 Annex 32
32. Verbatim Record (21-26 July 1980) pp. 62-64
VERBATIM R E C 0 R D
of the
THIRTY- SECOND MEETING
BRIGHTON
21- 26 July 1980
The Red House ,
Station Roa d, Histon ,
cambridge. CB4 4NP September 1980
255Annex 32
- 62 -
Chairman
Thank you. It is my intention now to break for tea,
or coffee, and then return to this item in the hop~
that we can dispose of it in an expedient way and then
even have a chance to convene the Technica~ Committee
before dinner, before lunch. So we will be back at
11 o'clock.
[COFFEE BREAK]
I call the meeting.to order. Before we adjourned for
the coffee break, there were several delegations who
had asked for the floor, to make statements. I
can't remember the order, I remember France ·asking for
the floor. Would you care to start France? You
would lik e to wait. South Africa? South Afric a ,
then France, then New Zealand.
OK, please go ahead, Dr. Newman.
South Africa
Thank yo u, Mr . Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at the thirtiei~
Meeting of the Commission my delegati o n clearly stated
that we regard whales as a· valuable source to be used
for the benefit of all people i rrespective.of their
nation a lity. We recogn i se the Commis s ion's objective s
as be i n g to pr o vide for the conser v ation, for the
d e ve lopment, and for th e o ptim al util i sation o f whal e
re s ourc es ba s ed on scientific findin gs, and tak i ng intd
a c c o unt c onsume r needs. Now I think, Mr. Chairman ,
that you will prob a bly re c og nise th a t these words are
from Ar t icl e v of our Conventi o n, and my ,delegation full y
~ubscribes to this of c o urse. A number of whale st ocks
hav e bee n re d uce d in the past through mal-prac t i s e and
256 Annex 32
- 63 -
bad management, but most of these are afforded complete
protection under the New Management Programme. But my
delegation is not complacent about this and we will in
the future strive to ensure that any other stocks wh~ch
may be equally stressed will also be afforded protection.
And we also note with some satisfaction that a group of
highly skilled scientists have recently met and have
made some very constructive suggestions fof. improving
the Commission's management of whales and if these
suggestions are adopted they would introduce further
safeguards . In this year's Scientific Report, Mr.
Chairman, the scientists of the Commission have recom
mended that , in the case of a number of stocks, the
take of whales is permissible , as for instance, for
some minke , sperm, fin, sei and Bryde whales .
Now, Mr . Chairman , these recommendations are made by
highly skilled scientists supported at some expense
by member countries, and they take advantage of data
which has been collected over a long period and also
at considerable cost. This being the case, my
delegation finds it difficult at the pres ent time to
support an indefinite moratorium on all commercial
whaling. For, leaving aside the question of uncertairity,
which I would like to introduce later, this is not in
accordance with the advice of the Commission's scientists,
whose report clearly indicates that specific stocks are
capable of yielding a harvest . Mr. Chairman, we
recognise that wild life assessment involves a degree of
uncertainty and ideally this uncertainty should be
reflected in management policy. While the present
257Annex 32
- 64 -
management programme does not incorporate , while i t
does incorp o rat e some allowance for unce r tainty, the
adoption of a r evis ed procedure could perhaps address
this question more adequately. We believe that a
moratorium on commercial whaling wi ·ll ·still not satisf y
the problem of uncertainty.
And finally, Mr . Chairman, we have ha d a t this meeting,
had presented to us a Report which illu~tr~tes the
adverse affects which a cessation of whaling would have
on employme n t, on diet , and on cultural attitudes.
Now shou ld the poor situation of whale stocks demand
that they be afforded protection these social and
economic probl ems will have to be faced be ca use ,
ob viou sly , a further det erio ration in the stock only
exacer~a~es t he social and the economic problem . .
Howe ver , if the resource is capable of yielding a harvest
without an adverse i mpact in the stock we have to make
careful , and I think we have to make respon s ible,
decisions.
So fo r the above reasons, Mr . Chairman, we prefer at
the present time to adopt an attitude which is to
evaluate and decide on each stock separately, and as
such we cannot see the wisdom of a moratorium on all
commercial whaling and we will vote acco rd ingly .
Thank you, Mr . Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you . France .
Fran ce
Thank you, Mr . Chairm a n , the Fr en ch delegation does not
258 Annex 33
33. Verbatim Record, IWC/33/VR (20 July 1981) pp. 1-3
INTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION
THIRTY-THIRD ANNUALt<'lEEIT NG
VERBATIMRECORD
OPENING PLENARYSESSION
MONDAY,20 JULY 1981
10.03 - 10.30
and
11. .05 - 11.36
259Annex 33
- 1 - IWC/33/VR
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
THIRTY-THIRD ANNUALMEETING: VERBATIM.RECORD
OPENING PLENARY SESSION
Chairman
Ladies and gentlemen I welcome all of you to the Formal
Opening
Thirty-Third Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission which I hereby declare to be open.. I take
special pleasure in welcoming Minister Jerry Wiggin, who
has been kind enough to come to Brighton to address.us. I
will say that we are very grateful to the British
Government,Mr. Wiggin, to once again hosting our meeting
and we are very· pleased with the arrangements and the
facilities that we will be enjoying here for the next
six days. I would like you to convey to your Government
our sincere thanks and I now invite you to address the
Meeting.
Mr. J. Wiggin
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great
pleasure to welcome you to the Thirty-Third Annual Address of
Welcome
Meeting of the Internation~l Whaling Conference here
at Brighton and I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for your kind remarks '.:and I am glad to hear that the
arrangement .s~e convenient to you. In particular, I
would like to ·welcome those delegations who are attending
the Commission for the first time. As you may know my
colleague, Alec Buchannan-Smith, the Fisheries Minister,
was to have opened this Meeting and to have hosted the
reception tonight, but unfortunately he has had to attend
an important Council of Agriculture Ministers' Meeting
in Brussels and so is unable to be here. He has asked
me to pass to you his personal wishes for a successful
and constructive Meeting. The Agenda for the Meeting,
Mr. Chairman, demonstrates the rapidly growing concern
throughout the world for conservation and the environment.
In particular, the United Kingdom, and other countries,
have felt it right to propose an indefinite ban on all
commercial whaling. We are concerned, both that knowledge
of whales is not yet adequate to enable catch limits to be
set at levels which can be sustained, and that satisfactory
methods of killing have still not been developed. Stocks
have been exploited over many years to levels where increased
protection is now necessary. Unfortunately, there is little
evidence that grossly depleted stocks necessarily recover
to their previous population levels, even over a long period
of time. In view of the doubts and uncertainties which
clearly exist and the past record of management failure,
the only safe course is to end commercial whaling. I
emphasise that what we are proposing is a moratorium. We
recognise that other countries have a legitimate commercial
260 Annex 33
HvC/33/VR - 2 -
interest in whaling and if, .in the future, it could be shown
beyond reasonable doubt that some exploitation of stocks
might safely be resumed, and that satisfactory methods of
killing were available, the .lifting of the ban might be
considered.
If the Commission is once again unwilling to agree to a ban
on all commercial whaling we consider that it should at
lea st adopt measures to protect those species and areas
which are subject to the greatest risks. We have therefore
made two other suggestions.
The first is for a ban on all co~nercial whal i ng in the North
Atlantic. The in formation available on whale stocks in the
North Atlantic is markedly poor in comparison with other areas.
Indeed, insufficient data are available on any of the stocks
for satisfactory population estima tes to be made . Despite
thi s , the Commission has regularly agreed to substantial catch
limits. The situation clearly gives cause for concern. The
North Atlantic is now the only area in which fin and sei whales
are currently being caught and the conservation status of
these two species is of the greatest int ernational concern.
The only prudent course of action, in our view, is to
prohibit commercial whaling in the area. This would give
depleted s to cks an opportunity to recover and permit proper
stock assessments to be made, based on sound scientific
principles.
We have also proposed a ban on commercia l exploitation of sperm
whales. This measure has been discussed at the two previous
Annual Meetings and the arguments in support have been well
rehearsed. In summary, the Commission 's management procedure
has shown itself inadequate in detecting and arresting declines
in sperm whale populations . As a result stocks have been
over exploited and could take decades to recover fu ll y . The
impact of whaling on th e social structure of sperm whale
stocks is not understood . and behavio ur patterns may well give
rise to misleading assessments . Only three sperm whale
stocks are currently exploited by IWC~members and in each
case there are clear management problems. The only reasonable
response to this degree of uncertainty is to prohibit
exploitation of th e species. This will allow time for
further research, for the depleted stocks to recover to
higher levels, and for better analysis of the data.
Furthermore, there is no lon ge r any pressing need for sperm
whales to be exploited. Substitutes are, or can be made,
available for al l the industrial app lication s of sperm
whale oil. This was one of the factors which persuaded the
United Kingdom to press for the ban on imports of whale products
into the European Community and this comes. :j,nto effect -..n
the first of January 1982.
261Annex 33
- 3 - IWC/33/VR
We remain concerned that the methods used to kill whales
are unjustifiably cruel. Indeed, as I have already
mentioned, this is one of the factors which has led us to
conclude that a ban on commercial whaling should be
introduced. I know that there is an increasing awareness
within the Commission of the need to develop more satisfactory
methods. The Workshop on Humane Killing Techniques held in
November 1980 considered that to be humane death must be
without pain, stress or distress perceptible to the animal.
In the working environment of whaling this ideal may be
difficult to realise. Nevertheless, the present methods,
including the explosive harpoon, are a very long way from
meeting these criteria. Last year the Commission agreed to
prohibit the use of the cold grenade harpoon for killing all
whales except minke whales. This represented a step in
the right direction. We believe that the ban should now
be extended to minke whales and we will be strongly supporting
a Schedule amendment to achieve that objective. But the
Commission should not allow matters to rest there. In the
longer term a replacement for the explosive harpoon must
clearly be found.
Finally, I should like to mention recent relevant United
Kingdom legislation. The Fisheries Act 1981, which comes
into effect on the second of August this year, will extend
our existing prohibitions so that the taking or treating
of porp o ises and dolphins as well as whales - in short all
cetaceans - will be pr ohib i ted within British fishery limits.
The Act also provides for substantially increased penalties
for offences. The Act will be of benefit to th e nume rous
species of toothed whales, po rp oises and dol phins which
occur in our waters.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, you have as usual a
ver y full Agenda before you. I need hardly remind you that
your deliberations and the decisions which you take will be
watched closely and with keen interest by many people
around the world. I wish you every succ ess, though I
am very conscious of the f act that what one del egation
would re gard as a succes s ful outc ome might wel l be r ega r ded
quite differently by another. But that perhaps illustr a tes
the import a nce o f this meeting. Countries holdin g entirely
opposite views of whaling meet together in what I hope will
be a constructive a tmosphere to express these view s and t o
try and seek s o lutions which will find majority acceptance.
On behalf of Her Ma jes t y' s Gove rnm ent I again extend to you
a wa rm wel9om e to Brighton. I lo ok forward to meeting you
all at the Gov e rnment rece pti on whi ch I shall be hosting
here ton i ght.
Chair man
Thank you Mr. Minist e r f or th e wo rds you ha ve sp ok en to us.
I kno w th at ma ny of us will agre e with much , if not all,
262 Annex 34
34. Verbatim Record (19-24 July 1982) pp. 72-86
INTERNATIONAL 'I'IHALINGCOMMISSION
34th ANNUAL f4EETING
BRIGHTON, JULY 19 - ~4 198~
VERBATIM RECORD
263Annex 34
- 72 -
Chairman of the Technical Committee
\genda 6 Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Technical Comittee under Item 6 "Ending
~ding ·of
:ommercial of Commercial Whaling" discussed first 6.1 A negotiated end to
;baling commercial whaling. The Seychelles introduced its paper IWC/34/21
stating that it had joined the IWC to protect the resources in the
oceans · which are of particular interest to it as an island State. It
regards the whales as a trust for the future and has looked for
rational management, but this has been difficult to attain. There is
scientific uncertainty and lack of data, some of which are not fully
available. Recognising the disruption to the whaling industry and the
communities involved it proposed a phasing out over a fixed period of
time during which there would be a diminution of whaling and catches
based on scientific. advice. This took the form of a new clause to
paragraph 10 of the Schedule which has the effect of introducing a
three-year period for the industry to accommodate, noting that block
quotas will end in 1985. The proposal, seconded by Australia, read as
you will see in the inserted paragraph.
Norway appreciated the intent of the Seychelles to reflect the broader
issues involved but believed that the intention to end whaling
absolutely is not in keeping with the purpose of the IWC for rational
management of renewable living resources. The World Conservation
Strategy favours sustained utilisation of ecosystems and species and
has been backed by the FAO/UNEP Global Plan of Action for Marine
Resources.
Norway recalled the statement of FAO which sets out reasons for
another approach to the problem.
Norway has undertaken a full review of its whaling activities and has
decided that this will continue where scientifically justified
regardless of any IWCdecisions to the contrary. It does not wish to
use the objection procedure because of the implications for the future
of the Commission and is prepared to negotiate on the matter.
Japan endorsed the Norwegian position, remarking that ever since 1972
the Scientific Committee has indicated that there is no scientific
justification for a blanket moratorium. The objectives of the
Convention are the conservation of stocks and the orderly development
of the industr y, and Article V calls for scientific evidence in
management procedures. The present management procedures require very
good knowledge of stock sizes and yields and this has introduced the
scientific uncertainty. Japan believes that the Seychelles' propo sal
is incompatible with the intents and purposes of the Convention.
Australia stated that it believes that because of the declining whal e
stocks, conservation must be the over- r iding fa ctor and reminded the
Commission of the working group on· the effects of the implementation
of the ban on whaling which it set up in 1979. Ove r-eKplo itat ion has
reduced the i ndustry. Since improvements i n management are too
difficult to implement and there are additional problems ~ssociated
with humane killing , ord erly reduct ion appea r s to be the best course
of action.
Costa Rica consid ered that continued whali ng was a recipe for di saste r
and proposed an amendment t o the Seychelles proposa l for a two- year
phase-out period which was seconded by France and St. Lucia.
264 Annex 34
- 73 -
Iceland spoke on its belief for rational eKploitation of whales and
their · proper utilisation as a resource which makes the moratorium
unacceptable to it.
The Netherlands commented that the history of IWC management has shown
that a serious decline in stocks has occurred which must not occur
again, so that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the whales.
"This position also appears in the World Conservation Strategy.
The United States stated that it is looking for effective conservation
which will guarantee wise management. The past history of over-riding
economic concern shows species after species driven into the
protection status. A slow increase in scientific understanding has
only demonstrated the decline. The present management procedure has
not given the protection necessary because the data available are
inadequate for stock assessment and identification. It believes the
moratorium is long overdue.
New Zealand supported the Seychelles' proposal, believing that it is
consistent with the Convention and emphasised the continuing need for
scientific research during the moratorium period.
Spain spoke in appreciation of the Seychelles' attempt to achieve a
balance in its approach but objected to the discrimination drawn
between commercial and aboriginal whaling, especially where the latter
took place on very small, vulnerable stocks. It considered the
proposal incompatible with the Convention and asked for consideration
of the Scientific Committee Report.
The Republic of Korea also thought a moratorium is in contradiction to
the Convention's objectives.
Argentina emphasised the crucial decision facing the Commission. It
was looking for a negotiated conclusion bearing in mind the questions
of international law and the principles involved, including rational
utilisation of resources, and the Law of the Sea position.
An amendment to the proposal was put forward by the Netherlands,
seconded by Denmark, to replace the words, quote, until the Commission
decide otherwise, unquote, by "This measure will apply for 10 years,
with the provision for a general review after 5 years, unless the
Commission decides otherwise."
The Seychelles emphasised that its proposal is not for a moratorium or
ban on whaling but proposes catch limits, which are set at zero.
Japan stated its view that the Commission's present management
procedures do not threaten the survival of the whale stocks. There is
a l arge number of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere and sperm
whales in the North Pacific, which will not be jeopardised by small
catches. Collection of data from these stocks would be reduced by a
moratorium.
Uruguay raised the issue of sovereignty in 200 mile zone s of coastal
states and, whilst agreeing to a ban on whaling, did not believe this
would apply within the EXclusive Economic Zones.
The United Kingdom supported the substan ce of the Seychelles' proposal
because of its concern over the humaneness of whaling and the adequacy
of the Scientific Committee's advice. It also spoke of the need to
consider the future of the IWC •
265Annex 34
- 74 -
After a procedural discussion associated with clari~icati of n
delegate credentials, Oman moved for a vote on the substance of the
debate. Japan and the USSR referred to the implications of this vote,
which is crucial to the future of the Co~ssion, including resource
utilisation within 200 mile zones and the sovereign rights issue.
The pr.ocedural .m9tion was then pas.sed by !7 votes for .,. with. 9. against.
and 8 abstentions.
The Netherlands then withdrew its amendment with the agreement of
Denmark, after which the Costa Rican amendment seconded by France and
St. Lucia was put to the vote. Argentina eKplained that it was voting
to keep the matter open; the Seychelles and the Netherlands indicated
their preference for a three year phasing out period but would vote in
favour.
The amendment was then adopted by 19 votes for with 6 against and 9
abstentions.
The United Kingdom, the United States, France and Australia then all
withdrew their proposals concerning an end to whaling.
Mr. Chairman, that means that under item 6 the Technical Committee has
only one recommendation, and that is the one which was adopted with 19
votes for, with 6 against and 9 abstentions.
In my capacity as Technical Committee Chairman I so move, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Chairman of the Technical Committee. Then we have to take a
decision on the matter of this recommendation coming from the
Technical Committee. Norway has the floor.
Norway
Mr. Chairman, bet"ore we begin on the consideration of th e
recommendation, could I just point out that the Chairman of the
Technical Committee has now read to us an unappro ved draft of the
Report of the Technical Committ ee. I realise fully the difficulties
which ar e pre sent in trying to summarise the views of Commi ssioners
but these are issues on which considerable delicacy has been put into
comments. Would it be in order for dele gations to present revisions
of th e r esume of their own statement in writing to the Secretary for
inclusion in the corrected, in the final, version of the Technical
Committee Report. I see you nodding; I thank you, s i r.
Chairman
Than k you, Commissi one r for Norwa y . I think it is a ver y appropriate
remark. This is an unapproved report and I think even that we can
consider, and perhaps approve here, that any dele gation is entitled to
correct, to add , to his own stateme nt, saying that to the Secret a riat
and in principle it would be accepted unless there are other states
who can be concerned with this new adjus ·tment of the personal
declarati on of each Commission e r. I think that would be the fair way
to deal with this matt e r and we can spe ed it up f oll owi ng the
pro ced ures. Is everybody ag reed on that? Thank you.
266 Annex 34
- 75 -
So, we move again to the proposal we have coming from the Technical
Committee. I need a seconder for the motion put forward. Seychelles
seconded.
Seychelles
No, I'm not seconding it, Mr. Chairman. I would like to briefly speak
to it if I may? I suppose an amendment to it.
Chairman
Yes of course but the preble~ is we need some seconder for the
proposal that was made by the Technical Committee.
Seychelles
I'm out of order then.
Chairman
Yes. I am asking for one. The United Kingdom. The Seychelles
please take the floor.
Seychelles
For reasons which we gave in the Technical Committee we continue to
feel that it's necessary and reasonable to give those involved in the
whaling industry sufficient time t·o wind down without undue hardship.
We think that three years is a more reasonable figure which seems to
us to have a broader measure of suppo rt from the membership of this
Commission.
We have also taken into account op1n1ons which have been SKpressed
amongst member states here which suggest that it is necessary to
provide also for the possibility of review and reassessment and, if
the scientific information should so suggest in the interim, perhaps
even a resumption of some form of commercial activity. So we would
like to propose an amendment to the Costa Rican proposal which has
been forwarded to us from the Technical Committee.
In the state of flUK and the fluid condition in which we find
ourselves in this Commission we haven't had the chance to have this
amendment printed and circulated to you. If I may briefly describe
its intent and then read it to you.
It has, and embodies, two basic propositions. The first of these is a
move from two to three years, a restoration of the '86 and '85/6
figures in other words a return to the original form of the
Seychelles proposal as made in the Technic al Committee; and the
second is an add i tional clause which provides for the setting, if
necessary and under scientific advice, of catch limits other than
zero. I would repeat and remind you that this is a catch . limit
proposal.
The amendment, if I may r ead it now, is to paragraph lO(e) of the
Schedule and begins as the original Seychelles proposal to the
Te chnical Committee, "Notwithstanding the other prov i sions of
paragraph 10 catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of
whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pel~i c
seasons and thereafter shall be zero. " Delete "until the Commiss1on
267Annex 34
- 76 -
decides otherwise" from the original Seychelles form and add this
sentence. I' 11 read it at dictation speed. "This provision will be
kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990
at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider
modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch
limits.''
That is the form of the Seychelles amendment and it would, I would
remind you
just to conclude, provide specifically for a review after
five years, but not preclude the possibility of assessment at any
other time.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Seychelles. Commission of Seychelles, yes,
Dr. Gambell would like some clarification.
Secretary to the Commission
Mr. Chairman, could I just get completely clear how etactly it fits on
to the previous tett which we have in the Technical Committee Report.
Since we don't have this in writing we must be very sure ex:actly what
is being proposed. -
Seychelles
On page one of the unapproved draft of the Technical Committee, the
Seychelles proposal, seconded by Australia, as it stands down to the
word "zero". Then the addition of the ex:tra clause which I' 11 read
quickly again. "This provision will be kept under review, based upon
the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission
will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this
decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision
and the establishment of other catch limits."
Chairman
So we have a proposal, an amendment to the former proposal of Costa
Rica that we have already approved in Technical Committee. Is there a
seconder? Sweden, St. Lucia, Australia, New Zealand, Oman. So we are
considering then this new proposal, may I ask comment on it? In order
to avoid a rule of procedure I will accept as the usual practice here
that it was not necessary to present and distribute at some previous
time the wording of this because it was quite simple. I hope every
delegation has already taken note. I do not see any comments. Is
there any consensus on the - Japan has the floor and then Uruguay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak with respect
to the proposal just put forward by the Seychelles delegation, whi ch
is in substance a total moratorium. We have discussed in the past
meetings whether there is any scientific justification for this
moratorium and the Scientific Committee ruled many times in the past
that there is no scientific justification or the biological need for a
total or blanket moratorium and as you peruse through this Report of
the Scientific Committee this year you would also note that there is
not a single scientist who claims that moratorium is the means, only
means, to achieve the conservation of the whales. The question of the
268 Annex 34
- 77 -
moratorium has been viewed by scientists as political issue. However
I would like to point out that our Convention provides that any ·
regulations we have, we are going to adopt, should be on the basis of
scientific justification. Lack of scientific justification for a
moratorium is only stated in the statement by the FAO representative.
As you know FAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations. He
pointed out clearly in his statement there is no justification for a
moratorium. He went on to say a justification for a complete
cessation of whaling can be put forward on aesthetic or moral grounds
but these are outside the terms of reference of the Commission.
Seychelles Commissioner mentioned the inadequacy, or inadequacy of the
data. FAO representative clearly states that certainly our knowledge
of whale resources is far from complete but he said "However, these
doubts are no reason for not taking moderate, and carefully monitored
catches from stocks which appear to be in a healthy condition."
The Scientific Committee, remember, concluded that there are more than
300,000 mature animals, mature minkes, in the Antarctic and there are
many other stocks which are in good condition. Also I have to point
out to you that many of you casted "yes" vote yesterday for the
management of subsistence whaling. In some cases scientific evidence
as we have indicates that there are less than 4,000 mature, immature,
calves, all inclusive, there are only less than 4,000. But management
principle, as to be applied for this stock, clearly states in the
proposal of the United States delegation that this stock ·can be
managed so that they recover to MSY levels. Remember many delegations
cast the "yes" vote for this proposal and resolution. What your vote
meant is that you are convinced that this resource can be restored to
MSY with continuing catches, even if it is a small number. If this is
the case how you can cast "no" vote for the continuation of commercial
whaling when the land stations are making use of a small portion of
whale stocks migrating through their coast and distributing far beyond
the reach of the coastal stations in great number. Or in the case of
minke whales where Scientific Committee agreed last year that, or the
year before, that this is in, this stock is in robust condition.
I have to mention, therefore, that this proposal is clearly in
violation of the present Convention and I have to mention also that it
should be beyond doubt that the rights of the Contracting Governments,
as embodied in -this Convention and other relevant international law,
cannot be denied or advocated on the basis of a vote of the IWC. This
is merely the e<ecutive, e<ecuting organisation under the Convention.
You cannot change the duties or the obligations provided under this
Convention. We therefore maintain that should a proposal for a total
moratorium as proposed by the Seychelles delegation lead to the
eventual collapse of the IWC the responsibility for such an outcome ·
should not be attributed to my delegation. We have been faithfully
discharging the duties and obligations under the Convention,
particularly through our scientific contribution to ensure rational
utilisation of whale resources.
Remember what we have been doing in organising international research
cruises, e<pending huge amounts of monies for this purpose in the past
three years. Our delegation also wishes to point out that the
proposal for a moratorium which would prevent member countries from
utilising whale stocks in their coastal waters represents a flagrant
infringement of the sovereign rights of those countries. The proposal
is incompatible with the spirit of internationally established
practice and customary law with respect to the ZOO mile zone.
269Annex 34
- 78 -
Now, I have to conclude my statement by saying that before going to
vote, obviously you have the majority to carry whatever you want
through the Commission, but please consider whether your conscience is
clear in terms of the duties and the obligations of the Convention to
defy the right of the people which is not dominating this Commission.
We like to see therefore that you would like to postpone voting until
you have had time to consult with very objective scientists before
deciding on a very historic decision you are making, and also if the
vote is inevitable we like to request that you question yourselves if
your conscience is very clear if you are going to support moratorium.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Japan. Commissioner from Uruguay, no was
Antigua and then St. Lucia.
Antigua and Barbuda
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
And Norway.
Antigua and Barbuda
One need not be only a conservationist to desire a complete moratorium
on whaling, for there is a greater consideration than the numbers game
my colleagues from Japan would have us believe is truly the issue with
respect to the amendment urged by the Seychelles. I read with great
interest the IWC/34/44 item submitted by the Japanese delegation which
was entitled "A Summary of Fx periments on Humane Catching of Whales".
There is no humane method of continuing this needless form of
industry. On behalf of Antigua and Barbuda I urge this Convention to
consider not only the scientific side of this proposal but the
humanitarian side which is truly the over-riding issue here. Thank
you, sir.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner for Antigua. St. Lucia please.
St. Lucia
Thank you Mr. Chairm an . It is with deep regret that I note that ther e
has been a misunderstanding on the proposal of the dis ·tinguished
delegate from the Seychelles. It is not a proposal for a total ban
for commercial whaling, but is rather a proposal on catch limits.
The second point that I would like to discuss is that in 1946 when the
Conventio n was adopted by the countries that ratified it the status of
stocks of whales wa s not as depleted as it is now, there fo re there
were no provisions made at the time for the circumstances with which
we are now confronted.
Similarly I would like to point out that the scientific uncertainty as
to the rationale behind the eKploitation of most stocks of whales has
led us to believe that we are in a state of grave doubt.
270 Annex 34
- 79
Finally, mention has been made to the position of the Food and
Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations and I would like to
bring to the Commission's attention the position of the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature which has drawn up the World
Conservation Strategy in consultation with the Food and Agricultural
Orga nisation of the United Nations, the United Nations Environmental
Programme, and the United Nations Organisation known as UNESCO,
Educational and Scientific Organisation. This World Conservation
Strategy maintains and supports the view as an international policy
that commercial whaling should come to an end. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you delegate of St. Lucia. Norway has the floor.
Norw ay
Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the absence of any recommendation from the
Scientific Committee the adoption of the current proposal would, in my
delegation's view, entail the effective abdication of management
responsibilities by the IWC. I consider this deplorable in itself and
I consider it incompatible with the Int ernat ional Whaling Convention.
The proposal distinguishes between one type of whaling which comprises
several other types of whaling lumped together under the term
commercial whaling and other types of whaling. I've previously urged
to Commissioners that the Commission should endeavour to undertake a
more sophisticated differentiation between two types, between vario us
types of whaling. The present proposal either distinguishes too much
or too little. The effect of the present proposal ·will in fact be to
allocate whaling rights to nationals of a very limited number of
countries. That is not compatible with the provisions of Article V
paragraph 2 sub-paragraph (c) of the Interna tional Whaling - Convention
which specifically prohibits discriminatory management measures on
grounds of nationality.
Mr. Chairman, in my remarks in the Technical Committee I said that I
thought serious negotiations fo r a revision of the management
procedures would provide an alternative to the approach which is
suggested to us now. My delegation has attempted to present some
ideas for such negotiation but we have not had enough time to pursue
these negotiations in a responsible manner. I am confident that we
will co~tinue t~ negotiate on t hese matters and that a successful
conclusion of such negotiations holds out a hope for more mutual
confidence within the Commission and for more constructive working
methods for the future. In the present circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I
have no other alternative than to oppose the proposal and to reserve
the rights of my government under the Convention. Thank you, sir.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Norway. Commissioner of Iceland, I'm
sorry.
Iceland
Mr. Chairman, adoption of a moratorium on all commerc ial whaling based
on strength of votes but not on scientific findings nor
recommendations of the Scientific Committee, nor with any r egard to
the economi ·cal or social importance of whaling to the whaling nations,
is in our opinion most certainly contra r y to the fundamental
objectives and purposes of the Commission. Thank you .
271Annex 34
- 80 -
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Iceland. Any other comments? Uruguay has
the floor and then St. Vincent.
Uruguay
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman to give me the floor, after all the
countries was after me, but I'm sure I will make stronger my
statement. As everyone knows in this room there are many countries
who are deeply worried about the implications of that amendment
proposal on the sovereign rights of the coastal States in the 200
miles exclusive economic zones. Therefore, and since the concerned
countries does not express their worries in proposing an amendment, we
will be realistic and we will support the proposal as it is only to
point out our conservationist feelings, but we reserve our opinion
that this proposal should be applied with full respect for the right
of the coastal States to all resources of their exclusive economic
zones. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Uruguay. Mexico has the floor.
Hexico
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman we have the same feeling just
expressed by the distinguished Commissioner from Uruguay, and we would
like to add that his concern over the rights of coastal States on the
economic exclusive zone should be .in accordance with the approved
Convention of the Law of the Sea. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Mexico. Australia has the floor.
Australia
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
I'm sorry, St. Lucia bas the.floor, I'm extremely sorry please, and
later on Australia.
St. Lucia
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a considerable amount of sympathy for
those countries who are engaged in whaling at the moment, but I would
like to point out to them that this body represents to them a very
considerable strength of world public opinion. Not only the nations
here who anticipated are going to support this proposal, but also many
other nations who have joined CITES and proclaim that several species
of whales should be completely protected. This clearly represents the
majority of op~n~on in the world and it clearly represents a very
widely held opinion. The nations who currently whale should consider
why it is that so many nations who have nothing to gain .should want to
stop whaling. I would like to read part of the World Conservation
St:rategy if I may, which suggests that a zero quota or moratorium, if
you pref e r the word, should be extended to all commercial whaling
272 Annex 34
- 81 -
until, 1) the consequences for the ecosystems concerned of removing
targe portions of the whales' populations, and such population's
capacity for recovery can be predicted. 2) That permitted levels of
eKploitation are safe, and that an effective mechanism eKist for
detecting and correcting mistakes made in the management of any stock.
3) That member nations of the IWC are no longer engaged in purchasing
whale products from or transferring whaling techniques and equipment
-to or otherwise supporting non-whaling nations or the so called pirate
whaling ships. There is no question that there is a very considerable
doubt in any scientist's mind as to what is happening to the world's
ecosys .tems, including in the marine environment and especially in
relation to whales. Thank you.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of St. Vincent, Australia has the floor and
then France.
Australia
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will be brief because I think we have made
many of our points in , have been made by previous speakers, but I
would like to eKplain why Australia supports this Schedule amendment,
and the reasons are that we believe that because while it aims to
provide the conservation of whales it also has regard for the problems
faced by the whaling industry. The amendment provides for an initial
period of adjustment by the whaling nations and during this period the
Scientific Committee will continue to work and will continue to advise
the IWC, and the discussions on the revision on management provisions
can continue, . I believe that they should continue, as suggested by
Norway. During this period of time there are provisions made for
revisions and for re-consideration in the light of any new information
that arises. Therefore, I believe that this Schedule amendment is a
good solution which has regard for a variety of interests and
therefore Australia is pleased to support it.
Chairman
Thank you. Commissioner of France.
France
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman as already said France in the
eKercise of its sovereign rights over the resources located within its
eKclusive economic zone unreservedly supports the proposal put forward
by the distinguished delegate of the Seychelles and will apply it to
all the waters lying within its sovereignty.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of France . ~~y other comments? United Kingdom
has the floor.
U.K.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. U.K. views are , on this matter are well
known, not only because of the statements we have made before but also
by the inclusion of an item on our Provisional Agenda. The case for
273Annex 34
- 82 -
this proposal has been very well made by other speakers, and I will
not repeat it here. Our views in very short summary form are set out
in the draft Technical Committee Report. Reference has been made to
the future of the IWC and also to the possibility of changes in
scientific advice in future years, and taking these two important
factors into consideration we are prepared to support the proposal now
advanced by the Seychelles, rather than the proposal we originally had
in mind. Thank you.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner for United Kingdom. Could I, if you allow me
and not waste time to change my hat and take the floor as an Argentine
Commissioner. Thank you. May I, I'm sorry, I can't. Yes Spain has
the floor.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry you didn't see me raising my card
before you made this last statement, I wanted to take the floor before
that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman I think I need to take the floor at
this moment before this voting takes place, because whatever the
result of the voting is I would first want to make clear some
positions of the Spanish delegation. First of all let me advance that
I don't consider this as a total ban, as it has been said here, but
just as a temporary interruption of the activity which does not from
the part of Spain result from other considerations than those of a
need to add very carefully in managing these very important stocks of
marine living resources.
Secondly, I would like to re-state at this moment our firm position
that living marine resource such as whales should be managed in such a
way that considerations such as the further use of them or the reasons
or means for their captures should not be taken into consideration-, as
the decisive factor. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we hope that efforts
will be made so that such distinctions, as aboriginal and commercial
whaling be abandoned in future as a basis for dual criteria of
management.
Finally Mr. Chairman, our very considered op~n~on is that there is a
necessity at this stage of adopting some precautionary measures in the
eKploitation of whales. We have already taken some by our own
decision two years ago. We have been maybe, the only country that not
having to do so, decided this for sperm whales in the Atlantic. We
think that today that one of these measures can be that of stopping
the catching of whales during a period of years, allowing thus the
scientists to reach a better biological knowledge of the populations,
with perfect working methods and the Commission to reach an agreement
on a more rational way of managing the whale stocks.
Nevertheless, as a fishing and a ·..rhaling n~tion we are especially
concerned about the economic and social implications that this measure
implies and the effort that the g overnments will have to make to
overcome the problems created. This aspect Mr. Chairman is especially
important in those cases in which we have in truth no doubts about the
healthy state of the populations such as is the case of the Antarctic
minke whales. Without makir~ any concrete proposal I would like to
draw the attention of the Commission to all these matters. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.
274 Annex 34
- 83 -
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Spain. Now if I may take the floor for just
a few minutes as the Argentine Commissioner. Will you allow me to do
that? I would like as well to join the position of Argentina, as
already stated by Uruguay and MeKico, and we by no means are affecting
the decision of our vote in the right of a coastal State and it will
be the position of Argentina taking a vote in this. Thank you very
much. Republtc of Korea has the floor.
Republic of Korea
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is the view of my delegation that any
debate on the ending of commercial whaling should be made very
carefully on the basis of scientific data and the reasons which are
the main object of the International Whaling Convention 1946, and with
this Schedule in mind we also wish to stress any proposal which is
short of scientific data it defiles the basis objective of the IWC,
will not be accepted by the meeting. Thank you.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of the Republic of Korea. Peru has the floor.
Peru
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Before the vote the Peruvian delegation wants
to recall the attention of the meeting to a statement made by Peru
will ratify the Convention in 1979. It reads as follows:
"Ratification by Peru cannot be interpreted as appertaining to or
restrictive of the sovereignty and jurisdiction which Peru eKercises
up to a limit of 200 miles off its coast". Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner, delegate of Peru. Any other comments on this
matter? Brazil has the floor.
Brazil
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would also like to associate my delegation
to the statements made before by several other countries from Latin
America, in the order that it is our strong belief that the provisions
of this Commission must be applied taking into account the rights of
the coastal States to all the resources within their economic
eKclusive zones. When casting our vote in the near, in the neKt
minute, we will have in mind this strong feeling. Thank you.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Brazil. Commissioner of Chile.
Chile
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I also would like to join the last statement
made by the distinguished delegate of Brazil, and in the same way the
others made in this sense.
275Annex 34
- 84 -
Chairman
Tha'nk you Commissioner of Chile. Any other comments on this
situation? Costa Rica has the floor.
Costa Rica
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to adhere to the positions of
Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Chile; and this in no means to
diminish the proposal put forward by the Seychelles •. Thank you.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Costa Rica. Any other Commissioner would
like to speak on this matter? Switzerland has the floor.
Switzerland
Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. Would you give us as in the
past, Commissioners who so wish the opportunity before the vote the
possibility to explain their vote.
Chairman
Yes, I think it will be always the right to any country to do that, I
think some of them already are doing both things, making a statement
and explaining the vote but you can wait until the last moment if a
vote come, For the time being if I am not wrong we have a
recommendation to amend the Schedule, we have a consensus now with a
very strong objection from the Commissioner for Japan, I would like to
see which is the reaction as a whole if I am working in this consensus
approach. It is obvious that Japan ask for a vote and I think we will
go ahead with that but for the time being unless you decided this
discussion is over I think this point deserves to give you all the
opportunity to talk, otherwise I will close the debate. I'm sorry but
in order to be clarified I think Dr. Gambell, it's not perhaps,
couldn't listen when I heard the Commissioner for Japan comment on the
postpone of the vote, was not in the consideration now, but in the
future I think is the whole philosophy of this matter, or did you make
some particular approach, I think it was in the future in order to •••
No, I think you, if I may interpret the Commissioner of Japan you onl y
said that, if I may, that the postpone of the vote looking for more
scientific data in order, I'm sorry, yes. Thank you, sorry. So I
think taking into account that we should serve one delegation to vote.
I don't know which is the reaction to this proposa l . Norway has the
floor.
Norway
Mr. Chairman . I am at any time read y to co-operate with the chair in
order to expedite the business of the Commission, but I recall that
certain remarks have been made about action taken by my government,
subsequent to a deci~ion adopted by the Commission by consensus with
reservations on the part of my delegat i on and I would in the fut ure
sincerely wish to avoid that situation again. I would therefore join
the distinguished Commissioner from Japan in requesting the v·ote.
Thank you Sir,
276 Annex 34
- 85 -
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Norway. Then the situation is cleared up, I
think we will take a vote. Yes, I mean the debate is closed, is any
one asking for any comment on the debate itself, for the debate or
just for the clarification of your vote.
Switzerland
The latter.
Chairman
Alright. So we consider the debate closed, we are going to vote and
may I remind you all of the Rule of Procedure we already agree, there
are no pass of vote, will be a statement if anyone would like to do
before the vote, I will accept if I may the eKplanation later. So may
I ask for the eKplanation of vote, yes please. Switzerland has the
floor.
Switzerland
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman when Switzerland joined the IWC
in 1980, she did so with her intention to co-operate towards the
conservation of whales, within the framework of the International
Convention for Regulation of Whaling. Her record since then Mr.
Chairman shows clearly that she fulfils that commitment effectively.
Mr. Chairman, the matter which is in front of us is an impor~ant one.
The outcome of the vote thereon may affect the future of our
Commission. OWing to the enlargement of our Commission which I
welcome, there is a new situation, which in my view has to be taken
into account in our deliberations, this new situation has certainly
led this delegation to an even more careful eKamination of the item
under discussion.
Mr. Chairman it is certainly the intention of my government and I may
add in view of the possible outcome of the vote on the proposal in
front of us, which may affect the future of our Commission. It is
also the hope of having the opportunity to continue to pursue the
objective of the conservation of whales within the framework of the
Convention.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by stating that the proposal . in front of
us is an amendment to the Schedule which according to Article V of the
Convention has to be based on scientific findings, this requirement
Mr. Chairman, which is in my view not fulfilled by the present
proposal, also what I have said earlier will lead this delegation to
abstention. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Commissioner of Switzerland. Any other statement on the
vote, eKplanation of the vote? Thank you. Then we close the
Gambell to proceed. Thank you.
Secretary
Mr. Chairman, the proposal before this Plenary Session is an amendment
to the Schedule by the introduction of a new Paragraph (e), to
Paragraph 10 of the eKisting Schedule with the following wording,
proposed by the Seychelles, seconded by Sweden, St. Lucia, Australia
and Oman.
277Annex 34
- 86 -
"Notwithstanding the other provisions of Paragraph 10, catch limits
for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for
the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic season and thereafter shall
be zero. This provision will be kept under review based upon the best
scientific advice and by 1990 at the latest, the Commission will
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision
on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision, and the
establishment of other catch limjts."
This is an amendment to the Schedule to the Convention and requires a
three-quarters majority to become effective. Following the rolling
start to the voting procedure the role starts at the Netherlands -
yes; New Zealand yes; Norway no; Oman - yes; Peru - no;
Philippines - abstain; St. Lucia- yes; St. Vincent - yes; Senegal
yes; Seychelles yes; South Africa - abstain; Spain - yes;
Sweden yes; Switzerland abstain; U.S.S.R. -no; U.K. - yes;
U.S.A. yes; Uruguay yes; Antigua - yes; Argentina - yes;
Australia yes; Belize yes; Brazil - no; Chile - abstain;
People's Republic of China -abstain; Costa Rica- yes; Denmark
yes; Egypt - yes; France - yes; Federal Republic of Germany - yes;
Iceland no; India - yes; Japan - no; Kenya - yes; Republic of
Korea - no; Mex:ico - yes; Monaco - yes;
Chairman
Silence, silence please. I think it is not the behaviour of the
observers and the representatives here to e<press the situation in
that way. Thank you.
Secretary
Mr. Chairman there were 25 votes in favour, 7 votes against with 5
abstentions. That is the sufficient three-quarters majority to amend
the Schedule.
Chairman
So a decision is taken by the Commission on this Item 6. If I don't
see any other comments on that I will pass to the Item 7. So is
decided Item 7 "Revision of Present Management Procedure". Could I
ask Dr. Lemche please, as Chairman of the Technical Committee. Yes
please.
Chairman of the Technical Committee
Ag;enda 7 Thank you Mr•. Chairman. Still we are working on an unapproved draft.
Revi sioof
Pre se nt Ite m 7 you see on page 4, Revision of Present Management Procedures".
Manag~ment Japan introduced its document IWC/34/24 whi ch sets out a new proposed
Proced ure s management procedure. This is designed to overcome the difficulty now
e<perienced in estimating initial stock sizes by prop os ing a new
reference le vel, whi ch can be more easily established. This is
defined in one of three ways depending on the amount of inf ormati on
available for a sto ck . The pro ced ure also tak es account of th e
requi remen ts for coastal operations and aboriginal whaling; tr ansi t ion
methods from the present to the proposed new system ar e also
i nclud ed.
Norway spoke on its document IWC/34/ 33 which sets out a posi t ive new
app roach to management by iden t i fying the purpos es. All other cat ches
would be prohib ited , and aboriginal/subsistence cat ches ar: al so
cat ered for. The Norwegian proposal is in tended as an ~ntrod t~1on to
r evis ed manage ment proposals still being discuss ed, 1ncl ud1ng th ose
conside red at last year' s meeting .
278 Annex 35
35. Verbatim Record (22-26 June 1987) pp. 142-144
IN'rERNATIONAL WHALING<XJMMI.SSION
39TH ANNUALMEETING
Bournemouth, UK, 22-26 Jtme 1987
279Annex 35
'The Chairman
Thank you. The Coumissioner for Japan has the floor.
Japan
Thank you very much. I'm not addressing to the proposed resolution. Before
that, several things have been mentioned with respect to our proposal by
delegate of the United Kingdom. I think I have right of reply.
About our research program he mentioned that, against Japanese scientists
number of distinguished scientists commented that the methodology is not good
one. But I must stress the fact that not only the English-speaking ones,non
English-speaking ones can be also distinguished scientist. And, I'm not
referring only to Japaneses scientists, but some other scientists from other
countries also supported, considered this program methodology as good one. And
therefore here there isn't agreed recommendation from Scientific Committee.
Clearly there was division of opinion between distinguished scientists. And
these differences should be sorted out, only by experiment, going ahead I
mean.
And, with respect to natural mortality which could be density dependent, there
has been again the view by perhaps distinguish ed English-speaking scientists
that, by Japanese way, you cannot get net recruitment yield which is more
important for, than age-specific mortality. But, in order to get net
recruitment yield, you need age-specific mortality and perhaps there are some
people who have never carried out their own research by themselves. They can
just wait. Everything comes out all at once. Scientific research should go
step by step. Therefore, although there has been division of opinion here,
again this is not clear state ment that. Because of that Japanese proposal is
not unwarranted.
About sample size I have mention ed that sample size proposed by, considered by
UK scientist are necessary for achieving same result was more than 20,0 00.
But, by repetitive and having some period of rest, we can make, reduce down to
825.
About moving nature of whales, everybody knows that whale moves. That's why we
have cut the Areas into small sections, longditudinal and lat itudinal, and
also time factors. By that way we believe that we can collect it. Again, there
is division of opinion between distinguished scientists.
With respect to remarks that Japanese proposal, Japanese program does not help
the Comprehensive Assessment or in any way what Commission needs, I don't
think so. Research carried out will produce every year very unique estimate of
various figures which has never been existed in this Commission. This is
right, fed into the Commission, the Scientific Commit tee's consid eration right
from the next year. That is most important information for rational management
of resources.
There has been mention of unreliability. I don't think there could be any
research which does not involve any uncertainty. If there is at all exist, if
there is a situation where ther e is no uncertainty at all that would be
perhaps the situation where you don't need any resear ch. In order t o reduce
uncertainty, narrow the uncert ainty, that's why we need the research.
Of course, this information coming from our research is contributing the
Comprehensive Assessment which should be concluded by 1990 at the latest.
Information is forth coming year after year and we ach ieve our aim of, our own
national aim I mean, would be achieved in time of 12 years .
142
280 Annex 35
And this is my response to what has been mentioned by UK delegation. With
respect to the SO animals of sperm whales I have been told from my expert in
that area 10,000 such animals are there in our most recent estimate in these
two Areas, Area IV and Are a V. And there would be nothing to be concerned
about this small number. And also it is very importa nt information asked by
the scientists who are working on Antarctic ecosys tem.
That's about all that I wanted to respond to US, UK delegation and now I would
like to continue addressing to the proposal made by UK delegation .
Yes, there has been proposed United Kingdom re so lution and t he main word, key
word here is 'uncertainty'. I 'm a£ra id that this word uncerta inty becoming, is
becoming quite favourite word fo r this Commission . When you plan to carry out
research you say 'research result is uncertain' and then if we ask them, then
whether you know the s tock si tuat ion they say that stock situation is not
known, quite, it's full of uncertainty. Moratorium was adopted on the reason
by those peop le that sto ck situa ti on is uncertain. Then someone should do
something to find out real situation . We start, we should start researc h in
order to reduce the uncertainty, As I have mentioned, the situation we are in
you can carry out r esea rch es without any roo m fo r uncertainty. 'nxtt is the
situation. You need not carry out any re sea rch. I think those people who likes
word uncertainty, who likes to do no thi ng in research are people who doesn't
like science itself.
We are the ones who likes to see the science to advance, to narrow the
uncertainty and to increase our knowledge . I remember very clearly when we
have started IDCR research about 10 yea rs ago we are sort of laughed at by
this huge project. You'll be leading nowhere but we have sort of proved
through our 10 years ef fo rt, we have been reported from Chairman of Scientific
Committee about the finding this IDCR cruise . I think this estimate obtained
by IDCR sightings cruise is I think the solidest, or most solid, information
this Commission has and about which Commission can be proud of . Ten years ago
it was laughed at, it will lead nowhere. I think this applies present proposal
of ours .
And also, with respect to, perhaps I need not repeat similar example any
further. And, before concluding and presenting our amended proposal I cannot
conclude my statement without mentioning the fact that I examined vot ing as to
the pos iti on of various countries, starting yesterday afternoon. I recognised
16 countries who are consistently voting for the passage of various
resolutions, quite cons i stently, quite organised way, and I found 7 count ri es
out of them did not attend Scientific Committee meeting. Another 7, and 7
countries did not even submit Progress Report to the Scientific Committee. I'm
afraid without attending, without carrying out, without rep or t ing their own
re sea rche s whether they are qualif i ed to make judgement on such important
issues. As Chairman of Scienti f ic Committee 'has mentioned, distinguished dele,
distinguised scientists considered this matter quite long long time and quite
complicated issues are invo lved. Therefore I would like to make plea to fellow
delegates that those del ega ti on who likes to see th e science advance would
kindly support us and those delegations who be li eves that science, scien t ific
matter should not be decided by such categorical usage of force of majority
would support us and also those people who believe, those delegations who
believes that, as we have discussed yesterday, there is something incorrect in
connection with Article VIII legally speaking . Those people also please give
us your support. Thank you •
.And now I move to amendment we are to propose. Although we don't like the
proposal which made the basis of UK proposal, therefore I have some hesitation
even to amend proposed amendment to this proposal . That is, IWC/39/47. Again
there has been mistake about: the Japa nese proposal for scientific catches
143
281Annex 35
proposed by amendment to the resolution on th e UK pr oposal. There has been
some confusion. I believe that amendment to the resolution so and so on the OK
proposal for scientific catches proposed by Japan to read as fo ll ows; to
delete three operative paragraphs and insert instead
agrees to defer the consideration of the Report of the Scie ntific
Committee concerning ~ research program of Jap311am any action arising
relating to it mtil the 40th hmual Maeting of the Q:mnission.
Thank you.
The Chairman
Thank you, Commissioner for Japan. Does anybody second this amendment? The
Commission er for Korea.
Korea
Yes, I second it.
'l'be Olairman
And Norway. Thank you. Ic eland. I'm sorry, are you seco nding the amendment,
Commissione r for Iceland? Thank you. The Commissioner f,or the Soviet Union.
USSR
Second.
'lbe Olai.rman
Seconding the amendment, yes .
USSR [interpretati on]
May I say why I support it .
Yes, please.
USSR [interpretation]
It's not only that I would like to second the amendment by the Japanese
Commissioner but I would l ike to say a coupl e of words as regards this point .
We studied the scientific program developed by Japan. It conta ins very, er
very serious intentions of research meant for the near future and for the next
years. Science is such an area when we cannot do without conflicts and
arguments and the Japanese Commissio ner "!as ri ght when he was saying that
we'll nev er know th e truth unless we carry out specific research. The
essential points of knowing the dynamics of whale stocks is that we must know
the re cruitment, the mortality and the growth of the stock and rather than
delve into arguments scientists first should carry out fie ld resear ch and this
is exactly what the Japanese program under consideration is meant to achieve.
It is therefore the, the USSR also supports this program.
The Chairman
Thank you . Commissioner for Ice la nd .
144
282 Annex 36
36. Verbatim Record (12-16 June 1989) pp. 108-110, 116
INrERNATI ONALWBAI.INGCOMMISSION
4Is t AIINIJAL MEETING
San Diego, Callfo rni a, USA, 12 - 16 June 1989
VERBATIMRECO ltD
283Annex 36
Chait:man
Thank you the Netherlands. Sweden.
Sweden
After having considered comments made in the Scientific Committee, roy
delegation thinks that there are still unresol ved problems r e garding the
methodology and overall objectives in the proposed Japanese Research Programme
inv olving takes under Special Permit. In some of the discussi ons of the
Scientific Committee it has been expressed that eve n if random samples can be
obtained, the proposed research is not likel y to achieve it s objectives of
esti mating age specific natural mortality and net recruit ment of the st ock
with any precision.. More importantly, the develo pment of new management
procedures which is carried out by t he Scie n ti fic Committee as one of its most
important tasks in the Comprehensive Assessment i s moving t owa rds procedures
that do not depend on estimates of such biological parameters as nat ural
mortality and net recruitment. This means that even if the objectives of the
Japanese Research Pro gramm e co uld be met, the information obtained will not be
essential fo r rational management nor does it facilitate the Comprehensive
Assessment. Thus we do not consider the proposed take to fully sat isfy the
criteria specified in the 1986 and 1987 Resolutions on Special Permits. We
therefore support a pro pose d Resolution the text of which we have agreed to in
elaborate negotiations to try to reach a consensus although we would ha ve
liked to see some stronger formulations. However, since we have th e floor we
would like t o take the opportunity, like Nethe rl and s , to express our
appreciation for the sighting surveys carried out by Japan for many years
which do contribute import ant information for the Comprehensive Assessment.
Thank you Hr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you. I have two speakers on my l ist. Japa n and New Zea land. Japan.
Japan
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Japan has presented the Research Programme to the
Scientific Committee in 1987 to which comments wer e made by the member s of the
Scientific Committee as rega r ds the possibility of collecting the samples
representative of the total population. That was one point, and another po in t
made was the pos sibility of separation of M from RY. For the first point we
have made th e fe asibili ty study conducted in t he Antarctic in 1987/88 season,
1988 / 89 season which resolve d that problems of collecting the samples
re prese ntative of the population and tha t part we believe has been r esolve d.
The second point, we have dev el oped a methodology to have the way of
separation of M from RY and theref or e tw o cr itical points have already been
resolved. As regards the second point of separating M from recruitment, as
have been point out by Dr. Fortom Gouin of Antigua & Barbuda earlier, we have
asked the mos t authoritative expert in this f ield in Japan and of the wor ld,
Dr. Nakamura, and t ha t part has been seriously looked into an d h as been
studied and we have a very promising res ol ution of t hat pro blem. Howeve r,
some scient ists have not received the mes sage of thi s s tory by Dr. Nakamur a
and persist on opposing to hi s method and I deep l y regret that this is the
case.
I would not like t o state what has been presented by th e Chai r man of the
Scientific Committee. However, I would like to point out that by the result
of the preliminary studies conducted by Japan for the two seasons we have
collected samples and ascertained that in the age composition of th e sam ple s
the highest ratio exists in one year old whales and t hen the ratio dec li nes as
the age goes higher Which means the s to ck is in a ver y healthy condition.
108
284 Annex 36
Such results clearly show that the data co llected by the commercial whaling
should be used with utmost caution as has been commented upon by Dr. Holt and
othe r scientists and other members of the Scien tific Committee, and we have
succeeded in collecting the samples representing the population by the
feasibility study taken for the past two seasons.
Another point we have found out by the result of the feasibility studies i s
that the younger animals tend to be distributed in offshore areas while the
mid dle to high age animals are distributed more heavi ly in the pack - ice ages.
Suc h pattern in the distribution ascertained would greatly contri bute to the
future management of the whale stocks.
Not only this informati on but also many other informati on obtained from our
feasibility study and research would contribute to the Comprehensive
Assessment which woul d not have been possib l e with the data collected from the
commercial whaling operations . I expect that there will be more information
f orthcoming as we progress in our analysis of the result of the feasibi li ty
studies .
Since the alternative management procedure is still under development and
would not be comple te d in short ti me, the current New Managemen t Procedure
would be used in some way, either revised or amended, for the time bei ng and
in that case our knowledge and information obtained from research would
greatly contribute to the manage ment.
Afte r hav i ng two seasons for feasibility studies implemented in the Ant arctic ,
Japan is now going to back to the original research plan presen t ed to the IWC
Scientific Committee in 1987 plus the amendment and modifications for
improve ment made on the sighting system and other parts of the programme. Any
constructive comments made at the Scientific Committee on this new programme
will be seriously taken into account bef ore the imp l ementation of this
programme when we go back to Japan.
I would like to sta t e again here that we encourage the participa t ion of any
scientists who would take interest in our research and we are looking forward
to receiving applications from thos e sc i entists who would be interested in it .
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my regrets that some
corners of the conservation movement claim that this very serious undertaking
by Japan is the disguise of commercial whaling and try to interfere in the
imp le menta ti on in the field of our research in th e Anta rctic .
One thin g I just cannot understand is that the sponsors of this Resolution are
almost al l former great whaling nations who depleted the great whale species.
I don't know about Switzerland, but most of t he sponso rs of this Resolution
should take responsibility to monitor what happened after the depletion to all
these wha l e stocks t and Japan is taking responsi bi l ity because we feel that
we are res ponsible t o monitor anything that is happening in the Antarctic .
I must say that the situat i on here in IWC is quite abnormal in that those
sponsors bus y themselves to prepare th i s Resolution before the presentation is
made by the Cha ir man of the Scien tifi c Committee. Should this abnormal
situation last then it will lead to the collapse of the very existence of the
Commission. I strongly call for the Commissioners' prudence to say no to this
Resolution and if that is difficult th en I call for the abstention of the
Commissioners.
109
285Annex 36
I have a very deep commitment and involvemen t in this plan of research and I
think this is a correct directi on to proceed. My belief is so firm that I
would go to the Parliaments of United Kingdom or Switzerland or Netherlands if
your Parliament is so strongly against our research, and if I could I would
very much l ike to see President Bush of USA to explain our position. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
Chainnan
Thank you Japan. New Zealand.
New Zealand
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think I could reassure the Commissioner for Japan
that New Zealand as a sponsor was never a great whaling nation. ~e di d indeed
provide the whaling grounds fr om which the ships of other countries took very
large numbers of whales but New Zealand itself took comparatively few so I
think I should make that clear.
Mr. Chairman, in the consultations that prece ded the submission of this
Resolution there was I believe a genuine a ttempt to find a text that we all
could live with and indeed a considerable number of obstacles were bridged.
It emerged, however, that ther e was one difference between us that could not
be overcome and th at centred around the operative paragraph commencing with
the word "co nsiders ". As New Zealand sees it, if t he program me fully
satisfies the criteria spec i fied in the two Reso luti ons, and those are the
criteria that have already been decided by this Commission, then one must
conclude that there is no need for a Reso lution. I f, however, the program me
does not fully satisfy the criteria, and this in our view emerges qu i t e
clearl y from the Scientific Committee Report, then we really have no choice
but to vote for thi s Resolution which invites Japan to reconsider the
programme. That Mr. Chairman is the basis f or New Zealand's vote in favour of
the Resolution. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
()lfjrm:rn
Thank you New Zealand. UK.
United Kingdom.
Mr. Chairman, I would l ike to make clear th at as in th e case of the Resolution
on the Norwegian programme, we are not here criticising an entire research
programme , we are only concerned with that part involved in the take of whales
and I should sa y that the extensive research done by J apan such as the
sightings survey are fully appreciated,
On the sampling part of the programme, I would observe that the work is
interesting and innovative, but I also note that on page 55 of th e Scientific
Committee Report that the author admits that further work is needed to develop
a procedure applicable to more rea l istic situations being underta ken so
perhaps there is some more work to be done before sampling takes place.
Turning to other aspects of the programm e which I think we recognise is
ambitious and is still in the process of being developed, and one has to look
through a series of papers and I recognise that the Government of Japa n have
made very great efforts to try and make more clear what the y are trying to do,
Initially there was research for age specific mortality and from this year we
have added in, or there has been added in, estimation of the number of one
ye ar old wha les being re crui ted with some other wider evidence. In th is
year's papers there is a third paper which emphasises age-specific mortality
while a fourth paper SCWPlS provides an overview that the objectives will
obtain by direct obser vation, the dependenc y of recruitment rate, t he
population replacement yield, etc. and also estimate MSY and the MsY rate.
110
286 Annex 36
Nowwe cannot fault the scientists for making the contr ibut ions they have made
in this Report, in fact we must applaud the contributions they have made, but
on the other hand I think there is probably something fundamentall y wrong in
the structure of the Scientific Committee, its operations, the role and the
contribution and what is expected of the individual scientists and the method
of reporting because Commissioners here and non-scientists have to make a
decision and have to come up with Resolutions based on what is contained in
here, deliberations, expressions by very fe w of the 92 scientists from the 16
different nations. So I am not at all surprised and this is why it is
expressed in the Resolution that there was not a unanimous view on the
scientific programmes. Fina l l y I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it i s
unfortunate that non-scientists f or the most part had to t ake a vote on
scientific iss ues. Thank you very much.
Cbainnan
Thanlt you. Are there any further comments? France.
France
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yesterday I asked to close the curtain because I had
some difficulty to see the Chair but it seems today it is the opposite
explanatio n proba bl y. Thanlt you.
Beyond the usual reservation from France on that kind of Resolution based on
legal matter of provision of Article VIII our disappointment this year is
deeper than usual. The reference of that document is IWC/41/ 28 Rev.2 and in
French r~ve means dream and for a while this morning I dreamt that we could
have reached a consensus becaus e we were so clo se to a consensus that really
we deeply regret that it was impossible to have it. It was a choice from
countries here not to accept that consensus. Of course I under s t and the
problem not based on scientific matters because we are not a scientific body
here, we ar e also a political body and we represent Governments. We are not
only to take into consi deration the scientific advice, we have to take care of
them of course, but we are more than that and that choice of the one made
impossible to meet the concern of others. For several years France's efforts
were made to fill the gap in that Commission, however everything is not lo st
and maybe t o finish my comment I will associate my de legat io n with the
comments made by Brazil and by Ice land that in the way everything was made
this year we can have some comfort of the situation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you France. India.
India
Thank you Mr. Chairman. In the light of what: my distinguished colleagues from
St. Lucia and Fran ce have menti oned vis-a-vis whaling and the decisions taken
by non-scientists and if this august body will just forg ive me for saying
something in lightweight. May I mention something that was said in respect of
war, that war is too serious a matter to be left with the Generals. Can
something similar be said about whaling and scientists?
Chai:onan
Thank you India. I think all comments wil l be recorded. Are t here any
fur ther comments? That seems not to be the case, I would like to echo those
praising efforts to reach consensus. This concludes our considerations for
Agenda Item 8 - Scientific Permits. I adjourn the meeting unti l 9.30a.m.
tomorrow morning when we will start with Agenda Item 15.2 and I call
Comm i ssioners to a Commissioner's Meeting in the Penguin Room at 8.30a.m. The
meeting is adjourned. Argentina
116
287288 Annex 37
37. Verbatim Record (24-28 June 1996) pp. 85-88, 172-173
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
48th ANNUAL MEETING
Aberdeen,K,24- 28 Jun e 1996
VERBATIM RECORD
The Red House
135 Station Road
Histon
Cambridge CB4 4NP October 1996
289Annex 37
USA
Thank you Chair. My delegation still notes that the proposed review of the Japanese research programme
which is operating in the Antarctic Sanctuary has not been undertaken. My delegation would therefore call
upon Japan to at least refrain from undertaking their new proposed research element until that review is
completed . We would also urge them to adhere to the spirit of the, and intent of the, Sanctuary which
sentiment was expressed in our Resolution last year by the Commission. Thank you .
Chairman
Thank you US. I have France and then New Zealand. France please.
France
Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a question addressed to the Chairman of the Scientific Committee.What
is in itprog~me of research regarding the Arctic region? · You remember, of course , the debate we had
on that issue last year, anwe -onvey to the Scientific Committee the need to focus part of its work on this
issue,the research in the Arctic region in close cooperation with other organisations dealing with that issue.
So I would like to know if our Chairman is able to give us some update on that question.
Chairman
All your Chairman will say at the moment is that I think it is item 15.3 so we will come to that at our next
agenda item .
I had New Zealand asking for the floor.
New Zealand
Mr. Chairman, New Zealand endorses the comments made by the United States.
Chairman
Thank you and Japan had asked for the floor and then Norway . Japan please.
Japan
Thank you Mr. Chairman . The Australian delegation stated that they are going to create a Resolution but
we would like to introduce our paper titled lWC/48/36. It's some comments on the past lWC Resolutions
and this is our comment because every year the similar Resolution is drafted and voted and adopted but
some kind oflegal consideration is necessary before creating such Resolutions so we would like to introduce
thisone if I am in order?
Chairman
I think you probably are but can I just ask Norway if the comment it wanted to make is sensible to make
before we take consideration of this paper or are you happto wait until afterwards?
Norway .
Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's a very short intervention so I think, if I'm allowed, I will make it now. I
would just like to remind the US and New Zealand that the reason that the review has not been undertaken is
that this Commission, in its meeting last year, did not give the intersessionalmeetings sufficiently high
priority and I hope it would be possible to have that intersessional meeting during the coming year.
Chairman
Thank you Norway for that comment. Japan, I think that now is a clear field, as it were, for you to introduce
your paper lWC/48/36 . Japan you have the floor please.
Japan
Thank you Chairman. This paper is the legal analysis of the Resolution on whaling under special permit last
year and that is number 1995-9, the Resolution. The reason to present this paper here is to avoid similar
mistakes of the Commission this year because some people allege that accumulation of the opinion to ignore
Article VIII could have some meaning simply because this is a expression of the majority view of the
Commission. Japan as a signatory nation of ICRW never accept this interpretation as the Article VIII is
ignored year after year, the failure of the, in compliance of the ICRW repeated under, is piling up under, the
situation of the Commission is getting worse and worse, so I would like to explain some reasons.
85
290 Annex 37
Under the Resolution of last year at the meeting, by itself, that stated arrangements have direct conflict with
Article VIII and therefore we should treat this particular Resolution in order to avoid a potential
infringement of other legally binding provisions of the Convention and its Schedule. This Convention has
not only conflict with the Article VIII but also it has conflict with the Reportf the Scientific Committee.
The Scientific Committee last year did not entirely deny the effectiveness of the lethal research but the
preamble of last year's Resolution say that lethal research is not necessary and this erroneous preamble
could lead the Commission debate in some difficult situation. So whether this preamble could have misled
the Commissioners, debate before the voting and so this is my second point
My third point is the Resolution last year also has a conflict with the Schedule of the Convention because
one operative paragraph stated that scientific research intended to assist comprehensive assessment shall be
undertaken by non-lethal means, but exactly the opposite recommendation was made in 1987 stipulating that
the research address question or questions that should be answered in order to conduct the comprehensive
assessment. So last year, without any scientific argument, this criteria was altered and so it is extremely
difficult so find a good faith interpretation and also the Contracting Governments,f acting as recommended
in 1995, may face a danger that action might violate the ·conditions stipulated in paragraph lO(e) because
paragraph I0(e) stipulated that this provisionill be kept under review based on the best scientific advice.
Also, one other programme is this recommendation recommend to comply with section 3 of the Schedule,
even in the research under Article Vlll , but the provision of section 3 of the Schedule are not applicablto
the research under special permit under Article VIII and this recommendation violates the right of
Contracting Governments. So, again finally, I would like to underline that the same kind of those mistakes
should be avoided this year or in the future because piling up the same kind of mistake would harm the
credibilityof the Commission.
I want to briefly respond to the comments made by the Netherlands. The distinguished delegation of the
Netherlands endorsed the comments made by some member of the Scientific Committee but in the Scientific
Committee there are some other members saying totally different things so some other member was
majorities so I don'tsee any validityof the comment made by the Netherlands. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
·hairman
Thank you Japan for this paper and your explanations. I am sure that any parties who are developing
Resolutions will take note of what you have introduced and hopefully use it in the best way that they feel
appropriate in [Taming their Resolutions and I am sure that if there are issues of debate there will be bi
lateral discussions with you on those issues of debate. Australia you are twitching your sign does this
indicate you want the floor?
Australia
I was really waiting for you to conclude your remarks Mr. Chairman but I did want to make a short
intervention if I could. We have had a fairly lengthy debate on a different legal issue this afternoon and there
was quite a cogent remark from the Commissioner for St. Vincent and the Grenadines, I think it was, on
legal opinions. I am sure, as you suggested, that those considering a Resolution on this issue will take note
of the Japanese position but we all have our own legal views.
Chairman
Thank you. United Kingdom please.
United Kingdom
Thank you Chairman. Well I would like to make a few comments on this paper. This Resolution was, in
fact, introduced last year by the United Kingdom and it was overwhelmingly supported, I think 23 countries
voted in favour of it. There are just a couple of observations I would like to make about the Japanese paper
and the remarks we have just heard. In the flfStplace, I think it is clear that this Resolution does not conflict
in any way with Article VIII because Article Vlll confers sovereign rights and we all appreciate that those
cannot be removed by a Resolution. Nevertheless, the Commission is entirely within its rights to make
recommendations to contracting parties as to how they might exercise those rights and this is what I think
this Resolution does so I don'tsee any conflict there.
The second point, really the development of modem scientific techniques and the whereas clause. I think
that it is important to read the whole of that provision which is talking about obtaining the information that
86
291Annex 37
is needed for initial implementation of the Revisep Management Procedure for a particular whale stock.
That wording was chosen with care after detailed discussions with a large number of scientists from the
Scientific Committee and as I understand it, and I think the Chairman of the Scientific Committee will
contradict me if I'm wrong, initial implementation of the RMP can be done with a relatively broad
knowledge of stocks which can be obtained by non-lethal means. It may well be true that if you were using
lethal means you could obtain more precise knowledge but that precise knowledge is not essential for initial
implementation of the RMP even though it might come inuseful later on. I think that the whereaSclausis
there to provide the reasoning for the operative paragraph which reCommends that scientific research
intended to assist the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks and the implementation of the RMP shall
be undertaken by non-lethal means. It provides justification for it and that is justification which was clearly
accepted by the overwhelming majority of contracting parties.
Finally, Chairman, I think you can hardly argue that there·is a conflict between this and the previous
Resolutions. It is quite clear from the Resolution that it is replacing the previous Resolutions. The
Commission took a view in 1986 and 1987 and it has now changed its mind and it has given different
instructions to the Scientific Committee that it is entitled to do. What I don'tthink the Scientific Committee
is entitled to diswhat the Japanese delegation suggested it should do in the Scientific Committee Report
which was basically to ignore this Resolution because it conflicted with the earlier Resolution which it
replaced. Thank you Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you United Kingdom. I am sure that in the development of any further Resolution this year there will
be reference to good sense indiscussion drawing on all of our wisdom I trust. Does anybody else wish to
make any observations on this issue. Japan please.
Japan
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, the fust point is not to relate to the debate being currently held, rather its to
response and followed by distinguished delegate from Norway that it'sJapan'sintention, as was so last year,
that we are pleased to have the JARPA review although we consider, even though this is written clearly in
the document, this is on a voluntary basis because this is research under Article VIII. We are very much
pleased to do so and this would be done prior to next year and the reason for the postponement of last year's
review was not because Japan didn'twant to but that was the decision made by the Commission for fmancial
reasons, officially, I don't know, the reason behind (.........?) which I get as information which I couldn't
say here.
Secondly, this is related to the response made by the UK. The UK frequently touched upon the
implementation of the RMS and importance of the, you know, safety implementation of the RMS. I am
confused to listen to, again, reading the opening statements, your comment is conflict of what you have said
and I further would like to seek your answer if you can provide us the useful sufficient information for say
implementing comprehensive assessment including stock identity and stock distribution and what so ever as
well as what is requested by this Commission and if source information shall be obtained to the non-lethal
means we would like to exactly know what would be the research design to be executed in a realistic manner
and realistic time framework to response to the question raised by the Scientific Committee as well as the
Commission and finally, you pointed that because of the conflict ofthe Resolution, last year'sResolution be
placed, previous Resolution of 1986 and 1987 for me it sounds very strange and inconsistent. The
Convention has never changed since 1946 whereas Resolution has changed. I see if the Resolution has
changed this·mu st inconsistent, maybe a previous one could be interpreted into inconsistent or current one
could be inconsistent with the Convention itself. In my interpretation of course the later is right. Thank
you.
Chairman
Thank you Japan. I don't really what to open up the topic for discussion although I am sure it would be
interesting. I think I would only make the observation that Resolutions, because of their nature, are likely to
be mutable from time to time and that ina sense is one of the ways of which we have internal governments
but you have raised some points that you might need, with your delegation, to discuss with the UK
delegation to gain some clarification.
87
292 Annex 37
Once again I would exhort that if we are to have consideration of a Resolution under item 14.2, that if it is to
be a new Resolution, that it be developed as widely as possible althouIwould understand that under item
14.2 it is unlikely to beany sense a consensus type of Resolution.
Iam ready for a cup of tea and I'msure everybody else is, so unless anybody wants to continue with item 14
I propose we now leave the item and adjourn for tea, resume at 15.00, when we will start with item 15 and
US you are asking for the floor?
USA
Yes Chairman. I just beg your indulgence, on Saturday at the Aboriginal Subsistence Sub-committee, the
US had a very ........... [endape].
[TEABREAK]
Chairman
Delegates I would like to resume the plenary it being a little after 16.00. We will commence our business
15. now with agenda item 15 which is scientific research. There are a number of items to be considered here.
15.1 15.1 deals with research proposals and under this item the Scientific Committee will report on future
research activities which it believes our attention should be drawn and thatould support so I now hand
over to the chair of the Scientific Committee. No I don't hand over, yes I do hand over. I wish people
would nod and shake, to explain to us about 15.1.r. Reilly please.
Scientific Committee Chairman
15.1.1 Thank you Chairman. The Scientific Committee presented its results under this item to the Finance and
Administration Sub-Committee and I assume that you will have received that through their Report. I can
make any clarifying statements or answer any questions that Commissioners would like to point in my
direction.
Chairman
Thank you. You are quite right and perhaps in the past we might have done 15 after we would have done
15.1.2 the other one. Can I ask if there is any delegation that has any specific questions that they would wish to
raise with those itemshich might be dealt with here? No, in which case we will deal with themif we have
to and I hope we don't under the Report of the Finance and Admin Committee. That then takes us on to 15.2
15.2
which is conservation of whale stocks. 15.2.1- Report of the Scientific Committee there please.
ScientificCommittee Chairman
15.2.1 Thank you Chairman. From the notes to your agenda Mr. Chairman it seems that this is the place for us to
report to you on our discussions on our so-called research programme for large baleen whales which at
present is directed towards research on blue whales and you will find our discussion on this item beginning
on page 22 of our Report IWC/48/4.
The first topic we considered concerned progress with acoustic studies. Last year the Committee had
encouraged further research and development leading towards incorporation of acoustic techniques into
Southern Ocean blue whale surveys. The Committee welcomed the report of a feasibility study combining
visual and acoustic survey techniques that was undertaken off California. The Committee considered a
number of questions relating to the advantages and disadvantages of acoustic and visual surveys as you can
see on our page 22.
We now have a recommendation for you Mr. Chairman. The Conunittee recommends that developmental
work should continue together with work to develop a theoretical and practical framework for combined
visual acoustic assessment surveys.
The Committee then went on to consider the Report of the Japan IWC Blue Whale Cruise and this is item
9.1.2 of our Report. As proposed last year, the cruise was conducted to the south of Australia as a joint
venture between Japan and the IWC with cooperation from Australia and the USA. Its main aim was to
obtain scientific information relevant to developing shipboard identification methods for separating the so
called true and pygmy blue whales. Research techniques used included skin biopsy, photo-identification,
photogrammetry and acoustics. The cruise was successful in meeting the primary objective of locating
concentrations of blue whales but the number of biopsy samples obtained was low and photogrammetry
proved difficultMr. Chairman. Most blue whales were tentatively identified as pygmy blue whales.
88
293Annex 37
Committee operates like a Scientific Committee sl)ould operate, as it has been doing the last few years,
perhaps except for a few members of that Scientific Committee, then we have no problems with this
operative paragraph. But if,as happened In the early 80s, discussions were delayed from one year to the
next,to the next, in a series of delay operations which this operative paragraph may open to and then, of
course, this will destroy the Commission and the working of the Commission.
We have strong reservations about the possibilities here for a delay operation for COWltrieswho are opposed
to whaling but don't want to say that in other terms or want to use the 'scientific Committee as a tool for
their political objectives andtope that those of you who have experience from this Commission will know
what I am referring to, the discussions about the classification under theRMP for different stocks of
different whale species etc. Here,we have the feeling in this meeting that we have a kin.d of trying to get a
kind of delay operation into the endorsement of the Scientific Committee and this is a strong reservation on
the-Norwegian point which I would like to have recorded in the Report of the meeting.
Chairman
Thank you. Well I think I can conclude that we have an egg-shell consensus on lhis Resolution but I hope it
will be a strong enough shell,s most of them usually are,to allow us to make progress on it The Secretary
has suggested we might like to think of who would Chair the proposed group and so I plant that seed in
Commissioners' minds.
It's actually now 12:25 in contravention of my other statement I wonder if we can have a brief break for
lunch because at the very least my stomach has told me that we shouldn't actually plough on and I don'I
really want to faint at the desk. So, could we have a maybe 35 minute break and resume just after I:00. Are
Commissioners happy with that? Delegates happy with that? Ch ile.
Chile
Yes, Iam sorry but could we follow this session for at least half an hour and stop at I:00 or something like
that. I mean ifthe majority think that we should stop now it's alright but we would like to request maybe to
follow the session foralf an hour. Thank you.
Cha irman
Netherlands.
Netherla nds
Thank you Chairman. I vlas just wondering whether you could explain the reasons for your proposal in
terms of the time that you think that is required to finish our work.
Cha irman
Weill see we have four Resolutions. Experience would suggest that not all of them will necessarily be easy
or brief and I thinifwe actually have a brief break for a snack and resumed at around 1:00 we will all be a
little bit more refreshed and therefore not fractious when we come to some of these Resolutions and some of
our other issues and we can still finish quite early this afternoon in my view with, of course, a.IJyour
cooperation. Besides which, a number of my organs are complaining and I therefore actually adjourn this
meeting for 35 minutes. We will resume at 13:00 hours. Thank you.
[LUNCH BREAK]
Chair man
Delegates our meeting is resumed. I know that a number of delegations have to catch flights quite early this
afternoon so we tryand be as expeditious as we can with our work. 1didn't fonna lly close item 12 when I
broke for lunch which is perhaps slightly fortunate because Ireland has asked me to make the following very
brief statement which is that Ireland wishes to record that it accepts consensus on the Resolution that was
passed by consensus just before lunch but draws attention to the fact that Ireland retains its reservations on
Resolution 1994-5. It doesn't change anything we've done but simply another statement.
That said, I think we can close item 12 and move to now item 14 which is Special Permits. There is a
14.2 Resolution IWC/48/40 dealing with agenda item 14.2. It is headed "Draft Resolution on Special Permit
172
294 Annex 37
Catches by Japan" proposed by Australia with a number of other countries. May I ask who is to introduce
this. Australia pleaseyou have the floor.
Australia
Thank you Mr. Chairman. This Resolution deals with the issue of special permits for scientific research .
under Article VIII of the Convention. In addition to those countries listed on the top of IWC/48/40 as the
proposers of the Resolution, Brazil and France have asked that their names be added to that list.
Mr. Chairman, I have said on a number of occasions during the week that Australia has a strong
commitment to seeking world-wide protection for all cetaceans. Australia along with many others does not
support or condone the use of provisions of Article VIII of the Convention for research involving the killing
of whales. We are opposed to the use of research techniques that involve killing whales. We hold the view
that with modem techniques , almost all the information essential for the management and conservation of
cetaceans can be gained using non-lethal methods. We have a particular concern where permits granted
under national legislation to take whales for scientific purposesr those provisions of Article VIII appear
by their scale and nature to subvert the intent of the moratorium on commercial whaling.
Mr. Chairman, as many Commissioners will recall, Australia was one of the sponsors of the proposal that
led to the creation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. We have subsequently initiated and supported non
lethal research activities on cetacean stocks in the Sanctuary. We note that the Commission in Resolution
1995-8 expressed the view that research in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be undertaken using non
lethal means. It requested Co~tract Paitigs refrain from issuing Special Permits for research involving
the killingof whales in such Sanctuaries. We note also that the Commission, as in Resolution 1995-9,
agreed criteria against which the Scientific Committee should assess and provide advice on Special Permit
research programmes. That Resolution also recommended that Contracting Governments refrain from
issuingany Permits which do not meet these criteria.
Mr. Chairman, we note that Japan has expressed doubts about the legality of the Resolution as adopted by
the Commission last year and in relation to the decision to establish the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. In
draftig this Resolution we have endeavoured to take account of the Japanese concerns. However, I must
stress that we do not consider this to be a legal argument. We do recognise the provisions of Article VIII of
the Convention.
Nevertheless Mr. Chairman, a very large majority of Commissioners have expressed deep concern at Japan's
continuing proposals to conduct lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and in the North
Pacific. They have previously urged the Government of Japan, in exercising its sovereign rights, to refrain
from issuing Special Permits for research involving the killing of whales.
We note, with great regret, that the Government of Japan has chosen not to heed those requests and that in
fact the numbers of whales taken has increased in recent years. Furthermore, Japan has proposed that as part
of its 1996/97 Research Programme, to again issue Special Permits to take up to 440 Southern Hemisphere
minke whales from within the boundaries of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and 100 North Pacific minke
whales. Mr. Chairman, this Resolution notes that neither Proposal for a Special Permit in 1996/97 has been
found to meet the criteria established under Resolution 1995-9. It requested the Government of Japan
reconsiders and restructures its research programmes so that all its objectives can be met using non-lethal
means. It also urges the Government of Japan to refrain from issuing Special Permits to take minke whales
in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and in the North Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, we sincerely trust that the Government of Japan will recognise and acknowledge the views of
the large majority of Commissioners, that it will heed this request and that it will act in accordance with the
Resolutions of this Commission. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman
Thank you Australia. New Zealand had indicated that it wished to take the floor on this issue.. New Zealand
please.
173
295296 Annex 38
38. Verbatim Record (20-24 October 1997) pp. 5, 139
1
ln tt>rn ational Wh aling Commission: 49 b Annu al :vlt>tt> ing
20-24 Octob t> r 1997, .\1onaco
OPDTI G PLL'O.\RY SI:SSIO::\ :\10~. -Y\ 10 OCTO B£R 1997
Cltoir1110o
.....• ..... wt batbr e1.'m greater pleasure of some opening words being ptO\ided ro us ro belp gwde our
clt=oos iu lbe cowing week by His Serene Highness, Priuce Raini er. who will now offtr uU.. opening
a~.ss.
1. ADDRESS or W I.LCO J\IE I
Printt R.'\init•·
P'resir ~Cowmissiooers, Dele gates. Ladies and Gentlemen.
Iwuh •II lilt participants to the AnnualM~t in og the fntema ri·onal Wbalin.gCommission wrum \\'elcome.
TIU$" the 6nt tirue tltat our cotmtry bas tile privil ege to host the Co nunission, and wt hope that your stay will
be a.pr·oductivt and enjoyable as pos;ib le on our few acres of land, nruTowly botmded by t\ ltainand tilt
Mtdite>tanean Sea,
Geograp hy oftto dictotes de51iny.iustile case of !his country, whi.ch for cecrurits hu largely reW..dseo
for its st.n'i\'al.• explains \\bywe take •uchan intere.;t in maritimaffuirs. TIUis abo a tiuw!y traditio n
dailllback to lhe14"'croturywbenoneof my ance.;torsRainier !" , walheGren1 Admiraloflbe Freochfleet.
Today ,despitt 1l$swall siz;e. out tenitory hom a l1lriou\·ariety of marine im:tintttoknO\\U wol'lct..'""ld.t
lUil01lwhich lbeInteruaticm.al Hydrographic Organisati on, the Intemario ual Laboratory on Marine R.adioacii\il)'
and theEuropean Oceano logy OIY.>en-taory.
This scienti6c orieclatiISic many ways alegacy of my greatgrandfather, Albett 1""no was. asyou blow. a
pi~ iuthe fitld of octaoograpbyand spent many years ofhis life asea at thtbtlm of some 28 sciOilllfic
<llll>"'P' -& was runocg the first acruaito study \\hales intbe field, all tway from Gibta.ltarand tbe
Az.ores tolbt Spittberghlaods,and was oue of !he founders of !he Arctic CowmissiocIt was bt "no decided
tbe eoostrucboo oftbr magnificect Oceanographi cMuseum wbere }'01;perutht lastftw d.t )'Itwas bt also
\\110en~ u lbt fO<l<ldul2residem of !he IntercatiouScientifu:CommisSlon forlht ~an S.a .It is
6111DglbatlbtDU-.clors ofthesem·o institutiootoday lead our delegation to lht IWC.
!I " lbtrtfor-..ith a certain amount of experiecc e. in lOla! independence , and wifeetfirmlygro~ "'
SCJ:eDCe. lba"~ carefullydefine out pcsitiom on wbalicg issue<;, Thtse issut• have grown iucreUU!gly
complex. <ocowpa.sing questions of internaliocal trade. sustainame, abonginal rights, oationa00\'erei!"'Y
anunal \\'tlfare . Incan uoderslaod that consensusisrarelyrea.chedin your a3Setl!bylFor )'Oirefioct• rich
<ulruro.lmosaic-..ittoday strikingly differing modes of relali10 the wor ld of whales thawaslbt cue 50
}'earsago.
Let us reGo.llfor a moment !bat not so long ago most of tbe countries represlitrewere acri\'ely engag-ed w
\\>haling. fndetthe 1948 Washiugton Convention \\-'negoriated by most of iu parties to prorect rwb.aling
inrtresl.$. not to indefini tely thetwltales. There have been radicashifu in rh!.uking since. and at happens
thatm:Uly 11tions ha•·traded !heir whaling practi iusfavotlt oh very .,, rang constr\'Otioc elhics. Yet othen
"'""' tlll\tU ilirb·adtiocal ttaclunent to \\ha ling.
On each side valid argumentsru·to be heard. but not without significant cultural biaThis$tu·ely affects tilt
obJtciJVity of the decision-making proces;. and in the end carries tile risk of tindenu iniug the credrbrliry of the
1\VC. We believt that deci.siocs oo wltaling should be based oo cooservation couudel·.t iou• aloce . with due
l't-1.>t-pfeoctightof other nations to follow their ou.u cultu.Assit stands now, the reuse eoullibetv.'etU
the wh.1ling and anti-whaling coalitiocs, each entrenched in tlleir finn resolve and con•ic tioos. looks OlOreand
lllOrelikt a«uo-winsituation.. ... forwhales alas.
5
297Annex 38
Chair·man
Thank you Japan. I think it seems very clear that there isn't a possibiliiy to adopt this Resolution by consen sus
and therefor e we need to see whe ther we do adopt it or not by proceeding to a vote. I would like to ask the
Secretary if he would conduct the \·ote on this Reso lution which you ha\·e in paper TWC/49/36 Draft Reso lution
on Special Peruut Catch es in the Southent Ocean by Japan. Secr etary could you conduct the \'Ole please.
Antigua you m·e asking for dte floor .
A nt igua and B:u ·buda
Mr. Chai rman just before we proceed to the \'Ole Antigua and Barbuda wou ld like to Yoice its opinion on this
Reso lution. Mr. Chair . yesterday we saw and witne ssed a \·iciou s attack on the Scientific Comnutte e of rwc
by some member s of tlus able body . \Ve saw. Mr. Chair. a few days ago we were recommending that the
Scientific Comnutte e establish stronger links with the arumals Comnuttee of the IUCN . We see now Mr.
Chairm an that our same Scientific Comnuttee is admitting the usefuhtess of the research that is takittg place irt
the Southem Ocean s. The need for some lethal killing irt order to accomplish certain goals of this research . Mr.
Chair. a Yote for this Reso lution is an irtdictment against the Scientific Colll111ittee of tlus organisationMr.
Chairmatl. A vote for this Resolution is sendirtg a message to th e Scientific Comnuttee that dtey are only needed
when it is irt the interest of some member comttries of tltis orgarusa tion Mr . Chai r. We cannot expect our
Committee to deYelop stronger links with other Committees of other organisations when we ourseh ·es m·e
rejectirtg om Comnutt ee. Charity begirts at home and tmless we show respect for the Scientific Com nutt ee by
respecting its opinion on tlus research progrmnme we are irtdictirtg our Scientific Conmuttee and sugge srittg to
them that they may as well close shop up. I am appealittg to fellow Connni ssioners irlSide here to realise tlus
process and realise the dyna nucs of this process and the dattger irt wluch we at·e pm suirtg this proce ss befo re we
cast our Yote on tlus issue Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chair ·man
Thatlk you Antigua and Barbuda . I see a coup le of additional people asking for the floor. I had thought that we
had tmder stood that debate was to be at a nlliunnu n. Russian Feder ation you wish the floor ?
Ru ssian Fl'dH a tion
Thatlk you Mr . ChairUian. We at·e alwa ys supporting the scientific researche s which haYe the end to estab lish
tlus scheme of the stock ruanagement so therefore this Resolution . Thank you Mr . Chairman .
Chair ·man
Thatlk you Russian Federation. I tlllilk the views are therefore clear.It just reirtforces by O\Vll Yiew that we
should proce ed to a vo te on tlus issue and I ask the Secretary now to do so please.
Sl'Cl''t:u·y
Mr. Chairman the propo sal before the Conmus sion is the Resolution irt docmnent TWC/49/36 a Draft Resolution
on Special Pemut Catc hes in the Southem Ocean by Japan . A Resolution of this namre require s a simple
majority of those votirtg for or against to be adopt ed. Following om rolling stan the role starts at St. Lucia . St.
Lucia . St. Lucia - no: St. Vincent and the Gren adirtes - no: Solomon Islands - no: South Africa - yes: Spain -
yes: Sweden - yes: Switzer land - yes: UK - yes: USA - yes: Antigua and Bm·buda - no: Argentirta - yes: Australi a
- yes: Austria - yes: Brazil - yes: Clule - yes: People 's Republic of China - no: Demnark - yes: Donllitica - no:
Finland - yes: France - yes: German y - yes: Grenada - no: Ireland - abstain: Japan - no: Republic of Korea -
abstain: Mexico - no: Monaco - yes: Netherland s - yes: New Zealand - yes: Nor\\·ay - no: Oman - absent: Russian
Federa tion - no. Mr. Chai mtan there were eighteen votes in fa\·om. ele\'en votes agairlSt with 2 abstentiotlS so
that Resolution is adopted.
Chair·man
Thank you. We are still on that same Agenda Item 14. As I irtdicated there was a second Resolutio n.
Resolution TWC/49/37. The Netherlands has already irtdicated it would like to introduce tlus Resolution and I
wou ld now like to ask Netherland s to so do please.
:'lli'th l'r·land s
Thank you Mr. Chairutllll . I would like to also on behalf of a munber of other commie s wluch you fmd at the top
of paper 39/36 to addt·ess the other research programme im·olving the killing of whales which is the Japanese
Reseat·ch Prog!'amme irt the North Pac ific. Tlus Programme started two years ago and apparently it is beconling
139
298 Annex 39
39. Verbatim Record (24-28 May 1999) pp. 5, 152-153
\ IRRillMRECORD
51 A'.\i\"UALMEEIINGOFlEE MIR!"XUIO:'i.'\1W. li-U.E'<GCQ.\IMISSIO:"
GRDCID.\ ~28MAY 1999
OPil.\'[\SESSIO:"
MONDAY24UW
1. ADDRESSOF\\!LCOME I
Prime ~fini DrK ert Mitchell
Good morning. Onbehalf of the Gove1mandtpeople ofG renada, itdi.cy.tliena<t~w1tceme
you to this island. Weareindeed honoured to host this very iop>mu t iutematiooal meeting. As you are
aware.preparations for 51" ssion of the International Whaling CommisSion have beenuudenvay in
Grenada for severnl days.
I have no doubt that participants of the Scientific Committee Meetings hav1>been be1·eto prepat" for this
most iruportatgatheringandthat you have come to appreciateou:rbeautifulcou.ctryand our wann
hospitality.
Ladies and gentlemen, for more- thfiftyears the- IWC has been addressing the ·various issues
sturotwding the 1""5e1v ation of the world's "'hale ;tocks. During that pe1iod tbe1·ehave been .substantial
changes inthemethodsusedtogatherandanalyseapproprte datInother-words. as\vithall otherare-as
of nanttal resource management, the. work of the Commission has lten lllfluenced by tecbnoloiT .
Computer sinmlatiousnd otbe1·technological advances have aided the Commission in cauyiug out its
duties.
Ho\veve.r, aftermorethanfive decadesthebalancebe.tweenconservation.audh.11ves,tbetweeneconomics
and politics, between emotion tUloo·=diug continues to challenge this important body. These
challenges. however. should oot. serve as a deten:entbut in~ toa.uias you cany out your
de.J.i~ bevrrtteioxufewyeas.t...
G!..nada. as a small islaud developing nation ..ubraciug the c.urreut United Nations Food aud Agriculture
Orgamsation'sP13lof Action fosustainingn1.1ree.orces. \Ve consider tPlanof Action to be.
extremely impoltaut, particularly since it acknowledges the plight of the fis h ;tocl:.s caused by illegal
unregulatedandunreportedactivities.
We, in G!·enad.,, therefore recogniSe that without long tenn aud ;u;tainable sn·ategies, will ruu the 1isk of
depleting these valuable natural resources. We also understand, ladiesthat the method; by
which each indiv-idual nation is able to tr.uJslateglobal objectives into international action will indeed vary.
This applies to aUa;pec.ts of the industry including safety measures. the implementation of harvest seasons
for particular species, the genernl presetVation of the marine entironmen andacistance training
forour hardwo!lcfishfnnen.
ludeed,in G!..nada we ha,., adopted measures for applying selec.tive fishing gear and methods. This is
enablingus to avoid theproblems associated withover.barvestingtargeted species, as well as.harvesting
untargetedspecies.
Itmustbe understood. there.fore, thatcoastalstates likeGrenadahavenochoice b~tresourcest
from th;ea.Additionally, our tourism indusby includesrecreatioual use oftbe sea.
lu othe1·warda, ladies and gensisterandbrothers, the C.'UibbeanSea is a integral part of our overall
food sectuity strnteiT. j it is "" inte,gral towism~or. We recognise and understand that
5
299Annex 39
Thankyou UK. Are !hereany olher commen ts on this paper? In that case we "note thepaper. Can I
move on to agenda item14.3.2and r ,·egot two Resolutions . The first one is IWC/51/48. New .Z..aland
~...-Zd ealan
Yes, Mr. Cbainnan, !his Resolution really Oll!ydoes onedepending on ho\\'you \i ew it. rwthings. It
.u.ksth-eScientific Commi.tttt tcUl.SVtjustm·o questiotu in respect ofillre.:Sc.uchconducted under
special pennits.Itdoes not specify what those answers utight be and it certainly doesn't dictate what they
should be. The preamb le to the Resolution equally simply recorda the relevant provisions of the
Convention anditsSchedue l . Theinformatin is soughtforthisCommission to enableit responsiO ly to
review the various scientific progrannnes that are being conducted under Arvmcleof !he Convention.
The information, Sir. ihighlyrelen.n so that we willknow whelher thedata that is being obtained by
lethal research is requiredmanagementpurposes..... [Endof Tape]........ the Vel}same questio::that
the Council for International Organisations of Medical Science.s asks of its members and that is the
information, Mr. Chairman. that shoold enable us to make our judgementsacc doin~ onythe scientific
programmes that come before ns.~ -Chairm aac.ople ofyears ago Iwas criticised bone delegate for
ha\lig raised these issues. isverydear now thatitdoesn't troubleotherinternationao lrganisationsto
raise these questions . I\'0!}dear that they do in fact askthem and I belie\·e that we should do likewise.
I urge support for the Resolutio n.
Chairtnan
Thankyou New Zealand. Any othet"commen ts on !his Resolution? Again can I ask that we presun:.e the
co-<ponsorssupport New Zealan d.Chairman of the ScientiC-ommittee.
Ch.U'IDJlllftheScicatificComutitt«'
Mr. Chairman, I am not dear whether !his Resolutio n replaces pre\·ious Resolutioni;oin additicn t.l
them. Perhaps that could be clarified.
Chairman
Kew Zealand
~"" z'land
l\.1Chairman. it ;;,.eryclearly intended to be in addition to and not to replaany of the pre·nous
Resolutions.
Chairtnan
Thankyou New Zealand Any other comments? Can I aocept !his Resolution? Japan.
Japa n
Thankyou lvlr. Chairman. I am actually reluctant to take the floor but I have to speak_so ple<tseunders tand
my feeling but anyhow therei;information that can be obtained by the non-Jelhal methowell,butlhffe
is certain information that can only be obtained by !he lethal methodIn reality, anin fact there is
informatio n that can only be obtained through the lethal method to secure the accuracy and signasi=ce
well as the statistically signific.ant and useful information, and if yon oultheanon-lethal method
available that could be quite limited in a scope. For esamp le, the information from the standalone case,
single case, exceptional casemaybe from a vexy special stranded case or maybe incidentally-taken whale
case andso forih. Such information. for example_ includes the information on age or the speed o-fthe
growth or the degreeof maturity or the state of pregnanc y or !he degree of pollution and sofonh, thatrould
only be obtained through the lethal research.
E\·ento elucidate the stock sttucture fro.m a practical standpoint when you tlrink of thesizeto be
collected and so forth, the lethal method is really requiSo lhese are the information that are quite
necessazyfortheimprovementof thestockmanagementandto elucidate thestatusof thestock, andalso
the infoimation require-dfor the safe manage.ment of the cetacean resowces, and so these are:the
informationthatcan only be-obtainedby theJapanese researchacti\!itie-isn theAntarcticaswell as m the
Norlh Pacific. I would really like to see any plan for the non-lethal project wbich could obtain !his kind of
information that is c.urrently only obtained by the lethal method, because non~htehamlethods could
152
300 Annex 39
evere-lucte theecologyandstatusof thewhales w1eecologic.ali:bainortheec.ologyore<.osystem,
ortoelucidateandimprovethe safemanage.memoftheresourc-esaswell asutilisationandsoforth. Ifsuch
a prgJ"ammeplansareavailablewewouldlike thatto be indicated andproposedandtosee itimplemented.
So if such a plan is available by using non-lethal methodplease indicate andpropose here. Thmf ore I
would like to appeal here.that we shouldhave the realistic standpoint realisticview, to pass the c.onect
accurate judgementbe.re. Thankyou.
Ch~inn.w
ThankyouJapan. Monaco.
~fuoaco
Mr. Chairman,I want to reacttowhat Japanjust saidasaco-spoRe~l otni.Jopan impl:esthat
lethal tsofwhales onthescale whichif it iscanied out isdonefor validexperimentalpwposes. I think
this is au important butvety controversialpoint of view and actually as everyoneknows in this roomat
least, the looseregulationsonscientificwhalinghavebeenthesubjectof much debatein theIWC andalso
in thescientificliterature.. Youat tscientificevidence.injournals such NatureandScience and
you will understandclearly what I am refening to. As you know. manyof u.d that·.vhales
continue to be kille.d to that exte.ut unnec.essari1yin the name of scie.nce. We. see no justification to
'scientificwhaling'ate.~t ennto that scalam.not saying thatcertain questionsc.aedbe.aru\lf·re
entirelyby noJ.ll.e..thal take-s,I amjustquestioning. and sodoesa largefconnntn o~w.ityientific
thefactthatJapanisresortingtolethaltakestosuchadege e.
Finally, I willjust saythat non-lethalmethodsofresearch, theydevelopveryquicklyover thepast decades
and they have supplantedthe need to kill whaleinst eangcnetic samples fskinb:opsies
fromfoe'dlsesnowproducea wealth of information on thingssuch as stoi:-k structure, andwe.addressthis
que.sti.onin thefoamproposediutersessionalWo.r.tmderadifferentagenda items\\icome
back to that becauseweinkthere is .muchwork to do on this issuebecause arenotclear.
This iacontroversial issue and it aedear answer. Finally, Iwilljust draw also theatten:ion of
this assembly in the papers on ethical considerations that not only the.It.m~tioalor
Organisations of Medical Sciences madesome.ve.ryvalid pointbut alsoonpage2 ofthe CotmcilDirective
ofthe.European Comm.tmitwhichstatdear lthat the Commissionand memberstates, thisi:oncerned
at lea$t fifteen states innowU~should eucomage researc.hin the developmentand validation of
alternative techniqueswhich could proYide the same level of infonuatiou asinhlethalained
experiments. That'saUI havetosay, Mr.Chainnan.
Ch~inn.w
ThankyouMonaco. The.e.are.alarge numberof co-sponsorsfor thissoI canwe.accept it? Norway.
NormtY
As referred to.Mr. Chainnan,inthe firSt paragraphofthisResolution,e.verypartyto the Conventionhas a
righttoset quotas forscientificpurposesand we thinkthat'sarightthatshould be maintained..Wempport
theJapanese.\<ei.ws. ThankyouMr. Chairman.
Ch~inn.w
ThankyouNorway. Dominica.
Dominica
TJ.m.uyuuMt. Ch.Uuuau. Cltaiuuau,uu~Vtt:!<tthI .oli~toIO..UJw}utlh~ptoy uo~ uf ll.ti~
Resolution in that t-.a.t.ing the ScientificCoiDillitteefor advice. Myconcem iswhat will theydo.
Willtheyabidebyiheadviceof theScientificCommittee• Thankyou.
Chairman
Thank you Dominica. Can I adopt this as a majority view and note the commentsmade? SeemsOK
Thank you. The next item fve got is Resolution IWC/51/49 andbeforeI ask somebodyto take.thefloor,
can I refer bac.kto COIWelnlts I made on MondaywhereI bad proposedto disallowResolutionswhichI
i:onsider to be at of something that was done last yeax. We tried out thisproi:edureparticularlyin
153
301302 Annex 40
40. Verbatim Record (16-19 June 2003) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record]
* The following text was transcribed from the IWC’ s audio record of the Annual
Meeting in 2003 by the Government of Japan since no official transcript of the record
is published by the IWC. Copies of the verbatim recordings (CD-ROMs) are deposited
in the Registry of the Court in accordance withArticle 50, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court.
The 55thAnnual Meeting of the IWC (16-19 June 2003)
AGENDA ITEM 12.2: Commission discussions and action arising – Draft
Resolution on Southern Hemisphere minke whales and special permit whaling
Monaco [15’47”-]
Surely, I do not wish to challenge, and actually no one has, the legality of takes under
scientific permits. But please allow me to strongly differ and strongly challenge the
view that this body should simply be happy to be a recording chamber. The question
here is one of scale. When our founding fathers allowed scientific permits, back in
the mid-40s, the understanding was that a number of individuals would be sufficient
to meet the legitimate questions at those days, in those times. Now we have heard
that several thousands of whales have been taken under JARPA in the past ten or
twelve years.
Dominica [18’22”-]
Dominica would like to commend Japan on the most valuable research condu▯cted by
the JARPAprogramme and would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we look forward
to the renewal of a similar programme like JARPA in the future, so as to allow us
to be able to continue to obtain valuable information on cetacean resources that will
allow us to be able to utilize such cetacean resources in a sustainable manner. Be it
for whale watching, be it for the use for food for mankind.
303304 Annex 41
41. Verbatim Record (28-31 May 2007) [transcript of the audio Verbatim Record]
* The following text was transcribed from the IWC’ s audio record of the Annual
Meeting in 2007 by the Government of Japan since no official transcript of the record
is published by the IWC. Copies of the verbatim recordings (CD-ROMs) are deposited
in the Registry of the Court in accordance withArticle 50, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court.
The 59thAnnual Meeting of the IWC (28-31 May 2007)
AGENDAITEM 10.1.4: Other – Commission discussions and action arising
Norway [4’33’’-]
The Minister of Environment of New Zealand, in his introduction of the resolution
on JARPA, claimed that the Scientific Committee had concluded that JARPA
programme has not produced any valuable science. This is not correct. JARPAhas
produced a large amount of valuable data and this was acknowledged by the JARPA
review meeting and also can be found in the report of the Scientific Committee. I
do certainly not agree with the Commissioner of Mexico, who is also a scientist, in
his strong criticism of the results. The results are valuable in two ways. One is that
it gives important information about the changes in the ecosystem in theAntarctic,
in theAntarctic Ocean. The other part is, and this relates to the text of the proposed
resolution, that it has certainly given information [inaudible] minke whales in this
Ocean, and that relates to the RMP on the stock structure of minke whales.
France [7’11’’-]
La France s’est toujours opposée à la chasse scientifique à la baleine, comme nous
l’avons fait remarquer par le passé. Or, le Japon continue de pratiquer ce type de
chasse controversée avec sa campagne de chasse JARPAII dans le sanctuaire de mer
australe, dont nous avons soutenu activement la création. Nous avons noté qu’une
réunion intersessionnelle d’évaluation des r ésultats du programme JARPA a été
organisée à Tokyo en décembre 2006, comme le président du Comité scientifique
l’a souligné. Nous avons noté, parmi les conclusions de cette r éunion, que
l’information la plus significative concernait le stock de petit rorqual antarctique,
comme l’a d’ailleurs indiqué la Norvège. Il est en effet apparu, qu’il y avait au
moins deux stocks de petit rorqual antarctique dans la zone d’ étude de JARPA, ce
qui infirme les zones actuelles de gestion de cette espèce. Cette information est très
intéressante et très importante, parce que de manière générale, ce sont précisément
des stocks qui doivent constituer les unités retenues pour la gestion. Toutesfois, nous
souhaitons rappeler ici, avec force, ce que nous avons toujours soutenu, qu’il n’est
nul besoin de tuer des baleines pour aboutir au même résultat. En effet, l’étude des
stocks est classiquement réalisée par l’alanyse génétique de biopsy de peau. C’est
pourquoi nous avons décidé de parrainer la présente résolution de l ’opposition
proposée par la Nouvelle-Zélande.
305Annex 41
Iceland [17’00”-]
The right to conduct whaling for scientific purposes is made very clear in our
Convention and I’m happy to see that that is at least generally recog▯nised here in
this forum. More than that, Japan’s scientific research is very useful, and Iceland
strongly opposes to the reasoning of the proponents of the draft resolut▯ion.
Saint Kitts and Nevis [21’36’’-]
Let me first of all congratulate Japan, the Government of Japan, for the extensive
research it is conducting and the valuable information it is providing to our
organisation and of course to the international community. In our view, this research
has allowed us to further extend and broaden our knowledge on life histories and▯
ecosystem dynamics of whales found. (…)
Japan has the right underArticle VIII to conduct research so is [sic] any country that
are [sic] members of this organisation.And Saint Kitts and Nevis takes [inaudible]
with some of the remarks that have been made by some commissioners by calling
Japan’s research programme “so-called” research, scientific whaling without giving
recognition to the fact that over the years this research programme has provided
significant information that can let us better understand, you know, the nature and
abundance of whale stocks, which we are dealing with. Saint Kitts and Nevis cannot
support this resolution and further would call upon the sponsors of this resolution to
withdraw it immediately.
Saint Lucia [25’26’’-]
I note that under various situations we talk about the Convention and sticking to
the words of the Convention, the intent of the Convention. Yet, on the other hand,
we tend to ignore certain sections of the Convention. And I refer to Article VIII,
which has been mentioned by my colleagues of the Caribbean and others: the right
of countries to conduct the research. And the Convention talks about killing for
scientificpurposesbycontractingStates.Iassumethatwehavenotasyetsuspended
the Convention to allow certain delegations to speak freely on issues which are
clearly written in the Convention.
Now, as far as I recall, as far back as 97, and I refer to the scientific report, and
it says that it was agreed that the programme, that is the Japanese programme,
provided valuable information on a number of biological parameters.And it spoke
about natural mortality, decline in age of sex [maturity] and a whole range of
other parameters. And it also says that it also provided information requested by
the IWC’s pollution workshop. It contributed greatly to stock identification and
improved understanding of minke whale’s role in the ocean ecology. (…)
306 Annex 41
Morocco [29’10’’-]
Nous sommes devant une situation où on est en train d’essayer de pénaliser un pays,
qui s’investit dans des programmes de recherche qui sont de l’intérêt particulier pour
l’évaluation et le suivi de ressources baleinières.A mon avis, c’est des initiatives
que cette Commission devrait encourager.
Guinea [30’30”-]
Parmis les résultats, qui sont de grands intérêts pour no tre pays, figurent en
bonne place les résultats obtenus par le programme JARPA afférent à la relation
baleine-poission. A la rencontre de Saint Kitts et Nevis, ces résultatsont montré
de façon détaillée la quantité de poisson consommé par les espèces baleinières
et les différentes espèces composant cette quantité, qui sont en majorité de petits
pélagiques. Monsieur le pr ésident, je rappelle une fois, que dans la recherche
quotidienne de protéine d’origine marine pour nos population, de petits pélagiques
figurent une bonne place. (…)
Il faudrait aussi rappeler que l’article VIII de notre Convention accorde ce droit.
Aujourd’hui, je ne vois pas comment on peut soulever le fondement même de la
Convention, dès que ceci rentre en contradiction avec nos sensibilités.
Republic of Korea [33’35”-]
JARPA programme has greatly contributed to the understanding of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem and the estimation of stock abundance, which was the base of the
proper management of whale resources.
307308 Annex 42
42. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-ForthAnnual Meeting, pp. 1, 5-6
IlflWRJUC TIOHA.LWll.A.LING oa&ISSIOif
CRAIHMA1Sf REPORT OF 'mE TWENT-YPOIJRTHI&Ul'ING
stn.1MARY OF MAilf DECISIONS MAD E AT ~1EETI iIG
Aa in the laat aeveral year a ainoe 1965 the CCIIIIId.aaion made wbetantial prosrase
t~ ita goals at the 24th llieeting r
a. The blue 'llhaleunit no o method of setting catch lllllitw in the
Antarct i c waa abandoned, the prot"iaions ~or ita use -• deleted .frca
the Schedule to the Conventim and baleen whale oatcb lillli tewen aet
separately by apeciea.
b, Reduction• were made in catch limite in all areaa, based an the
lstelt scientific assea~nte or the whale atooks made by the Scientific
COIIIIIittee. .4 catch llAlt was intr oduced for a1Jlke wbalea in the
Antarcti o a.lthOUBh this rea=• is under- harveated. Catch limita
for epem wbalea were f,ixed eeparatel)r for Mlea and f811111lesand lilli ta
Mre iaposed on apem whaling in tbe eouthem H.emispl\are for the first
time.
c . Yrit h the ai¢116 of llllagreem ent by the Antarctic whaling oountriea
duriDg the caune of the meeting, the Inten:lllticmal O'baarYer Soh- ~
operative i n all. are as where 'llhaline;is undert.elten by membe1' oaantriea.
d. .U.thoue:h the Cor:umiasian ns unable to aoeept the re aolution of the
UN Conference on t ho Htlllllln E!nrtronment at Stoclthollll calUng f'or a caaplete
aoratorium on o011111erc.ila whaling for ten years, taking tlut view that
1'8@'\llation by s pec ies and stocks was th.e only practical -thod of whale
OODBa.t'Ve.ti on, i t appr oved a number of associ ated or related proposal a.
i . The St ockholm. Conf'ore noo resolution had reooaaanded that ttae
Comm iaeioo be s t:r•ngt hened to 1nc.reaee intemational reeeuah
effo rta. The Commission decided to aet up a Cooaittee to devel op
specific duties o.f t he secretariat perecnnel in an expanded ataf:f,
:recomQaod a budget and develop plans for adequate financia l support.
1.
309Annex 42
all govertliiiiQnts conce rne d ina.t en-yea.r moratoriwa on e01111erei&lwhal:\ng. 'l'he
Seeretar7 General, Mr Maurice Str ong, attended tno meeting to transmit the
resolution and oopvey the importance the UNConfer ence at ta~ced to it. He said
that emerging from t he oonside rntion given to thie eubject at the Conference
was a ver1 new dimension in t he intoreet of gover nment• in the qu.. tion wnicn
is the principal purpose o! the Commission's meeting. HGknew the C~seion
recognised this la rger intares t that exists aaongat th& Goveromente of the
world in the q11est1on of whales not 01117 88 a reeo 11rco for COIIIIlerioal
erploitation but as a world re source in a larger sense. Re po1nted o11t that it
was the intention of Governments to add t o and strengthen the ver1 important
role of the Commission. Be u=ged etrong favo11rable conslderat ion of the
recommendation and offer ed tho co-o peration o! tho United Nat1oAS in ~ of the
Ca.mission's futu r e act i vitiesthat ~ ?ertain to them. He asked that a report
oo the Colleission's decie itJno be sent to him. The CllaJ.l'lai.n thi!Jikill8
Kr Strong tor hie st atement said a report of the meeting would be sent to him
as soon as it was rea~.
9. A Global Morator ium on Co:nme rc ial Whalin&. 11'.1hthe object of enabliog
the Commission to institu te a globnl moratori~ on commercial whaling, the
United Statee del egati oo moved and t~e United Kingdom dele&at1on seconded a
•otion that the Schedul e for 1973 be amended ill ever¥ case where a nwneri ca.l
quota appears to subst itu te the nwnoral "0" ! or al l auob numer"loal quotas .
The proposal !or a more.tor ium was considered by the Technical Cotllmtit.ee. In
introducing it to the Committee, th e Unit ed States del egat i onsaid that the
state of kno~ ledgo of t he ~hale sto cks was eo inAdequate tha t ~t was oal7
00..011 pl'lldeace to suspend whaling; thi sweB necesa u;y ao that so1ea.t1fio
eff orts could be redoubleo and new re search t echniq ues developed. The
TeOhnioal Committee had befor e it the views o! the Sci entific Committee ae
expressed in th at Cowoi t~eb'e repor t. The Scie ntif i c Committee agreed that
a blanket morat orium on •aal1 og coul d not bo jus tif i ed ec1entif1cally sinoe
;.
310 Annex 42
prudent managemen t re qui redr~lation o! the stocks individ~lly I. would
&lao probably bring about a reduction in the amount of research whereas there
was a prime need for a substantial increase in research aoUvit,.. It
rec0111118ndetdhat instead of a moratoriWR,support should be solJ8ht tor a decade
of intensified research on cetaceans and that this should proceed in parallel
w1 th further developaant of the policy of bringing catch restriotiona into line
with the beat available knowledge of the state ot the stocks . The Technical
Committee rejected the pr oposal for a aoratorium, four delegations voting in
favour !!Adseven against 1 three delegations abstained .
In the course of diaoll8sion in the plene.ry eession of the Colllliesion it waa made
clear that the proposed b&ll would apply only to the co~Derci talticg of whale&•
Th"' present exception granted in the Schedule to the small scale whaling
from Greenland and the Faroe Islands, mere the whales are taken for eonsumptlon
by the local population, would not be affected. Opposition to the motion was
expressed on the gr ounds that there was no sound scientific basis for a
aoratorium, that a cessati on of whaling would result in reducing the research
effort, fro:n l oas of ·hh . a"lri f r.-r- the inability of countries to provide
increased funds for inves t ig at i on int o the whale stocks; that
With the reductions of the quotas of the indiv idual species and operation
of the observer acheme in all areas greater progress was baing made thaD ever
before, and the introducti on of a moratorium could result in a complete setting
aside of al l that was being achieved by the Commission and lead to unregul&te4
whaling 1.n eeveral parts of t ile world. The United Statea delegation did not
acoept that the impoeition of a moratorium would bring to an end reeearcb and
the collection of scient i fic data on whalea. The motion waa rejected ~ the
Commission, four delegati. on.a voting in favour of it and six against1 four
delegatione abstained.
6.
311312 Annex 43
43. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting, pp. 1, 4-5
1.
were condu <;teby the Ghail'men of' tl1e C.ommissio n, Hr I R:i.ndal (Nor11ay).
2e B~-~~~~!2- C~OHinss~noc: .n:~d;.ole{ fc·am.cllese r~\O ~oatt i s
atteniect. Ohservers y;er present from th e govern mentof Jl1'azil,Chile, Peru,
·P01·tuga and Sweclen,r:hel:'ood an d. Agx·ic1e (!l 'iss.'i;ioof the United.Nation.s,
'che Intern at ion al Counc:U fthe Exploration of the Sea, the Inte rnational
Commission f'or South Ei!.st AtlantFi she ries,Whaling and Marine Ham\SC1'ipt
Archives, t he Fauna Pr eser vatiof3oc:Lety , '.;he InternatiUnion for the
Conserva.ti on of Natureana . Na.tu.Hesources, The Vlorld. WildlifeFund.,Friend.~:~
of the Eart h, Project Jonah, The Intema.t;ional Socie-ty:f'othe 'l:lrotectioof
A"limals and. the World. li'ed.erafo r the P~·tection of A..>li!nsls.
An ad.ru:ess of' welco;;\e, on behaof the Unit ed Kinga.orr,
Government, was given by Mr Anthon y Stoclar t , M.j,t:l.nis of Stat e for
Jlgric: ultur ~'isheri ans. Food..ltir Stodartref'er1·eto the decision of last
year's meet i ng not to introducethe 10--yea.r !!lOrat oriu.m or.whaltng as
recommended by the UN Stockho).!!l Confe renand said that he was glad. 'Gosee
the,t the Comm:Lssion had followedvery clo selythe advice tlf itsscientists,
by ext<;nd.i.ng th e exist in g moratoin def init elintrod .ucin g q:aota!:l by stock s
and.extendi~ nhe m to sp er m whal eand. int roducingprecautiona ry quotas on
rninke whale s, In his view it was !'lOst importarl'i; tthi s meeting should.
demonstrate that this moment um woul d be maintained, He drew attention
particularl y to the need. for much more strin~;e cotse rvati on measuresif
the fin whale was to r ecover to i tsmaximum yield lev el as quickl.yas de si red..
He referred to the a.d.vice he habest~ given th at no spec i es of whale was at
present in da."lger of beingexpJ.oi tedat a rat e greaterth an th e stockscan susD t.l
l.
313Annex 43
Director of' ·clHBurea u, was ci r .;ulu.ted.A oc•pfi.~ UJ>:fH::IlA.pp t:nd.:A) to this
report •
.9.
a mor· aoirum011 commer c:i.u.whai u~c ;as coris:l.ctcrby the 3ci <mi::U'ieC:cmLittce and
the •.reclm:J.ooJ. C:omimtteaFor some yeo.r..sthe formei ' had cclvocatoo. tho re gula tion
of the whalr:. stocks on the b.as.i..s of j_nd:i.vidspecies. ~.'h :ass now operative
and a ste.rt hc>.dbeen mac1.eto ext~d n.:\tto tht:orc.rtt;emen of' i:be i ntJ.iv-:.ic.Jual
&tocks . The Cosumit. t eccni ~.erec that at '.;ha preserLi;j e th ere war; no biolc(S:i.Cc..l
r.equi reme!lt fo r the :iJnpositio n of a blanketmor~to ium on al l col!Ulel:..·whal i ng
ancl the !:':C.jol•considered that there was at present no biologice.l ju stification
'Oythe Ur,ited States and a.ftor d1sou~; o.nsit wa:; runendec. in thelight of poi nt:>
made. I t was then seconded. by the Arg!:lnti ne aml France, It referrecl.to the concern
that al l the spen i es of grea ·t; whalewere at prer.e:1t deplet ed consid erably below
'the:l.r or igimtpopulation levels, due not onJ.y t o excessi v<~ exploi tE,tioubu t al so
because knowl edge was inadequate to prot ec t the species, and , in order to pr ovicl(:
time that the na ti ons could. use to enhance their knowled ge of t he ecolot,-y and
populat io n dymunics of' whe.les and permit t he r.1ostrap~d recovery vf 'whale popuJ.atio a
proposed that the Comnis::;ion decirle that oo~hnerci 'a.a.Ung for all spe ci es of
cete.cee.nsshould cease for a.pericd of t en ye e.rs begi nn:i.ng not latethan three
years frc ,fl thedate of the adopt:i .on of the resolut.on , except e.bor5.ginalcat ches
where they do not enclanger th e species, The re:solution 11e.sa.pprovod by the Commi tte
on a majo :!.'ity vo-te.In the pl enary sessio n , J~heSc,viet Couuniss:i.o· n~lepea.te d. hi.s
country 's ~ppos ition to the re!:olation on t!10groundtJ that it wa.s contrary to the
:Cinclings of the Scien'G:.if'ic Coottee, that it wat incou:patible vrith the ConYent:i.on
::md its S(;hc l.tla..;d l'tCiuld. lead. t o the ce sar.ttj.on of the Co;wenlindto
unr·egul::J.. l'tbn.linc,The Je..panE:se Corumissio r,suppo ~l'ce 'dis sta.ting th at the
mcrn.tor.iu.r;o.sin ccrr· f...Gion to ~,he51):jrt.11f th eGonveni;ton . Iv \novi ng1-:ho
8-dopi:ion of the re:.~: jol:.dth~.lHd.t·~eSt..tf:hCuul~.z;;.,J.o)JC!, stflt il:LG flt:ltt.l~'~1!
314 Annex 43
th othr· oE·:qui<::sr:a.jority of tho 6e votin~ as rc:qui :ceby.t he P.ulesof P~ocedur·E•,
(i) .£!£ l9t':~iiTQ0 8c::. n tificCommi tt ee f;t;a ted. ti tbelieved 11:lt wher.co,
possible e.l l~hale stoc :ts shou l d bruan ageci ndi viduf.ll:Ly an d presen t ed a
sub-committ ee's repor t re commendi..ng sub- rl:i.v:sif erimta.r ct ibale en vlhtl1•)c\
and perc ent age al lo rJa'c:io.us of' th e oat che,s t he,t may be a:pJ)i.·oveil :Cor f':"t.n, se i.
pr opos alsfor such a pro cedure .t it s next Cif•etin e;.
The Sci ent if iCu~u:.itee rep od;ea. t ha t ife lt i t woulC!.notb0
r.afe to depa rt. f'rom th f! c»tiu:at e::stua.n~ble y:i.eJ.d. :J.r:19L e. 3,2 00.
The; Corui t t&e emphasi sed t h?t at pre sent the> f in wllal( , st ocks were about
one---thircL to one-half of the l e•Jelwhi,~h woul d pr ovi de maximum su.r,t1'!l enab
yiel d. 'rh e 'l'echnic al Ci tte e appro ved, by seven vote s t o five v:ith two
ab stentions, a proprJs:<.'~at t he ce.!;ch cp ottt f or fin .whal es shou.ld be J.ero,
The a doption of this pr opos al was moved in th e pl ena ry s<:ssi on by the
Cha irman of't he Techni ca l Committee and se eonded by He:;-o a.ud the P.rge1~t. in<l
Seven countri es vot ect in f avour and fiv t' aga ir JSt witwo f1b st en.'d.on.s, th "
nec e.,sar y th ree- quarte rs maj o'rit y was there f ore uot ac r.ieThe Commissione r
for Norwa.ypropos ed that the oatc h quota fo1·fin vrhale.,shou l d. be 1 ,1;.50 wit.hc~
·.· :dd l3r> that t h o i;wo countr i es ae 1;uall y enga ged in inalthe Antal 'o'ci c
Japan ano. th e Sovi et Union - shoula. undert ake t o work to v:·.ds fu rthe r
re duc ti ons i n fu t ure ye arThis WE.:sec:onil.ed by theCommiszio ner fo r Jap an,
5.
315316 Annex 44
44. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting, pp. 1-3
!~~~NATIONA~ LING COMMISSION
CHAIRMANR 'EPORT OF TWEl'n'Y-SIXM THEETING
1. Date and Place The Twenty-sixth meeting of the Commission was held ~t Riverwalk
iio.,oe, Hillbank,London from 24-28 June 1974. The proceedings were conducted by the
c~.i~n of the Comddseion, Mr I Rindal (Norway).
2. Renresentation Coaaiesionera and delegates from all membftrcountri&s attende d!
t~ey included the Commissioner for Brazil who had joined the Commission since the laet
m~eting. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations was represented
by two observers and there was ~leo an observer from the Untted Nations Environmental
Pr0gramme. There were also observers present fro11 the Governments of
Swe<len
Chile
Netherlands
Per-u
l'ortu gljl
a1:i f'romthe
Int~rnationa louncil for the ~loration of t~ Sea
International Commission for South East At lantic Fisheries
Int~rnationa l arine H~nuscript Archives
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re"ourcea
Fauna Pres er vation Society
World Wildlife Fund
International Society !'or the Protection of Animals
World Federation for the Protection of Animals
Friends of the Earth
Project Jonah and the
Sierra Club
3. Address of Welco~e An address of welcome was given on behalf of the United
Kingdom Goverlllllllnt by Hr Norman Buchaa, KP Minister of State, Ministry of Agri culture,
Fisheries and Food. In welcoming the delegateB Mr Buchan referred to the important
decisions taken by the Co~is6ion since he last addressed the annual meeting mentionin g
particularly the abolition of the blue whale unit and the esta blishment of the
International Ohe~rveS rche~e but potnted out that there was still much to do. There
was the question of strengthening the Co~iasion in ita executive capacity and in its
8cientific capabilities for research into whale populations. There was also the
question of the morator iUJton which widely different but sinc ere views were held.
Nobodywanted to see whalestocka reduced to danger level and the Commission especially
had a responsibility to future generations in this regard. The fundal!lental parpose
of the 111oratorium, of its opponents,and of the Commiesion wae the same - to conserve
the world's whale •tocka for the benefit of fUtare generations. Other illlpOrtant
i!ISUee were the particular problem of the fin whale and the question of the sub-division
of the blll.ettn and apel'll llhala ctuotas to give greateprotection to indiVidual stocks.
There vera signa that soae of the depleted stocks were now showing signs of recovery,
the Collai.asiota critics would not be sa tidied until they saw that eYery effort po86ible
was being made to speed tbat recovery for every depleted etock.
4. Statements by Commissioners and Observers The Commission accepted the Chairman's
suggestion that representatives of the press should be invited to remain for item }
on the agenda - openiag state~ent by Commissioner. and observers fro11 other countries
and organisations. Stat..ents outlining the position of their Governments on proposals
before the Coaaiesion were made by the C~saionere for the United States, Australia,
tbP USSRand Japan. The Commissioner for Brazil made ~ brief statement on the return
of a rlela etion from hie country to the Commission.
1.
317Annex 44
Stat ements were made by the observer s from the internatl .onal organisati ons .
Mr L K Boersma made a statement on behalf of the FAO Allsistant Director General of
Fieher i ee. In the course of hls reliiATkBMr Boerelll"lre ferre d t o t he acti ve par t play ed
by FAO st af f i n th e inv estigatioof the whale sto cks carr ied out by t he Co~seion~•
sc;" nti st s in th e 1960s and said t hat now th e CommiRsion was agai n faci ng diffi cult
dec i si ons his Director General had been instructed by 11e11e1rbGoverlliiM!nte ac ting
through the FAO Committee on Fi sherie6 t o aSBist in any way poss i bl e.
Dr K Curry- Li ndahl who attend ed as an observer for the Unite d Nations Environmental
Progr~~~ said that tJN!1Ivas willi ng and anxiou s t o co- operat e i n the worlt of tbe
C~ieeion as aoon ae opport unity arises and suggest ed t hat such an opportunity woul d
be found par ticu larly in the fiel d of resear ch. Re outlined the act i vit iesUNEPwas
develop i ng with FAO and the FAOComm ittee on Marine Resour ces Research aimed at the
pro t ect ion of li vi ng marine resource s.
5. Dr N A Mackint osh The Chairman referred to th e death dur i~ the yea r of
Dr Mackin tosh. Se had been a memher of the Unit ed Kingdom del egation sin ce the
Conaias ion was es ta bl i she26 years a~o and had missed only one of th e Commissio n's
meet ings . He was Chairman of the Scientific Committee fo~ mnny year s. The meeti ng
s tood i n silent trib ut e to hi e~emor. y
6. Adoptio n of Agenda The Comm ission adopts<! the provision al agenda on the proposa l
of the Commissioner for Canada seco nded by the Commissioners for the USSR and So11th
Afric a.
7. Opening of meet i~ a to the Press The Chairman refe rred to this i t em on the
agenda and recal l ed t t pri or to l as t year 's meeting the questio n of whethe r the
Comm i asion should perftdt the admiaaio n of the Preas to its meetings was put to
Comniaaloner8 in wri ting and of t he ni ne countries that replied eigh t were oppose d.
He euggeeted tha t unless any delega t ion had changed its vi ew thi s decisi on shoul d still
stand . No change of vie w was i ndicate d by any dele gation .
1
8, Review of Previ ous Seas one Catch e6 Stati6tics relating to the catch outsi de the
Antar ct i c in 1973 and the catc h in the Ant~ crtic i n 1973/74 prepared by the Bureau of
Int ernati onal Whaling Sta t i eticshad been di str ib uted to the Sci enti fic Commtitee and
were avai lab l e for del egati ons .A statement revi ewin g th e seasons ' operati ons prepared
by Mr Vangste in , t he Dir ec tor of the Bureau wa5 ci rcula t ed.
9• Provi si on for a World W ide H'r at orium on Commercial Whaling A resolution propo si ng
a te n-ye ar moratori um on al l comm,rcial whSling beginning not later than the 27th
11et i ng of t he eo.mi es i on was consider ed by the Technical Committee . It was submit te d
by tbe United States and eeconded by Mexico and was in simi l ar te rms to th e
resol uti on present ed to the 25th meeti ng which was approved by the Techn ical Committee
but fai l ed to obtain a suffi cie nt majority in the meei tn~ of th e Commiss i on. The
Scienti fi c Ca.mitt ee reported tha t it had review~d i ts stat~ eent made i n it a report
to tbe 25t h IJIeting tha t the r'i) vae no biolog i cal r eqllir e11ent for t he illposiof a
bl&llket 110ratcriua on all coaDercial whali ng and agree d that the stat etent waa sti ll
appropriate. I t dre w att ent ion to tbe sugges ti on of possib l eco•petition bet ween
spec ie s wbere by re buil ding of severe ly deplettd stocks ~ay not necessarily be
~mieed by a aorat orium .
An amendin g resol ut ion waa moved by Australia seconded by Denmark. It r ef erredto the
need to preserve a!ld enhance whale stocks as a resource for fu tur e use and taki ng i nto
oo!lBi dera tionth e in t ere sts of consumere of whale prod ucts and the whaling industry ae
re quire by the International Convention on Whaling, and r ecognisi ng that the
manage.ent of whale s tocks abould be baeed not only on the concepts of maximumsust ain
a ble yield in number by species , but sh oul rl al &e incl ude such consid eratio ns as t otal
weight of whales and i nt eractio ns between 8p&Cies in the marine ecosys tem, propo se i that
318 Annex 44
all stocks of whales should be claseifiod into one of the following three categories
according to the advice oi the Scientific Committee:
(i ) Initial Kals!88118nt Stocla!_ which 111&b 7e reduced in a controlled IIISll!ler to
achiev e MSYlev els or optimus le vels aa theee are determined.
(ii) Sustained ~eent Sto cks wbich should be maintained at or near MS! levels
and then at opt~evala as these are determined.
(iii) Protection stocks which are below the level of Sustained Management Stocks
and abould be fUlly protected.
The Coalittte would datlne stocks for thia parpoee as the wrlts which can be 110st
eftecthel.y IIU&ged indh i.dual.lJ' . The re.alution further proposed that
(a ) eo-rcial wb&l.it\8 shall be pel'llitted on Initial HaugeaS ~ tcuntsub ject
to the advice of the Scientific Committee aa to measurea necesear:r to bring the
stocka to the HSY level a.nd then optimum level in an efficient aanner and without
risk of reducing them below this level,
(b) Coa~~~er w hilanl shall be permitted on Sustained Kanage~~ Seonks subject
to the advice of the Scientific Co~ttee.
(c) There shall be no ca.ercial w.b.al1113on species or atocke classified ae
Protection atocka, including those apeciea listed for full protection in the
current schedule.
The resolution provided that it would be implemented by the Scientific ~ttea
proddin g advice, to be up-dated Al\llWllly , on the criteria to be wsed in defini113 the
abo.,.. categories of whale stocks to be incorporated 111the Sebedule aa soon u
possible, and b:r aaking the aeceaaaey -eudments not later than the 27th eeetiC« of the
ec-ieaion.
The question of the Scientific Commtit ee part icipating in the va:r proposed in the
resolution wa.e referred to tha t Collllllittee. It reported that it conaidered that the
advice it would be required to provide caae within ita ter.. of reference and vas
stailar to advice now bei ng given. The Committee would provide advice on criteria and
a stock levele relativ a to criteria and the eo..ieaion would IIAke tlw claaaific:btione
and allo cationB to ma.aas-ent re~ e. It understood that the adoption of the
proposals wuld in no WSJ limit i ts advic e to the ec-ieeion v:it bin its terms of
reference. An amendaent providing an aJ.ternatiYe definition of Sustained KanagaMnt
Stocks waa not accepted and the amending resolution was approved on a aajorit1 vote
for subadeaion to the eo-ieaion.
In plenary Seeaion tbe Comaission by a majority adopted the resolution vith the
addition of the words "present and" bef ore " tut ure" in the reference in the preuble
to the uae of the Wale stocks u a reoource. rha United States Comaiesioner stat l d
that hi.s GoveroMnt still supportN a teu-1ear eoratorilll but bad voted tor the
resolution ~cause it felt it represented a eigni!icant step forward in the aanagament
of the world'• vbales. 1 num~r of other eo.ai eai.onere expre~ee tdeir agree-nt
vith thia view. Advice to uaist tbe Coauai111o1i in defini ng the categori es of etocka
vill be determined at a eeetiD8 of the Scient ific eom.ittee which is to be held b1 the
and of 19?4.
319320 Annex 45
45. Chairman’s Report of the Twenty-Seventh Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 27,
1977, pp. 6-7, 13-15
REP. INT. WHAL. ('llMMN Z7,197?
Chairman 's Report of Twenty-Seventh Meeting
I. OATE AND PLACE B!l!essnte.nt.lsl1eS1:1enuficCommiltee would be orcsenlin&.
The Commtss1nnwould he•IItoo~war teat,throughout
The Twenty-seventn~Ctl ofthe C<llnru washed n
atRive~ rw 1-louse, l ank, London from 23 to 27Junethe world, all wh~h~r eoncern for the environ10011l
1975. Thepooeedi nCIttndocted by the Chai•manor would be~nXiISthat !hmom~ntu rskept up.
theComm s~io M r,.Rinda(Nvrway).
4. STATllMENTS flY COMMlSSlONERS
AND OBSERVERS
2.REPRESENTATION
Statem ~esttingOllthe viewl!llthe position or their
Commissionef$ and delegates from 3f1fte ~ enber
;:ountne.s attended . The Food and AAricu\tureOrganisation t~on ptoposals befote the Commission wert
made by thrCnmmls iClr~eforA\1SrlalCanada,Jopafl,
or the UnitedKatlonW3SICprescntedby two observers Mexico~nd USSR •11forths USA by theCommiSSlOner
and there was alln observerrom lhe UnitedNations and Cong1essman lidwlrony theon behalfof the US
EnvironmentProgram mThere we1eolsoobservers present
fro the Governments of: Congress_Stntcmcnts were mahytheobserversfrom the
lntemational organisatiu11sr~presen etareivlen
Korea the meeting.
Netherlands
NewZealand
Pru 5.AOOI''n ON OF AGENDA
Sweden
~ml fcon1the The Coonm•ssot~<itupdthepr()vmonnagend which )Ia(!
b~n drcula tesixtd~ys hel~otthe meeting •r.cord
lnternaltonal Council for the Explur.HIIJnot'theance with tCommiHn.lll'Ruleof Procedure.
lnternationalCtJrrunissionl(E~snAllaoliFi~eries
International Union ror the Conserv•tiou nf Nature and
N:nural Resonrces
6. R£VI£W OF PREVIOUS SllASONS' CATCHES
Fauna PreservatJ<mSociety Statmics relating to the cutch out>i,ie the Anuret ic in
Friendsof theEarth
InternationSoc1ety for tl'roteetlon Animal& 1974 and the catch in 1hcAn!HC1icin 1974 75 prepared
by he Buea~ of lnlernatJOilillWhaling Statistics had
Project Jonah been distribute<;!to the Scientif'l.cCommillee arld were
Sierra Club
World Federtionfor lite l'rmcc tiAnlmals available for delegatistu1t0llrviewing lhe seasons'
operations prepared by.Mr VstngsteiDirectoof the
World Wildlifeund Bureau, wasctrculnted.
3. AOORESS Of WELCOME 7. CLASSJFlCATlON OF WHA.L E STOCKS
A IitlatmeetingtheCommi~<< ncoe1ed11proposathat
An addrc~ of wekome was given b~ha ofi1eUnited
Kingdom Gqvernmcntby Mr Edward llbhop, Ml', Mini>terll~loc kfswh3lcs~houl b<d3sslfied m1one of the
following three caregaccord nrt~gutlvlce of the
o( Stale, MinistqfAgricultttre, Fisheries and Food ScientifCoonntittee
welcoming delegates tomc~r.n Mgrlishop refer10d
the further important steps the Comm1ss1on had taken (alnitliManagernt!IJI Stwhtch may be reduced
tuwnrds lhc con:;ervation of the world'~rocklse. in a controlled manner tn achieve le•e or ~
reledr~aricularly t11proposal whtcwa~aco:p dac oprimum leven~ thesaredetermined.
the ls1t meetin&and whicbeenme subject nspectal (iiSustair1?d Mrmugeml'/lf S/lwhich shcnJJd be
'"eeing of llle Sc1entific Committee classiltc;~tion maintained at or near MSY tcvcb and then ar
uf whole stocks. He said!het.:nit<ldKiugdGovern· optimum level~slhese ad~lrmlnde,
meul1ecardeilasa~ignifi sceaftrward m the nilional (iiProtectioStocks which ur~below lhe level of
management of the variouwhale stocks of tho-.1~1a Sust:uned MaJlagernStN;ksand sl1oUloe (utly
becauseconservation needs varied significanswckfr0111
protected.
10 Stock.He commended t.heextemion of thu~uh· h wa'sagreethat.
tllvlSionof l11estocks of the SHcmisrhprcand thu
~oti !JIldividual quotas for tl\e regions Involved thus Commercial whaling should be permitted on Initial
.10blingmoreconfide degrees of whol hcoU d~'line Management Stocks su~jc 10cht udI~Co~f the
tuningInthe control of these stocks. Scient iCComrnilt ~~ o 'llltasurts necessal)' to
~ow that tnc Commisston had latf(u.)~ioufw a bring the stocks to the MSY rcvel.!lld thNiolPiil!111rn
IIC. lHUnugernet1t scheme, he very much hoped itat levelinan eifident mouner anJ witJ1out risk or
would be nhle.10 move quickly towards ngroc1ng the reducing them below this level.
321Annex 45
TWENTV·SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT 7
(b) Commercial whaling should be permitted on Sus or the total catch of whales dunng it would not be affected
tained Management Stocks subject to the advice ofby the fomula wluch was as follows:
the Scientific Committee. The annual catch for a Sustained :-.alnagement Stock for
(c) There shall be no commercial whaling on speciesor each year during which1remains below MSYlevelshall
stocks classified as Protectlon Stockncl~n dgi not exceed the number of whales obtained byakrng
those species listed for full protection in tile 90'%of the MSY and reducing that number by 5% for
current Schedule. every one per cent bwhich the stock at the beginning
Jt was decided that the proposal should be implemented of the sustained management period falls short of the
by the Scientific Committee providing advtcc, toUp· MSYstock level.
dated annually, on the criteria to be used in defining theThe Technical Committee recommended the adoption of
abovecategorieof whale stocks to be incorporated in thethe Scientific Committee's pruposals as !he basis for the
Schedule as soon as possible, and by the Commtssion classiftcation of the stocks except that for the 1975- 76
making the necessary amendments not later than its 27thAntarctic season and the 1976 season in all other areas in
Meeting. the Southern Hemisphere the permitied catch orsci whales
1
The Scientific Committee at a meeting in La Jolla, should be determined in accordance with the alternative
California in December 1974 considered the criteria thaformula sot out above.
should be adopted in defining the three categories of The Sctentiflc Committee was asked to eJ..amine the two
stocks and following its meeting in London ptior to theformulae with the object of providing the Commission at its
meellng of the Commission finalised the following pro
next meeting with advice on !he adv:mtages and disadvan·
posals which were considered by the Technical tages of each so that the Committee can deddc on the
Committee: application of one hem to all stocks.
1 For the purpose oclsa.~yi tnegindividual stocks and
ASustained ManagementStock shall bedefiasa stock determining the catch limits the Commission accepted the
which is not more than Z%of MSY stock level below
MSY level, and not more than20% above that level, areasproposed by the SciCilltfic Commiasfollows:
MSY being determined on the basis of che number of Sourhcrn Hemisphere fo< waters between the ice edge
whales. provided that for stocks between the MSYsrock and 40°S for fin whales,~nd the ice edge and the
equator for sei and lllinkc whales.
level and Z%below that level the permitted catch shall
be not more than is ind1cated by a str<Hgnl line from zero A real 120"w - 60°\V
atthe lower limit to 9(1%of MSY for stocks above MSY Areall 6o•w o•
level and that it shall not be mor90"4>f MSY for Area Ill 06 70°E
stocks above MSYlevel.
Area IV 70°£ - 130"E
When a stock has remained at a stable level for a AreaV 130°E - 17o•w
considerble period under a regime of approximately Area VI 17o•w - Izo•w
constant catches, it shall be classified as a Sustained
Management Stock in the, absence of any positive Southern Hemisphere for sperm whales fo1 waters
between the icc edge and the equator_
evidence that tt should be otherwise classified under
the preceding criteria. Division 1 60°W - Jo•w
Division 2 JO"W- - 20•E
An Initial Managemem Stock shaU be dcllned as astock DivisioJ 20°E - 60°E
mure than20%of MSYstock level above MSYlevel: it is Division 4 60• E - 90•E
further recommended that thpe~O :ath torsuehd Diviston S 90° E - 130"E
stocks shabe not more than 90% of.MSY as faasthis
Division 6 I30°E - 160•E
is known, or where it wiU be more appropnate, fishing Division 7160"E - 170°\V
effort shaU be limited to that which ,;,ill take 90%of Division S 170°\V -- 100•w
MSY in a stock at MSY level. In the absence of any Di•isiun wo·w - 60•w
positivevidence thata conlinuing higher percentage
would nor reduce the stock below MSY level, no more 1l1e Commission accepted the Te.:hnical Committee's
recommendation thar the following classtf1cation of the
than S% of the estimated initial exploitable Sto(k siwh:Uestocks proposed by lhe Scientific Committee should
should be taken in any one yea
Exploitation should not commence until an esti· be~Jopted forhe 1975-76 Antarcticse~n sond the 1976
mate of s10ck size has been obtained which is satis·season elsewhere:
factory in the view of the Scientific Committee.
StStai!d Marwgement Srock
A Protection Srock shall be delined as a stock which isF111hnles Southern Hemisphere
Fm whales North Atlantic (Iceland Stock)
below Z%of MSYstock level below MSY level.
The Technical Committee agreewllh the majority view Fin whales North Arlanti-.;(Newfoundland
Stock) ·
of the Scientific Committee that the limit helow MSYlevel Sciand Bryde'swh~le Southern Hemisphere Areas I,
for Sustained Management Stock and Protection Stock II, IV, V, Vi
shouldbe l 0%.
An alternative formula was proposed by the United ~ink ehale$ Southern Hem1sphere Area IV,
\Kingdom for determining the annual catch during the trans· North Allantic (Stock Enst of
Cape Farewell. Greenland)
ltjonalperiod when a sustaed 10anagement stock is re· Sperm whales- males Southern Henusphe1e Divisions
tuining to MSY level. The length of the transitional period I. 2, 3. 4, 7 and 9
1
Stock for this. purpose may be db'ilhe Scientjnc Com Sperm whales-fe males Southernl~eirsnpheDriisions
mittee as lo tal, llt:lture orexploitnbineach case.pliate 3, 4, 7 aud 9
322 Annex 45
TWE)."~T~nENTH ANNuAL RCrORT 13
Appendix 6. Clmificat iouof Stocks
1\JI stocks or w)\41osslclas:be nlonelf Uuu
AMENDMENTSTOTH£ SCHEDULEOF THE
INTERNATIONAl WHALINGCONVENTiON I?46 CI1Ggoriaccrtli tolte adviceof the Scientific Com·
mJt•eeusfollows:
APPRO\ 'ED llYTHE COMMISSION ATTHE
27TH MEETING (1)1 A Sustained Manag"ment S11ak~tocwkhtchi~
nol111orethou 10 per cenM~ximuntSustainablt
Paragraphl Aullthc followmgat end of paragrap)l Y1al (~ereinafter refcncd·~MSY)stock l•v61
"'lac!ating whnlc" means (n) with resl<Jl)aieen
whales- a female wluch h1nyonilkpresent;m~m. below MSY stock lcvd, and ni:\>more (han 20 per
mary gland (b) with res\Ispenn whales- n female cent abov!h:Hlevel; MSYbciiiMtletcnnined on \he
n•LSof th ~umber of whales:
which ha$ oulk present iu amamm~r yland the Wl\ena slock has remained $ll1ble level for11
maximum thciu~ {deptho;>which is 10ern or more.
This measurement shall be at the rnid ventral point ofonsiderabp~rt onder a regimeof npproximAiely
('t)!J!nc.atcl•it shallc1n"f1'i.as.u~!.Z!!!!~d
the mamrnaty g],ondperp.ndiculru to the body axts, andManagement Stock m the o!>$e!lcany po~ttelv
shallbelog~c tdthe nearest ccutimetre; ttos;,~y evi\lcnce t)t ~hoube otherwiseclassified.
anyglandbetlv<:en9.5 em and ems)labe IQggeas
10 em.TI1mea.~ure ofea.ngland whidt f:Ulson an Commercial whaling shall l>c pcrrruttad on SuS·
tJined Management Stocks accorthng to the ndvke
euct O.S centimelsh~U be logged at the next 0.5 of the Sc1enu0c Committee.
centimetre, e.g. 10.5UIJeJoggedas I I 0 ,m. r"or1hc J97S-76 pclagi.cseason and 1976coastal season
However, 110twithstandingthese cnterlu, • whAleshall
111 be con.tdt re..Jo !actaling whale if scientinc (hi5tO·outhern Hemisphere a.nd ror the 1971nseasou
ull other are(ostocks between UteMSYstock levul
logical other biOlogiccviden ic~resnc~dto the and tO percentbelow hal level, rht permitted catch,
appropriatenlional authority establishing that theexllept for set whnles and Bryde's whules c111ined
whale could n3t thai point in its physical cycle have
had a calfdependentilfor uulk ' !he Sout.l,ern H•lllispltere, shall not e){cee(l the munber
nf whales obtained by taking 90 per cent of the MSY
and reducing th.a\ number by 10 (let cent for every one
Paragraph2{r)
Une 2. Dele'em ~ontinuous open season' i>Ctcent by which the sf~ts1orrof th~!Y~OI<k.
lnsc'<Iopen season '" seasons' level. Por stocks ut or abo MSYstock lev•l rile
Jl"lrnittcath~sh1l1l not exceed 90 per cent of the
Plll'llgraph 3 (c) MSY.
Unes 5ano liDelete For sei alld Urydr'swhalescomhined in the Southern
'suchpsoidof eight Jnonths to include the whole of theispherefo1the !975- 76IXlagt~caso and the
periodof six months declorod for whulencxcpt 1976 coastal•n ~othe permolied cat<:hof SuMHined
Mtln~gc tSocks below the MSY5:ock level l Qtln
mmke whael~1lSprovided rot ln sub·paragrilph (b) of
1his parag1aph.' exceedtlte number wha elobtained btaki 9n ~et
c~ t of d1e MSY and reducing that number by live per
Sectioll Ill Cnrlure ~..m for ev<ry one per cent by which thefill~k
Delete 'Prohlhl!lons and area1'1 begmningof the sou;tamana~n ;clperiod fa~hon
Dele·te paragrorhs S, 6A•~r.7tnre.1:1f.~.;~:.
e>l the MSYstock level.
'Ciassil'ciofiAreasJndDii~ons The followiG stocks atecl~lsesdas Sustained
5. In para&tllph~ndII.are n~theSout~hrnllm~ M aoo"e entSo~k or U1e 197.)- /6 pelagics~ood11
sphere arc those water&betwoen the ic• edge and 40iloe 197co~s ltasonIn the Southern HcmlspJ•ere uptl
Sout,h Latitude and betW~c tne folluwlugp3rallels
for the 1976 sea!un In alnres~er
of kmgitudec~ce phtt for •ei and 13ryde'swh.1lescom·
bin~ Md n1inkewhas l hey shallexi~O Ld the fl n whales Southern Hemispl1ereAren 1
equator; Fm whales North Atlunlic (lcel:;nd Stl">kt)
Pin whales North Atlnnlfc (New(nundlnnd
Area I 120"W - 60°W Stock)
Area !I Gow•- o
Area 111 0 - 70"E Sci and Bryde'lwhttSouthr~nHemisphere Aroas I,
1o•B- uo•~:: oombineJ n,rv.v.vt
Area IV :\Iinke whales Southern Hemisphere Area 1V.
AreaV 110"E - 170"W North Atlantic (Stock East of
Area VIno•w - 120"w
Cape Farewell, Greenland)
ln p~r-ag nand1hs,divisior~lnagtilhc~att~h Sperm whales- mal SoutllerilenoisohercDivisions
limitfo1Southcrn Hemisphere spewh~o lnr~those I, 2, :314and9
Sperm wha!es-rcma lSouthern llernispherc Divisi\,.,s
waters ly1ug between 1h.e ;,., edgeequ~toard
bet.tCII thoUoWlogparalleof)ongiwde J, 4, I and 9
DivtsJOn1 h0°W- 1o•w (b) .A!Ilnttial Management Siac$lOCkm<r)c than
Division2 10"W- 20°E 20 per centr MSY stock level above MSYslo)ck
Division 320"E - 60"E level Comn1C'tciwhul~m:sh~ lelpcm1itted on
Division4 60"E - 90°Li Initial Manugcment0cks according ro the a..Jvlec
DivisionS 90°E- !JO"E of the Scientific Committco a• to me11ces·s
DiVision6 I30"E - 160"E sary to bnng the stocks to the MSYsto'k levcland
Div1si 7 ]110°E - l70"W tluln opumunl le•e"' an rfOuen t manner and
without mk of rcduung them below this level.
Division 8 170"W- 1OO"W
Division9 OO"W- 60"W The pcrmlttr.d catch for suW1stoWl1l not be
323Annex 45
14 REP. INT. WHAt.. COMMN 27,1917
more (han 90 per cent of MSY as far as thi~ Poa;grfJphAmend tof~a asfollow;
known, or, where It will be more appropr!ute, 'It is fOJbrdden to take or kill sur,alve-sor
catchingeffort shall belimited to that whichwilltakefemalw halesac:tonrpamby c~l1v,e.'
90 per cent of MSY in" s3lcMSY>toe!<level.
In theab~en ceany posJlive ev,d¢.lhG1 a Pariigruph 1AmcnO tor~•idtfollows :
continuinght~er ~~'~nta wQtenot reduce the 'The number offinwhales taken dtrrint~eoren
stock bdow the~lY stock level no more tliv~ senson in wator8 Nauth !lf4 0° Smolh L8tJ!udOh)l facwry
pt!crnr ofthe estimated rOtl1al exploitable st01;ships or whulc Clltdtcrs ijlta.cheunderthejul'is
!hall be taken~ny <lneyear. Exploitation should diction of the ContractingGnve1nme.nt:s;twllnot exceed
not commence until an e1tlmate of stsi~has
220 lO1975-76 ·ll•e laking ofWh!l )ailc~~cnot
been obtained which is r.atisfactory in tl1e viewlater th330June l97b.The number of othspecaeof
tht Scientific Committe¢. baleen whales taken during the ope1nseason m lite
The following stocks J!re classified as lt'litial
Southern Hembphert by lactmyship l~nd stlinsor
ManMgemen Stocks for the 1975-76 pelagicseason whale c&tchers attached theunde te j\lrisdicti()nof
and lhe 1976 coasrro~so inthe Southern Heml· the Conrracung Governments shall not exceed 2,230 seo
sphr~and rorthe 1976 set•son m all othe.rareas· andBryde'swhalescombined and6,BJ0 minkewhalesin
the 1975-76 pCI11gicseason and the co~slscasun.
Minkewhal~ Southern llmbpher~ 1'helOlBlc~tch ln~en in any of tfl1rcI to VIshall
Area ~II Jll, V, VI not exceed lh~ llmlts shown below Ht>wcvet.in no
Mmkewhales North Atlantic (Stock circumstances sllnll the sum oar'~cul~h exceed
West of Cape Farewell, the total qunt•s fm each species:
creenland)
flrydewhales Sel anclryde'~
Ni>rthPac•fic Pan whalescombin~cl Minke
Sperm whales-mal e~uthern Hem•sphere Area I 220 198 1,200
OMsoons:5and 8
Sperm whalesf~m~ asl SouthernHemispheroDivr· Area II 11 567 7,160
Are"Ill 0 0 2.400
saonsI. 2, 5, 6 anll S Ao-ealV 0 671 89 1
Sperm whale?~male North Pacific
Spermwhal- e~ermles NoilhPacific AreaV 0 ()'l.) 840
Area VJ 0 297 ooo·
(c) A Protection Stol~:1swck whJchis below J0 per
Plltagmplt Amenlllu read as follow>·
cantof MSY stoclevel below MSStl \level.
There >hallbe ntotnnrcr w~hiingoo species 'Thenumb~ rf whlles tak.en m the Nnrth Pacofic
no noel>s whilst they ar... claa~sProlctUon Ocean anddep&nllent waters in 1976 shall not e.xceed
Stocks. The following ksareclassified asProtec· the follow1nglimits:
trnnStoc~ for !he lil75--76 pelagic .season Md Sperm wholes- males 5,2()0
I"176Gastal season in thl!!)oHemi~pe andr Spermwhales females 3.100
rorthe1976 season in all other arcs;,
Bryd~ w·~nlcs 1.363'
lllUewhales All6~eans ParngraplJJAmend toreadas follows.
ltLOpbm~ckwhales AllOceans
'The numbeo of lin and minkwhale taken In the
Ris,ht whales AllOecxns North Atlanhc Ocean m 1976 shall nut cxuccdl'ol
Gruy wiale~ -<\Oceaots lowingllmJts
Hn whales Southent He111isp Ah~1se
Finwhales Ncwfollndland walets 90
II IIJ, IV, V, VI Fin whales-lcl~ndwaters '75
Pin whales North Pacific
Fanwhales Nunlt Atlantic(F'aroes and Min\(wJHI s- E.ntQ(Cape Farewt;ll 1,000
Minke w!]a)e$ West of Cape Farcw.el550'
W~M Norway Stock)
Finwhae~ North Adanric (NoV•Scotia
SWak) P(/ragraplrDdete provisions.
Selwhales Southern Hemisphert Area ParagraphIS Amend as follows:
Ill
SelWhales North l'acilic lineI Dc!ere'1974- 75' Jnsert'J975-76 '
Sprrrnwha~l-malcs Southern Hemlspherf O!Yt· Llo 2~Delete'1975' ·Insert '1976'
$10n6 Delete '8,000' insert '5,H70'
Delete '5,000' lnmt '4,870'
1 Notw\l.l;ltsaodang the provisiparagraph6 the lin e Oel~te·Are Ja~ Insert 'Div)sioos1
takingf 10 humpback wkal e~t below 3f~e (l0.7 to VI' to9 '
merrr. ~)length, per year Is pe.rmitted In Greenlund lines 6-9 inclusive.Deleteinse1rt 1hefollowing:
Woterlprovadethat wl•a~at~herof less th50gri.IS!> Male !Female
mglster tonnage are usedhio~urpose and the taking 'DiviSion~ni l l,562 1,.36&
ofgf3Y orrightwhalesby abori~ trmeContrncling Drvi~ 5ion ,080 756
Govcrnmeut on behalf of •borogine1is permitted h111 01VlSion6 0 324
only when thm~at and products of such whales nre 10 Division 7 495 396
be u'cd e:.,clusively flo~: calsumptionby 111e Dwision8 l,512 971
nborigines: Divi.sio9,Imid 2 2,014 ),99'
324 Annex 45
lWENTY-SEVENTHANNUALREPORT 15
l'uragraph 7 Amend w 1eadas foUows. Patagraph 20 Amend last sentence to 1ead.
'(a) It is forbidde10 use a factory ship ot a land staliou 'No bonus or orh1 ~remuneratio n £hall be paid to the
for the purpose of treanng any whales (whethe01not gunners or crews of whale catche1s in 1espect of the
taken by whale catchers under the juri$diction of a raking of lactatingales.'
Contracting Covernmem) which are class1fied as Pro
tection Stoks in paragoaph 6 or a1e taken by whale
C»tchers under the junwic tion of a Cnntracting
Governm ent in contravention of paragraphs 2, 3, 9, 11,Pd1agraph 22 Amend (b) (4) to read :
12, 13and 15 :Jfthis Schedule.' 'If female, whether lactating.'
325326 Annex 46
46. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-FirstAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30,
1980, pp. 25-27
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 30, 1930 25
Chairman's Report of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE Internatio nal Youth Federat ion for Environmental
Studies and Conservation
The thirty-first Annual Meeting of the Commission was Marine Action Centre
held at the Cafe Royal, London . 9-13 July 1979. The
proceedings were conducted by the Chairman of the Monitor
Commission, Mr T. Asgeirsson (Iceland) . National WildlifeFederation
People'sTrust for Endangered Species
Project Jonah
Roy&lSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
2. REPRESENTATION Sierra Club
Commissioners and delegates attended from all twenty Threshold Foundation
three member Governm ents, including six which had Whale Cente rs Internationa l
joined since the previous meeting. World Association of World Federalists
Observers were present from the following non World Federation for the Protection of Animals
memb er Govern ments: World Wildlife Fund
Belgium
Costa Rica 3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME
Federal Republic of Germany
indonesia The address of welcome on beha lf of the Government of
Portugal the United Kingdom was given by Mr A. Buchanan
Switzerland Smith, Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food. Mr Buchanan-Smith particula rly
Tonga welcomed the new members and noted that their member
Observers were also present from seven internat ional ship could only inease the Commission'seffectiveness in
organiza tins:
conserving the world's whales.
Conventio n on Internat ional Trade in Endangered The new UK Government had been reviewing its policy
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora on whaling in the light of the great public interest and
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United concern in the UK. It had concluded that the world's
Nations whales could still be best conserved by the UK's con
tiuing membership of the IWC. However, t.he UK was
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission concerned that there were still gaps in the knowledge of
Internationa l Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Internationa l Commission for Southeast Atlantic whale populations and that there was material collected
Fisheries from whaling operations still awaiting analysis. It was also
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and concerned about the methods used to kill whales. For
Natural R esourves these reasons the UK would support the proposals for a
United Nations Environmen t Programme moratorium on commercial whaling and the principle of a
whale sanctuary although accepting that special consider
and from twenty-seve n Non-Governmental internat ional ations applied to aboriginal whaling which should be
organ izations:
allowed to continue under suitable contro l.
American Cetacean Society The Minister of State added that the UK would enter
African WildlifeLeade rship Founda tion into discussions with the EEC and the user industries of
Center for Environmental Education sperm oil with the aim of securing agreement for a
Friends of the Earth community-wide b an on imports of sperm oil and other
Fauna Preservation Society derivatves.
Fund for Animals
Green peace 4. OPENING STATEMENTS
Internat ional Federat ion of Institutes for Advanced
Studies It had been agreed beforehand, in order to save time at
Intern ational Fund for Animal Welfare this meeting, that opening statements would be distri
Interna tional Institue for Environme nt and buted inwrittenform only. Howeve r, the Chairman called
Development upon the new members to address the Commission, and
Interna tionalLeague for Animal Rights the Commissioners for the Seychelles and Sweden did so.
International Ocean Institute In addition , jointstatements by three speakers repre
International Society for the Protection of Anima ls senting the Non-Governmen t Observer groups were
InternationalTra nsport Workers' Federation presented orally.
327Annex 46
26 CHA IRMAN 'S REPORT OF THE 30th MEETING
and 2 and the Resolution were no longer appropria te and
S. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Com mission adopte d, on the propos al of Canada so no further action was taken on the m.
Both Japan and the USSR registered their resentment
seconded by the USA, the Provisional Annotated Agenda and displeasure at what they regarded as a discriminatory
which had been distributed in accordance with the Rules measure. The Commiss ion then adop ted a two part
of Procedure sixty days in advance of the meeting. Items Recommendation (Appendix 1) proposed by Den mark,
6-23 were refer red to the Technical Committee for seconded by Australia, which the Technical Committee
conoideration in the first instance.
had approved by !tmnjority for the first part and by
consensus for the second. Put forward by Au stralia, this
recommended consideratio n or questions related to
6. WORLD-WIDE BAN ON WHALING implementat ion of a ban on whaling qnd to obtain data on
the social and economic trends in the whaling industry.
Two main proposals had been submitted under this
agenda item; Austral ia seeking to bring an end to all Japan registered its dissent to the first part.
whaling and the USA proposing a moratori um on the It was agreed that a Tech nical Committee Working
Gro up will mee t in the week prior to the 32nd Annual
commercial killing of whales until serious flaws in the Meeting of the Commission to consider these quest ions.
design and practice of the Commission's current conser
vation programme have been remedie d.
The Scient ific Committee had noted that both proposals 7. REVIEW OF PRESENT MANAGEMENT
involve a blanket approach to manageme nt, rathe r than PROCEDURE
taking action based on the state of each individual stock
The Commission received the report of its Special
which has been the policy of the Commission in recent Scientific Working Group, which was reviewed by the
years. Members of the Scientific Committee saw some Scientific Comm ittee and the Tech nical Committee
advantages and some disadvantages in the two proposals,
but there was no agreeme nt on the overall effect of a Working Group on Managem ent. The Commission
moratori um on the pace of research leading to a better endorsed the recommendations that:
understanding of whale biology. (i) the Special Scientific Working Group on Manage
The Technical Committee, after extensive discussion, ment Procedures should meet for one week well in
recomm ended by a majority decision an amendment to advan ce of the next Annua l Commission Meetjng
the Schedule and a supportingResolution designed to stop to finalise their Report and
whaling until there is in effect a conservation proposal (ii) the group should be augmented with additional
which will ensure the survival of whales. This motion, exp erts on whale biology and population dynamics
proposed by the USA and seconded by Sweden, received at the discretio n of the Chairman or the Special
strong support from some members although others drew Scientific Working Grou p.
allention to legal problems, the resulting econom ic hard
ships and lack of scientific support. and stressed the need for the Report to the circulated to
Panama, secon ded by Sweden, proposed an amend the ;rppropriate Committees of the Commission well in
ment to the proposal which had the effect of considering advance of the next Annual Meeting to allow them
~dequ ate time to consider the recomme ndations.
the moratorium in two parts; one dealing with factory-ship 1l1e USA had submitted seven proposed Schedule
whaling and the other with land station operations. amendments relati ng to manageme nt procedure, and
Denmar k, seconded by Chile, further amended the first
part to exclude minke whales and this was agreed by the these were referred to the Special Scientific Working
Commission. The final proposal was thus to add to Group .
paragraph 8 of the Schedule the following sub-paragraph:
8(d) Notwithsta nding the other provisions of para 8. JM.PLICATIO NS FOR WHALES OF
graph 8: MANAGEMENT REGIMES FOR OTHER MARINE
RESOU RCES
(i) there shallbe a moratorium on the taking, killing
or treating of whales excluding minke whales by Australia reque sted the Comm ission to consider how best
factory-s hips orwhale catchers attac hed to to achieve co-o.rdination or its aims in the context of
factory-ships proposals to exploit krill or othe r Antarctic marine
(ii) there shall be a moratori um on the taking, killingresources to ensure that the potential recovery of depleted
or treat ing of whales by land stations or whale balee n whale populations is not prejudiced. In addition,
catche rs attached to land stations except as the UK suggested that krill catches should be monito red
provided for in paragraph 11. before the prop osed Conve ntion for the Conserva tion of
Antarctic Marine Living Resou rces is established. The
In additin, in Tables 1and 2 of the Schedule all non-zero Scientific Committee recognised the broad nature of the
catches would be changed to zero and an accompa nying problem and stressed the need to investigate the structure
Resolution set out the conditions necessary to end the
m oratorium. and dynam ics of ecosystems and to obtain basic data for
The two sections of the new sub-paragraph were put to management.
the vote separa tely. The first, on factory-ship whaling, The Commission agreed that:
received the necessa rythree -quarters majority to amend (I) m embe r nations be encoura ged to supply krill
the Schedule, with 18 votes in favour, 2 against and 3 ha rvesting data to the FAO
abstentions. However, the second on land stations failed (2) this matter be referred to the Scientific Working
to obtain a sufficient majority, with 11votes for, 5 against Group on Management Procedures since manage
and 7 abstentions. ment of the ecosystems may conflict with the
In this tua tion the proposed amendments to Tables 1 Commiss ion 's policy for whales.
328 Annex 46
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 30, 1980 27
A Resolution (Appen dix 2) recommending appropriate whal es, and had only obtained results for Divisions 2, 4, 5
action and d efining terms of reference for a Technical and 9 o[ the Southern Hemisphere from an analytical
Committee Working Group was adopted, Arge ntina and method which may include ccrtHin biases.
Chile reserving their positions on the latter. The Working Beca use of the scientific uncerta inty and the amount of
Group will meet during the week before the 32nd Annual biological material still remaining to be analysed, the
Meet ing of the Commission. Seychelles proposed a three year mormor ium on the
commercialtaking of sperm whales. Th is was adopted by a
majority vote in the Technical Committee. Support for
9. WHALE SANCTUARIES this proposal on the same ground came from several
governments, and Panama added the possibility of a high
The general concept and the specific proposal for a
sum:tuary in the Indian Ocean put forward by the intelligene potential in the sperm whule as a further
Seychelles were discussed by the Scientific Committee, reason for such action. Japan pointed out that the Scien
but no firm conclusions were reached . lt was noted that tific Committee had not made this recom mendation and
sanctuaries could provide freedom from disturbance for stated that its own scientists could complete their work in
ecosystems and for species or groups of animals, especially one year. Iceland noted that the Scientific Committee had
not called for a halt to spe rm whaling in the North
for activities such as breeding. There was a wide division
of opinion on the data which might be obtained on vital Atlantic, and the USSR commented on the discriminatory
population paramete rs unless scientific permit catches are chamc ter of the proposal.
allowed a nd adequate monitoring was underta ken. On being put to the vote, the proposal failed to gain the
The Seychelles stated that their proposa l satisfied the three-quarters majori ty necessary to ame nd the Schedule,
receiving 11 votes in favour, with 6 against and 5
ecological cohere nce of the area and the expressed
opinions of several neighbouring coumries. The rights of abstentions.
coastal states especially in their Exdusi ve Economic The Commission th en went on to consider the classi
Zones would also be respected. Japan objected on the ficationsand catch limits of the sperm whale stocks which
groun ds that it believes the sanctua ry concept conflicts would be available to land statio n opera tions.
with the objects of the Convention and the individual
stock approach to management, and the USSR thought 10.1 North Atlantic
that the introduction of sanctua ries would reduce the The Scientific Committee at present considers the sperm
knowledge needed to regulate whale resources.
By a majority vote. the Techn ical Committee recom whales in the North Atlantic tobelong to a single stock. It
mended an amended proposal incorporating a ten year recommend ed that the stock be unclassified with a
provisional catch limit of273 for 1980 only, the average of
review period to allow sufficient time for effects of the past ten years' catches by Iceland andSpain.
disturb ance and the recove ry rates of depleted stocks to be The Technical Committtee agreed to recommend a
followed. provisional classification asS with the same catch limit.
A further amendment proposed by Seychelles,
seconded by Austra lia, had the effect of reducing the This was approved by the C ommissiou by 10 votes in
favo urto 2 against with 11 absten tions, after the defeat or
review period. This was adopted by the Commission by 16 an amendment for a zero quota proposed by Panama,
votes for, with 3 against and 3 abstentions, so that the seconded by France, by 6 votes for to 9 against. with 8
following new paragraph was inserted in the Schedule: abstentons.
'In accordance with Article V(I) (c) of the Convention, Full analyses of all the availableata from Icelandic,
comme rcial whaling, whether by pelagic operations or Spanish a nd other catches should be undertak en at the
from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated next meeting.
as the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. This comprises the
waters of the Northern Hemisphere from the coast of
10.2 North Pacific
Africa to 100'East, including the Red and Arabian Seas The Technical Committee recommended that the catch
and the Gulf of Oman and the waters of the Southern limits for males in the Eastern Division and all females
Hemisphere in the sector from 20' East to 130' East
with the southern boundary set at 55' South. This should be zero, and that the Western Division males be
prohibit ion applies irrespective of the classifications ofprovisionally listed as SMS with a catch limit of 1350.
Included in thi? figure there mabe a catch of females not
baleen or tooth ed whale stocks in the Sanctua ry, as may to exceed 11.5% and all whaling operations for this
from time to time be determined by the Commission. species are to cease when the by-catch is reached.
This prohibition will apply for ten years, with the
provision for a general review after five years, unless The Netherlands, seconded by Seychelles, proposed an
the Commission decides otherwise.' amendment for 1,100 males with no by-catch in the
Western Division. After reference to discussion at pre
The Commiss ion then approved a Resolution (Appendix vious meetings on the by-catch problem, a second
3) put forward by Denmark, seco nded by Japan and Sout h amendment for a catch of I ,100 males with a by-catch of
Africa, concerning scientific research in the Sanctuary. 11.5% females was moved by Seychell es and seconded by
Seychelles stated that within the next few years it would Austra lia and NewZea land. This failed to receive a three
like to offer to host a speci!ll meet ing of scientists quarte rs majority, with 8 votes in favour, 7 against with 8
interested incarr ying out research in the Sanctuary. abstentions. Following the withdraw al of the first
amendment the original proposalwas adopted by 12 votes
10. MANAGEMENT O•' SPERM WHALE STOCKS forto 4 against with 7 abstentions.
The Commissioners for the UK and the USA both
The Scientific Committee had been unable to undertake expressed their continuing concern that the by-catch
any new analyses for the North Pacific stocks of sperm problem should be investigated.
329330 Annex 47
47. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-FourthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
33, 1983, pp. 20-21, 41, 42
20 CHA IR\-!AN'S REPOR T OF THE 34TH MEETING
Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting
I. DATE A:"'DPLACE International Whaling Commission isthe onlyorganisation
through which international co-operation to regulate
The thirty-fourth Annu al Meeting of the Commission was whaling can be achieved. having stood the test of time and
held at the Metrop ole Hote l, Brighto n,K, 19-24 July grown in size and stature since its inception.
1982. The proceeding s were presided over by the
Chairman of the Commission, Mr E. H. Iglesias
4. OPENING STATEMENTS
(Argentina).
Fo llowing the Commission's usual practice, opening
statements bv Commissioners and Observers were
2. REPRESEI'iTATION distribut ed in. written form. The Commissioners from
Commissioners and delegates attended from thirty-seven
member governments. These included the Philippines , the new member government s of Monaco. the Federa l
Republic of Germany and Belize also took the floor for
Egypt, Kenya, Mon aco, and the Federa l Republic of verbal presentations.
German y, who had joined since the previous Annual
Meeting, and Be lize. Senegal and Antigua and Barbuda
who joined during the course of this meeting. Dominica, 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
having given notice ofithdrawal with effect from 30June
1983, and Jamaica were n ot represented. In adopting the Provisional Annotated Agenda
distributed 60 days in advance of the meeting, the
Observers were presen t from seven non-member Commissi on noted the preambular wording inserted by
governments: theUSA . This indicated that every agenda item reading
Belgium, Canada , Ecuador, Finland, Indonesia, Ireland Action Arising is intrpreted to imply that a Schedule
and Portugal.
amendmen t may be required. Japan stated its
Observers were also present from seven inter reservation on this point concerning whether topics can
governmental organisation s: be made the suhject ofSchedule amendment.
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resourc es(CCAML R)
6. ENDING OF COMME RCIAL WHALING
Commissi on of the Europea n Communities (CEC)
Food and Agriculture Organ isation of the United The Commission had five proposals, from the Seychelles.
Nations (FAO) UK. USA , France and Australia, seeking an end to
Inter-American Trop ical Tuna Commission (IATT C) comm ercial whaling. In the Technical Committee the
Internati onalouncil for the Exploration of the Sea Seychelles proposa l in the form of a new clause to
(ICES) paragraph 10 of the Sch edule which had the effect of
International Commi ssion for the Southeas t Atlantic introducing a three-year period for the industry to
Fisheries(ISEAF) accommodate to zero catch limits, was discussed
United Nations Environment Progra mme (UNEP) extensively. Topics covered included the need for rational
from the International Union for the Conservation of management and sustained utilisation, the scientific
Nature and Natur al Resources (IU CN) uncert ainty and Jack of data in assessments, past
over-e xploitation and the decline in the whale stocks. the
and from fifty-one international non-governmental organ large size of some whale stocks present , the humaneness
isations listed Appendix 1.
of whaling, compatib ility of the proposal with the intents
and purposes of the Convention, the distincti on drawn
3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME between commercial and aboriginal whaling, coastal state
sovereignty in 200 mile exclusive economic zones, and the
An address of welcome was given on behalf of the United present situation in thew of the Sea. An amendmen t for
Kingdom Government by Mrs Peggy Fenner, Parliamen a two year ph asing-out period was put forward and the
tary Secretary tohe Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and proposal as amended was approved hy a majority vote.
Food. She comment ed that while discussions may be In the Commission. the Technical Committee
dominated by the propo sals calling for a cessation of recommendation was seconded by the UK but was then
commercial whaling, other issues also reflect the concern amended by the Seychelles. and seconded by Sweden,
of people throughout the world for the effective St Lucia. Australia. New Zealand and Oman to restore
conservation of the whale population. She noted the the three year period before implementation. to allow
importance of refining stock assessme nts and the need to for the setting of catch limits other than zero under
find acceptable alternativeso the cold grenade harpoon. scientific advice. and with provision for a full review of
Mrs Fenner re- emphasized the UK's belief that the the effectsf the decision within five years.
331Annex 47
REP . 1:-.TI . WHAL. COMM:-.1 33, 1983 21
Japan recalled that the Scientific Comm ittee had the proposed new schemes. The Scient ific Committee
stated in the past that there is no scientific justification had discussed this proposal, and also drew attention to
for a blanket morat orium. There are large numb ers in difficulties it has with definition of some terms in the
some whale stocks, and the Commission is prepa red to present manageme nt procedure.
allow aborigi nal catching of very small stocks. Japan Norway put forward a prop osed new approach to
believes that this propos al violates the Convention as management by identif ying the species which may be
well as infringing sovereign rights in coastal waters. harvested predominantly for nutritional purpo ses,
Norway comme nted that in the absence of a scientif ic prohi biting all other catches and cater ing for
recommendation for the proposal, it believes its aboriginal/subsistence catches . This was intended as an
adoption would entail the effective abd ication of introduction to revised procedures still being discussed,
managem ent respon sibilities by the IWC. It queried th e and the Technical Committee agreed to a small group
distinction created between vario us types of whaling with the same composition as the Rome Manageme nt
operation, which it believes is not compatible with the Working Group con tinuing to study the propo sals.
Convention. Norwa y would prefer to negotiate a This gro up met during the course of the Annual
revision of the present mana gement procedures, and Meeting and repor ted that beca use of the useful
discussions held it would be desirable to continue with
reserved its rights under the Convention.
Spain spoke of the need for carefu l management and similar consultations. The Commi ssion endorsed this
a uniform appro ach for all types of whaling, while activity and urged its continuation.
Iceland and the Republic of Korea both opposed the
proposal because of the lack of a scientific basis as
required under the Convention. 8. REVIEW OF REG ULATORY MEASURES OTHER
THAN CATCH LIMITS
Uruguay , whilst supporting the proposal, expressed
its concern s with resp ect to the sovereign rights of The Technical Committ ee discussed a propo sal from the
coastal states to the resources within their 200 mile Seychelles for a workshop to be established before the
exclusive econo mic zones. Similar views were shared by next Annual Meeting to look at the questions of stricter
Mexico, Arge ntina, Peru, Brazil , Chile and Costa Rica. seasona l limitat ions, prohibitionson captu re in states
Antigua and Barbud a, and the UK both indicated such as lactation, and more strin gent limits on
their concern over the lack of humane killing methods minimum and max imum sizes. The Seychelles believes
in the whaling industry. Furth er support for the that in cases of doubt the benefit at present goes to the
prupusal was also voiced by St Lucia, which noted the industry rather than the resource, but Japan refuted
strength of world public opinion on the issue and the this and indicated that it regards this as a scientific
ecological uncertainties outlined in the World question related to management.
Conservation Strategy. Australia believed that the
Following further discussion of the scientific aspects
proposal was a good solutio n to the various interests of of the matter, the Technical Comm ittee established a
the whaling industry and the conservation of whales. group comp rising the Seychelles, Norway and the
Before the vote was taken, Switzerland explained Chairman of the Scientific Committ ee which reported
that it would abstain because it believed the proposal directly to th e plenar y session on possible terms of
did not fulfil the Convention requirem ent of being refere nce. With one mod ification the Commission
based on scientific findings . adopted the proposa l, shown in Appendix 2. for a
The amendment to the Schedule was then ado pted by Working Group to meet immediately prior to the next
25 votes in favour, with 7 against and 5 abste ntions, so Scientific Committee meet ing to consider ways to
that the following new paragraph is added to paragr aph improve the presen t man agement proced ure.
10: particularly to broaden it to take into account measures
and ecological characteristics not at present included.
Notwithst anding the other provisions of paragraph
10, catch limits for the killing for commercial The group would comprise members nominated by
purpose s of whales from all stocks for the 1986 governmen ts, inter-governme ntal organisations as well
coastal ad the 1985186 pelagic seasons and there after as invited expe rts. and will be convened by the
shall be zero. This provision will be kept under Seychelles .
review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by
1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a 9. PROTE CTED SPECIES
comprehensive assessment of the effects of this
decision on whale stocks and consider modification of The Commission accepted the Tech nical Committee's
this provision and the establishment of other catch proposa l to reconsider next yea r the question of the
degree to which IWC actions have resulted in the
limits. intended recovery of Prot ected Species. It noted that
the Scientific Committee will hold a special meeting on
7. REVISION OF PRESENT MANAGEMENT right whales b efore the next Annual Meet ing: this
PROCED URE species had bee.n selected because sufficient information
appeared to he available to develop useful data on
In the Tech nical Committee Japan introduced a recovery rates.
proposed new management procedure designed to
overcome the difficulti es at present exper ienced in
estimating initial stock sizes. This sets a nw reference 10. WHALE SANCTUARIES
level, defined according to the amount of informat ion
available, and also takes account of the requirements 10.1 Scientific research inthe Indian Ocean Sanctuary
The Commission received the re port of the meeting
for coastal and abor iginal whaling , as well as
transitional arrangeme nts in moving from the prese nt to held to plan resea rch and co-ord inate activity in the
332 Annex 47
:;c.1 "'z-i :E:I;r ,...,:::::.,· :c~ ....
h '
l90
lit l'
Catc
GRAY S
ss S P
Cafication SM
,
lassi- PSPSPSPSPSPS 0 PS PS PS PS
es) RIGHTRiGHTfica
PYGMY
BOWHEAD
whal
-
P K
C tion S 0 PS PS PS
Bryde's P PSPSPSPS PS
HUMAClafica
uding
E i~ s S (b)(4).
(excl PSPSPSPSrs PS0 PS r P 13(b)13).
BLCiafkation h
MITS raph
h " agmp rg
LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6'0 0 0 0 par a
limit 167 120 o p
Catc t to
I
CATCH F
i- on e. e.
ti PSPSrsPS PS PS -- PS MS - PS - i ie. pmsuantrsuant
AND PS S s s s
Clafica nes .
incluinclu ingiusi ive.
·' • riginei s
21 o 44"·'o () 94 84 o 9
tch 8525,1,689637,72 4 940" 4 300 1 19 ab 1 abo indu.,ivc
E Ca limit 1 1 1, 7 t to o o b 5
l 1 t 8 1985
980 9tW h 8 19
MINK ' 1 J 19taketoto
on S s s be s
CLASSIFICATIONSati - - - SMS IM - - - - IMS ar ear on eare 1983
Clafii- SMS ye y y 19s0
ve v vernay r
fi fi fi s yea
' e e rnment yct~rs
STOCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll th th thne1dsi4).
Catchmit 100 in in i to three
& 4 Gove tht
,67 g ,7H raphthe
SE! n 1 3,63in 1 aginin
WHALE o S ct par
rsPSPSPSPS PS PS PS M - tra 50270
Claficati S cee. tod
txceeexsizontxcorn-sponding
o a o exxceed
BALEEN n . nm r n e
I. /3 .<eason a llscs ln punotant
S in shallsha s not
season Ch k s 1983of in
19tal DE W E \V'' c ae r ls riganeropsrshall
TABLE - ' E " ° 2 East Sto h foh bo h a
coasTU 60O ' 10170 ckS10cs w w timate aborig
- 70- - -- Stoak Sto\.:k ls OCEAke SMS es
"V~ ' ' · · Se tock S10tkI lctnd by ikshown.whales
1983 20600 7 S ai J minasminkc m sei
LONGI IJ110exceed: Pciowc t t th e f t tin
MIaPHERE I t d Stock k S i tock o ieof takof takenf
E n to HEMISPHERE-1983Y -abCo<ts r -BrckrS INDIAN l tibe h numhcrs
H so o W s Swk a ~iSty-y y tcs(t atc
n ck n a c uc IatalIaa c toc:catC'h
sea RN PACISa- r StockATgANTdCnda trn io g lc talotat:
tch IIreg JpanncSto H re un ian lto -Denm Norwack tor~stownah to tototal
agic )a s Stocrn Gn:enlandraUrcenland-lcelimd THER!' ndal the
l I V ofa sern v lndn-P rt.;tern ov e
pe IIIll v VI R<:TIC'ole Se VhVest ent cc Vest;.t 1he=3T1e ~v "TheA9Th'ehe
SOUTHERNEA To(aNORTHE NO\\OkhSea Rc:mWei NO\T\ewfoC:ln:lCd.JsSpao\theFs NOR 11
333Annex 47
42 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE 34TH MEETI NG
TABLE 2. BRYDE'S WHALE STOCK CLASSIFICATION AND
CATCH LIMITS
Catch
Classification limit
SOU T HER N HEMISPHERE - 1982/83 pelagic
seaso n and 1983 coastal season
South Atlantic Stock 0
Southern Indian Ocean Stock IMS 0'
South African Insh ore Stock 0
Solom on Island s Stock IMS o•
Western South Pacific Stock IMS O'
Eastern South Pacific Stock IMS 0'*
Peruvian Stock 1651§
NORTH PACIFTC- 1983 season
Eastern Stock IMS 0'
Western Stock IMS 536
East China Sea Stock 10
NORTH ATLANT IC- 1983 season IMS 0'
NOR THERN INDIAN OCEAN-
1983 season 0
1
Available to be taken in a six month period starting in November 1982.
'Pe ndin g a satisfactory estimate of stock size.
•The Government of Chile lodged an objectionto the zero catch limit ror the
Eastern South Pacific stock within the prescribed period. This catch limit came into
rorce on 3 February 1983, but is not binding on Chile.
$The Government of Peru lodged an objection to the catch limit or 165 ror the
Peruvian stock within the prescribed period. This catch limit came into force on
3 February 1983, but is not binding on Peru.
TABLE 3. TOOTHED WHALE STO CK CLASSIFICATIONS AND
CATCH LIMITS
SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE 1982/83 pelagic season and 1983 coastal season
SPERM BOTTLENOSE
Classi- Catch Classi-
Divisions Longitudes fication limit fication
1 60'W-30 'W 0
2 30'W-20 'E 0
3 20'E-6 0'E 0
4 60'E- 90•E 0
5 90'E- 130'E 0
6 130'E-160 'E 0
7 160'E-170 'W 0
8 170'W-IOO'W 0
9 IOO'W-60 'W 0
NORTHERN HEMIS PHERE - 1983 seaso n
NORTH PACIFIC
Western Division
Eastern Division 0
NORTH ATLANTIC 0 ps•
NORTH ER N INDIAN OCEAN 0
1
No whales may be taken from this stock until catch limits includ ing any limita
tion s on size and sex are established by the Com mission.•
' Notwithstandin g rootnote I catch limits for the 1982 and 1983 coastal seasons ar e
450 and 400 whales respectivel y, pro•·ided that included within each of these catch limits
there may be a by-catch of females not to eKceed 11.5 % and all whaling operations
ror this species shall cease ror the rest of each season when the by-catch is reached.
• Provisiona lly listed asPS for 1983 pend ing the accum ulat ion of sufficient informa
tion for classification.
*The Gove rnm ent of Japan lodged a n objection to foomotcI of Tab le 3 with in
the prescribed period . Thi s footnote came into force on 8 Februar y 1982 but is not
bindin&on Japan .
334 Annex 48
48. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-SeventhAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
36, 1986, pp. 10, 12
10 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF 11!E THIRTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL MEETI ~G
Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE meeting. Upon reque~!· the Chairman invited the
The thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Commission was Observer for Sri Lanka to present his governme nt's
held atthe Moat House Hotel. Boumemou th. UK. 15-19 statemem verbally .
July 1985. Mr E. H. Iglesia (Argent ina) chaired the
proceed ings. 5. AOOPTION Of AGENDA
The Provisional Ann otate d Agenda had been circulated
2. REPRESENTATION sixty days in advance of the meeting. The Philippines
Thirty-eightmember governments were represented by requested that Item 6--F uture Acthiti es of the
Commission-shou ld be discussed after certain other
Commissioner s and delegates ; the Solomon Islands matters, and the Chamn an pointed out that this would be
adhered to the Convention and joined the meettng during
the course of the week. Mauriuu s. Senegal and Uruguay achieved by referring Items 7-lto be discussed first bytbe
did not attend . Technical Committee.
Three non-m ember governm ents. Canada. Ponugal and
Sri Lanka. were represented by obse rvers. as were five 6. FUroRE ACTIVITIES OF TH£ COMMJSSION
inter-governmental organisat ions: 6.1 Report of Working Group on the future Activities of
Commiss ion for the Conservation of Anta rctic Marine
Living Resources (CC AMLR ) the Commission
As the result of an initiative by the USA art he 36th Annual
Commission of the European Commun ities (CEC) Meeting. the Chairman formed a Working Grou p to meet
Inter-Amer ican Trop icalTuna Commiss ion (lATIC ) in two sessions to discuss the future cour.;e of activities of
Internation alou ncil for the Explo ration of the Sea the Commission . The first meeting, of a small group of
(ICES)
Convention on the Conservatio n of Migratory Species of Commissioners im~ted by the Cha irman. was held in
Cambridge, 12- 14 February 1985. The Report of this
Wild Animals (CMS) meeting w as distribu ted to al.lCommissioners and Con
as well as the lnternariona.lUnion for the Conserva tion otractingGovernments and reviewed. together with com
Nature and Natura l Resources (IUCN) and fifty-six ments received from Cont.racting Governments and those
internati onal non-governm ental organ isations (listed inof the Scientific Committe e. by a larger group immediat ely
Appendix 1}. before the 37th Annu al Meeting.
The Chairman introd uced the Report of the second
session to tbe Annual Meeting. Thisincluded an Appendix
3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME developed at the Camb ridge session sett ingout the Future
ln his address of welcome on behalf of the Government of Activiti es of the Comm ission under the bead ings of:
the United Kingdom . Mr John MacGregor. OBE, MP.
Comme rcial Whalingand the Comp rehensive Assessment;
Ministe r of State. Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries andAboriginal Subsistence Whaling; Revision of the Present
Food, stated that Ius Government regards the moratorium Management Proced ure; Humane Killing; Sanctuaries:
on commercial whaling as absol utely vital in view of the Publicatio ns: S1atistics: Speciaermits; Infractions; and
uncertaint ies surrounding whale popu.lations and the pastOther Activities. The linancia .l implications of these
record of management failure. The Comm ission still bas proposals were endorsed and updated by the Finance and
much work to do in monitoring and controlling aborigina l Administration Commi ttee during tbe Annu al Meeting .
subsistence whaling .nd in improving killing methods. He A number of governm ents, including the UK. USSR.
therefore appea led to governments in arrears with their USA and Denmark. spoke in support of the Report .
contributions to bring them up to date and so to lift the recognisingthat its value was already apparent in the work
financial threat the IWC, which isthe only body working of this meeting, and commenting on its usefulness as a
global.ly for the protection of whales. Much progress bas springboard for the futur e.
been made during the lifetime of the rwc which gives There was also discussion of four particular items raised
grounds for hoping that furthe r important strides needi nby the USSR. Brazil. Australia and Mexico. wbicb is
to be made wiUbe achieved. repo rted in thfoll\\ng paragraphs.
/. Revision of tire Convemion
4. OPENING STATEMENTS
The USSR expressed its belief that the best way forward
Following the Commission·s usual practice. opening state for the IWC is to consider revision of the Interna tional
ments by Commissioners and Observers were distributed Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. in the light of
in written form and included in the docum enta tion of tbethe UN Conference on the Law of tbe Sea.
335Annex 48
12 CHAIRM AN'S REPORT OF THE THIRTY·SEVENTH ANNLAL MEElll' G
6.3 Action arisi~~g The Technical Commtn ee recogmsed tbe financtal
ln adopting the Repon of the Working Group on the implications of the timing of any meeungs. but agreed in
Future Activities of the ComlllliSion. the CommiSSion tOok principle to recommend that there should be a scientific
account of the discussions of the pomts indicated above meeting held abou t March 1986 followed by a Joinr
and also a reservauo n by Me:Uco concerning the Worlang Group of the Scientific and Technical Com mit·
designation of closed waters . including the designation of tees imm edite!~ before the 38th Annua l Mee ting The
sanctuaries . In this respect. Mexico noted that the Fmance and Admim strati on Committee recommended an
soveretgn rights and opinions of member states and coastal aUocation of £2,000 for the Scientific Meeung . which
states were not conSidered in the rcpon. and believed that would cost less if held in Cambridge The cosr of the JOin!
they should be fully conside red in such designations. Work:ing Group would be subsumed in those of the 38th
Annua l Meet ing. The Commiss ion then adopted the
recommendati ons for these meetings.
St Lucia emphasised its understandm g that the com
7. CO~lP REHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF WHALE
STOCKS prehensive assessmenl is of the effects on the whale stocks
of the pause of commercial wbalmg and thought that there
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee introduced the would not be sufficient time befo re 1990 if whaling
Repon of his Committ ee which noted that 11 was not in continues unt il 19 8. as suggested by Japan . II raised rhe
a posiuon to define the term 'comprehens ive assessment' question of data a\'ailability. to which Japan responded
There has not been any progress in clan fying Within the
that IOCR sightings dat a arc ope n 10 all members but its
Commission what is mean t by comprehensive assessment. natiooal policy gave fiuse of nationa llycollected data to
nor has specific advice been provided to allow the Scientifiits own soentists befo re they become gener ally availab le.
Comminee to structure consideratio n of this issue The Because of the diffenng nature of the samples and data , 1t
Scientific commiu ee recommended that it hold a special
meeting to identif y spectfic tasks, assign priorities and is not possibleto ~e a definite single time for wider
a\·ailability.
establis h atimetable for undenakmg a compre hensive
assessment of whale stocks. More specific ob jectives will
need ro be developed. but would include: 8. REVISION OF PRESE~ MANAGEMENT
PROCEO t:lH'"-
--<>stablishmenr of priorities for providing advice to the
Commission: orway rndrcated that no speofic consultations had
-iden tification of specific reviews and other studies of occurred durin g the past year but rhat a number of
existing information or assessmenttcchm ques required : gove rnments linked this item wnh the comprehensi•e
-estab lishment of requirements for new mformation for
assessmen t The Commission agreed to approve fun her
assessment , and identification of surve ys or other work endorsement of the procedu res and continuation ofthee~
to be undenak en to provide that informatio n: discussions
~stablishm efatimetab le that will allo" timely advice
to the Commissio n: ·
9. lNOI.Al'iOCEA."' SA~CTIJR AY
~xaminatio onf the likely cosrs of the proposed
programme: 9.1 Scientifk mHting
~xp l oratoin of new management regimes (as suggested The Scient ific Committ ee had re,iewed the plannmg
under hem 8). pre ~ouslyundenaken for thts meeting and had appoin ted
The Scientific Committ ee had received a number of a steering grou p to work by correspo ndence should the
papers con taining new informa tion and analyses of rhe meeting be held in the next year. However, it bad placed
current management procedure. and believed that this this item as of lowe r pnor~ itrelative to some other
represen ted a valuab le approach. II recom mended that a meetings. because 11was aware of few studies of specific
workshop be held. includmg in";ted expens. to explore relevance to the Commission
these matters funh er within the contex t of the Se)'chelles re·staledits offer to hosr the scientific
compreh ensive assessment. This might lead to a new meeting and had a!locared funds to suppon participants
approach to management strategy. from Indian Ocean States. but recognised that there may
Japan introdu ced a worktng paper to the Techmcal be other prioriti es within the Commiss Itwas still ready
Committee designed to promot e fun her discussiOn before to host the meeting in 1987.
the next Annual Meeting . It included con tderatio n of a The Chai rman of the Fina nce and Ad mintstration
conceptual appr oach based on the levels of presen t stocks Committe e repo ned that. bearing to nund the financial
and minimum levels. the uncenainties in\'olved m such constraints and the scientific priorities.it would not
analyses. and outli ned a series of pnority items to be recommend the allocation of funds for the meetin2 thi•
considered before 1990. II reminded the Committee that it year. although some m.:mber s wished for a~ firm
had lodged an obJeCtiOn to Schedu le paragraph JO(e) as it commitmenr in the next year.
believed that the dectsion should be based on scienttfic The etherl ands. because of its firm commi1ment to the
findings and take toto consideration the tnterest of Sanctua ry roncep t. dtd not \\1Sh for a funher delay and
consumers of whale products and the "ha ling mdust ~ supponed a meeu ng m 1\187a posllionalso taken by India .
(Con•·ention Anicle V). Aust ralia. Kenva and Oma n.These nations indica trh~ir
Iceland stated thar one of rhe basic reasons wh11had belief that3 mee ting \OoUJd generate further scientifiC
not lodged an objectio n was because of the clause in activityand also have impo rtance in terms of the admm is
tration and coopera tion bet\\een nations bordering the
Schedule paragrap h IO(e) referring to the comprehenst"c
assessme nt. It appre ciated the Japan ese inlllatt ve and hadnctua ry
itselfde\'eloped a four-year progr amme of resea rch as pan The Technical Com mmc e agreed in principle to support
of itsontribution to compreheo SI"e assessment a recommendation for the meeu ng to be held m I\I7. and
336 Annex 49
49. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-EighthAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37,
1987, pp. 10, 12
10 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF TilE TIIIRT Y-EICiHTIIA:--U\AL MEFT I:--IG
Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Eighth Annual Meeting
l. DATE A:\'0 PlACE S. ADOPTIOI\ OF AGE:"'DA
The thirty- eigh th Annual Mee ting of the Com mission was Jap an requesteda re,bio n of the title oi Age nda Item I I
held , at the invitation of the governmen t of Sweden. in t·Outl aw Whaling ' proposed last year by St Lucia, and
Radhus, Malmo, 9-13 June l9H6. The proceedings wer e
include d in th e AnnotateProv isional Agenda circu lakd
chaired by Mr I.L. G. Stewart (New Zea land). sixty days befor e th e meeting . It sugg ested tha t the title
'Whalin g by Non-IW C Countri ~as'more appropriat e.
Th~ L:K prop osed a previous ly used term 'Whaling
Operati ons O uidc IWC Regulations 'which was accepte d
2. REPRESE:"'T ATION
by Japan and St Lucia and agree d by th e Comm ission.
Commissioners and del ega tesfrom thirty-two of the After clarif ying that the Press could remain th rou ghou t
the open ing plenary sess ion on the first morn ing . the
Commission's fort y-onememb er governments att ended
the meeti ng.There were also observer' from two Chairman prop ose d that. Age nda Items 7 to 19 inclusive
non-m ember gove rnm ents , Ca nada and Port ugal. ami fourshou ld be referre d for cons idera tion first by the Te chnical
intergove rnm ent al org anisat ions: Committ e\.!. and thwa~ ag reed hy theCommis ~ion.
Conve ntion for the Co nservati on of Antarc tic Mari ne
LivingResour ces,
Commission of the European Co m muniti es,
Internation al Co uncil for the Explo rati on of the Sea, 6. FCTCRE ACT IVITIES OF TH E COMM ISSIO:\
United Nations Environment Progra mmeiC:onvention 6.1 Revision of the Co nvention
on Migr atory Spe cies, Th e USSR recalk d tha t last year it prop osed tha1946e
as well as the Interna tional Union for the Cons erva tion Con vention should be revise d to reflect. greater empha sis
Nature and Natural Resour ces and forty-f ourNon on scientific rearc h and co nservationIt bel ieves thnt
Governmental Organisations.
Contra cting Governments should have an obligation for
jo int cooperatioin scient ific resear ch managcm~nt.
as well as financial asp ects, and it see s a need to brin g the
3. ADDR ESS OF WELCOME Co nvention into line with the United Nat ions Convent ion
on the Law of the Sea . It suggested that the IWC conv ene a
Participants were welcomed on beha lf of th e governm ent
specia l group of expcrl s to ma ke recomme ndatio ns to the
of Sweden by Mrs Birgitta Dahl. Minister of the next meetin l!..
Environment and E nergy. She emph asised the Nor ways~o prpt h dsugges tion for a fresh look at the
environmental prob lems which mod.:rn ind ustrial society I<J-16Co nventio n. It spo ke of the new framewo rk for the
crea tes in the form of air and "·ater po llution and de plmanaccme nt i.lnd conservation of marin e living resourcl.!s
of natur al resource s. Th e histoof whalin g with its
throu gh the ex tension of natio na l zon.:s of mar itime
disastrous effects on the specii~san illustraiioof the resour ce jurisdiction. and it believes it is time to put the
trend towards environm enta l deter ior ation. ha!'.iC con, titutioninstrument in rune \·ivthact ual
Mrs Dahl expr essed the hop e that this year's 40th prai c~t>. In pa rticularthe work of the Scientific
anniver sary of th e signin g of the Inte rnat ional \VhaliCommittee now con~titcu~tth e most importanpart of the
Convent ion will mark the begin ning of further progress in
activities of the Commissionand t.his is hardl y rdlcincd
pro tecti ng for futur e generations tnatural resource the 1'1-16Co nven tion. It referreto the report of the
represented by the wha le stoc ks. Sweden believesthat Reykjavik mee ting on the revision of the Con venti on as a
whales should be rega rded and treat ed as part of our basis for a new mee ting of experts.
common global natural and genetic resour ces . It therefore lcdand and Jap an sup ported this positi on. but New
strongly supported the mor ator ium on com merc ial whaling
Zea land questioned the need for such an exe rcise. given
proposed at the United l'iationsConfe rence on the the way in which the Conv ention has been able to evolve
E nvironment held in Stock holm in 1972. and at the IWC in over time to accommodate changing cir uc~tance. sIt
1982, and wished success to the Com missio n in the JHltcd. in parti cu lar. tha t !he Law oi the Sea ba; specif ic
challenging work before it. pro vision for the Jl)-l(l Co nvention. and thought that the
prese nt financial difficulti es arc not problems arisi ng from
the mechanisms of the Cnnve ntio n.
The USA . S\\·cdcn and th~ Feder al Re public of
4. OPE:\1'0(; STATEME:\ "I'S
Germany sup p(>rk d the latter view . while the L:K had no
Opening stateme nts by Commiss ioners and nbser,crwere iirmposition.In the alh ence of a broad conse nsus on the
maH er.itwa~ ag.rcl.!d to retain the Item on the Agenda for
distributed in writt en for m as part of the documcntmi on of
the meeti ng. in accordan ce with the Com mission's recent the n~xt An nual f\·1ce ring. to give governm e nts time to
practice . cnn:-.lder t"il'l-urth er.
337Annex 49
12 CHAIRMA N'S REPORT OF THE THIRTY -EIGHTH A:'<NUAL MEETING
abuses, but stressed that the Commi ssion is now in a The Scientific Commi ttee had been asked 10 identify
transiti onal period and care should be taken in estab lishing specific tsks. assign prior ities and est3blish a timeta ble for
any particular line for the futur e. It there fore 'ugges ted undertaking a comprehe nsive assessment ofwhale >lOcks.
that a small Working Group should be set up to try and In developing the dei inition of a comprehensive
finalise an agree d form of resolution. The Commi ssion assessmen t the Scientific Committee noted that the terms
agreed to this suggestion. and Argentina . Iceland. Japan , of refere nce implied a much wider scope than the
Norway , Oma n, Spain, Sweden. Switzerland and the L:K compre hensive assessment indicated in Schedule
were nominated to the Working Group. paragrap hs lO(e) and 13(a)(3). The Scientific Com mittee
After further protra cted discussions in the Working agreed that Comp rehensive A"ess ment could be
Group , a third draft resolution was developed and considered as an in dept h evaluation of the status of stocks
presented hy the Chairman. The two previous drafts were in the light of manageme nt objectives and proc edures. It
withdrawn by their sponsors. and the Comm ission the n ident ified three major elements:
adopt ed by consensus the new Resolution, which is shown (i) Review and revision of stock identity, assessment
in Appendix 2. methods and data 4uality and availabilit y.
Sweden declared that it had, in the spirit of consensus. (ii)Plan and cond uct collection of new informat ion.
agreed to accept the recom mendation on the usc of whales
taken under special permi ts for scientific purpo ses. It (iii)Exam ine alternative manag ement regimes.
The Scientific Committee saw the carrying out of the
hoped that all whaling nations will implement the Compre hensive Assessment as an iterat ive process with
recommendation conservat ively so as not to make the
specialpermit for scientific purp oses a cover for con tinued considerab le interact ion between these thre e d ements.
commercia l whaling. Oman associated itself with thi' The Scientific Committee agreed that there is
statement. considerab le uncertainty over stock identit y and the
relationship betw een biological and manage ment stocks. A
numb er of types of data and studies of relevance were
6.4 Listed species identified . An esse ntial part of the review process will
Mexico requested guidance last year from the Commission involve compili ng and updating catalogues of available
in solving the legal aspects of the species referred to as data by manageme nt unit and species. It was noted that
'small cetaceans· - species not listed in the Ann ex on new data requirements may arise when the data inventories
Nomencla ture of Whal es to the Final Act of the 1946 have been deve loped, and after an initia l review of
Intern ational \Vhaling Conferenc e. Mexico did not wish methodo logies, to examine part icular assessment
for a repetitive debat e, and its own position was not static, me thodo logies, as well as to provide addit ional
but it thought it import ant to establish the competence of information for assessment of particular stocks.
the !WC with respect to species. It propose d that the Item Continuation of moni toring studies of par ticular stocks was
should be maintain ed on the Agenda . leading to a proper also recommended by the Scientific Comm ittee.
analysis of the subject. Spain, Iceland . Japan , 1\orway, lthas become clear that there are a number of prob lems
Brazil, the Philippines and Argentina supported this in trying to fully implement the prese nt management
proposal. procedure, particul arly associated with difficulties in
New Zea land reviewed the legal texts of the 1946 estimat ing the maximum sustainable yield. maximum
Convention and the Schedule and stated its view that these sustainab le yield levels and initial stock sizes. I:lecausc of
are not restrictive as to species. It referred to the Ann ex of the relationsh ip hetwee n manag ement procedur es and the
Nomenclature, which it believes has no hinding force, as it advice required to implement them. an essential part of a
isnot part of the Conve ntion or Schedule and was a Compr ehensive Assessment will include explorat ion of
Secretariatpaper produced for guidance purposes to list alternative manageme nt procedures.
the commo n names of species being discussed. Therefor.:, The Scientific Committee devel oped an outline work
it should not be used to restrict the range of the pan of scientific work and joint scientif ic/technical work.
Comm ission's activities. The scient ific work consists of seven steps:
This view was shared bv the Netherlands, Sweden , UK. - an inventory of current knowledge on the status of
Finland, Australia , Sw ~ie lran and India, while France stocks;
and Denmark stat ed their position to the contrary. In the - methodologica l problems in dete rminin g stock identity
absence of consen sus, the Commission agreed to keep the and population trends;
subject on its Agenda for next year. -p aralle l with thto examine the availability of data;
-re view scientific aspec ts of alternative management
6.5 Operations of the Scientific Committee procedures;
The future mode of ope ration of the Scientific Com mittee, - preparation of a second round inventory;
fundin g and associa ted activities, especially in relatio n to- exam ination of genera l aspects of whale population
the programme of Comprehensive Assessment , are dynamics;
reporte d unde r Sections 7 and 16. - prepara tion of a third round inventory .
The Joint Scientific/Technical Committee activit y involves
7. COMPREHE~SIVE ASSESS:\1E:-ITOF WHALE discussion of the managem ent objectives of the
Com mission and their scientific implications.
STOCKS At each stage in the process of carrying out the
7.I Report of the Scientific Committ ee Com prehensive Asse" mcnt the re is a need to set priorities
The Chairman of the Scientific Comm ittee introd uced the which will be dictated by the needs at each stage of the
report of the Special Mee ting of the Scientific Committee work . Comp letion of a Comprehensive Assessment will
held in Ca mbridge in April 1986, and the relevant section take a considerable length of time. The Scientific
of the repor t ofthe Scientific Com mittee's annu almeeting. Committee developed a timetable to complete work for at
338 Annex 50
50. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-NinthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38,
1988, pp. 10-16, 29
10 O tMRMA S REPORT OF THE THJRTY -I'INTH ANN UAL MEE11NG
Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting
I. DATE AND PLACE 6. REVISI0:-1 OF THE CONVENTJO~
The Thir ty-Ninth Annual Meeti ng of the Commissiwa.> The USSR spoke of the new situat ion il sees in the
held at the Moat House Hotel, Bournc mouth. UK. 22-26 activ if1heeCom mis. nresolting from the ce-sation of
June 1987. Mr I.L.G. tewan ( ew Zealand) chaired the commercial whaling. This has eliminated regulator:·
proceedi ngs. functiOnsand moved research and conserva tion objectives
10 the forefront.us it believed it essential to amend the
1946 Convention appropriately. so a10 take account of
2. REPRESE NTATIO N
the norms of the International Law of the Sea. to make
Thirty-three or the Commission's forty-one member provision {or the financial aspects of the CommiSSoin. as
govern mentswere represented by Commissioners and wellasthe legal latus of the functions and objec1ives ofthe
delegats. Observers from two non-member governmen ts. SCientific Committee. The USSR believed that lhe
Canada and Portugal. also artend ed. as well as obse rvers
regulations esLablishcd by the Commission should pay due
from five Ier-Gove rnmental Organisations: regard to 1he overetgn rights of coast al Slales and their
fi·hcry zone jurisdiction. and tncorpo rate provisions for
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine the adoption of decisions and cooperatio n with other
Living Resource s: intrna tional orgnnisationIItherefore propOS<d! that a
Europea n Economic Community;
Interna tional Council for the Explorati on of the Sea:special workmg group should be established in the near
fu1ureforthis purpose.
International Council for South East Atlantic Fisheries; This propo sal was econde d by Mexico. on•ay and
United ations Enviro nment Progra mme Japan, wbo ail spoke ofthe need. they saw for revision and
and the Internatio nal Uruon for tbe Conserva tion of recalled the previous attempt s ro achieve this. Japan and
Nature and Natura l Resources. rogethcr with observers 'orway also pointed out tbal they do not regard the
from 57 international Non-Governmental Organisarions. present cessa tion of commercia l whaling as the prime
motivation.
3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME wnzerland. Sweden. Denmar k. UK and New Zealand .
while recogmstng 1be changed circumstances and
The Rt Hon. John Sclwvn Gummcr. Mini~1reof Sr:ne. percepti ons sin 19~6. also noted the evolutionary
Ministry of Agriculture.' fisheries and Food welcomed approa ch in the Commission's work and suggested that the
particpants on behalf of the Go,•ernment of the United
questionof revisiowas ofrath er low priority and need nor
Kingdom. He e mphasised the importance of the is!;ues to be s.eens a maHer of urnencv.
bediscussed within the genera l framework ofoonservation At al:lter session. the USSR purforwaaproposa lfora
of the world' wildlife and husbandry of the natural Working Group to meet in the UK in November/
environment. The IWC remain' a •ital and acthbody in
Decem ber 1987 toexamine ques tions related to tJte 19-16
theforefro nt of tntcrnat ional deba te. Importa h~ work Conventio n. It would repo rt to the 40th Annual Meeting.
stHIto be done, following the moratorium on commercial and at a later stage consider specifi.cproposals for rcvtsion
whaling."'lrGumm er recognised the taki.ng of whales for oflhe Con~ ntoin. Mexico ~ec noed this proposa l.
scientific purposes and abo riginaUsub>"istencc huas ing
Br:Jzil propo sed a clarificat ion of wording for !his two
exceptions which needed to be free ofany anribures of stage approach. whicwas supported by Of \\11together
commercia.! whaling. He referred a.lso to the continuing with Ire land aud Argentina. The UK. Australia. Oman.
concem o•c r the humaneness of the hunting and killing
methods. the Federa l Republic of Germa ny. the Peop le's Republic
of China. Netherlan ds and the USA expressed >Orne
doub~ about making such a decision now. Japa n and
~-OPENI~G STATEMEr.TS France spoke in ravour of the Soviet proposal
Continuing the Comm i ion's recent pracllce. opening Funher discusston of 1he factors and practJcalities
staRme nn b\• Commi sioners and Observers were involved by the USSR. S"'>tizcrland. Argenuna. Mexico.
distributed in·wrinen form for inclu5ion in the meeting Brazil.CK . Peru and Oman led 10the deds ion to
documentat ion. estabh<h Workong Group charged with thre,pun<ibilofy
e'{ammj qun~tsin~related to 1he openHion of the 1940
Con«n tion. and "'h•ch would mintthe wed prio10 and
5. ADOPTIO N Of AGENDA repo rtit>results10 the ~Oht AnnllillMeeting of tbe
Commt.s1on
Th'-' ommission adopted the Agenda circulated sida~;,
in advance of the meeting. The Chairman proposed that lll e Chairman proposed that Amh:t>sado r E.H. Iglesias.
h ems lO10 22 should be l'On idered first bTecnehli~ the Comm issioner for Arge ntina and the pre\10US
Commirtee. and this was agreed Chainnan ot the Cc>mmission. should act as convenor of
339Annex 50
REP INT . INHAL COM ~N 3X. t9AA II
this Working Group. This nomination was supportedby the Comm ission to recomme nd lo member I!Ovemments
the USSR. Brazil and Spain. and agr.:=ed by the whether the proposed research i~ consist;ntwith the
Commission ·s conservatio n policy.he USA saw no
Commbsion .
conflict in such action with the authori tv reservto
Contrac ting Governments under Arttcle . Vrii of the
Convention in issuing sp.:cial permits. stating that its
proposa l wasintended to implement Article VI. that the
7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Commission mav from. time to time make
7.1Report ofWorking Group recommendations io any or all Contracting Governments
The Working Group on Socio-Economic lmplic<ttions of a on any matters which relate to whales or whaling.
Zero Catch limit was chaired by Mr J.G. l'v1arq'orto Statements of support for thts proposa l were made by a
number of governments. Sweden expressed its <.-oncern
(Brazil) and anended by delegations from Auslralia .
Brazil. Iceland . Japan. Republic of KorM~xic o.w about the development of whaling for sctentific purposes.
Zealand. Norway. Seychelles. Spain. Swedennd USA. and S<tWthe resolution as a step forward to avoid abuse .
Onlv one wrillen submission was available 10 the Switzerland emphasised its domes tic preoccupation s o•e r
Wor~g Group. from Australi a. which described some the use of animals for scientific purposes. and Australia
spoke of the need to preven t whaling for scientific research
socio-economic implications of the l'l78 closure of the
whaling statio n in West.:=rn Australia. This had initialcircumvenring the effects the moratorium and affecting
economic and employment implicarion s but rhesc had the Comprehensive Assessment. The Federal Republic of
dissipated over a short period . A whalingmuseum had now Germany recognised the two main aspects of the proposal
been establ isd and a whale watching industry has as estab lishing additional criteria for scientific whaling
both for the Comprehensive Assessment and other
evolved elsewhere in Australia .
Brazil made a preiminary repon of economic and social important research needs. and the right of the Commission
datarelated to its whaling operatio n in recent years. ando e~pres its,·jew on research programme s of member
Spain indicatedhat a paper is being prepared. ~1taeswhich involve the taking of whales .
The Nether lands and the UK were both concerned that
The Working Gro up empha~is hai the rerrns of
.rrference are intended onlv as a model. \\ilh enou2h commercial "tlaline mav be reintroduced under the I!Uise
flexibilityto accomt ieOtOhed~ greatly differi~g of scientific study. a~d believed that the resol;;_tion
circumstances Governments are asked to describe . It proposed appropriarely reflects the Commission ·s right
solicited the submission of as much information asi~ and responsibilityo express irs views and the sovereignty
of Contrac ting Governmen ts to i.ssue special permill\. The
available to member20• emm~nts bv reasonable efforts.
The:Secretary was also requested to ~ntanocnmember Peop te·s Repub lic of China supporte d the use of special
so•·ernments and intern ational inter-governm~ntal p.:rmits for real research . butosed their use as an
organi\ations which may he able to supply material excuse for commercia l whaling. It though t permits should
nlevant to the rerms of reference . be approved hy the Scientific Committee and the IWC. and
the catches restricteto the needs of the Scientific
The Working Group considered that the result> of irs
deliber.u:ions would constituteimportant input for the Committee. to a\'oid depletion of the whale resources .
Commission·s work in reviewing the effect of setting zero Oppos.itionto the proposal was voiced by Iceland . which
-catch limits. To this end. it was felt that governments mayie\•ed that the issue had been effectively resolved last
need more time to collect and evaluate the appropriate Y"ar.In its view the propo sal oi the USA was inconsistent
with the Con\·ention. and exceeded its authori~o.that
information.It therefore recommended that it should
reconvene in two years· time to prepare a preliminary Iceland would nor consider itself bound by such a
.repon in time for full consideration at the 1990 resolution and would seek remedial method s in accordance
Commission meeting . For this purpo5e. member "i th internati onallaw. Its further coopera tion or
participation in the JWC would needbc·~onsider ithe
JlOVemmenst with direct experience were re4uesrcd to resolution were to be adopted . Japan similarly believed
present their submissions three months before the IY89
Working Group meeting . that the resolurion infringed the sovereign rights of
In_the interim. the Chairman of the Working Group Contracting Go\'crnments tu issue special permits. and did
dlrough the Sccrelaf) ' shoum<~int canact with the not think rhe Commiss ion shouldmake decisions on the
scientific soundness of a programme b>·maJority vote. The
member.; and circulate to all members of !he Commission USSR regarded scientific rearch on whales as a matter of
aliy progress report s or other submissions receiveu.
paramount imponance. The decision to termi nate whaling
!,lActionarising bad led to a sharp decline in research and loss of biological
llhcp~als for further actions and a meeting in r"o information. Ln this situation it belie,·ed that researc h
whaling could make a considerab le contribution to the
~ ·tim e ere secondedby Japan . Mexico and Norway.
~adopted bythe Commission . collection of biulogicul informa t.ion and monitoring of the
status of stocks. It funher constdered the proposed
resolution to he in cont.radiction with the provisions of
Convention Ankle \o111.
Norway was also dismayed at the re-opening of an issue
8. SClENTlFIC PERMJTS
dealt wtth last year. It was aware of the concerns. and
llieUSA introduced a propose d Resolution. co-sponsored quoted the World Commi ssion on Environment and
~ Australia . Finland. Netherland•. New Zealand and Dcvelopme nl to this effect. which commented that
S~ .This called upun the Scientific Committee to usc permissions for suchunting should be stringently applied
.l! 'riteria when evaluating resea rch proposed under a by JWC members . While Norway was prepared to enter
~ial permll. and it would then be wnhtn the discretion ointo constructi\·e di.cussion of the criteria for review of
340 Annex 50
l2 CII:\IRM A'I"S RLI'ORT OF Ti lE TI IIR f'o-'111-.IMEFT I:-ICO
'pecia l pcnni ts. il hgr.tvm ~"~"in sg about the The immed iate pm blem was the dul>r.:sn sihtt~of
pn<:~mtl cenein opcrame paragra ph'. and 1hcpropo"-Cd the Commi-.to n to manal!c and coru.erve the "h ale ·ux·ks
procedur.: couched m scmo-Con• enuomolIJnguagc onIhe and. gi,e n the po,_ihility-that w mc countric' may -.eek to
proposal. tdk<:udvantag< of the excepuu n u1 the Con vcnuon. make
The Republic of Kore.. also voiced i1soppoIl1hen r~co mmcndaotni< on SCientific permll> tonh:retcd
proposed resoluuon. Go\cmmen ts.
Oma n and eth erlands a>SOOatcd thcm><h"es wtth tht<
Tht: Cha1rman 1hen .ldJoumed lhc di.Cloon ''" 1has
hem until the nese~on. ' iew
Following this adjournment orw:~ introd ucea<un Non'<! concurred \\ith the urgumenl put forward by
amendmen t a detatk d draft m the ,:orne fomull '"' lh.:eland .md supported~~ cunclu.,tmh~eeig.the USA
ong~nalpropo<al. but "h ich the Cha1rman ruk<l to he al>ropo<.;~an ane mpt1(set uplJOtall} no•e l procedure
nc" rc.o lution rather tha n an amendment ofnu,e firsusing Ihe phmseolog) that the Co mmi.; ·ngr~· e.a
ne" dran \\ ;!b.o>ed on h~ m o premtsc<. that the mure bindmg rel:mo!bhtp lhan u reco mmenda tion.
guidehne' c>tahlished last year should he rcta~cm. After a further adjourn ment to the next se,.,ion. Japan
the first proposa l. ban~tdement whtch rai"douhh inlroduced a serie. of amendments t\1 the original
ahou1 conformity ",ththe Con,enu ou or the pohucal rcsoluuon ropo,e dh~ the US.-\ and other>. Thc.e were
con..equenccs shou ld be omottcd Tht'"U' d~~cnhcd mtenJed to 13f~icertain pMagrap h' and saf..,guard the
paragra ph by paragraph. <ccondcd b~ lccl,md :1nd positin of princ1ple and legal mterprctau on it held. The-e
,upportcd b} Japan. dmendm ents " ere COnded by Iceland.
The L'K recof.!flised some w.eful element> m thts
The Federa l Republic nf Gcrmnn ) then proposed lhat
propobs ut:.ls-<me ihortcommgs. nOdtl~the lack of the debate should he cd on all the propo<als lxfo rc the
R ference to the moraJOrium on commerdal " luhnp. or tmeeting. "' it lxh eved there " .Ino chance of a
Comprehenst'e Asse <ment.th e need f11ran annual re'ttwm promi>c:because of haste diffe rence' uf opimon. and
and repo rt b~ the Sacn tific Committee uf rc,.,a rch the argume nt' " ere being repeat ed
programme, . ,·ariou- detaih of \H•rdmt~ Uffil" tnn orwa) 'poke agatn.,t the clo;urc. smcc there h,,d been
of an)'proc.:dure for the Commis11male-~Judg~m~t n no opponunit) to discU>s the ame ndment>n:ccl nt
on tbc matter. prc-ented or to con,1dcr modifi<.t-t.i:on,. and Mcxtco
ke land had .ome difficult) in partlc11the dcha tc supported thi, po>ilion
on ~ question of prmciplt>ccall!rt t>chc,c d the l..SA Afte r clanficatio nhe procedure being followed. lhc
prnp<bal was unlawful.but non.:thclc;s set uul lh.: mouo n to close the deba "a. ~do ptedb~ lh ,·otes in
Ielandic \'tews on the legal sitThi~oclu<.analy't' fa•<n. ng:unst wllh 6 abstention>.
concemed the relat ionship b<'l" een Ai ticles VI and VITI1eCommtssion then proceededw vote separatel y on
the C01n cntion. Att en\\ afocu eU (In tbc terms m each ofthe nme amendment, propo>cd h) Japan to the
Article VIIIermitting an) C<•ntracung GOH!rnmcn10 re<olution put forwab~ the t.:SA ;md fi, e <"O·<ponsors.
grant tt. nauonals a ~pec lipermit ·nol\\i th>tandi ng Thl! prop<»l.!damendment s to pn:am hular paraIrnphs
an)hing contained m thi< Coll\ ention·. and <u h 1-il:tncl\\eredefeated . wtth 7 vote:-ut faHour. 21agamst and
takmg and trcatrng of whak' lx:mg ·exemp t rroth~ ~ ah>tention ; and 5 lor. 23 ag:un<t a~dabstention'
opc ratton of lht> Conve ntion·. lccl.ond hclte,e d thr~'Ph"Nl\c)y
USA·, propo ·al" asmcon,., limt " ith the Comc ntt11n The amend ment to preambular paragm p"a'adopted
because Itwould infringe the right<nf ontrclnil! with 2-1\Ole. in fa, our and ll :lb'>lenuun, .
Go, ern mentand unpede thctr ability Ill fulthlte~ A propo;ed n'"' preambu lar parngrn ph. amend men ts to
oblig.auons under An 1cle VIII. It mtroduce d eur.meouoper tvi~ p.lTagmp hs I. 2 >Ub·paragraph I. '
political and economic consider:llh~•the threat of ~ub-pa rrpag.3. replacmg paragraphsand~ with ne"
sancttons underU Ia" and " as .1n emp1 to amend \\ordig. and replacing paragr6." .:rc dcf cJiedthe
rt1 lc \'b~1unlawful meuns. \Otmg bemg 9 for.IY again't.Iahstenut•n'flfor. I
The USSR and Japan supporled thc>c ' tt'""'" agamst. 8absten tion7:for. ll~gin'>.6 ah,t.:ntio6 ;
The SA emphasised it VIC:\th~tthe llntOH,,u)n\ for . 11 agam;t.5 a~tentoin~.6 [<lr1'.1agamst. 7
positi on the moraJorium on commereta! whahnp. " hichab<tetlllllnand 5 for. 19 agatmt. ~btenuon'
~ <11not in place. and the Compreh en'i" : A;se"mcm .rc,p ecti•...ly.
whichi, proving difficu~ gin..h ould t~tcngtencd Tumm g to the ong mapr~oa l h) the U A and othe r>.
more thanb~ last ycm·s Re.<ultlon so that "h aling fon<•w amen dedb~the <ub<tnution of the Japane>ewording
scint ifpurpo; ~mtght nnt be a ""Y for soml' to get for preambu lar paragrap h 3. Br.tzilpn1poth~third
an1und the moratonum It rcitcrated thnt the Comm1s"o opcrnti,•e paragra ph 't10ulcl be •otcd on ;epar:nd y. and
rna~ make recommen dation< to :ony Contmc ting ;incc therewa no ubjecuon . thi\\a<done 111d1 the
Governme nt under Con, ention Article VI. :md lhat
pMagrdph adopted hy 17 vole11favour. 7 agaimt wuh I'!
catches undcr Article VIII are ·for purj)O'C>of >Ctcnabstentions The rcm;under of the prupo-cd re<o"a'on
research·It'a"its propo.ed rc'>olut:L~n Jltcmptto then \Oted on as ame nded. and apprh~c19\Ole' for. 6
cstabli,h .,t.mdar ds followtng the prt·ht<t~car·, agam<t " ith 7 abstcnlion' The text a' .1dupt~n rn gi'
Resolution ado pk h~ con cn,u <. and to ttllothe Appendix I.1nd the ahermoct:o-.ur"egt.m pm po"<al"a <
Commt5 i~unto cxpre 11<\ tC" aw.:lla, 1hc l tentific not ,·un>idcred further
Commu tcc on propo>«<-pccial pcrm ib In cxpl..tinmgtheir\ Ole!'~un" J..~Dr.tzll. JuJ>·'" ·
u trnlia refuted the lcddndiunplio~otnthat thi.' Argent ina and :O~.Ie made refcren.:cw th<tr legal
re.o lution it had j~pon,ore "da~dt" igncd pnmar ilv .:on,·ern• anncul~.~" nzerland and $l\cde n indic.u..-d
to lin"the dom estle~srlaunof nthercountnl'tuhear thcor con.cna tion cons tdcrdllnns. t Lucia .tnd t
on IWC member< "ho cnuld be Judged to be m Vincent and th._.Gr~n:u ni>i-po l-e of the necJ f,,r
conmwenuon of the scientific cmena fnr >pectnl permitnegoti,,uo n acon~en3-u.<,
341Annex 50
RE PJ''TW l iJ\Ct~l1\'JoIQ~N 13
8.1 Report of the Sde ntilic Committ ('('
llf the c nd 1es of fin and scfromath~es.ocks
Bdor~ di;cu>Singpan tn tlscienL,·opem 11s1the without a h.:tier c•,urnntc of population ahundaoce.
Scientific Com mmrC1c\•~lthe !!uidehne< e<tahli,h cd\\'ork l>rnpt1'ed fo~eaf"'"obo di!l<:ussed.1 o,is
for thpr<'CdcurnameI~thL'I:~n'\ rom Schedule: included cat<h" o rnmh ·whale,. " l1wilnotb<
paragra ph . and t~ four containedin the 1'1~ a~~nuntisars:cto~arrangcmcnbwerematf r~-g_arding
Resolutioof the Ct1mml~'ioTnhere \\'ert> ~Oml" lht• landnf\\haleat,-entr .lh,e d aracile.o~i
tllfuict~in interprclithr:!c par1icpmnlsm l~ ct'nd uctif1dJ resea rcT he fin and se owhak
l:ter. and aft(u,:nn t~ ComrntsshJ;&gnt('llitl1a1prngamm~ '.lal'-Cl'ntlll Ul'.
had bee n intende d for the Scientific Ct>mmottoe: to repon if
enid grenade harp',""'u~cd11spec1permit(..";::tu.·co:h;'GII
The dc..cus.oon, on the Scien tifi" n prO(l<>Scd
and thatthe Re;o lutujust :tdoptcd con1d nc\\
cmcr ia to atd evalua tion of "hc thcr ·propo>e d r.otchc'esea"~tchuf8.:3mmlrc..''hales5('-perm
wh;olc> in the ,\nl drC!ICaa 12~carpr•lgram m..
" ould facolitath,· co nduct tt,,Comp~heo bw
A~se~:,lm·eu cxpl dnatiLth~l.r.·prdl"ll·tnhe wcrc ht,th leng1h) .md n' rnplica tcd .
I>Jonkc "h as<~pm> from Area >J\'and V were
<r.i"t~.)"riot~·"thenl"llec ufte~rc')car3rnol
praC!'!II) and SCICntifocall) [ea<oble thro ugh n•>n·J..t:hall ~ hJobtam esti:m.~ nfa~·~,ecific
natu ral mon altoge ther "i th infnrma!l on on " Ot'k
resca r<·h I< hn"a'forthco min g.
dcnti~.~~n-t-~~.v:"ritin~in oh''~-Jparam~..·lc:na.
e~dng t..n·g~a-..:nreeti.Some member ~lidnn1
(a) Republic of Kor<'u hell\.'\e the TC~LH\for ths~lenifiCommtt lct..'•,
The Scu:"nllComnune~ rcvo,·wed thr~sb ot an faolufl' tu prm ·1J e u.ef ul ad\lc c ''" re placcmc rll yield , <tnd
cxb ting scientific permn i>>u<:db) to1Korea .i.:the effcc1s uf conncatch! e~m th..:stocak~~e
under whKh f>ll minke "hale ' h.od h<e.:ntaken latrom not h.-r.:gblae,rm e>dln&tura l mu n aJit) . hut
Con sidera ble con cern " "' rai>.:d 11\ the Co nrathernetarccruitm.:·timat<.!!o'~~rn wa..:llso
then;:, ult of researc1hi'prr·it<.erofi.:all' . the
cpre»cd abou t thfc"' ihihl)' of mcthod<olog)
Committee:trcJ~hat·the-informalil."~tck·.:.f' propo , eddt>o~n,h \';u ious cfft:l'l>. anll !he ;a mpling
help \"inrsigmficant nag~ cmnqtu1o nnn·rs1tot
,1fa tcgA IS('. thmu.nagemem procedu~..·C'ing.
any significant sch:alue.a~only;tfr.•ctofnthe d...v:eklpec.Jan: l'lHl~COInOf biIne'imateo~f
potentoall) a,·aiiJb lc hiolngic;JI dat :o"" ' colk ct.:d.
popul a1param ter>Other rncm!xn. disp uted >Omi.'nr
The SctcntifCommitteen:quc:"t'-d· ctiou11th\.· all ufthe'e(l<>intThe Scicnllfi<" Co rnraiS<'c
questioofwbe,h~..ta rcpt•nirc:.·qUircmenb «'"{th.cor1>idcr eJ the J;opane'e pm [JOS<IgmJ~hnessof the
in the·hcdu le were applicilhk tt• catchc, taken rnr specptT:lt m.d pn:'!-Cd rangeof\iC''!'·
scientific rcThe Chairma nr th,· Commi '>ion wok Th<' prop m tke of>perm whalewa, to in' c' tigmc
the posiliwithouh.nu:hing on the qucs110n ot whetthe: rnlc played h) cct;u.:ean., m the eco'y't m with
or nut thi>infor mall<'n "re quired. that it woulem rh ""on the'PCllwhale and II> food. S..:\oOntlar:
to the Setentifit· Cornif G o•crn m.:m',upp~
ObJeCII\'c< tncllung-1erm'tudy nt repro duction.
these data <1nJthe' sbecncour.H!C'''do so. grO\\Ih . energe tiickrttiUh.p11IIUthJilctgbt e
A re' i>eJ penn il prnpn;;d from the -Ko~ahl ic of
year plan in"ll"esma"m~:m cau. nf 50 \\ale 11
fo·rtakeul RPmin~ewhak' cl\ear irum 1'tn J9S9.. Divklf.ll5.~ <Jd i
togeth er with ondcpen dent 'ighllo.gs Sea·uf' . i~rbl.·t;;n:-tifk Comnuuee .tcfl•cd 1mpo rtan1.
Jpa n-Yellow ea -E<J>t,Ch ina Sea arercv~\\dcal'othe role ,,f whmlthe cco-tcm is nor nf immcdi at,·
bythe Sricnufk Commiucc Itc~pr~~,e tnc"rnth~t unpon~ncctolh i: (\ .lntlldd ibcralioSouthern
therwa, i!b ufficocnt prc ci.oun uhJ~\Cci:onu 'perm''ll:~nckh5a\(' not hcl!'n ah:t.lyc~n"no
method'10he \.'loe~d(stnlllar to~car,\\ OrkH • ad' icc co~h\,fkreon the·.cffc-:.1nf tlu....take. hut sonh'.
proper!) evaluate tI)sut·.:e'-'nf either th,· boulugka l
m~mbef nktl that the rctmw al uf . lll3r). larg..-.
l'~ighug.data gathc:ring. and thnl m -tunht.r" ucitllm'ature hull' in l1.tt~im:;Ih~tC erearer
deplete the 'locsu,btant~ounpld.: Ir•c·r~: It
h1ou~!GIJemfn ccct.~:thr rt:mo,·.Can a.,. C'..'!U
therefor.: reque-sh:lJ that the Conn11i"ur!'!~ron~pc r al- The , ;ornpl>ecm shou ld be ""rcruih
the Gnvernmcn t oiRcpubliofK<,r etfr·frain from etond>r~cdand inputfr.>mce phalopodrc,cart 'ht'rs
issuing rht permitIIc;1fll how that tha~c'" II ;o licotcd
not fun her depkt~<"" ck"" d that ot malrll~l
ro nrributt~·Cnmprehen,i\r\~c;1:('of1h1:,'tod.;.:8.2 Artiun arising
I f<epuhflc vf Kon•a
(b) lcel<md Inthe Cn mmi<Sion. Uk.and thPeople'Rcpuhlic of
The S<i:cnrtCommin .:~C\t·ed thln.'~h.nbt..uned Chm<J'-''". :t~irconcCr'l'th"·re:,cacarri~Uuc
from cal:cslilkcn und..·r 'pcrmH~h\ lcd..tnd l<asthy thR~puhh,of Kor~a
TI1e Rcpuhli,· uf K~mphastd >th<· difficu11ie'
)C arIn\~1" tota l of7o fin wh"~(J,ochal.-> "" '"
taken and sumc 3stdi~~\en~under\\' trprnpo:c.d f:.~incHnductmg rcsc::lrch. that Chi.'re,can.h,ed
Comments W(!hprn\d~J unclcc~~of.the guitk·line-.f,a,chi"'ahouc ~~urthe>·t\ l.·ra11theld!tkeot:dc.
re' ic'' ~peewl ptm t~.lllcrewere Jifferenl·.:, ofIthelief that- ill uch rel~affec1t'o~ ..mJih
opm1on on th~ ohJeCtl~ anJ (on tributwnt thl.;" ~·,ohih ilrf~r'On~~nJtion,;i~t2DO 1mk Lone It
en(nrmrltJ Oand wh~t\h!rH \\ UUidt.u:di lthC'' t.rch.hC\)uln•11"Ccplan~r~c·mcndutu1n.
Comp rch~niC\'ru'.:ss mentn'"' were cxct'lknt The U A th,·nintudu~d " pro pu;e resn lull,>n
f<·rom mdl dong that the R.:puhli.- uf Knrea r,·tratn from
arrangcme nb fnr l-'UOtinc:'igJti dnJm.l~'um
effor"a~ expende d tu collect and dnaly'-<· the rni,!mg. ur fC'\C•-.d~alpcrmu' a-. Jc')cr10cl~
TI1<:Seientific Commoll<!e"a we'n•ludi c the d fe<an~r..·rnp.o'l•thl.·Sde111icfiCommittee:.
342 Annex 50
l4 CfiAIRMA'I'S REPORT OF THE THIRn'- 'I'.:TII Al'l'll:A l MEEll'I G
t..pan proposed adJOurnment of the debate on tJtis Before the vote. the UK exp lained twas ''Oiing
Agenda llcm,t o allo" nme foro, ·ermght consultation'<iely on the taking of whalew~hed to congra tulate
itS go.,emmc nt Arge ntinasupported this as the Iceland on the otpailof the resea rch prog ramme .Thi<
Commi ssion's usual practice. and there -..as no dispmition was share d by Denmar k. the Fedna l Republic oi
On re>umption. St Lucia expressed the 'io:w that iGerm'"" . Finland. wirzerland and~cthcrlnas.
would bebenc r to gi••enationalinsllluopportuit~ The Ji..st two paragra phs o~ouhlt0iwere then
to improve their methodology or progra mmes. rather adopted by IIi vote<6fagainst an9ab. tenti\lns.
to asl..that go, crnmr~vlo..r refrain from g_ranung Brazilcxpr~d <sieconcern over punmg a standard
pemu ts
parag raph,., the conclusionof these rcsolutoons.
The USA formally propo,e d its resnlutJon. \\hich disregrd ing cleme nts of merit in the programmes.
second<:d b\ s-..-itzcrlan d becaus e of the clear dndThe first part ofthe res\\~a.en atl pted. "i th 19
uneqUivocal·dvice of the Scientific Comt1~.ednd 1-0tcs in fav-1against and w1th 8 abstemions. The full
supported by th~ People\ Republic of Chma. The textapprnved .rppcan. in Append ix 3.
Rep ublic of Korea then repea ted that 11c-ould n\lt 3("l"Cpl
the rsolunon . and Brazil and Japa n wh1le acccpt1ng(c) Japan
commt>nts of the Scien tific Commmec. could not 'uppJapan emph as1<cd that it program me ha<i:)eendes1gned
thi>action t>vth" Commi,sion on kea J erounds. \\i a e:enui~ci~u.:iacm.A new n:se arinslituhas
Argentin" reques ted that tfle final- ruu paragr abet·n calhsied to 1mplement this long term stut ~.
sht>ulb~ voted on sepa rately. and this w;" secondedb~levcdthe <ampl e , izes wer~noughto give rcli"ble
Brazil but objted tb~ the USA. On t>em!!puto the resultsut would noadwrsel~dffect tbc stoch
\'Ot.,, the prOpo'ialwas defeated with 12 •ote• in fa,The t: K ri~wed the comments in the report of the
agamst and 6 abstentions. ScienlfJCCom mntce . and l·ondu ded with respect to minkc
The whole resolution was then adopted t>y!'Ivotes whales that it had not been saus factori lvdemonstrated that
aga1nst with ')at>stention>and appc ap, in Appendix this largedcrta kmg would produce ~dkarsults. and
Brazil explained its position on thirc~luoton'r thatsp~rm\\hdk work "'"" noI ,S.:ntial importance to
to be conside red with similar phraseology: it diu nthe Comm i;,sion at this time. It therefo re put ion-a rd a
tn the sut>stance but only the acpropo~cd h~ the resol ution remending the Go,emmcn r of Jap:m to
Comm i sion Argenti na shared this positoon. refrainfrom ISsuingthe specialp~rmit until the
Norw~y made a genera lstateme ntrew gni<mg uncertannies Identified are re<ah cd .
commendab le aspects of two other re>carch pnlgrammc>
Thb wa, secon ded S"cd~n .
to be considered. where evaluatio e~hfon ib t)\\11 Japan pomted out that u number of the pomt.
merits would lead to differe nt conclusion' in cal'hexpoundedIb~the UK were arguable. and the on!) '"lY to
wa' concerned that the Commission was aduptmg reduce unc·cnamty111knowledge of the wcks is h)
mechanical conclusionposib~ redoing the work of the carrv inE out resea rch. It noted ,,rIll wuntries
Scoentiic Commntee. and rcqUJred a !tetter forum forCOnSi'iiCntly VOting serresolution'. 7 did not attend
discussions. the Scient iComm ute.~and anoth er 7 did not •ul>mll
Progress Rcpons on resea rch. It appea led for suppon for
(b) Iceland scien11ficach ancr 111d1on 1.:-gal gmu nd;.
Australia commen ted on the rcpon"f the Scientific Japan then pur forward an·mcndment to th.: UK
Commirtee .emp hasising tht> points madh~ the>es resolution. ueferring.:onsidera 11nnand any ac11on untilthe
scientisrs whcxprsced concern~ about alhl\VIth~. -lOth Annua l 1-lecting.
scientific take to cont inue. It concluded that senousThis ''as seconded by the Republic of Korea. Norwa) .
were raised with reeard to three •>f the four cnteriIcelandand the t.:SSR. the l:!!!crrecognising the
established b\ the 19-'6 rc>olutione~vedthat h~
<enou. itent of the re,earc h O\cr the futu re •e•m•
Icelandic scie-ntists sb0uld subm it a revi.c d proposSwitzerland asked if the rese!.rch would al>o'be deferred
thar te Commission should urge t~ Go-:.rnm~n tf if tht: d.·ssion " as put off til~<>atand J:ipan
Iceland lu refram from rssuing <pccial pemrtt< for the;p.mdc d that a;;ot \\Ould lose the funding 11vailablc n,,,..
lakin!! of fin. sci and minke whales . It therefore would proceed. Ant igu;oand Barbuda suggeste d referring
re<o toi to th1s effect. whiwa> ;econ dedhy ''" ' tht• mathematJcalproblems nr•olve d to independent
Zea land ansuppon~db~ Sweden . e'pcns for judgement. and Japan s1wa' open tt)an)'
lccldnd put forward an ament to thiSresolution to constructi\sugestn i. and was alreadY taking such
dde r cons1derauon of 1he reportof the Scientific ~dv1c.eThe Peo plt:', Rcpub li<· of China bdth~wd
Committee on the research programmek~ladnandan~ sample srzes propos" d lo b" t\lO large: the Sc1entrfir
action aris1ng untilthe -IOrh Annua ll\l cctmg It arCnmmrrteet~houd t>.tsabli<h the catnecesr~.a
the ~u:tniireport was not prepar<'~ucha "a !b w The Japane se :1mendment to decon~deraoun \\as
provide all the infommtn"ce>s ~orthe Cnm miS. n defeated bv II votestoo16 against. w-ab>t.:nuon>.
to take -,cientific respo nsit>ilitv at tIcelande It"'"agreed. on the propos al of Ar!!wn\OoItn~
out lined four~e.rprogrJmme and the '11rtAtlnui~ thelast two parag raphs of the LIK pmpo ,edl tionu
sog ing~survey abn ul tn take place. Apart from the 'Cparat~.and these -..ere adop ted" ith If>vote' infa, our.
aspee1s. it con;ilkre d the Au<trahan prnp<hal uf a qagain>t and 6 at><tention<. The rem;undcr of the tt.'XI\\a<
destructl\'e naandewuh hulcbasb in~c1~nce th~eadoptc:b~ I~\etlC5 fo r. Xagains1 \\i lh :..ah'\tenuons
l'on•av seconded this amendment . whoch was defeatTh~ full text is given in Ap-1.·ndox
with 9 \'O.11fa•·our. 17 again'' and 5 ab<tcnuu n>. St Lucia aBra Li('Xplained theh.~•J-Ihe grnu.tb
Turning to the Austra lian propo,a l. Argen tma age>f >eekmg imprmcm enb in the re>earch programme' and
asked that there he a sepa rate 'Cite on the last twrecngni<ing their meri"Mexiro al..-. pointed nul its
paragraph,_ which was agreed. concern wnhth~potential dfc <:t'nn 'ome ul tht!'tock...
343Annex 50
RCP JS l \\ 11-l O\t.\131-lOot~ 15
and app ea lefor intc rnau o <:Ovpera uonJapan 1twr.s n<>tcd that the<c a1m' c0.,imutlncous~
e'prc.i t~d,lma~~nd disap pomtm<:nl .11the decisiosat~ifdc!
being taken .
B.l . The r<:>ic"<><:hemicdl g.:ne !lcs dealt " nh rece nt
(dI t. enau / Jeveh>pm.:nl> 1n 01\.-\ tech ni<JUC' \\ hrnh may h<lp
stu dJcnti~e;i~n.
Icelan d put fM"Japr.>pvsde<~egdnto be .>nc way out
ofthe kal di>pu b~>Cttm g dpgr.>Upvi lega l expe rt' ro ll 1ere\'lcdf c<.n'>tc<·hnllj UC> cn .:ompas,c d
shp~onrc:.mJ land 1'\a,c:J 'u rvit"'*'n,,tcd
cons1dcr ife re><•lulion' adop ted arc "'-''""l ent" i1hthat :he recom mend ed proccd ure>arc U-<'d in rurr( nt
Con"c ntio n. and to "'ta ;11hird-p wtt1retn t~
procedureif there b 't ill d i'a !!r"a':><:<>cdhi< IWC >UPilOTte<~eIIi>\
B 3. The rcVI<'W of ma-f·capturtcdll li<JUg;n e a
b~Non<it y dOd 1\kxi co. and :<uh~nJap:m.
The L'SA oppv>cd the propt>,a l. arg uing that tho: legalo.1J <uf\ cy .,f m::th"md~~ :.pplicahk tu
whales .
anah ·, i<~nn cnmm<ml\' un ckr \1<"><.1wo rd' and " nThe cie ntifk Cummllle .: had rd~t(in,·en turics
CS t>c.There \\ 111aaybe\·1'agreemcn t anumg legal
expcru,'u th;tt tho: CummiS> in n woul d b<· ahdic atiug <>nly rwci\'C m.:mhcr gov<.r'n menriw\\e reich
:-t.ill not cnn !hJ~·e'-,·om plc'<.nf mformauo n
fCp!1>il-t~ildithiTf'Jr .l~
S~>ierzlaand Bra L'uc~es dttat till> i•Nic cou ld he ues teIt '""rccogn i..:d that p repaoitthc'c
tn•\norit:~prc~nch ~sub:o..tJntlal a,,\\ Ork
conside rt>ythe Wo rkin g (iro ur e,t. lt>lb hcd tn ,-xam inc
quesuonsrd ate J to the Cv n<enll<ln. Follow ml! tunh crll\\<"<'cr. in the Ut!~(:ntl'd of the r.·yucstcd
di~usions in' i~n the' .:nu ntric~~L~Ci amJ inf,•rmat"'for the cnnduct oi theCo mprchcn, ivc
:\' '"''srnethe Te chn icCom mlllt'C endo,.,cthe
Au .traha . vn q~c,on of"' helhethe I" UC .:nu ld 1><:
refe rrc d to the Wu rking Gr oup 1f the prop usa l failed ar rh.svf the Sc1en11fic Com mm.that the
Ctm)mi:~\"'unac all mL"mb.co\·c:mmcnh treturnthe
mectmg. thelclnad1~pr.>p<lsa l "a w the \CI!e and
defea ted . "-lth 6 \Illfa<uur.17 J)!.liO>l and cornpktetinv on·f,rr>to>the Sc·crctan: ll h\ I J.rnuaf\
abs tcnm .> ~~~- . . .
10.1Report o£ t.oint \\corking Group
D r L. Flc1schcr it\ 1ex1cnl. Vi.:c Ch ai rm.m ,,f the Te.:h nic:ll
Co mmiu ec . rcport cd that the Joint \V,•rking Gr ou p o f the
9. U STF.SPECIF~"i
Tl'.:hmcal and S<:1cntific Cum nu uc es Iwhic h h.: ch.1ir'-'dl
Mexic o rcmm Jc:d the C:ommi» i<>n ,,( its requc't made in\'lcw.:the S.:1enllfCo mmllt<·er'-'porl nnd
19&5fur gllldanin o rde ~ohcthe lega l a'pcc·t>•>frh..n. <-d .11!it< reco mme ndati on' fo r fun her wnr k These
Comml sson·~compctenc \\lh rfcrnc~(h.the -,pedes were furthe endor~d hy the T.:chnicJI Comm inas
rdcm: d to ·m~alcetacea n; 1\h!Ch are 1u>th<ted m thellow >:
Annex on:o-.etcalur~uf \\ h"ktu the Fma l Acrhe (I)the Sccr ctr.n at com p u!rng 1a,·1liry 'hl<>r t>e uset.l
1946lntcrn. 1tional Whal in)! \ onIt"illpu t thi'
carrymg vut .,.;cnn; tage te>ting of ma nage ment
itm o n the agcnJa of the Workin!! Gro up nm• e' tabliprL>~durc,,
to examine ljUC>IIOns relat<"d to the up<·ra'61n ul the I
Conwnu on. hu t also wch to ke.:p thncm un the 1:!) the "'-"' t<:chniqu cs uf D NA anal y,i< ;h nuld he turther
de,elopedfM 'tc>ck ide ntity stu di.:
agen da lor th e next Annual l<lceu ng.
Franc e record ed th<· same (X'<1t1onto mai ntam rhIceland <ound cd a no te oi cauuo n in cm ph n; ising that
and this \\ aS agreed Ill' the Cnm lni>MOn the>e tccbm quc > ha\'C nohe~ntte'itcd <ln all whale
>PC·ic;vr>hO\<n t0.:<>f prJCilcal \'alue for det ermin ing
'tu ck 1dcntit<. In partic •>fthc'c tcchlli ma~e>
reljUifc ;.uhst anua l e1fnrt and ws t i,a mrlcst ing
10.COIIPREIEI~.SI'E .\SF.MSES~T OF WH -\L F. The Chainnan of the Scient1fic Cnmmmcc <'Xplained that
5. OC KS
th.: pro p<•"contrJ ,rud~ of the-etcc hoi qu"a.s
10.1 Repor t of the Scien tific Comm ittee 'PCCII~•I de, tgncd l\l fun hcrin\'C~.l.l!!hl ·lr
Dr G.P. Kirk" o'><.(lAtht ralia 1. CIhe S.:i• ntrfr.1pph,·ab ihty . dOd that the i" ue ofuf-'a mp k 'n
Cummillee . re\ IC\\eJ the 1\0r k oi the Scicntir i.:C'ommillecd dres,cd .
earnedout 11accor dant·.: wthe pldn and llme tar k
13) nl<.>nitorstudic''u .:h :1> tAnt~1 rc IOCR
deve lope d at a 'f'Ctignhel d 111Apr'l'nIJun ng !'oU·,'.a,d thn!t,_.u\!h~.:rNorth Pacafue.o.~\
the past yed r (A l t\\ O w<>rbhB)'rhr<·c ron tr•ct \\ ah'-s.uht African ngh t " hale ,. Jnd'sc~ring
review s ha\'c been co nJu cted . hm<hcacl "ha les , hl:>co nrinuet.l:
(-1) .:nntra'tdu~ be mr ncJilUI 1ana~seSou thern
A. LTh e \\'mkshoo n C'atch Per lr:n,mdealt \\Jth
the rd atn>nsh1hetwe en C'Pl : Eand <tnd. I k ml>phcre min"h~,( mar king da ta.
(~I""nr ~,hvp'hnu ld h~h.:IJ tl~r'the lJliC'tu>n ,1f
ab und ance 1he u~(f'nat ur:tl ma-'tndenti~f"hah.:' in \)rJe r
A.2. The \\'lu ksho''" lb\ug·~m~ntJc,d upcd .1
l\\~tag~ pr('\Ce:o., f•t:aluating P'"'''ihlc In e,t unat c Jl'-r' ularin n pari1mC:tCr'!':
(61 till>''-'ll;tlhlll> \\ht> haw <!wh~ k'in th.:l..o:
manal!c mentp ro,·cdure•and Identifi three:
general~r~ ~'rth r\r lan lI I ("Of \\ .lcd ..anD\.·nnM.rl..
IG re.:nlanLI). •nnn-m ;~cm.lion. C'.1n1.dat he
(a) 'tahihty o f Lal"h lnn11': r.:q ue,tc:d to su pp ly a de ta1led de cripr"'" of lhe
(b l a.:cep tal>lc ri,k l,,.,cn<l0.dcpk ted
b..·low sn m<",-how n k'e l. mt"hutd~.:m!'-lTLltl"JthesoperatOi~.
(c)makm~ pos,l t>le the hcnnllnU <.lIi•Jr The n,·ntHil' Commlltce hall nute d <e, cral cateR•mes
thl,,,;-..,k - - - l>pop ula11011' rcg lt>n<wh!l warranpri 10riS!~
344 Annex 50
16 ClI-AIRMA~IREPOIH Ul-lH[ IIJ IRTY-'1 '111 A:O.I\l ,\ L M[ LTI "l'
work. Japan comm~n1~d that ot regarded rhe data Lm cnrurieo: prioiti~and worl.. plan of tbe
Comprehen sh e Ass.:ssmenr as rho: mn>l ias~na n')cienllflc O•mml!t cc :.nd the need im an C\,ra da) to be
beor~lhe Commis>ion. In '''" ' of the ohjecri<cs ,,f tbche Iauer·• Annual Mee ting: :utd the contrnuauon
Convention . whKh are Ihc conscrv arion and rmouof tlu: JoWur~tngGroup
utilization of whrc~ourc .i~ prnpoo;erl rhar rhe
Scientific Comme" >hould gprorn~'" rhn>c sto<:k,
onwhichthere "'"' suhstanti:ll whait~eforethe
II. RF.\'lSIO!\ Of PRESE!'\T MA:-.AGEME:-iT
mora1onum. and where much infrmatonn ha< been PROCEDl 'RES
accumulaicd a~uh>l:tilscielllific work 'wa~nder
Thi wasagreed by the Technocal Commonee . Th~ 1 echnical Commitl cc agreed to recommend thai thJS
Indiscussing managcmeohJ<c:llw < and nltcrnalivcenda Item should in future be>umcd within the
man3gementp~ocedrusthe Jnin1 Working Group foundmanageme nt a peel' nf the Compreht"n'l\'e ntec,
!hat Ihe general mana'l <>jecli<•c> <>ub~nthe and the Comnu»Sion agreed thm thi' item should"'' longer
Scintific Commine,· ior comparing the efft'riS <Jf vari<>u'cparate eleme nt in its ugt"nda
mJUlagemMt pmcedu re>. wereadeyume fnr th~
Comminee·, preoent purpche"a'al<n noted that thi'
could nut prejudge <ubseyuen r cons>derh~tthen 12.Ll\,~)OCEA.'\ SAJI\(TL\R\ '
Commission ofrc1~cdm~nagcm ntproce ur~e.The
T~chinca Committe<' notedthe need for p<»ihk 12.Sclentilk Meeting
Dr Ktrk,\d rt·porred !hat the Scientific Comm ittee had
management proced ure> tohe simpk enough in n:t~i"e te repon of the Scientific !\•leering held onthe
application :tondependcntfrom cnmplc moJc.'l< Sevchcllcs in Fehrud1'1.7It "a' rccognt>cd that a
requiring paramete rs which are ilifficult tn dctrrm one: ami
lo~t e-msancruar: >a unique and es,en tial mcn ufic
that the uhjecti <e making pm~tkb the highc" role one manaeemcntof "h al~to'cfor 'll>tainahk
conrinuine \·ield from a '"x:k mcomparib l~th e\pl uitauon un t:-u:ption that whaling "ill re;u me
the ne ~· 10 :Jccummudatc._.,entuamutlp><·ie
<Ome ume onthe future outsodc it.
mnnag.:ment re4uir.:mcn1>. lllc imp,oct oSanctua~on re>earc""~dffi ltu
With respeIl~pecifprop.>»l> to fat ilitat.: the \\Oil..
of the Scicntofo<·Commllta . the Technocal Cummitto:•·ate because nf Cl'Onomil- anfactr~"hic h
occurred al abIhe samc time a' th•·eqah l" hmcnt ofthe
agreed to defer con>id<'ration of -ettong ab.mgt Sanctu an .
sub£tstence whalingch hmn> l<•r mNc than ~car
unlilll considered hem 16of the plenary agenda. and nfy~esonunf the possible cxtcn>ton of the \Outhern
houndan nf rhcSan~tuar t\ tmprovc ih "Oiogical
the need for the Scocnlific Committee to re' ie"coheienre\\'J"cu :.sIlillwa' .:oncluded that. >ince
pcnnit>nnualluntil th" matter had b.:en discu-sed and
resolved bv rCommi~siun.It did :OI!Tfe.ho\lewr . tu qustinof >to.:k oound<Onc>for whak >peche woll
addr<",sed durin!! th<"Cnm prA;se~men.ldetails
recommend that an extra dil\ lo.<' added '" the of pnssihkdJ~rnc ntanv ot thboundai~sof the
Scientific CHmmittee meioallnw the 'ccun d.~a;.t d
to be spell! on cnmplctonn of rcpo.•n 1\'nting and ft•rr ~."•tPn.eapproprite~dJscus,cll wthn"c
reulthew me avatlahk .
memb ers to rt!atl th...ectialred\ \\T itandn The na:cd conidera11nto hg.i\'t!O ttlhlhH ..ih
distributed. In reoponse to an en4u ir) fn11nth,· USA. the
Chainnan of ths~entiocCom millc~di,u~d thaI~t .:dtr~aof spe<·:-cit!nHfic interesthe Sanctuar)
ma~ r'-q"u~pc·lp.ro:i-n~.md \\arr.mc conccnlra(cd
thoughtbecould de,•dop an appropnate lproirit~ re,e arch effort .
st<lCksfor the nn t meeting nf the S•:icntofi.-Ctunmolle<:.
The Snc nlltit·Comrnollec r•·pc;ll<."doh recommc mlauon
The Technical Committee nNed the voew< nf >omc thai the work>hop un th•· incitkma l take of w w<·ean>
members that it might be ncce<sary for the Ct•mmi'hold he held.
reconsiderthe rimc~thcl for rhc Cumprc hcn>i\·t'
IU>el>smt nf whale >loeb . It abo no!ed anc\\ha 12.2Repon o.-\dm ~init•:lott'tin)!
that it is nccc<,s,tn •fur th<·S..·.w.corofurmComIll r\lmini>tnlll\\.klln held lt1Ll)oUrn.:motllh
"it h the time hmit laid do\\'n in chedu le pi!rdgraph 111.:11.
immediate!\'fore lit.· prcse,;-tAnnualch:ucd
11enor~edthe rccomm.:ndation tll:otrhc Jn111\1\b\MrkK.F ·Ddp ech (Seyche llc>lhad!unoted p:tnicipation.
Group of the Tcchn·al and Scientific Committees "\\;llh Uc:lcgu11r1r\tgu~t.UJdBahu~ .Ath tra lia.
Compre.hesi•e A>se>sment remastanding committee
J,opan. Seychelles and South Africa. hut ther" were no
as long as the Sci..-nrific Cnmmi11ec i> " orkingO\.-1\VC~lat'er:rc !'IHU\\~\'.C:1\\'Ilrangmg.
Compr.:hen;,i\•e .mcnt.s!> dJscussion nf'ari ilIS:'\mn'tl\earismn nm the:
The Technical Cnmmu tce abo n<'ted rhc fonhcoming
report ,,f rhci~til vcc ting and •>f t.:icnlltor
inJemational:onh Alla·-.ghtinl!'<Un'e\ thi<<ummerCommillec lo1plac~ In partocul;tr th<' r\Jrnono-tratll <'
and the tmponanc e ncor.e>rom~hct~•c·nm.:mher ;\Iling stated the need lor
nnttons inchre\ear prnj~l<Finally. it ~grc"d
(a)co-md inat10n r,~rch and m<~notg oaon<llll!'.
that the Secretary htuprcp.or:ia.:tu.1ldo umcnt
COncerningthe Chronn lllfuf the C<)tnprchl -n>i\c ind uding fX'pulati(ln <tatu'. mcidental anJ <>ther
A.<...<nle forcorculalu.tl> Commi»io ner.anJ catche<.
(b1~,HHdmaloin of\tpr0aC'~"111th~ Gn\l..!'rnmc-nl..,
members of the •ck ntifi<·Cnmmottec.
cllncern-cJ c-,<n..a;mdCC-lop'--ramcluJ mg
10.3Action arising h:giati.lrd('\ :1h )cc.t::u:c~.,:hr\m.J11~
The Commjssion recci<ed the rcpo.m uf the Techni,, olmplt.,.mcnt:1ru'n:
Committee on thi>item01t1dthe \al iOU>cummcn l,,(c) rqti11n~uh-tllll>t,f the lndoan O<ean l•'r
ln particulendmt~d the rccommenda rur~gardog ~umll,1:rs\l-'rp("e' .
345Annex 50
Appendix 4
RESOL UTIOS ON JAPAI'ESE PROPOS ..\I. fOR SPECIAL P£RMITS
WHEREAS the Internat ional Whahne Commi"io n SC'39/0 ~doc> not >ati fy the criteria set out.16 the 1'8
adopted in 191-a Rew lution on Special Permi ts for Re.ol ution in SJ'<'cialPern1its for SR~earcbfirn
Scientific Resea rch (IW2S): that theprop.l~ resar ch d<lt'S not appear. on presen t
WHEREAS the Commi s~inh:t>c.m,idncd the Repurt infom1atiun. to be structuredso as ro contrihut e
of the Scientific Commi ttee (IWC JC,).U concerning tmfom1ation e,_,.,nual for rational manal!em..:nt of the stock
research program~1t>e conducted under 'Jle"ial p•·rmits: that thpropo<cd take "i ll atleast nt hs~t ~a.g
WHEREAS the Commt,sion takes co2nizance of mateial~!facilitate the Cumpreh.-nSJve Assessment: and
Article Vlllof the lnt.:mau onal Convention for the REQt:ESTS the Secr a~ <o tonotfi~the Gmc mmcnt
Regulationof Whaling. und..:r "hi ch the granting hy an)
ContwctingGtwe mm cm to its natiomtasp.:cial pem1it uf Japan : and
authorizing the killing. lllking or treatment of whak' RECOl\IMEI'>D the Go , crnmen t of Jap un to rd rain
purpu~suf ><:etific resear h remains the resp.1nsibiluyof ssuingspecial penn its to it>nationab for the takingof
each Contracting Gove rnmene~erc1stng11>Scweretgn such "hale s under the rcsemch program describc.d in
rights m re peel of maritime area' under ib JUn>di tion 39:0 .: until >Uti~ a the Scientific ('ommittee ts
and freedom of the h1ghsea<: able torc'<lh e the ,eriuus uncertaintrcs iden~~fied m
Now. TH ERE FORE the Commi» ion discus.,oa, to t~ capab1lity of the rc.ca rch method>
ADOPT S TH E VIEW that thc prop.)scd take of proposedto contrihutc >trfficicntly re<uh'>needed
Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales and Sperm Whales for the Comprc hcnsrve AsSmScnt or for other critica l!)
under tho.'prop.>Sed rc,..,arch pra_,dcscnhed in Important rc-carch needs.
Appendh 5
fORMAT Of WHAI.L'\'G !>,.ATISTICS
TITLE ·
I;\"TERi'AT IO AL WHALIN G STAT ISTICS
NTRODUCTI O~ Tahl.J.Foe tal lengh)sregion (by Area in Antarctic)
and1r stack division. spese~and mont h.
Comme nts on nwJnr changes in rcgulat i'm'. c;lldting
operations. etc noan~change> to pre'iously published
data: and summamc the computerised data available.
Outline m;•p of \tock di\·IS10n<. PART II
Information with reSpt tn catches oarg~ whales b)
PAR T I nation• rwt members of the lntcrn at.ional Whaling
c., mrm. ion
lnfonn;Jtlon from Cmurac ting Go'crnm ent.S rc4utr eu
underth~lntcrnauonal Corwcn uon for the R,•fulatinn .,f
Whaling 19~6)and ih Sched ule. APPEND IX
(Allt;~es for latest ;;ea,un onI} [unJcs., there i< a
~ingifantrc'is1un of figure, from earlier ycal'j .l Informatin supplied <lrl a<oluntar) basi' to the
lnt<!rnational \\g.Comm1" 1C10(mcluding its Scrcntific
Tabh•I.Catches by"'"· !!"ograph1ca l regmn (e.g. North
Atlanti c) ancLor >lock dt'ision. n~pccc1.anu an C••mm1tt..:c) litdeunder Parts l ur II
indication oi operation tland <tation noatfact. or~ Tahlt• I. Directed catchc, b) >pecie' and npu~ n.
small-type. abnri ginal. showmg number of (Utl·hc,-,.andrationt~pe (dnvc. n.:t. h•nd harpnon'-'ICLi'c
vesse).> captu re>can be md udcd a. an Item in this tah k .
Tab!.- 1. Prod uctb~nregion or stocdiv~i>n and Table 2. Directed catdJ<•<b;) >pecies. rc:g1onand month.
nation (all roam products. mea l. etc). rahl ~.Inciden tatake~ h\ rel!iOn. nac natron (If
p.>Sibk) ''"d ~pec(ikno«.n).lu>~pc of ~icy(rpurse
Tablr 3. Length frcquc nc,b~,region(h~ An:J in
Antarctic) and.or srock di,·ision.>pe-'1and >e, . Sl'IDdnft net>CInet. etc ).
346 Annex 51
51. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-SecondAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
41, 1991, pp. 11, 14-15
REP. L.'IT\\'HAL COMMN 41. 1991 11
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Second Meeting
J. DATE AND PLACE 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The Fony-second Annual Meeting ofthe Commission was The Provisional Agenda circnlared sixty days in advance of
held at the Hotel Oranje . Noordwijk:, 2--{i1990,at the the meeting was adopted with tile addition of sub-item
invitation of the Government of the Netherlands. The 23.3.6 FAO, to consider an invitation from the Food and
proceedings were chaired by Mr S. lrberger (Sweden) . Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations related to
its stra tegy for fisheries managementand development.
2. REPRESENTATION The Chairman referred Items 8-17 to beconsidered firstby
the Technical Comnunee under its Chairman , Dr L.A .
Commissioners and delegates from 30 of the Commission's Aeisch er(Me~ico).
36 Contracting Govemrnents attended . Two non-member
governme nts,Austria and Canada, were represented by 6. OPERATION OF THE CONVENTIO .
observers; as were fournter-governmental organisations
the Convent ion for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine The USSR outlined its reasons for attaching great
living Resources (CCAMLR), the European Economic importance to tile issue of the operation of the 1946
Community (EEC). the Jnter:national Council for the Convention . It was disappoint ed that the.rc had been an
inadequate response to the questions developed by the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and the United Nations Working Group in l988 .
Environment Programme {UNE P} The Convention was established to manage the whaling
Observers were also present from the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural opentions at a lime of relative abundance of stocks. The
Resources (IUCN) and 68 internationalnon·go~ernmental whale stocks are now more enda.ngered, and there bad
been a consequent change in world public opinion The
organisations (NGOs ). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows a party
to invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a
3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME ground for terminating, suspending or withdrawing from a
The Minister of Agricultur e, Nature Management and Treaty . There is a new imperus in ~ysear incbvhich the
Fisheries. Mr G.J.M . Braks, gave an address or welcome IWC is called toplay a cenrral role of harmonisation , and
there have been important changes in internation legal
on behalf of the Government of the Netherlands. He order at sea. All these deve lopments should be reflecred in
recalled that the Netherlands had been involved in the Convention, and the USSR cannot agree to a broader
tndustrial whaling from the stan, sending vessels to
Spitsbergen in 1612. The bowhead whales there were inrerpretation of the 1946 provisions beyond the original
brought to virtual extinction and now the Antarctic is intentions.
It proposed that:
nearly void of the large baleen whales Instead of the mere (1) the issue of the Operation of the Convention be
economic value of whales, public awareness of the need for
their conservation hasbecome predominant as a result of included as an item on the agenda of the Commission's
the decline of the stocks. 43rd Annual meeting;
The Internationa l Whaling Commission seem> to be the (2) the inviration to Contracting Governments to
comment on the questions developed by the Working
forum for this task, and has made several important Group in 1988 in Anck.land be extended, and that any
decisions that offer hope for the furure of whales. But the
slow growth rates and reproduction of whales require a such written comments be submined before the next
long-term view and wide horizons. In the view of the Dutch Annua l Meeting;
Governmeru, any modification of the moratorium can only (3) the Working Group be convened during a week prior
be considered when the comprehensive .review of the to the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Commission in
order to consider wrirten contributions of Contracting
relevant whale stocks has produced sufficient data, and a Governments and prepare recommendations to the
revised managemen t procedure has been agreed.
Whale species othe r than those of direct commercial Commission on the action arising;
interest have now come into focus, and Mr Braks urged (4) a draft R-esolution submitted by the USSR beheld over
support for the Resolution adopted by the UN General for consideration at the 43rd Annual Meeting .
Assembly on the use ofpelagic drift nets in which so many Norway recognised a need for theCommission to look at
animals drown. Many of these other species remain outside how it works at two levels -how Itoperates in practice in
the seope of international conservation efforts , and here achieving its own priorities and programmes; and
may bea new taskfor the [WC. secondly, as the USSR bad suggested, whether the
For many people , this year is crucial ro whales, and he Convention reflect> what it isactually doing. operating as a
wished for a successful and fruitful meeting . study society for whales. lt saw the comp rehen sive
assessment programme and tile development of
4.0PN E~GSTAT~~ management procedures in that comext, but also spoke of
the need for the Commission to deal with the issues
The openmg statemen ts from nine Commissioners , tbrough a multi-speciesand broad ecological view. rather
UNEP, TUC.'-'and five NGOs were distribut ed in written than with the exi;ting single species approach.
form in accordance with recent practice. and included m The USA agreed that consideration of the Resolution
the meeting documentation. should be deferred to next year's meeting inwhich it would
347Annex 51
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF 11IE FORTY-SECOND MEETING
14
Ne'> Z~e~land then introduced a Resolution on the Japan
subject of the NOTW egian proposal for special pennits, Japan spoke of the value of its national research
sponsored by Australia , the Federal RepublicofGeTmany , programme in the Antarctic on minke whales, the most
the Netherlands,Nev. Zealand , Seychelles. South Africa, important component of the marine ecosystem there . Data
obtained from commercial '>~~h ahdnbeen criticised by
Switzerland and the UK. lt remarked that the primary
purpose of the proposed research involving the taking of some members of the Scientific Committee for its bias.
whales is multi-specie s modelling which appears to be Random sampling during the moratorium was. therefore
very appropriate . The feasibility srudies in 1987/88 and
primarily designed for the management of fishenes 198&'89and the main programme implemented in 1989/90
resources in Norwegian waters. It dre"' anention to
comments by a lengthy list of scientisiS from many had provided data from a lot of young artimals, and It had
been found that the artimals aTesegregated by sex and by
countrie s who quesuoned '>~~he fuhteer work on age Mortality by age is now analysed, and mvestigations
digestibility problems, for examplewas necessary. While on energy flow in the Antarctic ecosystem will<:omribute
noting with appreciation the effort by Norway on research to the scientific management of the marine system . There
on whales. particularly the sightings surveys in 1989, the
wa~ no assurance that non-lethal research would bring
Reso lution pointed out that the proposed research is not forth any nseful result as rega.rds minke whales , although
adequately structured so as to contribute to or materially the sightings surveys have proven nseful and Japan was
facilitate the completion of the Comprehensive proud to have sponsored in many ways the IDCR survej'l;
with rwc international scientists.
Assessment, nor bad it been established that it addressed
critically important research needs . Norway was invited to The UK recognised that the Japanese contrib11tion to the
reconsider the proposed take of minke whales in l990. understanding of the Antarctic areawas considerable . lt
Australia welcomed that component of the research commented that a primary objective of the permit proposal
isto estimate the age-specific natural mortal ityrate. This is
effort by Norway which did not involve the take of whales.
It drew attention to the conclusions or a number of technicallydifficult and development work on the modelsis
members of the Scientific Committee last year that there progressing fiurly slowly. This confirmed concerns it
expressed last year that sampling may be moving a little
was insufficient information presented to determine ahead of methodo logical technique .
whether the data to be obtained would be critical to the St Lucia noted that the Scientific Commillee made use of
proposed multi-species model or whe.ther the model itself
represented a critical research need. The Commission the Japanese research in the Comprehensive Assessment
of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale. Ttspoke of the
adopted asimilar Resolution lastear. and to be consiSLent need to give time for such a long-term prograrnm .e to
it commended the present Reso lution. deYelop. The history of science had many examples of
Sweden appreciated the extensive sightings su:rvej'l; people being taken to task, for it only to be found later that
conducted by Norway in the Northeast Atlantic . It noted the information v.as vital. Based on the high quality and
the proposed take was limited to five minke whales, but quantity of research presented by Japan, including the
previouscriticismn the Sciemilic Committee had not been whole question of rational management of stocks, itllad no
hesitation in encouraging Japan to continue.
fully taken into account in this year's proposal, and it Norway supported the encouragement expressed by St
would like also to sponsor the Resolution . Finland
associated itself with theseargumentsanalso wished to be Lucia, and called for appreciation of the extensive research
a co-sponsor . carried out by Japan, and recognition that it has so fully
shared its research plans, itsocedures and results. The
Norway felt that it had taken into account the comments study of whales might be more useful if it had a basis other
and views expressed on a valid scientific basis. This was a than literature from which to lcnow whales. Those states
fruitful process contributing toimmensely complicated
wi thout the resources or motivation for doing research
area of research, trying to break new ground in developing themse iYes should conside r if acting as auditors was a
models relevant to handling the challenges in managing sufficient approach to obtaining new information and
important living resources . As a small coastal nation it bameeting the challenges now faced. St Vincent & The
a responsibility to the present and funrre generations in
Grenadines also supponed what had been said by St Lucia,
managing and conserving marine life. It would like to have pointing out that virtually all the informa tion for the
seen respect for the quality of its research and the Compre hensive Assessment bad come through the support
Commission encouraging real science. Norway based itself and efforts of Japan and her scientists.
Switzerland , while recognising the great efforts and
on the validity of Article VTil of the Convention and saw
no alternativetoasking for a vote on the Resolution. results presented by Japan, hesitated because tbe death of
Iceland opposed the Resolution for the reason that it the animals must be accomplished before the research can
found in it a demonstration of disrespec t for ttype of be done. There is very strict Swiss legislation on this
subject; researchmust be shown to serve precise scientific
efforts carried out by Norway. 1t also had legal proble= purposes, theuse of a given animal is the only means to
which had consistently stated since 1987, as well as
grammatica l problems withthe text. accomplish the experimental aim, and no other procedures
can be applied instead. The use of the animals must be
The UK emphasised that it is fully appreciated that methodologically sound; lower spedes cannot be used; the
Norway had embarked on a highly ambitious programme . proposed number is indispensable; pain. suffering and
It made the point that when embarking on wholly new injury must be avoided as much as possible; the research
areas of work, a lot of testing of models is needed before
must be carried out by qualified specialists, and records
actually taking whales to feed data into the models. must be kept and accessible.
The Resoluuon (Appendt't 1) was then put to the vote Iceland belie~ teat the Japanese programme had
and adopted wtth 16 votes in favour , 5 against with 8 already given such essential information on the biology of
abstentions . minke whales. fn its view it also complied with the nine
348 Annex 51
REP. INT WHAL. COMM:-; 41 1991 15
cnteria mentioned by Switzerland. The Japanese Non-lerha/ res~ord1
programme isof great value to the Commission and its France introduced a Res:olution on redirecting research
objectives of rational utilisation, conservation and towards non-lethal methods, sponsored byBrazil, Finland.
management of the world's whale stocks.
France, the Netherlands , New Zealand, Seychelles , South
Japan thanked the governments who had shown Africa , Sweden, Swit:z.erland, the UK and the USA.
understanding of us research programme and evaluated Updating and developmg knowledge on cetaceans is
the resuhs h looked forward to mOie constructive essential to guide the Commission in taking decisions on
criucism from other scientists. The lcilling technology whaling matters Altbough Anicle Vlll enables
employed wasauthorised and recognised by the rwc. and
go~·emme o gsant special permits , non-lethal methods
it did not think application of Swiss domestic criteria was have developed and prove:n successful in.recent years. This
appropriate . Resolution is intended to gtve strong support and
The People's Republic of China commented that it has encouragement to these methods to gradually replace to
laws protecting wild animals , and it supportS SCientific the extent possible the lethal ones .
research so long as the purpose is m line w11h the The USA had hosted many of the Scientific Committee's
regulations set out by the JWC on use of living animals to meetings and workshops [looking at such possibilities . and
serve this purpose. it strong!} supported rhe Resolution . Seychelles was
The l.JKthen put forward a Resolution (Appendix 2)on pleased to be a co-sponsor because of its numerous
special permit catches by Japan on behalf of the co· interventions m the Commission in suppon of benign
sponsors Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, research methods. It has become possible to initiate
Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, techniques of getting information in a non-lethal fashion
Switzerland, the USA, and the UK. This recognised the which could probably only be obtained by lethal means . It
important contribution that Japan had made to the thought this Resolution will be a move in the right
knowledge or whales, but as the proposed research is not direction . AustraliU!ociatcd itself with thecomments .
structured so as to contribute information essential to New Zealand supported the proposal because it expressed
rational management. invitedJapan to reconsider the the sense of the Commission which had before only been
proposal. done in a piecemeal way.
Japan explained wh)'it would enter into a consensus. It The Federal Republic of Germany. Spain, Ireland, the
wished to continue its national research mvolving the take :-letherlands,Oman. Chile, St Lucia and the UK all
of whales and the IWOIDCR sighlings surveys to benefit expressed support. the Iauer recognising the advances
the whole world. The objectives of the Convention should made in benign research although 10 cenain cases it may
be strict.lypursued as a duty by membe r nations and Article just be necessary to use lt:thal reseaTfh methods .
vm gives a sovere ign right to oai.Jons to issue special Japan did not suppon the needless lilaughter of animals,
permits. Since the implementation of the moratorium it but certain human activities and certain kinds of research
had spent a great deal of effort and financtomonitor the can onl)• be conducted by lethal methods It could not
dynamics of the minke wbales in relation to the entire suppon the Resolution . Iceland also had problems on its
ecosystem of the Southern Hemisphere . AD the results basic legal position, but it in no way was against the
were ava.J1ableand it also offered research on krill through principles found in the Resolution.
CCAMLR. It expected to achieve a deeper understanding FolloWUlginformal diS(;ussions, during which Spam was
by member countries and to receive constructive views to added to the list of co·spt:>nsors, a revised Resolution was
enhance its programmes, as well as the participation of presented . Further amend ment of wording was discussed
foreign scientists in the research . by Japan, the USA, Frauce, Om3.14 Ice land and France ,
1celand, while not objecting to the adoption of the during which emphasis was placed on the purpose as an
encouragement to direct research to non-lethal methods
Resolution by consensus , maintained the same
reservations as for the one on the Norwegian programme , without denying the merits of other techniques at the
that is on the questions of disrespect, law and perhaps present ume .
grammar also. In the absence of agreement, the Resolution (Appendix
Norway respected Japan 's position. II there bad beena 5) wasput to the vote an<!ladopted with 23 votes in favour.
vote itwould havevoted no, but it accepted the consensus . none against and 6 abstentions. Iceland expressed regret
It associated itselfwith the reservations expressed by that a consensus could not be reached.
ICl'land,and commended the open door policy in research
and the open hand invitation to participate by Japan.
The USA also commended Japan for its willingness to
8. INFBACTJIONS, 1989SEASON
enter into discussions on concerns and differences . Its
openness and contnbutions in the non-lethal area of 8.1 Report of Tcctmlcal Commin ee Infractions
research bad been meaningful. SutH:omrnill ee
Mr N. 0teo (Norway) presented the Report of the Sub
USSR comminee which be bad chaired , and which was attended
by delegates from Australia , Brazil, Denmark, Japan,
The USSR spoke of the necessity of conducting ecosystem
research in the Okhotsk Sea, for which Soviet scientists Iceland, the 1\etherlands . New Zealand, Norway. Sweden ,
had developed the programme presented to the Scientific Sv.itzerland,UK and USA . Observers from Cana1fa and
Committee. For a number of reasons the programme could two NGOs were also present
not be considered fully, but it was interested to receive the
views of scientists from other countries . It will submit lnfracJionsreporrs
additional documents or a revised programme next year. In The Sub-comminee revit:wed the summary of mfracuoos
response to a question from the USA, it stated that from aboriginal subsistence whaling . No commercial
research activities relating to the take of whales wiUnot be whaling took place in 1989 There was same uncertainty
conducted this year. over the question of whether the 179gray whales mcludmg
349350 Annex 52
52. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-ThirdAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42,
1992, pp. 11, 13-15, 17-18
REP Nr . \\'HAL OO~M~ 42 1992
11
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Third Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE 17to the Technical Comminee for considerationii.runder
ttsCba.irrnan, Dr L.A. Fleischer (Mexico).
The Forty-third Annual Meeting of the Collllllission was
held in the Saga Hotel, Reykja•ik. 27-31 May 1991, at the
mvitation of tile Government of Iceland. The proceedings
were chaired by MrS. lrberger (Sweden). 6. OPERATION OF THE CONVEYnON
6.1 Repon ot Working Gro up
2. REPRESENT ATION The Working Grou p which met prior to the Annual
Mee?"g was attended by 19 delegations - Australia,
ColllliUSSionersand delegates from 30of the Commission's Btaz~ Chl.e, People's Republic of China, Denmark,
37 Contracting Governments attended. Canada, a non
member govemmem, was represented by observers, as France, Iceland, Japan , Republic of Korea, Mexico,
•-ere five intergovernmental organisations - the Netherlan ds, New Zealand, Norw&)',St Vmcent and The
Con\·ention for the Conservation of Antarcti c Marine Grenadines , Spain, Sweden, USSR , UK and USA, and
Uving R~ urce (CCAMLR) , the European Economic one . NGO observer Its repon was presen ted by its
Chamnan, Mn; M.W.S. Goes (Brazil).
Commumry (EEC), !.he International Council for tile The Working Group's tenns of reference were derived
Exploranon of the Sea (ICES) , the North Atlantic
Comm ittee for Cooperation on Research on Marine from four proposals made by the USSR at !.he42nd Annual
Mammals, and the United Nanons Environment Meeting of the IWC and accepted by the Commission . The
Programme (UNEP), USSR bad proposed that :
Observers were also present from 60 IDtemational non (I) the issue of the Operation of the Convention be
governmental organisations (NGOs) . included as an item on the Agenda of the
Commission's 43rd Annual meeting;
3. ADDRESS OF WELCO~fE (2) the mvitalion to Contracting Governments to
comme nt on the questions developed by !.heWorking
The M.truster of Fisheries, Mr Thorsteinn PA!sson, gave an GToup i~1988 in Aucklan d be extended, and that any
address of welcome on behalf of the Go•-emment of
Iceland He expressed his Government's belief that the such wr:men comments be submitted before the next
decisions taken at this meeting will profoundly affect the Annual Meeti ng:
future of the Inte rnational Convention for the Regulation (3) the Working Group be convene\:! during a ,;. prior~k
to tile 43rd Annual Meeting of the Commission in
of Whaling The v.11yin which the Collllllission deals v.ith order to consider wntten contn'butions of Conrracting
proposals for the continuauon of subsistence whaling and Governments and prepare recommendations to the
the resumption of commercial whaling, and the adoption of
re\ised management procedures, willbe an important test Commission on the action arising;
of the commitment of the Commission 10the responsible (4) a draft Resolution submitted by the USSR be held over
for cons ideration at the 43rd Annual Mee ting.
management of whale stocks The mtroduction by delegauons of their response10issues
The Gove rnment ofIceland deemed the utilisation of all
marine resources, including whales, to be a mane r of vital addressed m the questioDD3Jrc devised by the Working
national interest. Because of its geographic and Group at its 1988 meeting , as well as additional comments
demographic circumstances it is overwhelmingl y b) delegations , letO a general discussion regardi ng tile
dependent on the production and expon of seafood from opera tion of the Convention and whether it was necessary
to revise or renegotiate the 1946 Conven tion .
its waters for its survh•al as a modem society. This Some delegations expressed the viev. that improving and
dependence bascontinued for over 1,000 years, and whales
are a rraditional source of food and a deep ly rooted updating the Convention are urgently necessary because of
clemen t of the cullural heritage. fundamental changes of circwnstances and international
Icelandjoined the Convention on the understanding that law. or these delegations, some believed that the
Commission had taken off from the Conve ntion, and that
the members would act in the spirit of cooperation and the Conven tion should be modified in view of this
good faith, wtth full respect for the sovereign rights and
legitimate interests of all parties . Mr P41sson mentioned development. 1l was noted that the extent ofsucb revisions
that his Governmen t bas ratified the tDl Convennon on may require the convening of a diplomatic conference.
theLaw of the Sea under which the parties undertake to Some delega.tions expressed regret at the slow pace the
manage the resources of the oceans. He caned upon the discussions had taken over the past several years and the
low number of written responses to the 1988questionna.are .
ColllliUSSiontorededicate itself to the purpose for which itThe Chair provided the Working GToup v.'itll some
"115established .
historical perspective by reminding it of the lengtlly and
4.OPENING STATE~1ENTS complex analysis gone through in the 1970s \\b en possible
revisions to the Con\len tion bad been pre•iously
Following the Commission's usual pracuce , the opening considered.
statements of ten member goYCmmcnts, UNEP , IUCN Othe r delegations , while acknowledging that !.here bad
and nine NGOs were distribu ted as pan of the meeting
documenta tion. been changes of circumstances since the negotiation of the
Conven tion in 1946. did not conside r them to be such
fundamental changes m circumstance, or international law
5. ADOPT101\ OF THE AGENDA so as to require revision of the Conven tion. They believed
The Provisional Agenda , circulated stxry days before the tllat theConvention in ns present form has operated
meeting, was adopted. The Chairman referred Items 8 to successfuUy over the years They funher stared that the
351Annex 52
REP. 1NT WHAL COW.iN 42, 1992
13
unf11101essm the Convention and to estoblish n new Some general comments were made but there was little
Convention which recognises that whaling can and should
detailed discussion in the Scientific Commi ttee.
take place on a sustainab le basis.
Spain bad arrived at the conclusion that the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea is compatible with the Plenary discussion
Whaling Convention. It did not think that this is the Japan spoke of the TlUIIpant whahng activities by many
moment for major revision of the Convention, but it did countries in the past which had depleted the abundant
Antar ctic whale Slocb. However, little researc h bad been
support the creation of a group for revising the Schedule. done to accurately assess their depletion or recovery . In
Suppon for the remarks made by Germany and the USA
was expressed by Australia, which saw the need for clear particular, estimates in 1976 of ihe minke whale varied
terms of reference for the proposed Working Group . New from a few tens of thousands to400,000. The IWO!DCR
Zealand also shared the view of ihe UK as to the sightings surveys with major logistic suppo rt from Japan
every year since 1978now gave an agreed estimate of
desirability of holdina special Workin g Group to review 760,000 .Information on the population trend, as weUas
the Schedule .
the natural monali ty coefficient, recruitment rate and
6.2 Action arising other biological parame ters, isstill needed. Japan regarded
In discussion of possible draft terms of reference for the the period of the moratorium as a rare opponunity to
collect unbiased data by random sampling not influenced
Working Group , the UK identified the need for advice by commercial operations . ll therefore bad carried ou:t
from the Scientific Comm ittee concerning the
impl emen tation of a revised manageme nt procedu re. This feasibility studies for two -yearsbefore storting its main
also includes arrangemen ts for monitoring and dato research in the 1989190season . This national research bas
collection, as well as inspection and enforcemeru advice clarified knowledge on the segregation by age andsex,and
othe r information for prope r management, Emd Japan
from fisheries inspect ors, all related to the smaller would welcome the participation of foreign scientists in its
geographical management units required. research programme.
Denmark raised the question of whether it issuitob le for
the revised management procedure to be included in the fc:elandoted that the Japanese research activities are
Schedule, and did not wish the work of the group to delay the only significant contribution to knowledge of these
the adoption of a revised procedure. Norway supponed stocks, and believed that they are imponaru for the
continuing flow of information .
this position. Appreciation of the non-lethal aspec ts of the programme
After time for further considerat ion, the Commissio n was also expressed by the Netherla nds, who asked if tbe
then adopted the three recommendations from the
Working Group and, on the recommendation of the USA. resumption of commercia l whaling letsome tinie under a
the rerms of reference shown in Appendix 1. revised management procedure would lead to any
significant changes in the Japanese programme . Japan
responded that itsresearc hisa long-range plan to obtain
1. SClEWIFIC PER.~ the precise monality rare by random sampling, as well as
7.l. Report or the Scientific Committee other biological parameters, which ean be usefully
Rev~e of research results based on eriscin$ sciennfic incorporated into the management procedure .
The UK, while appreciating the contribution of the non·
pennits lethal pan of the research, remarked as noted in previous
JAPAN years that the other research is not essent ial for the
lt was noted that the programme had been revised to try to management schemes , old or new.
take into aooount comments made by the Scientific
Committee last year. ThiS was the founh year of the
Review of new or revised Scientific Permit proposals
programme and many papers had been submitted to the
Committee based on the programme. The research in 1990/ JAPA.'I
91 had taken place from December to March. A total of The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal was a
750primary sighLingsand468secondary sighLingshad been continuatio n of the programme it had discussed extensively
made and 327 animals bad been taken. Results from the before and drew the Commiss ion's attention to those
programme were given in a nu mber of documents covering discussions.It funber noted that the population estimate
topics ranging from estimation of narural mortalny rates for Area IV, where the research is to be carried out, is
and age at sexual marurity to estima tion of abundance and 74,692 (CV 0.257). Various members of the Scientific
ex.amination of segregation and age distribution . Committee commented on the proposa l.
Insufficient time was available to discuss theseny detail
but some tbeoretieal aspects were discussed briefly under USSR
continuing research . The Scientific Commit tee reviewed the proposal only wi1h
respect to the proposed lethal taking of m.inkewhales from
NORWAY the waters of the Okhotsk Sea . Last year, the Comm ittee
Five m.inke whales were taken in 1990, 4 males and l noted that its 1985 meeting bad agreed that documents on
female. This completed the first stage of the Norwegian any proposed scientific permits shou ld be provided to the
programme which bad been a pilot Sludy into Secretary at least 60 days in advance of an Annual Meeting
methodology. A major methodol ogical finding from last of the Scientific Comrrunee so that the proposal and
season's catches had been that reedmg and energetic support ing documentation may be sent out at the same
studies could be equally weUcarried out on frozen as fresh time as tbe provisional Agenda . The proposal was received
samples and future work would use frozen samples. There by the Secretariat and forwarded to the Committee on 20
were no plans to take whales this year. Any future Aprill991.
programme would of course be submitted io the The main objective of the research is to obtain material
Conmuttee in good time for review. that will pro,id e morphological and physiological
352 Annex 52
14 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE FORTY·TH!RD MEETING
characteristics of the populations . In addition. biological The People's Republic of China hoped thai the advice
samples wW be collected for determining age, sexual and from the Scientific Committee would be considered. Brazil
physical maturity , and reproductive condition . Stomach did not favour lethal reseru-ch initiatives, and appreciated
contents willalso be examined to investigate the role of that the USSR authorities win be made aware of the
minke whales in the food web. The proposal envisages a opinion of the Commission . India clarified that it is not
catch of 90minke whales during June and July of 1991.No against scientific research, but it is against lethal research .
selection for size or sex will be made of the minke whales
taken No information was available on future catches after 7.2 Action arising
1991.All catches wiUbe from the Okhotsk Sea.Based on Japan
discussion of ::'llorthPacific minke whales at this year's Australia introduced a Resolution propo.sc.dby itself,
meeting, whales killed in the Okhotsk Sea will be from rwo Brazil, Finland , France, Germany , Ireland, the
previously accepted management stocks , the Okhotsk Sea· Netherlands , New Zealand , Sweden, SY.itzerland, UK and
West Pacific and Sea of Japan-Yellow Sea-East China Sea USA . 11noted improvements innon-lethaltechruques used
stocks. The Comnuuee noted that the proposal bad not by Japan but was still concerned at the level of lethal
adequately specified the objectives of the research techniques used for some aspects of the research. The
although some clarification bad been pro.., ~d ehe Resolution therefore invited the Governmelll of Japan to
scientists present . reconsider the proposed research under special permit in
There was insufficient information given regarding aims 1991192in the light of these concerns.
and methodology to be able tOcomment on sample size. As one of the several co-sponsors , the UK repeated its
No reasons were given in the proposal justifying sample appreciation of the great contribution of the non·lethal
sizes other than thar the proponents believe that such research by Japan , but thought that the research
catches will not deplete the stock. Therwas no statement programme involving the take of whales stilldoes not meet
of themethod of killing to be used.The proposal noted that the crite:ria essential for either the new management
the catcher Zvezdny will be used. the same vessel which is procedure or a future one.
used in the aboriginal subsistence gray whale fishery off Japan recalled that in response to the Resolution at last
Chukotka . year's meeting, it undertook a thorough reconsiderauon of
Severa l observations were made on the methodology Itsprogramme and concluded that by taking a sample of
proposed and the Committee noted that the level of 300 minke whales it is possible to achieve the level of
informa.tion given in tile proposal made it difficult to precision in the course of its long-range programme . No
comment in detail . governments commen ted on the revised programme ,
The Committee noted the new abundance estimate of which had been reviewed by the Scientific Committee , and
whales in the Okhotsk Sea of 19,209 (95% Cl 10,069- it believed all the problems had been resolved. Only two
36,645). It also noted that some degree of mixing from governments commented in this meeting on the
animals from two 'stocks' occurred in the Okhotsk Sea programme and it felt resentment and regret that so many
north of Japan, at least in April. Minke whales from the countries now joined the bandwagon on this Resolution. It
Sea of Japan- Yellow Sea· East China Sea stock area were firmly believed that the combination of non·lethal reseru-cb
not able io be assessed at this year's meeting . They are as represented in the IDCR surveys and its own national
currently classified as a Protection Stock by the programme with the take of whales can accurately give the
Commission. It is not possible to say what proportion of informa tion needed.
the proposed catch might be from the two mi"'tiog'stocks' New Zealand responded that the programme remained
nor what the levels of mixing might be in June/July. fundamentally the same and does not really contribute to
The proposal stated that participation of foreign the setting of catch limits under the revised management
specialistsis welcomed, to help in the execution of the procedure . Brazil and France both fell uncomfortable with
programme . the lethal part of the research, and the USA alsofound that
these takes do not seem to serve the purposes determined
by the Scientific Committee . Switzerland shared the
Plenary discussion concerns expressed and wished to see the non-lethal
The UK commented that the proposal is not ready yet. It research intensified by such methods as biopsy sampling,
therefo:n: hoped that the USSR would withdraw the radio tracking and direct ethological observation .
programme and allow it tobe developed. This view was Following further exchanges on details of the reseru-ch,
shared by the USA, Australia, SwitzeTiand, Spain, Iceland stated that it believed such Resolutions to be ultra
Germany, France, New Zealand , the Netherlands , vires to the organisation. taking into account the provisions
Denmark. Sweden, Ireland and Chile. of Article VD1 of the Convention. lt also identified
Japan welcomed research to obtain scientific stru.cluraland gramma tical problems with the Resolution .
information for the management of whale stocks, and :-lorway associated itself with these views on the illegality
thought that the USSR would be able to amend and of the Resolution .
enhance its programme. Iceland also noted references in References to paragraph 30 of the Schedule and
the Scientific Committe-e report welcoming plans for gtUdelines in the fonn of Rule:s of Procedure and
maeased research in areas for which there is a need and Resolutions back to 1986 were cited by New Zealand as
expected that the presentational difficulties could be other commitments on contracting states , while the USA
remedied . It repeated its w-ell·lmo'~ew about the right drew attention to Convention Article VI, before the
of governments to carry out research by issuing scientific Resolution shown in Appendix 2 was adopted without
permits. vote.
The USSR stated that the comments brought forward
would be taken into account , bu! believed the research USSR
activities which includethe taking of a certain number of The USA recalled that it welcomed the action of the USSR
whales are necessary. wllen it withdrew its proposal for a special pennit catch of
353Annex 52
REP lNT WHAL COMMN 47., 1.992 l5
minke whales in !he Nonh Pacific iastyear. [t v.as Faroeislands, 1989
therefore disappointed that the USSR had decided no1 10
Denmark reporte d the results of the police inqwry intio an
take the advice of the Scientific Comminee and several incident involving two bottlenos e whales in September
delegations thisyear 10 withdraw its proposal for 1991. 1989. The inquiry had found no evide nce that the animals
Therefore on behalf of itself and Ausrralia, Brazil, France, had not stranded naturally .
Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, ew Zealand,
Sweden, Switzerland and the UK it submitted a Resolu:rion SuTVeiflanceof whaling operatio11s
tequeSJing the USSR to refrainfrom proceedin g with its The only informati on on the infractions reportingf•~rms
proposal since it is not in accordance with the crileria eoncerrung the surveillance of wha.lingoperations was for
specified in the 1986 and 1987 Resoluti ons on research the USA, who reoorted thai 90% oi the catch was under
whaling . direCt inspectioby national programmes . lnformatio •n on
The UK supported the Resolution as aeo-sponsor and the S)'Slemin Greenland was given and th.e Sub-<:omm.inee
referred to its earlier misgivings about tbis programme, welcomed the information and expressed irs appreciation
since it does not address any established research needs of the efforr that had been made to improve the moni 1uring
Seychelles and Fin.land also wanted to eo-sponsor the system, notingthat there had been no quota overrun i1Dthe
Resolution . ca1ches of minke and fin whales in the 1990 season.
The USSR was not able to accept the Resoluli on and
Checklist of infonnation required or requested under
called for a vote, while Iceland reiterated , as in the SecJion VI of rhe Schedule
preVloUScase, us views on the legality, inconsistency and
grammar involved. The available information from Denmark (Greenland ) and
The Resolution shown in Appendix 3 was then adopted the USA was re,'iewed.
by 20 votes in favour, with 4 agains1and 5 abstentions.
Submission of national laws and regulations
Japan reserved its position with respect to the sovereign The Secretariat provided a tabulation of the national
rights for the issue of scientific permits . legislationreceived by the Commission. The Sub
8. INFRACTIONS, 1990 SEASON committee noted that this lengthy tabulation presented
8.1 Report of Technical Commlnee lnfra cdons each year has usually only minor changes (if any) lfrom
previous years It recommended that the Secretariat
Sub-committee eontinue to collect and archive information on nati.ooal
The Infractions Sub-committee was attended by deleg;ares legislation, but that in the futu re only a summary sheet: and
from Australia, Brazil , Chile, Denmark. Iceland, Japan , reports of new legislation received during the year be
New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the
USA, and observers from six NGOs . Its repon was circulated to the Sub-commi ttee. \
presented by theChairman, Mr K. Chu (USA) . 8.2 Action arising
The UK asked for the report of the enquiry on a humpba ck
8.1.1 lnfraclions reporr.sfrmn ContractingGovemmenr.s whale taken in 1he Maniirsoq municipalily of West
A swnmary of infrac1ions reponed from aboriginal Greenland to be submitted to the IWC when finalised. The
subsistence whaling ope1:atins showed !here l"ere no
infractions. No commercial whaling took place in L990. UK appreciated the load enfo rcement placed on
The Sub-eomminee noted a report from Norwar governmenls but said that it was important that
enforcement of the regu lations is clearly seen to be
concerning the incidental take of tminke whales by two imposed and monitored.lt appreciated thai there bad lbeen
trawlers in separate incidents. The incidents had been no over-run of quotaS in West Greenland in the last year
reponed in detail to Norwegian authorities. The Sub and thanked the governments for their continuing work.
committee recognised thai these did not eonstiru te
infractions. Denmar keonfi rmed thal il wiiLreporton the incident when
police investigation has been completed .
8.1.2 Other mauers The Technical Committee and the Commission adopted
Pem the report and endor:sed its recommendations .
Last year, the Sub-eommitlee had again recommend ed
that Peru submit i1s outslanding 1984 infractions report 9.COMMlSS ION'S C0!\1PETENCE TO SET CATCH
The Secretariat had received no response from Peru toils LIMITS FOR BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE IN THE
letter requesting the report. The Sub-commiuee again NORTB PACIFJC
recommended that Peru be urged to submit this report .
Technical Committee disc:ussion
USA, 1989 The USA believed that ir would be useful to broaden the
The USA proVlded further details to 1hose given last year debate to all cetaceans subjectto commercial operations
concerning the take , during the spring of 1989, of two and 1herefore proposed to change the title of this ltem to
minke whales in unrelated incidents by two different 'Commiss ion's competence for cetacea ns nor listed in
subsiSlencewhalen from the village of Gambell . Ice and Table 3 of the Schedu' l.This matter had been bro-ught
weather conditions were severe during the spring of 1989 forward to save time last year and the USA again proposed
and subsistence resources were scarce. None of the nine to expand the discussion. It noted that at ils 12th Amnual
bowhead whale strikes had been made by Gambell Meeting the Co.mmission agreed thal all whales are
whalers. One minke whale had been taken by awhaler who eovered by the Convention and that individual speaes are
was unaware that hunting minke whales was prohibited. subject to specific measures. Tnparticular Baird's be.aked
The other was taken by a hunter who had believed the whale is included in the present Schedule as a sp<ecies
animal lo be sick. The Sub-committee noted that the eovered by small-type whaling .
AEWC had fined both captain& and had informed the Japan suggesled that thi matter must ~ referred to a
captainsof all whaling boats that minlce. whales eould not meeting on lhe Convention. It believes that only those
be taken . species named in the 1946 List of Nomenclature are
354 Annex 52
REP. L'IT. WHAL COMM.'I•2, 1992 17
wished the item to be continued on the Agenda and that possibletomake enough progress this year, and the report
the status of small cetaceans should continue to be of the Scientific Committee demonstrates that there is
considered in the Scientific Comminee. It welcomed the much to be done . The IWC may be well placed to achieve
suggestio n from Brazil to set up a group to consider how the cooperation, coordinatio n and direcnon needed
the lWC will deal with this man er. throughout the world.
Iceland expressed the view that UNCLOS requires the
coastal states to decide the n:levant organisa tion, not the
organisation to decide Its competence.
10. CmfPREHENSIVE ASSESS:\fENT OF WHALE
The People'sRepublic of China supported management STOCKS
and particularly emphasised the impor tance of domestic
legislation . It favoured the Brazlllan suggestion. 10. I Report of the SdentiJlc Committee
The history of small cetacea ns in the Commission was
10.1.1Mcmag~me mrocedures
oullined by Japan, who noted that the Small Cetaceans Dr G. Kirkwood (Chairman of the sub -comrninee on
SuiH:ommittee or the Scientific Committee was managem ent procedu res) presented a review of the work
established after a Special Meeting on small cetaceans was
held in Montreal in 1972. It reviewed ttsown national to date . A Workshop was held InTokyo In December !990
research arrangements and pomted out that catches or w~ch specifieda finalset to single stock and multiple stock
mals. The results of these u:ialwere finalised for all .live
Baird's beak:ed whale and other small cetacean species are potential Rvised Management Procedures fo:r review at
reponed each year as well as the national managemen t the 1991Annual Meeting . The review was carried out by
regulations . Many other countries do not do this and it
urged them to report such material before the JWC examining whether each procedure had performed
satisfactorilyn all trials and then an attem pt was made to
assumes any role. sel~ het.best procedure from those that had performed
The UK emphasised that Baird's beak:ed whale is larger sausfactOrily Three cases were used in which starting
than some species already regulated . lr liked the idea from
Brazil supported by the USA, and suggested that members population levels were taken as 99%, 60% or 30% of the
reflect on this before the plenary session. The Netherlands unexploLLedlevel .
~or single srocmall; all five procedures had performed
also stated that it is looking for practical sol~uconbs satiSfactorilyand were therefore suitab le for further
the Brazilian/USA idea and added supponior the Gennan consideration and possible adoption by the Commission .
proposal to look at whar other international organisations
are doing. Th~ sncluded rests of robustness to bias io sightings survey
estunates of absolute abunda .nce, mistaken assumptions
Mexico preferred to contin ue the discussion in_the about the dynamics of whal'\ stocks and the assumed
framework of the Operation of the Convention . Denmark frequency of sightings surveys .
also saw the relationship with the Operation of the
Convention and the suggestion of the need for a diplomatic Multi·stock trials have also been conducted to mimic
conference. Norway was not opposed to the work of the situa~ of nns~nai snock: identity in coastal and pelagic
whaling operauons . Results presented indicated that If
Scientific Committee dealing with all threa ts to small assesstnent and management can only be conducted on a
cetaceans, including not only catches but pollution and geographica l scale similar to the present Corrurussion
environmen tal factors , but thought, like othe r delegations ,
thatitmight be best to deav.~ his matter under the item management areas, conservation of all breeding stocks m
the management areas is difficult to achieve. However , all
on the Operation of the Convention . ~reedi stcks were conserved by all procedures when
The Chairman indicated that, wbilst there was clearly hlghungs survey data and catc.b limits could be set by
no consensus on this issue, there seemed to be a smaller sub-areas such as a1()"sector in the Antarctic .
general feeling for further discussion which should go
forwa rd to the plenary session, and this was supported br The Scientific Comminee was encour11ged by these
resultsbut they do suggest that the Commission should
Iceland . consider the practicality of setting catch limits on a
markedly smaller geographical scale than has been its
Ple.nnry discussion
In the plenary session, both New Zealand and the USA practice ia tbe past.
Comparison of performance of the management
pointed out that they have a different interpretation rrom procedures led to the Commit tee agree ing that no
Iceland of thLaw of the Sea teJ:trequiring coastal states toprocedure performed uniformly best over all trials and all
decide on coopera tion through the appropria te tunings. The five procedures could be divided into three
internationalorganisations.The USA also indicated that a
Resolution on this Item might be brought forward . groups aceording to the way in which they attempted to
meet the Commission's objectives .
After time for consultation between delegations , Brazil
reported that a draft which had been circulated informally (i) The ST procedure places greatest weight on achieving
would not be tabled . An attempt had been made to go very low variability in catch limits.
deeper into the problem of small cetaceans, at a practical (ii) The diM procedure places greatest emphasis on
ensuring that the risk:of reducing stock le\lels to below
level and for members to finally solve tbeir differences of
view on the issue of competence . An ad hDCsolution for a designated protection level does not exceed a
impro'ing the situation of small cetaceans worldwide was specified probability Measures are included to ensure
proposed. bur thiis not aqoestion to be solved by majority to a high degree that depleted populations are
vote, since the cooperation of the minority is necesstoy restored to above the designated protection level as
soon as possible .
conserve the small cetaceans .
The USA proposed that this item be kept on the Ag.<mda (iii) TheC. MS and PB procedures anempt to achieve a
~o rellt.year so that all cetaceans can be considered by one balance between the conservation, explottanon and
mternallonal organisation that bas special expertise in this catch limit stability objectives of the Commission. The
relative emphases given to these can be adjusted.
area. The UK seconded this proposal, sincei thad notbeen
355Annex 52
18 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE FORTY-TIUR.D MEETNG
On the basis of pairwise comparisom of the performances contributed subStantially even though only one procedure
of the different procedures . most members of the mtght be selected as the Commission's revised
suiK:omminee agreed that lhe primary candidates
management regime. AUstralia alsonoted that there was a
forrecommendanon to the Commission should be the PB mmority view wluch also needed to be considered, and
and C procedures. Other members dissented from this reminded the Committee of the range of other activities
view On the expectation that the Commission would wish assoctated with the Revised Management Procedure whtch
to place highest emphasis on nsk minimisation , the itad raised last year.
Scientific Committee preferred the C procedure and Dr Kirkwood then responded to a series of technical
thrdore recommended itas the 'best' single stock questions from Japan, Iceland, UK and New Zealand
procedu.re. concerning the toning of the procedures through
Further work will be requi red after the Commission adjustme nt of the parameters to arnve at various final
adopts a procedure andde<:ldesthat it should be apphed to performance and chosen levels o( stocks after 100 years;
a panicutar stock or region . The trials conducted have the internal protection levels in the procedures; the issue of
made rather gene ral assumptions about data availability stock tdentity; and the use of a single stock procedure as
and propen ies. Therefore before a procedure is applied it the core which needed to be developed to devise a
wiU be necessary to determine whether these general complete re\'ised management procedure whtc:hwould be
assumpt ins are suitable. applicable to multi-stocks
The SCientificCommittee agr-eedthat the foUowingsteps Switzerland asked why the author of the C procedure
must be undertaken before a Revised Managemen t preferred the d1Mprocedure and if Itwas not poSSible to
Procedure adapted by the Commission can be applied (I) combine desirab le elemenrs of these two procedures Dr
~eighti on ganagement objectives; (2) validation and Kirkwood explained the difficulties of uyi:ng to combine
verification of compute r programs by the Secretariat; (3) procedures or to tranSplant one section into another .
evaluation of data availab le for a stock/region; (4) The USA noted that there is still extensive work to be
evaluation of the tmplications of uncertain stock identity; done and recommended endorsement of the Scientific
(5) othe r regulations such as size limits, protection of Cornmmee's programme. It thought that the risk of
calves, etc. depletion should ha~e the highest priori ty and suggested
ln anempting to develop procedures that are widely tha1the protection level should be no less than that under
applicable, have minimal data requirements and a the existing management procedure . It believed it
satisfactorily robust perfonnance , it was agreed that inappropriate to allow catches of currently protected
amendments and improvements could be made from time SlOCks.
to time after carefu l considerati on. It was noted that some Japan noted that the C procedure bad been selec ted by
typeS of additional biological information could lead to the majority as best achieving the Comm ission's objecttves
increases in efficiency However, it was agreed that an a nd it suggested that an average figure of66% should bese t
appropriate series of robustness trials shobelconducted as the finn! targe t level £or stocks, as the nvernge of the
to ensure that any proposed amendments should lead to range given, and that Southern Hemisphere minke
performa nce at least as sound as shown by existing followed b) North Atlantic minke whales should be the
procedures . order of priority for funher work. lunendment of the
The time schedule, Secretariat staff and budget Schedule should be considered at the ne.llt meeung and
trnplications for implementatio n of a Revised Management Japan suggested that there is a need for specialis ts on the
Procedure were considered. For Southern Hemisphere management procedures plus legal experts to meet. lt also
minkc whales no funherstoclc identity trials are necessary, noted that until the procedures have been finalised for
but {or North Atlantic minke whales such trials should be tmplementation the Commission should conSider interim
completed during the intersessional period . Thus, given procedures .
sufficient resources,e Scientific Committee could bema The UK wished for a cautious approach. It conside red
position to implement an adopted Revised Management that working within the terms of the IWC the primary
Procedure for both South Hemisphere and North Atlantic objeenve must be to maintam abundan t populauons a1or
minke whales at its 1992Annual ~eeti wnihout the need abo~ ehe target levels and tOensure recovery of depleted
for a special meeting beforehand. stocks. It would prefer a regime giving low risk and high
The workload on the Secretariat computing staff will finalstocks . It noted the need for coopera tion between the
requireat least the vacant post for a .sightings survey data Scientific Comnu ttee, lawyers and other techrucal experts
analy tto be filled. Thetsa need for contin ued work by a and pomred out the need to develop systems to manage
Management Procedures Steering Group in the coming catches in small areas and the possible need for ot her catch
year. regulations
Technlcal Committee discussion Plenary comments
FoUowing this presentation, the Chairman expressed the Thanks for the work of Dr Kirkwood and his sub
thanks of the Commission to Dr Kirkwood and aU bts committee were repeated..by Iceland, which went on to
colleagues for their efforu over the years in tlus emphasise the substantial tests which had been carried out
development programme. All the foUowing speakers on the live proposed procedures since the work was started
joined 10 the appreciation of the work undertaken so in1987. The majority of the Scientific Committee agreed
successfully. that the C proced ure was the besL based on criteria
Iceland noted that it has contributed to this work and determined to allow utilisation with a minimal risk of
thus recognised the efforts involved, and supported the depleting any stock . No further tests of a generic nature
recommendation to implement the Southern Hemisphere were required, and therefore the Commission bad before it
and North Atla.ntic minke whale regimes . the basts on which to adopt a ReVISed ~anagement
Australia commented that , despite the lack of clear Procedure with fuUconfidence that it had been subjected to
advice from the Commission, all the developers had the most careful scientific analysis.
356 Annex 53
53. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-FourthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43,
1993, pp. 11, 20-26
REP. ll'ff WHAL COMMN 43, 1993 11
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE 5. ADOPTJO. OF AGRNDA
The Commission held its Forty-fDunh Annual Meeting at Japan proposed an addition to the Provisional Agenda
the Cenlr81 Hotel, Glasgow, UK, 29 June - 3 July 1992. circulated 60da~ before the meeting. by the inclusion of
The proceedings were chaired by Dr L. FleiSCher North Pacific minke whales to Item 1L1.4. It also stated its
(Mexico). opposition to the Seychelles proposal for the Indian Ocean
Sanctuary on the grounds that the proposed amendment to
the Schedule had not been notified daysin advance ; and
2. REPRESENTATION tothe French proposal for a Southern Ocean sancruary as
running counter to the spirit of the Convention. The
Commissioners and delegateS representing 31Conrracting Chairman ruled that both these items were received in due
Governments were preseot at the opening. The withdrawal time and, with the addition of the North Pacific miolce
whale item, the agenda was adopted by the meeting. The
ol Iceland from the international Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling became effective on 31June leaving Chairman instructed the Technical Committee under its
a memberYrip of 38 governments . Chairman , Dr P. Bridgewater. to consider Items 10.11 and
Two non-member governments , Austria and Canada, 12.
~ere represente d by observers , together with m
mtergovernmental organisations- Con,·ention for the
6. REVISION OF THE SCHEDULE
Conservation of Antan:tic Marine Living Resources 6.1 Reportof the Worldng Group
(CCAMLR). European Economic Community (EEC), The Working Gt-oup established last year met prior to the
internationalCouncil for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES), Nonh Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Annual Meeting and was attended by delegations from
(NAMMCO), United Nations Environment Prognmme Australia , Brazil, Chile,eople's Republic of China ,
(UNEP) and the Convention for the Conservation of DellliUITk, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Netherlands. New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, UK,
US~, and 5 NGOs. Its report was presented b)' its
Observers from 79 accredited international non Cbauman, Mrs M.W .S. Goes (Brazil)~ •
governmental organisations (NGOs) were also present.
The terms of reference v.-ere: to initiate a thorough
review of the Schedule: to identify , with the adVicthef
Scientific~mmitte aed other erpens as appropriate,
3. ADDRESS OF WELCO!>ff those ~?Drt ifotesSchedule that may need updating,
amending or deleting and to recommend proposed
The UK Minister of Agriculture, FISheries and Food. the changes ; and to report to the Commission.
Right Honourable John Gummer MP. gave an address of
welcome. He recalled the ruthless and reckless The Working Group agreed to limit its deliberations toa
exploitation of whales. in which Britainad a part, and review of a draft revised Schedule, based on the October
pointed to the need to develop new and safer procedures 1991 edition , prepared by the Secretary . It also bad
for their future conservation and management . He availab le the relevant sections of this year's report of the
Scientific Comrninee . ln his presentation of these sections
believed the burden of proof for lifting the moratorium the Chairman of t:hatCommittee explained, however, tha;
must rest with those who want to exploit them. Despite its
past failures trwc iswidely recognised as the body best the Committee had not yet had time to develop specific
placed to deliver agreed systems fur the protection of recommendations for incorporating its proposals into the
whales. Schedule . He pointed out, bowC\·er, that the Scientific
Committee bad proposed that a requirement to include
The UK wlll not contemplate a resumption of positionof whale capture to the nearest degree and minute
commercial whaling until it issatisfied that the whale stocof latitude and longitude be included in Paragraph 24 of the
are at healthy le\-els; that revised management prooedures
a.e robustand prudent. and involve effective inspection, Schednle . He funher noted that the Scientific Committee
enforcement and monitoring; and that improvements are had suggested that Paragraph 29 of the Schedule should be
made in the present methods of killing whales. replaced by an enabling clause to provide for the collection
of biological samples which mighbeof value now or in the
Mr Gummer highlighted the proposal for a circumpolar future .
whale sanctuaryin the Antarctic, and the need to protect
small cetaceans from the increasing pressures of direct and ~ .e Working Group noted that a comprehensive
incidental catches. He gave the meeting his bestwishes for reVlSionof the Schedule could not be completed until the
a good ourcome to tts difficult deliberations . Commission bad resolved certain outstanding issues.
particularly those regarding implementation of the
Revised Management Procedure (RMP) and related
matters. It also was agreed that proposals by delegations
4. OPK"o'INGSTATEMENTS foramendments [0the Schedule were useful as insights for
Statements from 11 member governments, CMS. UNEP . possible furure modifications.
fUCN and eight NGOs were distributed as pan of the A chapter -by-<:hapter review of the draft proposal
meetmg documentation. In addition, Norway read a press produced the foUowing results:
release just available from Oslo announcing that it will Chapter I- INTERPRETATION . The Working Group
resume commercial harvesting of mioke whales on a sound agreed that definition s of those terms that wiU no longer
scienti6c and sustainable basis in the 1993 season . appear elsewhere in the Schedule , as amended , should be
357Annex 53
20 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE FORn'-FOURTii ANNUAL MEETING
information. It was agreed to recommend that the review both be set for the two years 1993 and 1994so that all the
of thiS quota be left unnl th•: next review period. aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits could be
In the plenary, Mexrco appealed to the authorities in reviewed together in 1994. This was agreed by consensus
charge of surveillance for more research on the abundance forrecommendation to the plenary.
of this species. In the plenary , Switzerland asked if whales struc.k by
rille st:sare included iJ1the quotas. Denma rk stated that
1023 North Atltmiic West Grunland stock of fin wlllliu the min.ke whale catch limit on the west coast of Greenland
The last major advice given by the Scientific Committee includes struck and lost. Rill.es are not used for the west
was in 1989 and there was no new advice this year_ The coastfin whale fishery. On the east coast, the number of
Sub-committee agreed that there was no need to propose whales isvery small compared with the stock, and rilles are
changes during thisAnnual Meeting . not often used due to ice conditions .
The Commission thE:n approved the catch limitS by
10.2.4 North Atlantic Cenrml srockof minkt whales consensus .
No new advice had been givo:n by the Scientific Committee The Russian Federation indicated that there were
on thisstock. Denmark, rete rring to all Greenland catches, technical reasons for no t providing information on its
noted that in 1990 the Commission bad recognised a catches and subsistt~ nced due to internal
subsistence need for meat from large whales at West reorganisation , but its wquest for the cawas unchanged
Greenland of 670 tonnes per year . This yearly catch limit from previous years.
now stood at the equjvalent o420 tonnes. The Aboriginal The Teclutical Co11unittee agreed to transmit the
Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee noted these pointS. concerns over the tenns of reference to the plenary.
Further discussion of this issue in the plenary between
Other business Brazil,Denmark, Mexico, USA and Australia led to the
Terms of reference conclusion that tbe Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub
As a result of the planned restructuring of the Annual committee should report to the Technical Committee in
Meeting, decisions would gcollirectly from the various Sub future. so that all the factors bearing on consideration of
commimes tothe plenary session . Brazil pointed out that catch limits have at least one primary discussion there
the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee was before being debated in plenary The decision on what
charged with analysing the need for aboriginal subsistence matters are referred to the Technical Commillee would be
takes, and catch limitS were generally considered in the made early in the pleoa.ry meeting.
Technical Committee. It therefore suggested that tbe The UK recalled the discussions in earlier years on the
terms of rderence of the Aborigi:nalSubsistence Whaling y,1Jalemeat conversio11 factors in the Greenland
Sub-committee be revis>::d to include preliminary subsistence fishery and Denmark responded that there bad
discussion on the request for quotas. been no change in its position.
USA pointed out that many pieces of information were
necessary to determine catch limits, including needs 11. COMPREHENSlVE ASSF.SSME.'ITOF WHALE
assessment (from this Sub-comminee) , status of stocks STOCKS
(from the Scientific Committee). humane killing
information (from the Humane Killing Working Group) U.l Report of the Scientific Committee
and data on efficiency (from the Infractions Sub 11.1.1ReviSed Man.agemenr Procedure
committee) . All were nec=ry facets of the catch limit The Resolution adopt(!d by the Commission ar itS 1991
decision which had tradilltonally been discussed in the meeting requested advice from the Scientific Committee
Technical Committee. Wh.a.tever mechanism was selected, on the probability of whaling being inadvert ently allowed
it must recognise this complexity . under the proposed Revised Management Procedure
The Sub-committee agreed that it was faced with an (RMP) when stock b!vels are significantly below tbe
protection level o54~ ••
interim position as the organisati on of the Commission's
work changed. The Commission needed to beapprised of At the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee held
the concerns of the Sub-committee and the need to ensure in Copenhagen in Mat'ch 1992the Committee agreed to
that all relevant aspectswt~e properly considered in any examine two statis tics for single stocks using the standard
revision of work practice . There was liketobe a need for simulation trials: the 'Realised Protection Level' (RPL)
changes to ItS terms of ro:ference and the Colllllllssion and the 'Relative Recovery'. The probability of whaling
should determine how to handle this. being inadvertent!)• allowedwhen the actual population is
at some level below 54% is markedly dependent on the
SrVincmt and Th~ Grenallina whaling value of the MSY rate (MSYR). ln the rehabilitation case
St Vincent and The Grenadines reported on its limited where the initial poptdation is 30% of the u.nexploited
aboriginal subsistence hun·t. One female whale was taken level,when MSYR is k>w(l%), the probability ishigh; as
in 1992. It was 35ft long and was notlactllting . No stomac h MSYR increases , the p•robability decreases. However, the
contents were analysed . The animal was eaten by the catches allowed will be so small asto affect only marginally
people of the island. ln addition, one large male was the recovery rate of the population.
struck-and-lost. The Sub-committee noted this The trade-offs in performance measures that would be
information with thanks . involved if the amount of catch taken below 54% isto be
reduced, was investigated by exami.ning variants of the
10 .3 Actionarising core single stock procedure. The results of these
In the Technical Committt!e, Denmark indicated that the investigations showthaot while substantial ioveme ntsm
catch lintit foe the West G1reenland fin whales is 21 set for RPL can be achieved, this leads to only a slight
one year while that for east coast minke whales is 12 for improvement in recov(!ry rates of stocksat low population
each of the years 1990. 1991 and 1992. It proposed no levels and that this is at the expense of substantially poorer
changes in these catch limits but suggested that they should performance of catch related statistics .
358 Annex 53
REP. INT WHAL. COMMN 43. 1993 21
Draft spedjiCIJtiforth Revis M~adrUJg~m Pernolc~dure Sciemilie Committee recommended that access co tb1ese
In discussing the scope of the draft specification, the programs be resrric1ed to accredited scientists.
ScientificCommittee agreed that iwas designed solely for In Technical Commillee, the USA stated its view that
applicationto baleen whales for the calculation of caccb theseprogrants should be available to anyone imerested
limits. Iwasdifficulttobe fuUyprescriptive in definitions
and no1 limiled only to accredited scien1ists.
thaiate to apply to all baleen whales and the text was
therefore annotated a1 those plaoes where che need for
interpretations or illustrationswere necessary. The Draft specijiCIJtiOnand annotations
Comminee recommended thai particularare should be The Scientific Comminee recommended that the
Commission adopt the draf t specification for the
calcentoprovide full documentation of all implemencations calculation of catch limitsm an RMP for baleen wb.ales
of the RMP to a species and region. In particular , criteria
used or developed for changmg the precise form of comaioed in Annex H of its Repon {lWC/44/4)and ~ba1
implementation should be recorded, normally in the the Commission endorses the anno1atious arr.ached to mat
appropria te annotations ro the specification. Annex.
Norway stated its view !hat te draft specification in
principleis satisfactory, bulth at the Scien1ific Committee
Possible needfor additional simulation trials
The Scientific Comminee discussed the potenlial need for £hould be instructed 10 investigate the effects on the
performance of the RMP of tuning levels other than 0.n.
further single or multi-stock simulation trials. lt agreed
further single stoclcrials for examining the effects of
different inter-survey in1ervals and 1he robustness of the Phaseout mle
procedure copotential degradation of !he environment in The Scientific Committee bad been unable to determine a
suitable period that should elapse before phaseout of
the future.
The RMP demonstta tes robust performance in the catches shouldoccur on the basis of simulation trials alone.
cireumscanoes modelled and no more trials were needed Othe r issues involved include che continuity and
for theScientific Committee to complete its developmenl maintenance of skills by those conducting surveys, the
of the draft specification. However, the Scientific hkelihood that unexpected events may be detected, the
wide variety of possible types of survey (e.g. the time
Comminee recommended thai suitable case specific
simulation trials should be carried ou1priortothe initial needed to survey entire areas , such as Southern
implementation for particular species and region. Hemisphere minke whales), the inability to comple te
surveys due to unexpected events such as bad wealher or
brealcdowns. The Scientific Commihee was tliere:fore
Sp«ification of ntle.sfor serringCIJtchlimils
Trials confirmed chat the primary effect on single stock unable 10 reach a conclusion on what would be an
trialsf an inter-survey interval of 10years instead of5 was approp riate period between5 and 10years to allow be:fore
a reduction incatch rather th an increase in risk. Because invoking a phaseout of catches.
Discussion in the Technical Commi ttee showed that
of concerns expressed by some members, lhe selection of some delegations favoured the shorter period of five years
an appropria ce period to elapse before phaseouts were whileothers no1ed that 10years was safe. It was noted that
invoked was referre d to 1he Commission for advice.
the IDCR Antarctic cruises foUow a six year cycle and
some delegations proposed thai 6 years was approprime.
Futu cluzngesto the ReVISedMaMgemem Procedun
The Scientific Commiuee agreed that any revised
management procedure recommended by the Committee Other malters relaredto the draft specification
and adopted by the Commission should be able lo be The Scientific Commillee pointed out that all knoown
removals from each area should be included in the
amended and improved in the futore in the tigh1 of
advances in knowledge and methodology . However , an historical catch data usedin an assessment, but ths~Jme
amendmenl of the procedure is not something that should problems remained in 1erms of 'estimated' removals .
be undertalcen without careful consideration. Some Altention was drawn to the robustness demonStra ted in
single stock trials in which the historical catch record was
suggestions were made although there had been underestimated by up to 50%.
insufficient nme available for thorough deliberation and
the Scientific Committee recommended that this issue be The catch limits proposed in Annex H remain in force
considered further. for a period of fiveyears and do not anow any carryovc:rof
catches between seasons. The Scientific Commillee
recommended thatthe attentio n of the Commission be
Docunrenllllion andavailabiluy of computer programs
Calculation of catch limJls according to lhe draft drawn to the possibility of the incorporation of a block
specificationis accomplished using a computer program quota in the RMP and it furthey recommended that ,
subjectto the Commission's appTOvaland specification of
held and verified by the Secretariat. In addition the large the Connof the proposed block quota, it should cons.ider
se1of simulation trialsusedby the Scientific Commitlee in this possibility further . The Scientific Committee also
developing the RMP was carried out using a computer
program developed by the Secretariat. II was agreed that noted 1beneed to address the question of catches taken in
full documenta tion of the program implementing the exoess of ca1ch limits and adjosrments for unbalanced! sex
ratios.
calculauon of catch limits was essential.
The Scientific Commiuee agreed thai the programs and
associa1eddocumentation must be available toaccredJted Advice on incorporation of the RMP intO the Schedulo!
scientists and should, a matter of principle, be accorded The Scientific Committee had recommended lhatthe draft
as wide an availabilityas possible. However , several issues.specification [ calculation of catch limits be formally
relating to ownership of 1he programs and copyright adopted by the Commission and that the annotations be
remain unresolved and unci! these are resolved the endorsed by the Commission. It was unable ro advise
359Annex 53
22 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE FORTY-FOURTH ANNUAL ME.ETING
further on how the draftspecification should be handled in Jmplcrn.enwlionand inuiol catch limiu
terms of a Schedule amendment. lt noted that t.he The Scientific Comm.ittee thought it would not be
development of Annex H had been a long and difficult task appropriate to include in its Report catch limits that would
and recommended that the Commission exe rcise great apply in the first year following implementation . It agreed
caution before considering any changes when developing that, should the Commission wish to set catch limits
possible Schedu leamendments . according to the RMP during its forthcoming meeting,
tb= should be calculated by the Secretariat , checlced by
.:t.1inimumstandardsfor daw the Chairman of the Scientific Commillee and then
The Committee recommended that Paragraph 24 of the transmitted by him to the Commission.
Schedule shoul d require the position of whale catches to
the nearest degree and minute of latitude and longitude
11.1.2 Southern Hemisphere baleen whales
along with the other information detailed. Minke whales
The Scientific Committee recommended that a set of Srock idenlijicorion
guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing the results
should be developed. Ldeally, this should include The Scientific Committee agreed that 10"sectors longitude
standardised methods of survey design, field procedures represented the best option for Small Areas, and that 60"S
was generally a satisfactory northern boundary.
and data collection . Similarly , a set of approved methods Three options for Medium Areas (containing known or
of analysis should be developed for use by the Comm.ittee. suspected stoeks) were considered. The preferred optio n
Programs for conducting such analyses should be validated was for six areas each spanning 90" with 30" overlap .
by and held atthe Secretariat and should be available to
accredited scientists. As new methodologies are Arising out of this discussion the Scientific Committee
recommended that biopsy sampling be carried out on
developed. tested and approved, these would then be breeding areas , to allow further invesngation of the
added to the set of available options . discreteness of Southern Hemisp here mink:ewhale stoclcs.
The questions of data availability and validation were Isozyme analyses were suggested in addition to DNA
considered. The Comm.ittee recommended that data for
any sightings survey to be used to calculate abundance analyses.
estima tes for the purposes of applying the RMP should be
documented and provided to the Secretari .at in compute r Estinuues of abundanu
readable data files before a specified time in advance of the The Scientific Committee made three recommendations on
Committee meeting in which the data are to be used. All coding sightings data, the development of a database of
such data should be archived by the Secretariat in an such data (including the appoint ment of a database
appropriate database such that abundance estimates can be manager) and development of a genera l linear model
[rameworlc to permit evaluat ion of alterna tive mod els of
calculated for any specified Small Areas. Data should be in
a fully disaggregated form so that estima tes can be spatial and temporal distribution. Estimates of abundance
recalculated correctly if the boundaries of 1\-tanagement obtained during the meeting were adopted.
Areasarealtered . Once lodged with the Secretariat, these
data should be available to accredited scientists as defined
in the Committee's Rules of Procedure. Jmplicarionsof implemouarion of the RMP
The Scientific Committee agreed that detailed case specific
The Scientific Committee agreed that minimum implementation simulation trials should be carried out to
standards for survey design, data and estimates should be determine the eJttent to which catch-cascading and/or
considered further.
Data not directly required for implementat ion of the catch-capping would be appropriate when implementing
RMP includes various requrrements for biological samples the RMP for Southern Hemisphere minke whales.
Ln the Technical Committee, Japan commented that it
ab·eady specified in Paragraph 29 of the Schedule. The belie,·ed 30" was better than 10" as the sector width for
Scientific Committee considered that it would be most Small Areas and commented that information on Southern
helpful to replace Paragraph 29 with an 'enabling clause'
which stated that in response to advice or requests from the Hemisphere mink:e whales isthe best available for any
Committee the Commission could require samp les/data to stoclcs. It further commen ted that at least combinatio n of
Small Areas by cascading should be implemented .
be collected from whaling operations .
Section V1 of the Schedule deals v.'ith 'informat ion
required' and the Scientific Committee agreed that it is Other baleen whales
highly desirable t.hateffon data continue to be collected on The Scientific Comm.ittee received updated analyses for
a routine basis and that the provision for collection of blue, fin, sei and humpback whales from s1gbtings surveys.
product data should be retained. Due to Jackof time it had The sample sizes were very small and only meaningful for
been unable to comp lete a full review of Section Vl. the circumpolar Areas as a whole. There was greater
Discussion in the Technical Committee on the draft confidence in the results for humpback whales than for
specification for the RMP spanned a range of views. Some other species and the Scientific Committee recommended
delegations believed it was time to adopt Annex H and that studies to provide estimates of population size and,
endorse the annotations. How this wasto be incorporated where practicable, rates of increase and l.inlcage between
into the Schedule presented problems, and a Working Areas for humpback whales should be encouraged. It also
Group to consider this was suggested. Some delegations recommended that humpback whale assessments be given
distinguished between the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) priority at the next meeting.
and other elements of a total package of a revised In the Technical Committee, Japan commented that too
procedure whtch would include provision of data, many blue whales had been taken by many nations in the
verification , inspection and observer schemes . Thus there past. The IDCR cruises and Japanese data had been
was an underlying broad acceptance of the RMPbut a wide provided to give the present estimates and it requested
di"ergence of views on the next steps . other nations to assiSt in research and analysis.
360 Annex 53
REP. !NT WHAL COIIIIMN43. l993
23
The Scientific Committee recommended that studies of
Recommendntioru for future implementation for other
current population size and increase rates for right whales. species or regioru
important in indicating their recovery, should continue. In the light of its recent experience with respect w
implementation, the Scientific Committee discussed a
Future work number of ways in which itsprocedures could be improved.
ln particular it noted that, should further implementation
Assessments may require a relatively long timeframe ,
possibly three or more years. The Scientific Committee be attempted , more time must be allotted to this work
adopted a ~s otf priority items for data coding. Concerning which may require work: to be carried out ov,er two
photo-identification data, it recommended that tbe meetings. The Scientific Committee also agreed that it
Secretary be asked to seek from national groups and should only undertake an implementation of the RMP to a
species and region on instruction from the Commission and
individual researchers, listings of the nature and extent of
data currently held, by location of sampling for all species that adequate notice and specific details should be given.
where available but for humpback whales in particular. In the Technical Committee, Japan received
In the Technical Committee, Japan requested that tbe confirmation from the Chairman of the Scientific
Scientific Committee should complete all its business on Committee that the North Atlantic and Southern
the assessments within the period indicated. Hemisphere mink:ewhale trials can now be implemented
11 also recommended that information on incidental on a Small Area basis and requested that the catch limits be
sightings shouldbe included .innational Progress Reports . calculated. Discussion brought out the views that
calculating catch limits is different from setting them, and
that the Commission must formally adopt the Carch Limit
l L1.3North A.Jlanticbaleen whales
Minke whales Algorithm (CLA) before it could be used in determining
New results together with earlier data indicate that whales catch levels. OnJy when Annex H is published .in the
from West Greenland and Iceland are genetically distinct Schedule does itbecome theoffi.cialCommission procedure.
from each other, strengthening the existing hypothesis of These differing views led to the Chairman indicating that
the wbole matter should be referred to the Commission.
three breeding stocks. ll was agreed to continue nsing the In plenary, Japan repeated itsrequest for the calculation
Small Areas as defined for previous simulation trials and
that pedormance of the RMP would not be sensitive to of the initial five year catch limit, inclnding catch
minor boundary changes. cascading, to be done in a specified time prior to the next
Annual Meeting.
EscimDre osabundance
A new estimate of g(O),the probability of sighting a whale North Atlantic fin whales
on the cruise Lrack,led to a revised abundance estimate for The Scientific Committee considered some preliminary
resultsof genetic studies on Nortb AUantic fin whales. It
the northeast North Atlantic of 86,000 (95% Cl 61,000- recommended that isozyme analyses be continued and
ll7 ,000) minke whales. After extens.ive discussion nf the expanded to include larger sample sizesfrom more areas
results and implicationsn the ScientificCommittee. it was and that the alternative explanations for heterogeneity
agreed that these were the bestcurrenUy available for the
1988 and 1989 shipboa rd surveys. which led to revised which bad been suggested be investigated.
A new fin whale abundance estimate for the survey
estimates for Small Areastobe used for implementation of blocks covered by the Spanish vessel inNASS--89of 17,300
the RMP. (95% 0 10,400-28,900) was accepted. The Scientific
Committee recommended continuation of studies on fin
Implications and impleme111arionof the RMP
whale blow rates off West Greenland carried out in
The Scientific Committee agreed that additional response to its recommendation in 1991.
implementation simulation trials should be conducted
using a revised mixing matrix, the actual estimates of Future implemenwion of the RMP
absolute abundance and associated variance statistics, and The Scientific" Committee had been working on the
improved methods of modelling CVs or future surveys.
assumption that implementation for North Atlantic fin
whales would follow the Comprehensive Assessment .
Resultsfrom implementation simulation ln"als However, it now referred to its view that work toward
The ScientificCommittee received the extensive results on implementation should only be initiated on .instruction
these trials in the final hours of its meeting and it was not from tbe Commission.
possible to review them in any detail. 1t agreed that the
only conclusion that could be reached in the time available North Atlantic sci whales
was that implementation of the RMP was possible on a Abundance of sei whales in Iceland and adjacent waters
Small Area basis for both North Atlantic and Southern from the NASS-89 survey gave an estimate of 10,300 (95%
Hemisphere minke whales. Further consideration of the Cl6 .100-17,700) which was accepted as the best estimate
trial.results,in addititothe results of two trialsoriginally for the Area surveyed. The Scientific Committee
specified but not completed was necessary. After th.is the recommended that biopsy sampling be undertaken in
Sci.entific Committee agreed that it would be in a position Canadian and US waters because lack of samples for
to de,·elop recommendations to the Commission on the _genetic studies in areas other tban Icelandic waters
most appropriate options to use when implementing the precluded StUdiesofstocksepararion in tbe North Atlantic.
RMP for North Atlantic or Southern Hemisphere minke
whales. 11.1.3.1 Catch limits for Nonh Atlantic minke whales
Austrnlia posed a technical questiono the Chairman of Iceland bad expected that the Commission would set catch
the ScientificCommittee concerning one of the Small Area limitsfor mink:ewhales in tbe NortbAtlantic on the advice
trials. A written reply was appended to tbe Report of the of the Scientific Committee in accordance with the RMP
Technical Committee. and the Comprehensive Assessment of these stocks. In the
361Annex 53
24 CHAIRMAN·s REPORT OF THE FORlY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING
absence of formal agreement and acceptance of the CLA, Australia introduced a Resolution on the Re\ised
the Technical Committee was not able to take funher Management Scheme (RMS)*, co-sponsored by Finland,
Germa ny, Switzerland and the USA. Th e Aus tralian view
action.
is that there should be no more commerci al whaling, but it
11.1.3.2Amendment of the classificariollof the Northeast understood that the work of the IWC must go on while it
Atlan:ricminke whalesrock tried to persuade others to its view. Accordingly it
Norway bad proposed that the classification of this stock recognised the great efforts made by the Scientific
should be amended but the ScientificCommittee had been
told that the question could be considered to be Committee and sought ro advance the work of that
Commlttee and the Commission in developing the RMS,
withdrawn. The Norwegian Commissio ner confirmed tllat so that ifaU else fails and whaling does resume, a high level
this question would not be raisedagain by Norway during of security is afforded to exploited cetacean populatio ns.
this meeting.
The Resolution took into account the work of the Scientific
11.1.4 Other srock.r Commi ttee but alsoemphasised that there are a number of
other addit ional items besides the CLA which the sponsors
Nort h Pacificmlnke whales believe are essential to be completed before any RMS
Japan stated that it believed the West Pacific-Sea of could be agreed .
Okhotsk minke wl:talestock bad been sufficiently analysed
for implementa tion of the .RMP. [t requested an Sweden also wished to co·spo.nsor the Resolution.
Switzerland, in associating itself with the statement of
intersessional meeting of the Scientific Committee for this Australia. recalled tat lastyear the Comm1ssion adopted a
purpose and that such implemen .tation should be Resol ution accepting the C procedure as the core for the
completed in two sessions of the Commission. This was
supporte d by Norway. development of the CLA . The Resolntion had requested
This request was repeated by Japan in the plenary . further elements to make it even safer, which have been
accomplished by the Scientific Commirtee. The Committee
Austra lia, supporte d by Sweden, asked to know the cost now recommen ded that the draft specification for the
implications. calculation of catch limits in the RMP for baleen whales be
North Pacific Bryde's whales adopted , and the attac hed annota tions endorsed.
The Scientific Committee noted that Japan will provide an Switzerland is instructed to base its decisions on the
findings and recommendat ions of the Scientific
updated status report on the available data for North Commi ttee. lt therefo re though t that the CLA should be
Pacifi.c "Bryde'swhales at next year's meeting with respect
to a future in-dept h assessment by the Committee. It noted accepted as a central element of the management scheme
that relevant data should also be available in Russia and to avoid any intention of funher modification, and the
the USA. It recommended that information on data other elements mentioned in the Resolution develope d
and completed.
available in these countries should be provided to next The Netherlands took the view that an important part of
year's meeting.
the work of the Commissio n had now been completed. It
11.1.5 Fururework plnns was satisfied that the CLA contains sufficientsafeguards to
The Scientific Committee identified the work it needed to ensure the long-term survival of whale stocks. It believes
that commercia l whaling can only be considere d when
do during tbecomingyear . ltnoted that, asdiscussed in the
Repo rt of the Fmance and Administra tion Comm ittee, if oth.er conditions have been fulfilled, namely that the
the Commission wished more subjects to be discussed , Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks bas produced
further time would need to be added to this meeting. sufficientdata on stock identity, size and reproduction, and
that effective rules had been adopted concerning the
In the Technical Commlttee Norway pointed to the provision of data, stock monitoring and inspection. The
North Atlantic fin whale as the next case for
implementation of the RMP and the CLA on the grounds Resolution also made clear that, pending the adoption of
that the order of the Comprehensive Assessment gives the the RMS, there should be no commercial whaling nor
order for the RMP implementation. Japan supported this implementa tion of the CLA. On this basis it gave its
suppon.
,;ew and also spoke in favour of completion of the
Comprehensive Assessment and implementation of the The USA associated itself with the comments made by
RMP for North Pacific minke whales and the Australia and the Nethe rlands, emphasising that it does
Comprehensive Assessment of North Pacific Bryde's not favour the resum ption of comme rcial whaling nor
condone a resUIIIptioo not authorised bv the IWC under
whales,confirming that it willprovide all necessary data for the consenrative guidelines comained in·the Resolution.
completio n of the work in 1994.
Japan asked the Commission in the plenary session to
adopt this priority of work for the Scientific Committee.
There was some discussion of what was involved in terms of • [Editor'note]:
In the original Resolution presented to lhe Commission, a
meetings. typographical em>r resulted in the heading referring to the 'Revised
Management System' [my itati<:s] not •Scheme', although 'Scheme·
11.2 RtwiewofSched ule paragraph l O(e)and other relevant wa«used tbroughow the text. Pendifinal clarilication anddefinition
paragraphs of terms at next year's meerlng , I have used the definitions
This work was referred directly to the plenary. for thepu~ of thil Repon . Caleb Umit Algorithm (CLA)
l.b.tsrefers to the method of calculating catch limits for baleen whales
as d~bed in Annex H of the Scienlifie Committe<:'s Rt:pon . {2)
11.3 Action arising Rt:vtsed ManagementProcedure (RMP) - this includes the CLA and
The Technical Committee agreed to endorse all the incorporates further scentific aspectSincluding data standards and
recommendations from the Scientific Committee , other survey gujdelines. (3) Revised Management Scheme (RMS) - this
than those where discussion had indicated a lack of includes the RMP (and thus the CLA) but also incorporates non
scientilic aspectS includiinspection. the establishmenof an
consensus which were therefore passed to the plenary for observer schemeand incorporation of allscientific and non-scientific
furthe r consideration. aspoctsinto the Schedule, as deuiled in the Resolution.
362 Annex 53
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 43, 1993 25
New Zealand stated its posauon in ahe context of St Vincent and The Grenadines supported the
wrestling with 1992 problems in a 1946 Convention time amendments because of the nme limit they placed on the
warp, and not having complied with the requirement in implementation of the RMP. St Lucia also supponed the
Schedule pa.ragraph lO(e) to complete a comprehensive settingof a timefraroe , but Monaco questioned whether
assessment of the effects of the moratorium decision on the timeframe wastoo shon .
whale saocks. 1nits view the RMP has not been tested on On being put to the vote, the amendmenr was defeated
realistic data and does not take adequate account of multi wttb 5 votes in favour, 16 agaimt and 7 abstentions.
species concerns of changes in the environment . The Mexico explained its abstention because of the co
uncenainries in vinually every area are enormous. Two sponsors' stated aim of a final end to whaling but yet
aspects of particular concern are the protection level of recognisingsome son of whaling. It wondered if there was
54% of the unexploited level and the target level of 72% . a need to revise the whole legal frame of the Convention .
The former is 10% lower than tbe level set in the NMP Denmark also abstained because while it had sympathy
wbich was completely inadequate. The deliberate with the intentions of some of the amendments, it was
depletion of the Southern Hemisphere min.kewhales to the concerned about the request to investigate other tuning
target level is totally unacceptable to New Zealand, and levels since it accepIbe )e\o'elof n.
was the reason it abstained on last year's Resolution on the Ireland expressed some reservations on the original
RMP. It would have been prudent if the Commission bad Resolution, because of the possibiliry of whaling occurring
applied the precautionary principle more fully by setting on stocks below the protection level of 54% . lt W<JSalso
higher targetand protection levels for an initial period of opposed to catch-cascading since this would almost always
say 10-15 years and thus give the opportunity to assess increase catch limits and it wished to adopt the most
Eunher the effectsof the procedure on the stocks in the real conservative position. Finally, it was concerned thai
world as distinct from the computer world. Until its acceptance of the CLA might encourage any member to
concerns are taken care of, New Zealand had no choice but take action before the complete RMS is approved. It
to continue to abstain on this item. therefore would abstain .
The UK pointed out that in its view the Resolution sets Germany was prepared to follow the Scientific
out some but not all the elements which should be in place Committee advice on the CLA , but made it clear that a lot
before Schedule paragraph 10 can be altered and the of other conditions formulated in the Resolution have to be
moratorium on commercial whaling lifted. An essential fulfilledbefore the RMP can be accepted and
area for the UK IS the question of progress on humane implemented . Spain gave its suppon, following the
killing. Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling arguments expressed especially bj Ausuai.Ur, the
nexl year has been a blow, there is concern about Netherlands and Germany .
NAMMCO (Nonh Atlantic Marine Mammal France would abstain , because despite the technical
Commission) as a potential rival organisation. and sophistication of the RMP it looked, as did Seychelles. for
suggestions for funher tuning o[ rhe CLA perhaps leading a diversityof management measures and a more global
to larger catches. New ideas such as the circumpolar whale approach.
sanctuary and en,ironmental threat assessment are on the On being put to the vote, the Resolution (shown in
table, and the UK believed it would be right to pause and Appendix 3) was adopted with 16 votes in favour and 1
think at this imponant juncture. lt would rherefore abstain against, with 11 abstentions.
if the proposal were pressed to a vote. Japan explained its abstention as recognition of the hard
Norway and Japan proposed five amendments to the y,ork by serious thinkers amongst the like•minded anti
Resolution which had the effect of requestmg the Scientific
whaling opinions. Brazil also valued the work of the
Committee to provide full documentation of the CLA and ScientificCommittee and the thinkers referred to byJapan,
control program by the 45th Annual Meeting; to test lower but abstained because of doubts about where it stood in the
tuning levels of 0.66 and 0.60; and committing the pressure of this week's events.
Commission to implementing associated regulatiortS by the Denmark voted in favour of the Resolution as a step
end of the 45th Annua l Meeting . NoflY!lycommented that towards the end of yean of discussion concerning revised
it had expected at thstartof the week.to be talking about management procedures , but it thought the questions of
implementation of the RMP, but it was now faced with a control and inspection should not cause any unnecessary
new concept of the RMS. Japan indicated that these delay in the further implementation of the RMP. St
amendments had the effect of putting completion dates on Vincent and The Grenadines, while still not satisfied with
the proposal and reduced the optiortS involved. the timeframe , also supponed the Resolution as a step
Seychelles could not suppon the Resolution because in forward. Chile's affumative vote was for a step in a long
itSview the proposed rules for calculating catch limits do process to be continued on a scientific basis as before.
not conform to the Resol11tionadopted last year that catch Sweden saw the adoption of the Resolution as following
limits shall only be greater than zero where the stock is the recommendations of the Scientific Committee this
det"ermined to be above 54% of its unexploited level. The year. Other imponal'\kissues still need to be resolved
Scientific Committee has said that catches from depleted concerning safe whaling before the moratorium is lifted. H
stocks would usuallybe small and would not slow recovery therefore proposed that the necessary work on obse.rvation
very much, but there have been no multisrock trials and and inspection be dealt with by an intersessional meeting
there are some rather disturbing indications that all is not
before the next Annual Meeting.
yet well. It would therefore abstalll on a.ny vote and hope Drscussion of the vaoous intersessiona .l meetings being
that~rre cpthcation of any rules can be more precisely cons1dered and the priorities of the work of the Scientific
S)lCC!fiednext year, and at the same time give serious Comrruttee with input from Japan , New Zealand,
consideration toany proposals for additional sanctuaries. Australia, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee,
The USA suggested that the amendments proposed by Norway, USA, the Netherla.nds and the Republic of Korea
Norway and Japan , which it found unacceptable, be voted led to the decision that Nonh Pacific mio.kewhales should
on as a block. Norway supported thts suggestion. be the next priority subject for implementatiotrialsto be
363Annex 53
26 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF TRE FORTY·FOURTH ANNUAl. MEETING
carried out by adding three days to the slarl of the next the collective responsibilit y of all members to ensure
annual meeting of the Sc1entifu: Committee . adequate research and monitoring . The Sanctuary was
General reluctance was expressed for an intersessio nal established in l979 not primarily for research but as a
regulatory measure. Seyche lles took the view that some
meenng on observation and inspection, because of time
and cost constraints. Sweden proposed an alternative areas, espe cially breeding areas, shou.ld not be subject to
solution of the Secretary seeking information from other the vagaries of annual and temporary catch quotas. but
international organisations to be transmitted to should offer protection e,·en if commercial hunting is
Commissioners before next year's meeting for comments resumed. When the Sanctuary was firstproposed, the
as a basis for discussion . Japan and Norway preferred an intention was that it should extend to the southe rn feeding
imersessional meeting. but Australia reiterated its view grounds to protect the minke whales over their entire
that this was not practical in the foreshonened year. range. This was not adopted, but it believes that their
There was discussiOn of the financial implications , breeding grounds must be protected for many years to
including oppos ition by Mexico and St Vtneent and The come , and perhaps even for all time.
Grenadines to any additions to the CommiSSion's budget, Australia, as an .Indian Ocean state, spo ke of the value
and clarificatio n of and comments on the additional costs of sanctuaries in providing a range of additiona.l
for the various meetings byGe rmany, the USA and Japan. management strategies for conserva tion of cetacean
This led A ust.raliato propose parallel meetings of working stocks. It identified a number of its research programmes in
groups and the addit ion of £27,000 to the basic budget. the area, including aeria.l surveys, incide nta.l catches,
This was the sum estimated by the Secretary to cover the srrandings, sigbtingsand behaviour studies, and wished to
additional days needed by the Scientific Committee, continue its research activity in cooperation with other
Working Groups and the Commiss ion. The increase in the coasta.l sates . Aust:ralia's view is that the Indian Ocean
budget would still be less than the 5% ceiling lhe Finance Sanctuary s.bou.ld be continued , preferab ly for all time but
and Administration Committee bad set Mexicosuggested for not Lessthan ten years, and that it wou.ldbe valuable to
reducing all working group meetings to half a day, which extend southwards into Antarctic waters .
Oman supponed. Brazil was opposed to parallel meetings The USA thought it beller to discussthe southern
but supported the Australian .financia.lproposala position bounds when the Antarcticsanctnary bad been considered.
shared by Swede n and Spain, and finally approved by the It believed the Indian Ocean Sancruarv will continue
meeting. indeftnitely but. given the limited number~f .Indian Ocean
state members of the fWCand the rapidly changing world,
thought there was merit in at least reviewing the status of
12. WHALE SANCI'UARIES the Sanctuary every ten years .
Switzerland, Fra nce, Germany , Brazil, Denmark,
12.1 lndian Ocean Sanctuary Sweden , Spain, New Zea land, Ireland, Finland, Oman,
The Seychelles introduced its proposa.l in the Technical People's Republic of China, UK and Netherlands all
Committee to amend Schedule paragraph 7 so that the
supported the proposal for continuat ion for a funher teo
.Indian Ocean Sanctuary provision would apply until the years .
Commission may decide otherwise. It was not proposing Japan spoke of the rational utilisation of marine species
any change to the boundaries and noted that the current and the effect on otheT fisheries of protecting whales alone.
area would become contin uous with the Antarctic It could agree to the Sanctuary for another ten years but
sanctuary proposed by France. Th e .Indian Ocean Marine not to an extensio n to the south. It wou.ldlik.eto see all the
Affairs Cooperation, mainly made up of non-lWC states, coasta.l states doing extensive research, on an ecosystem
had prepared a Resolution for the declaratio n oft he lndian basis. orway could see no research advantages in
Ocean as a sancruary for wha.les for all time. Japan raised prolonging this Sanctuary , but went along with the view
the question of the validity of the Seychelles proposal expressed by Japa n. St Lucia gave suppon but subject to
because it was notpresented 60 days before the meeting as consul tation with the many countries that are not members
required by Rule of Procedure J. of the JWC. and Mexico expressed a similar view on the
The Scientific Committee bad discussed the issue of need to consul t the coastal counrries concerned. St Vincent
whale sanctuaries in genera.! and its Report contained the and The Grenadines and Monaco gave simi.lar support.
views of a number of individua.ls or grou ps of members . In response to a question from St Lucia on whether in the
In the Technical Committee the re was a balance of past ten years of the Sanctuary there bad been an atte mpt
views. Some delegations were in favour of the Seychelles to have dialogue with other countries and organisations
proposal , recognisingthe research potential and ecosystem controlling fisheriesin the area, Australia sta ted that , as
elements. Other delegations expressed oppos ite opinions, New Zealand had earlier pointed out, thisis an issue within
considering that little research had resulted and therwas IWC competence . Nonetheless IOMA C, which covers all
little rationa.l motivation or scientific basis for the Indian Ocean coasta l sta tes, was supponive of extending
sanctuary. The Technical Committee agreed to transmit the Sanctuary on an indefinite basis.
these divergent positions to the plenary.
The USA, noting the concerns over the indefinite 12.2 Proposal by the Government orFrance for a sanctnary
extension proposed, suggested that the .Indian Ocean in the Southern Hemisphere
sanctuary might be reviewed in ten years' t~ . france introduced its proposal to designate all the waters
In the plenary, Japan again questioned if60 days' notice of the Southern Hemisphere soulh of 40"S latitude as a
of the proposal had been given. The Chairnum repeated his sanctuary. It indicated that it had received wide support in
ruling given when the Agenda was adopted, and Japan principle for this proposal, but a number of delegations had
agreed to coopera te. expressed the view that there was a need for more time for
Seychelles spoke of the low level of research in the consultation to take place both within their governments
Sanctua ry because of the genera lly limited le.,..el of and with othe r app ropriate treaty organisations. France
resources of the perimeter and is.!and states. lt believes it iswas disappoi nted that the Scientific Committee had too
364 Annex 54
54. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-SixthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45,
1995, pp. 15, 27-30
REP INT. WHAL. COMMN ~5.1.995 15
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE advising the Commission on promoting the developmen t of
humane methods or kiUing,whales. The object ion of Japan
The 46th Annual Meeting of the Commjssion was held in
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. 13-27 May 199-l. at the kind to this change. nod the interpretation of Denmark and
invitationof the Government of Mexico. Dr L. Fleischer Norwa~ that this refi!rred to whales covered by the
Conventio n, were taken into aecounl.
(Mexico) chaired the proceedings . Japan also raised the further issue concerning the name
and title of the Worlciing Group. since 'humane ' is not
?,.RF.PRF-'>N.TATI0 ;-1
defined.li s-u.gg e1m ode objecU\·tname shouidbe
Commissioners, experts and advisors were present from 33 souglu, such as ·Killing: Methods of Whale>'. This maue r
of the 40 Conrracnng Governme nts. together with wasreferred to the Commission for its consideration .
observers from 5 non-member governp1ents. 8
6.1.2 Aaion arisingfrom the 1992 Workslrop on Humarw
intergovernmental organisations and 9non-go~emmental
organisations. Killmg Methods
A number of papers we1resubmitted to the Working Group
3. ADDRESS OF WELCOME and presented by the rc!spective delegations.
Norwa) introduced its paper on bunting methods in
FoUowing a welcome from the Governor of the State oi Norway, a report from !he 1993 scientific and traditional
Jalisco, Mr Carlos Rivem Aceves. an address wag~ve bny catch.This indicated a subStantial decrease in the median
Mr GuiUenno Jimenez Morales. Seerera.rvof the Fisheries (72 seconds to 0) and mean (33-1to 228seconds) survival
Department. on behalf of the Govemmoe f ~etxico. He times compared "ith the latest data collected from !he
emphasised the importance of cooperation in managing traditional catch during 198-l-S6. and an increase (from
and prcsen •ing biodiversity and the role of responsible -14.% to 53.5%)in the percentage of animals that died and
fishing. Mexicohas incorporated such actions inus own lost consciousness instantaneously .
legislationand memion was made of the tuna/dol phin The USA gave an ao::ount of the hunting efficiency and
situation, its actions on the vaquita and sealions, and therecovery methods dev·eloped and employed by native
establishment of whale refuges forgray whales. Mexico Alaskan i~ the subsist.ence hunt for the bowhead whale.
~il lupport the IWC moratorium until !he Re,'ised The development or !he pentbrite projectile and the
Management Scheme is finished. It also supported !he benefits of thAEWC'!> focus on efficiency are evident in
Antarctic sanctuary and look.edfor decisions which respect
the statistics of the l9SI3hunt when close to 80% of the
nationalsovereigntyand are based on scientific evidence. whales struck were landed. which represents a dramatic
improvement O\'er tbe 50% efficiency rate found in this
4. OPENING STATEMENTS hunt historically.
New Zealand prese1nted a report on its preliminary
Opening statements from member and non-member
governments and observer organisations were distributed investigation of techniques for k.illing whales, focussing on
as meeting documents. Austria. as a newlyjoined member. anatomical studies and hasic work on the euthanasia of
manded animals. Multiple projectiles fired from a 12-
spoke uf ill> interest in environmental and wildlife gauge shotgun weFeideal forsmall cetaceans and explosive
protection whilst South Africa was applauded for its new penthrite charges for larger animals . It also had
standing.
preliminary evidence that electric lancing is li.kel>to cause
unnecessary pain andl suffering to a whale already
5. ADOPTION OF AG&"'DA harpooned.
japan reported on the humane killingoi Antarctic minke
The agenda circulated in advance of the meeting wus whales for the 1993>/4 season. This recalled the
adopted. Mexico gave notice that it would raise under Item
32. Any Other Busines:.. the question of the operation of development of the penthrite grenade harpoon used since
the Convention. 1983and efforts10reduce !he k:illtime while ensuring crew
The Chairman indicated that Items 10. ll and L2would safety. The median time to death was calculated as four
be conside red first in Technica l Commiuee under the minutes. Italso present'ed a paper setting out !he reasons
why it thought compariison withcase o~ other animals is
O.a innanship of DrP. Bridgewater (Austra lia). essenrial. sincecomparative studies, particolarly with
6. HUMANE KILLING terrestria l animals. will offer direct infmmatione to
death and assessment of .stress which ma) inspire
6.J Report of Humane Killing Working Group improvement in the pmsently used methods.
The Working Group met undet the chairmanship of Mr Japan also reported <>na bilateral meeting witorway
H.P. Johansen ( orway). tOexchange information for refinement of the design of !he
pemhrite grenade harp>oon.
6.1J Tams of reference The UK offered n compilation of figureon times to
The 45th Annual Meetinghad charged !he Working Group death and Struck-and--lost rrues in recent Norwegian
with considering its mandate further this year. The scientificd commercial whaling operatio ns derived from
discussion revealed that the Working Group was in the Norwegian Government reports. in!he belief !hat it might
same positionas the previous year and, on the Cb3lcman's
assistiseussion.
proposal, the meeting agreed to proceed on the basis of the DenJruiJ' outlinedthe wavs !he1993 Greenla nd action
terms of refere nce proposed in 1993 - to Te\•iew plan on whale hunting methods implemented the JWC's
information and documentation available with a ''iew to 1992 Action Plan. Thiis included provisions concerning
365Annex 54
REP 11'/T WHAt COMMN 45. 1995 27
Zealand endorsed this approach and mentroned the envirorun~ changel. Also. the Scientific Comminee
possibility of genetic te!.r.ing of samples. Norwitsstated
believes tb:nthe RMP adequa tely considers the question of
viewlhatt rade is noUn the mandate of the 1aposition under-reporting of catches.
shared by Sweden and Denmark, the Jailer believing
CITES not lWCtSthe appropriate forum. Switzerland also
had doubts on tbe legal competence. 12.2 Proposal b) Frant.-e.Australia,Brazil.ireland,
MoruJco, Netherlands, ew Zealand. Spain , UK aod IQSA
Denmark had instrucrioosto request a vote on the
Resolution Appendix 7). whichwa~ adopted by l.J \Otes The Chairman oJ the Technical Committee identif1hrec
in favour. againstwith 7 abstentions. choice> arising out of Recommendation 9 [or the
geograp hical boundaries of a «anctuary in the Southern
Ocean containe d indocurne nu~mitted by France and
SuperviSiQn and wntrQ/ nine co-sponsors. Japan and five co-sponsors. and Chile
Discussion in the Plenary on the admission of ollioen'el'lL three co-sponsors. and be invited comments from
the Working Group invoh'ing Norwa)', Japan. USA. membe~ on these propo:.als.
Netherlands. France, UK. Australia. Denmark and St Following tllis exchange view f~om all the members
Vincentand The Grenadines led to the understanding that present . the Chairma n concluded thatJllbad been a
the nonnal Commission rules would apply. valuablecxen:isewhich emphru.isedtherange of opirtions
The maners agreed by the Working Group were all for the non hem boundary set at 4o>sthrouga sen•es of
endorsed by the Cormmssion . other options. lt was clear Lbatthere wa$ room for fu1nber
A further exten ded discussion then took place betweendiscussionwhich might leadto a compromise which could
Denmar k. Norway. Brazil. UK. France. l\ew Zeala nd. acbiev<!a consensus in the Plenary. Some ddcg~Lion~
Germany , Jaan and Spain on the next meeting of the believed that no decision should be taken until the
Working Group. This included considera tion of the costsScientifiConuruttee had been asked to examine and
mcurred for an intersessional meeting. the length of timeepon back on the ~ient.i afspceeLof~ and give
needed for an adequate meeting and the importance of themanaeement ad• ice on a Southern Ocean sancruan~'ile
subject. Eventually was agreed to accep t tbe offer of oth ee~eved that there wano need to delay takinga
Norway to host an interscssional meeting in the second decision since the time bas no" come for such action.
week of JanUM) 1995. foUo"-ed b) a one day lll¢eting on Japan. after hearing Cbairman'•~umm calyd.for
a vote onthe following proposal:
the Mo nday of the week preced ing the ~7th Annual
Meeting in Dublin . The WorlcingGroup report will go first'Thatme Tc:chmclCumrmt~ r<wmmcmls theComiJUSSl,10
to the Teclmical Committee for consideration. •nst:rthe SacnHhCConurullee toSJ•·cmanagement advice (In llk:
spcaficquestiinthe Norfo!LWand Working Grr~po nnor
totaking an} fuland final decisions on a Soulltem Ocean
saoctuary ·
12. WHALE SANCTIJARY IN TDE SOUTHERN
This wru.seconded by Norwa) although secondme ntwas
OCEAN
not required in the Technical Committee.
12.1Report of lotersessioual Working Group Prior to voting. Australia_ seconded by Frnmce.
The Report of the inter=ion al Workin g Group on a proposed an amendment to replace the •word
Sanctuary in the Southern Ocean held on No:rfolk .Wand. ·managemen t'by ·scientific'and to delete all the text lfrom
South Paofic, in February 1994 wa~ presented to the ·prior10 •. .'.
Technical Committee by the Cbainnan of the Working This amendme nt was adopted with 22 votes in favour, 6
Group. Dr C.-G . Ducrct (Switzerlaml). ll1e Worlcing ag:tiost and with 4 abstentions.
Group recommended by consensw. to the Commission the Japan· originalproposal was thu.<not pw to the v.ote.
15recomm endations shown in Appendix 8:
Following 3n adjoummenL tlu: amended sub>t:anti•e
(i) Recommendations I, Hand 13relaterothe Antarctic motion was put to the vote and adopted wilh 22 \'Ot•es in
favou r1 againq and 9 abstentions.
Treaty sy.,tem and other intergovernmental Th us. the Technical Comm ittee recommende d the
arran~mten .tS: Commission to in.~r rhucStientific Commirre10 give
(ii)Reoo~ nmdta io 3nasd 7 were directed to the
Scientific Committee: scienufic advice on th~pceitcquestions in the odolk
lslnnd Working Group repo rt. which the Chairman of the
(iii) Recomm endations 5. 6 and 14 proposed specific Technical Committee interpreted tbe Recommendation
actions by the J\VC; 7(a)·fe) .
(i\'Recm omendati ~o2. 8 and 11 related to legal
question: The Technical Committee therefore forwarrled these
(v) Recommend ations .J. 9, If and LS concerned the conclusions togetherwitll the one proposal and two
propo<cd amendments in the documents bUbmiucd b~
establishmem of a sanctuary itself. France. Japan. Chile and their co-sponsors.
The Working Group proJIOl>Ctdhat tbe Commission shou.ld In the Plenary. Japan ;,poke of the need for such
take note of its Repon and funber endorse the 15 proposal!to be based on scientific ad,·ice and its concern
recommendati ons. which was agreed by the Technical over the amount of fishconsumed by whales that could
Committee and accepted by the Commisst<>n. provide human nourishment_ Japanese research had
Jpan a•ked the Chairman of the Scientific Comminee if
coruribULcdmuch to our knowledge and it took pride iu the
the Committee studied the specificquCl.tions r<1the development of the RMP It saw no reason to hun) to
W orking Group. The Chairma n of the Scientific adopt such a proposa l as no commercial whaling can eveT
Committee responded that there was no substantial be conducted in the area until completion of tbc RMS.
discussionn the matte r bm therwrulittle to gain in the Spa in believed that the severe depletton of whale stocks
oontelltothe conservationperfo.rmanceof lhe RMP by in the pasha~ made itimperative tconsciouslyproleo
modifying the procedure to take further account of them now. This is a mimmum precaunonaT) appro.acb.
366 Annex 54
28 OWRMA!Io'S REPORT OF THE FORTY-SL\.Ili AM,UAL \IEETING
Responsible resource management through the RMI>and Grenada qared its posiuon as one in which pnnciples
R.'vlSshould not be rushed_ and adoption of a Southern and science take precedence o,·er political expedtenC) . It
Ocean sanctuary isaclear ex:unple of re!.polhrbilil) believed culling could occur in a -.:mctuary and noted the
St Vincent and The Grenadines emphasised the need for views of Marearet Thatcher. President Cinton and Vice
scientificd•ice to be presented before ~tal>hsh amg PresidenGo~ that science mu5t be ba~ ani guiding
sanctuary. nor to justify it afterwarIt bchcved the princtple at all times. Elephants m Zimbabwe and
proposal would cont:Faveoe ArticV. and noted that the crocodi ml e.mbta are tQOnumcrollS because CITES
Chairman of the European Parliame Integroup on regulauons have~topp ehm bemg taken. Similarthm~
Conservation and Development wrote that the TWC are happening with seals and we may lioi h upa.eahor
should base allanagement decisions on ad,•ice from us "'hal aed~no fish. with a consequential impact not on the
Scientific Committee and its basic task is to regulate developed. iod~Lrial ioredd but on developing
whaling. It comrasted the need to justify aborigmal quotcountries. I~uppor dttee Japanese amendment but. 1f
yet the sanctuary is not p1an~osuch t~tand the haste that failed. would abstain on the mpropo~l.
O\er the !>llncmal} while the RMS needs so much more
Japan quc-uoned if the CommiSSion could make a
"'orl. The majorit} countries should notim~ their deasion on the sanctual) proposal or amendment "'hen
attitudetowhales on people from other culture•. the Scientific Cwnminee bad not <een either. but the
Venewela, although unable to exercise it •oung rights.Chairman stated that the Co!lllilhstlla te power to
spoke of its behe£ in the self-determmation of nations make decisions on management or conser\"ation .
Cetaceans in itstcmtorial water<' are protected llOder France identifiethat the Japanese amendment meant
national legi5latioo. but it respectedoountr with that "'hale' not presently hunted ...,11not bemhuthed
whaling as a cultuml tradition.MO»t countries would future and the "'hale. now hunted will be hunttndthe
consider a global "hale sanctuaf) so long as tho.e few rurure. Allhe p<r.>iti.rewell know11and i"a~ time to
remrurung nauons engaged in domestivhaling can secure take decisaons.
a regulated catch and the quesuon was can w~har tee
The People's Republic of China spole of tb principles
planet"s natural llStainable resourcesm peace and towards wildlife re:.ou.rces -ection. propagauonanti
goodwill? utilisation. and reserved ~itio on establishing the
Argentina recalledthruithas o;upponed the 'anctual): .anctual):until the Japanese amendment had been
iniuative from the beginning. It favaucompromise on examined by the Scientific Commiuee
the northern boundary to enlarge the bastS of support. Ireland pointed out that thori~>i Franh propmal
which has a sound scientific basis and as in lane wnh thwa. considered by the Scienufic Comllllllea.Working
preeauuona.ry principle . Group had c:hscusseitdand the present propol>al•sa subset
Australia commented that it has al~ 'upported tlae of that .
concept of a sanctuary since it first came before the The Japanese amendment w& then put to the vote and
Commission in 1992.The£e has been con~idi eonaatd defeated with 6 in fa\'our. 23 against and 2 ab>tenuon<>.
diSCUSSIOna.nd there has been am'lce from the S.::icntificBefore the ,·ote on t~ubManti Mvxico. France and
Comm1uee and other bodies. It was pleased to sec Chile proposal. with support from 17other go,ernment>.
emerging a proposal "''hisee~10 have secured a Wtde ?\orwa} ~tat hat 1t would not take pan. This proposal
measure of agreement. .-as 10 amend the Schedule by desagoaung existmg
paragraph 7 as sub·parugmph 7(a). and adding the
12.3 Actionarising foi](Jwing;ub-pata£1aph:
Me~ic introd11ccda compromise proposal on behalf ol !I>I J""""~ "iliArtodc Vtl~cl ,,the Coo,oruidn.
nself. France and Chile. <upponed b) Anugua and oommcmal "halm "hchcr b) pclo)IICoperations or from
Barbuda. Argentina. AllSt:ralia. Au,tria. BlliZII. Finland.
Germany. lreland. Monaco. Nethedancls , !:\ew Zealand. t..n<tl!110IS prohJbttID 3 ~· ~led "' lb.:
Southern Ottan SanauM) Tht>s..nc:. o.."""" 1he
Russian Federation. South Africa. Spain. Sw-eden. GK and "'atcrs or tho: SoutlHenuspta.:re ,.,..,hofathe
USA This w-as based on politicalwill and l.cieottfic follo,.mglme :<talrom~ldo:g. r<O.Jcl!fw,ahence
foundationsfor the protection of the whales. fran10. dueca<tto:!0do:yccs lheacedue<outhw 55 d<.-gr«s S.
th"""" dlefL>to 13!d<...,..e.,s E lh.!noe toe~~orth
seconding this proposal, withdrew 1t:s own onganal <legr= S lhence dea.to UOdcgn:cs Wthenrdo.: loOUth
proposal It thanked Chile for itS helpful amendme10 1060o.I<.'V""S': tbcnce dto50 dpee~W: then"du~
earlierdi~ussi andnsemphasised the trong~cicnufic nonh ID the J'OIof 1-e!l'nrung. prohtbitw•ppll<>
base or the latest formulation. 1nespecuveOthec:ons,r.rval4LUol balee.andtoothed
"'hal"--a ictk~t~nctu. osm a)rn..t.tme"' ume be
Dominica considered that Uaeproposal was b)'Passing de.ttnnined 1hc CommL"-SI(HO\\'C\'lht' J'f'Ohihu.on
sc1enceand recalled ihe reasons for the reSJgnauoo of the shall be rC"oitend~earater '"1niuaJ 3(](\puonat1nd
former Chairman of the Scientific Committee. It wasnot suctet:dmlen~ea rlllCI"''n.could be re'·i>I,uch
umc=sb) 1toComm1'3ion1\oth m~a:h~<ut>-.,.,rograph15
satisfied that there were enough data to jllStifythe nonbem
boundary and questioned •be need of the Scienullc mtcndedto preJudithe<;pCC lgallndpo1Jt!CStatU"'''
Commiuee . It characterised the propo~ala triumph of A.ntareth.:.a.
ch1canery over science and Dominica· principle> wuuld TheTe were 13 \otes in favour. 1 agaan and 6
not be compromised. ~bt!eoiom. and w the runendment to the chedule \\a>
Japan suessed its strong commatment to the worl..on thappro\-ed b) the necessary three-quanetnlljority
RMPIRMS and introduced an amendment. seconded by
Fouo.. ing the vote. Norway e:tplained that 11l>ebe,·cd
Norway "'h1ch v.ould have the effect of selling the the acuon wa.' not in accordance w1th the Convenuon
northern boundary along the Antarctic Converg<:n~ ..ince there bad been no >eientific consultauoJapan
e;~ce iptthe lndian Ocean where it would jom that n:peated ib view that these rewurce• should not be demed
sanctuary at 55"S and exempt minke v.hales from the for future humangenerati Denm.ark saw no break in
probibmon on comme rcial whaling when the RMS ts this action with its "iew of sustainable uufuauon. "htle
adopted for that •pecies . Chile expressed tts satisf3Cllon even though 11wouiJ ha'e
367Annex 54
REP I'T \\'HAL CO~i\I 15'1995 29
preferred tbe CCAMLR nonhcrn boundar) . Mexico provide web M'H;e at i!.Snexmeeting. Iagreedt!!mthe
emphasised the largere~poost >bniwlitaken on by the guideline for~\CUr cooperation had been met.
Commission. In thePlt::na the Netherland; concluded that none of
the programmes meet the criteria established by the
Commi.~o nnd announced that it mtended to propose
Resolutions requestingapan and 'orwa) to review their
13. DOPTJON or REPORT Or TilE TECIDUCAL programmes ew Zealand supported the NetherLand>..
COJ\f'ITITEE
urging Japan in parucular to con•ider maltng u.seof !DNA
The Technical Commmec had met under the an.aly ofesored ~ample fom the North Pacific rundto
Chairmanship of the Vice Chairman of the Commtssion, develop biopsy techniques. The UK. USA. Spain. India.
Dr P Bridgewater (Austraha). lts rcpon on ItemtO,11 GcrrnanJ. Au:.tria. Brazil, France and Australiaall
and 12 wa_ ~dopted by the Technical Commmee before supported the posinon of the etbertaods and New
being consideredin the Plen:-.rysessionsh~ maners Zealand and e>epressedtheir doubts over the need for a
and then formaUy adopted by the Commrs<ion. lethal research programme.
:-.orwa) pointed outthat theris little suppon in the
rcpon from theScientific Commtllee to criticise the North
1-1.SCIENT IFIC PERJ.UTS Pacaficpr<.lptlsa,l a position strongly reinforced b} Jltpan.
while St Lucia. St Vincent and The Grenadines and
1-.1 Report of the Scientific Committee Domimca referred to the favourable com:men ~f the
The Scientific Comminee receh·ed an overvtcw of the Soenti.fic Committee.
SCientificprogramme carried out by Japan in the Southern
Hemi<>phereArea IV tnthe 1'193.19s-e1ason. whtchincluded1~.2Action arising
a catch of 200 male and 130 female mtnke whales. A The 'letberlands introduced three Resolutions dealing
number of papers on <pecilic aspects. mcludiog age wnl1 spectal permit catches, proposed with Au:stria,
distribution. ,.egregation and relationship to Australia. France, Germany. Ireland. Monaco . Ne"'
oceanographic condiuoru.. were discus.ed in the limited Zealand. UK and USA. and sub<;equemlyjotned byS·pain
lime 3\'ailabl Concerning the propched takey orway. it noted that no
The results of the 1993t-.orwegian programme were reviSions had been made to the original prognmme , but
coru.•deredOnly fNmmke whales were taken. fewer than welcomed the facthat Norwav has decided notoiss~am
planned. becauseof poor weru.herand tee condnions. and DC\\ permit in 1995. lt believed that the objectiare,
permission was not recetved to operate in Russian unachievable in any realistic ume frame in the Japa.nese
Federation waters. Pry abundance, diet. genetiC!.. Southem Hemisphere research proposal, but noted the
reprOductionand pollutiostudi weere continuing . auempts by Japoo toaddre.s the concerns expresb~dthe
Japan is continuing llS Southern Hemisphere Scientift<:mmiu ee and ack.nov.ledged that the non·
programme which the SctenufiCommmee has discussed lethal methods for whale population 3S>CSSmenhtad been
e~teru. nvthlypa,t . It noted that the mmli.e whale \'Cfvaluable The ol:>)ectivesof the Japanese North Pacific
popub11onestimate tnArea V ts 295.000 and the planned minke whale programme directly address questions of
~mpl e size 300± 10"• Increased effon i:. being placed onctentilic mtere t. bitconsidered that these could he
emironmema l aspects of the programme tn light of the equaUy well, if notetter, be met by non-lethal methods,
Commission's Resoluuon on environmental effecrs. utilisinthe more than one thou'3nd storedsampl .end
The orwegtan proposal for 199-1is fina)eaT ofIL' nt: \~p } <amples. The Resoluuons invited Norway to
programme. Yi.th a planned take of 127 minke whales. recoru.iderits programme for9-and Japan to restructUre
Unle~ theoperouo ar~hampered by extreme ...-eather. ats two programmes so that the research interest> are
thereare no immedmte plan.. for a further catch of minkeadequately addre:.sedith non-lethal means.
""hales in-!"<eg.ianwaters. Japan <!xpre~ tt-.bjction to this land of Resolution,
The Scientific Committee abo reviewed a research whachdoe!>not reflect what was discussed in the Scie1Mlfic
proyamme from the Government of Japan to clarify the Committee. There wru.no disagreement there on the
stock structuof minke whales m the nonbw<..>Stnortlt research or the effeof thecatch i~ the Nonh Pacific,
Pacific following the agreed revte'W gutdetincs. the onh three '>Cientits raised the non-lethal means. while
ob;ecti\t!S the research a10 clarif)' ~loc~ktructure thew~ as appreciation of the results: from the Southern
and mixing rates of rmnkwltal round Japan based on Hemisphere .
problem.' encountered b) the Scientific Committeei~n ·o~"<a put forward another Re!>Oiutionon <cienufic
dt5cu~s ofioplementauon trials for Nonb J>actficminli.epermitsh~ Japan forth t~ke of minke whales in the 1\,onh
whales. The objectJ\'eS directly address question;, of Pacific. which endorsed the re' iew by the Scienufic
interest to the Scientific Commi ttee and the proposal gCommittee.
a number of re-ason.y lethal sampling (IIJ!whales m the 1\e"" Zealand endo~ed the comments of the
firs)Cat feasibilityrudy) w-..r,quired. Much of the Netherlands and 'upponcd thO\C threeResolut .hon~
di.'cus>ioncentred on the replacement of the proposed noted the critical minority statementthe Nonb P<tcific
~arch take b) the coUecoon of baopssampl and the proposal and reiterated it>,·iew that the essential rese·arch
useofetisting <;tared!>:Unplefsrom ear!Jcr takes for genneeds idenufied in aUthree programmes can be conducted
anaJy,;,Jnpane~ scientists ;udged from calculauons on by non-lethal means.
tho!impacofvari euelsofre"~ar ccth that an annual After a dtscussion on the order in which these
take in the range t(X}-200whales would have no harmful Re<oluuons ~houl be taken. it was decided that although
effectn the populations. even in the Y.Orstca-.e.cenano<the three Rewlutiom bad been presented first in the
The Scientific Commtttee noted the difficultiC!> in meetim!. because the NoNecian Resolution had been
adequately providing advice this matter in the past and '"bmiti"edto the Secretariat before the others. it should
decided it should con.,ider the general que tion of how ha\e precedence .
368 Annex 54
30 CHAIR\iAJI< S REPORT OJ THE FORTY-SIXfH ANNUAL MEETlloiG
The 'l.etherl pronos~d an amendmenr 10 the meeting of the Steering Group W'h held in Tokyo m
Norwellian Re;olution. which "'ith a funher moJilicauon October l993. Three possible objective.. "'ere eon idered
b) Japan. was adopred b) consensu' (AppendL9) by the Scientific Comminee·(a) to refine estimates of
The Resolution (Appeodi.' H)) introduced h) the .thundance in feeding area<>. (b) to deterrmne the
Netherlands on tbe Japanese Nonh Paciliccatches was al<odistribution of breeding areas and ''hether animals that
adopted. noting the strong objection recorded by Japan uulise a parllcularlow latitudebreedt.ng area utilise
because 1he research propo<al meetl' the objectives and particu lar feeding areas in the Southern Ocea(c)tond
gutdel ine:-established. evaluate the potential for competit ion for krill between
The next Resolu tion (AppendL\II) on the Japancsc blue whales. other baleen whales and otherhigh·le~el
prcd<ttl)rs.
Southern Hemi>.pbere catches w~imila :dopted. again
notmg Japan 's objectionthat it does not reflect the A number ot research projects were tdentificd. some of
discushlon of the Scientific Committeenor the large whtclt are already in band In vie\\. of the difficulties
amount of biolopcal knowledge accumul:tted aSMX:iatcd 1\ith esrimating blue whale abundancethe
Scientific Committeest:rongl)' recommended that the
The third Resolution on the 1'\oN<egian progr.tmme
(Appendix 12)\>-ns.at the request of Norway seconded by potential otacousocmethodfor both detennining areas of
Japan. put to the ,·ote "'hen it was adopt e.! "imh 18votese" hale concentration aa.~mg thetr abundance be
favour. with 13 agaillSl oabstentions. deterrruned.lDOledthe~alU Cfthe infonnation obtatned
from the US Navy ·Whale.> 93' project and tlS future
15. ECOND V.'l:ER.....,ATIO AL DECADE OF potential and strongly recommended that the lJSA ensures
CETACEAN RESEARCH thatthiswork iscontinued.
The SCientific Committee also considered the results of
LS.I Reportofthe Scientific Committee analyses of IDCR cruL<;edata and agreed that as these
The Scieruilic Coiilllllttee revie"ed the repons from four
studl!!!>"hich been supportedtnthe IJC>)t""' the:IWCJ crui;;es covered the major feeding grounds of blue "hales.
the eo;llmateof 460(95% 0 210-l ,tiOO)repre.enb the best
IOCR Southern Hemisphere mm~e "'hale~,.:ssment estimate of abundance available for Southern Hcnusphere
cruise: the >tructurlinwhale populationIlthe Gull of true blue whales for the 1985186-L99019c1ruises.
St Lawrence and Wesr Greenland; Project YOl\AH and
molecular genetic identification of sex and idcnllly amongPlam. for a Japanese sightingscrutSe for blue and Bryde's
whales around the Solomon Islands in September and
humpback whales in the Southern Ocean. October tm were presented, covering an area where blue
Each of thepropos sabm~ined for con<idcration thts "hale<: ha,·e prevtously been seen .The cicntific
year wasrevicw b~adWorl..mg Group onth~ ba'i" o~~~
relevance to the objectives of the Scientific Committee andmittee noted the relevance of this survey to its work.
recommended that it be cond ucted and looked forward to
the work of tho!Commission. the scient ific quality of treceiving a report of the crwse.
project. its chances osucces te~ ompetence of the The M"gregation or blue and pygmy blue whales in the
propo>ers. the feasibihcy of the work schedule and the
rea50nabl ofnte budget. The Sclenufic Commmce Southem Hemisphere hasbeen examined using available
sightingsata and catch records on the basis or separation
agreed that it <hould develop more specific gutdelint:l>at55"S The Scientific Committee concurred with tbe view
c:oocerrung attendance of proposers . <IS>Ociate\ and that an identification key for separating the t"o sub-species
cooperatoB during research proposdi!>CU. m dthaon~
it should review itpoliC)on eoostderationof research atsea be developed if possible. lnformatonnthe fmal
phi> .f" ~:lagic exploitatioof blue "ba les in tbe
proposal- at next )ear's meetmg . It appointed an Southern Hemisphere and the actual catches of p)'pny blue
interse~o Wnarling Group to eunune tht ~ aHer \\.hale< Japan and the USSR "ere re.-ie-.ed, indudmg
fun her
The Southern Hemisphere miole whale: assessment cateh of ~ver9.000 p)'gm) blue "bales not pre,iously
reported l>ythe USSR during Lseaso l62/6>-1971n2.
cruise and three other propoloals \>ere fof"-..rded by theIn the Plenary, the USA supponed the study on
Scientific Commtrtee to the Finance and Admini•>tratton compeuuon for loJillso long as u does noL •n•ol•e lethal
Comminee with recommendatioa< tor funding. tallCl. It~rat ehalit "'illmake every effon to see that
In the Plenary Japan emphasi5ed us commitment to
tbe "orl.. on the use of acousucs for determining areas of
re<;earch The Antarctic stocb had beeo depleted by blue "hale concentration and their abundance is
overhunting b~ man) countri<:!. in the past. including cominued . The UK confirmed that it tSfunding a two-}ear
NOJVo ' <.~)etherlands, USA. USSR as "'ela.Japan . project tanal> Discovery data tinv~tig aange. m
These countries did ncarrv out research no" and some
feeding ecologynd historical concentrations of blue and
criticised Japan for its efforts other large baleen whalms the Southern Ocean.
Ausrraliaand New Zealand. while supporllng such
15.2 Action arising work. qut:stioned the pmcttcality ond financial implications
The Commission endon.ed the recommendat ions on
rc:sc.archfrom the Scientific Committee and conSidered thesome of this research ghen the low number of sightings.
Japan emphashcd its initiative in promoting these studies
funding aspects under the Report of the Finance and to encourage the recovery and protecuon of the large
Adminil.tr.ttion Committee. baleen whales.Jt might be necessary tost.op the passage of
16. CONSERVATION OF WHALE STOCKS all \C$'CbWithin the habitau. and it thought it important
that urgent international cooperation should be staned and
16.1 l«port or the Scientific Committee funded b) the Commission.
A Steering Group was established b) the Scientific
Comminee last year to identil) a set of objectfor, J6.2 Mechanism to 6naoceresearchprogramme
research on Southern Hemisphere blue whales and to The fmancial unphcauo of~an) programme were such
tdcnufy indhidual5 who could cont:ributeto the that the Sciemific Commiuee agreed to bnng thiS maller
development of a research proposal. An interse >ional back to the Commission for further guidance and
369370 Annex 55
55. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-SeventhAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
46, 1996, pp. 15, 29-31
REP INT WHAL C(JMM!\ ~. IQ96 15
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting
I. DATE AND PLA CE Th e Chamnan drew allentoon to the 1ime1able he propose d
for di>cussion of !he 1a as n tlex ible wodpbfor the
The -17lh Annual Mee1ing ohe Comm issoon"'a'held 111
Dublin. Irelan~9 Ma)-2 June 1995. allhc kind invitationmeetin2and mstruc:ted the Techmcal Com mince to consoder
of lh.e Go•e mm em of IrelanP.Bridgewater IAto tralia) Agend; h ~l S, I~d n12.
chaired lhe proceeding s.
IIHl:I~ANE KJLLI:>IG
l. REPR E. E:"'TATIO~
6.1Report or Working Group on Whale Killing \1ethods
Comnu> on.,~o.pe.s and :ldv"'"'"' "ere presen J2from
and
of the-10Con tmclinGovemmem~ In ~ddun i1here were
obsef\oers from 4 non-membe r gove rnment . H 6.2 .o\lternatilto theelect ric lancas a method of
seco ndar) ' k.illing
imergovcmme nlal orgamsa 1ions and <JJ non-go,e rnm entTI1e Cha1m1an of the Worksho p on Whale Killi ng Me1hods .
orgams ations.
DrS .R1dg"a'~1USAI. reviewed hi' repon for the Ter hnical
3. ADDRESS OF WEL CO ME Comm1Uee a.-follows.
Papc~ were presen1ed and discusme the contexl of the
An address of, velcome was govc~rbMichael D. Hoggins
Wllro hop Agenda hems dealmg with rhe methods onuse
ID. Minister ior Arts. Culture amllhc Gael l3chl on behand 1heir develo pment. the assessme nt of rimeh1~s.
the Govemmcm of Ireland. He spoke of !he bmad cons ensus
death , re\land cvalua1ion of relevam daln. comparati'e
th31il is inevcry·simeres11hat1he grea1wha les and <malanalysis of !he methods. and me1hods 01 secon dary lal ling.
cetaceans shou ld be consef\e d. and rec-alled their u•e Modem scientifi c me1hods are availablonv~sugaung
food. tool< andan'in.<pira1ion for a11allpans oi the
"ba le~llni mucb more dorctl~a; 11&been suggeste d in
world. Irelandhas a long hi>to~ of wha le u~c from this and ipreviou~works hops. Such direin•~taitg10ns
strand in and drives, and of modem whahng whichwa~ woll r<.·qucon>~delmyb greater resourc es than member
carried cot borweg1an com panies a1the beginmng of !hi<
eovcmmenl> have. so far. been prepared 10 provode.
century Ireland now seek>to promole cons er"auon of "h - ln the absence of data tro m such direct mclhod>.
stock> becauo;rhq have been severe ly dcplc led. and in
ncvcnhcless . slbu1 u~fulprogn:ss bas been made over
1991 declared athewatc,...liExclusove Econom ic Zone the p:Li20years. The training of whnlers in anmomy and
a whale and dolphin sanctuaT). Ye1 il recogni> cs the rt:trgeting has bavery positivloleand !he development
other nations " hich have depended on wha les for
of the pemhm e grenade was ccnainly a major step
genera lions to follow !heir ('Uiruml tradit~Ctingwhilefof\vard.
to convmce 1hem of ils own po< l~n. H~ wu;hed 1he There can be ljule doubt !hal a pcnthri1e grenade of proper
Commission succes< in its work.
>i7crel:uive 10 rhe whaJe,ize. delivered in10the thllta\ m the
VICmi!) of the heart. which i>. relatively speaking. not far
-1OPEI'L'IG STi\TE 1£NT
bebind the bram.n111render th:ntun~ lnconscious and
Opcnm g staremcms frum member and non-member imens ible w11hma fc-. mrlliseconds. whereas mo1001han
govcmmcm s and observer orgams auo ns were Ji ,lnbUicd nullisc.:on ds are requi red for awarenes s of sensuuon to
meeting documenls. deve lop. TI1is can be referred to as 'IIlStantaneous· death.
Scientb l• and tcchnologcll> (includmg whalers I worlung
5. ADOPTI01\ OF AG ENDA with wha ling have presen ted some <lrong indirecl evidence
The provisiOnal agt'nda had been circula(1(days 10 1hn1 .majont~ uf "h nles are killed 'instantaneoby!)·
grenade~ urrenllrU>ing penthrile dosage s of be1wcen
advance of !he mee1in!!. BecauLe Botba tSo ulh Afncal I);-35g: hou,cve r. othe rs a1 the Work,ho p have questioned
wbo had been elected \'ice-C hairman last year was una ble to
anend 1hroue.h iUne>s. the is, ioner for Ireland. Mr M.the relinhtlitv of this indlfeCIev idence .
The ,izc a'nd precise targeting of the pcnthm e grenade are
Cum). wa~ a-~ed by the Commissi oner> 10 chair 1he
Techruca l Comminc e. II was also agreed to add hem 32.critical . To minim ise 10whalers. 1hclowest dosage of
penthriteconsis tentwith rapid insensib ili\before
Elecuon of Vice-Chmrm an. to the agenda. awarencs' of scnsa1ion can deve lopI of 1he v.bale musr !J.,
Mex1co gave nom:e that i1 wu' prepanng a p-.lJlCron the
San lgnac oo La!lOOns to be drscw.scd under An y Oihe ru...cd. D1rec1•tudic; of a few "h ales " ould help to set this
dosage of pcnthrite required a.' 1he primar y killing me1hod
Business.
Japan referred 10 the c.ttensive Rcpon of lhe Workshop ontho;Worltshop. the nlaJOr defocus ~n seco ndary
Whale Killing Melhods and proposed tu delete or combinekillinmethod~u~ec ilca_o;e,when1h~"'halen. considered
1hat~~hs a l'ee not imme doatelykilledThere was
Age nda Items 6.2 Ahema 1i•es 10 the electriC lance a> a
method ul -.econdary k.illing. wtlh hem 6.3 Use of electricsdierablc oppo otion to eleruoc uuo n as a secondary
lana.- as a method of killing whaleK.1houg1 b1.the killing melhod. with an ellpressed prelerence for the rifle.
Japanc.e s.:icntist.s <trongl) defended the effecth cness of
subs1ance of thei"'l <lould be dLScus,t:d but saw no
dillicu lty oncombinmg 6.2 w1tb the Repon of the Workshopeir elec tric lance me thod and pomled ou1th~e m any
1he rille coul d not be used under Japanese law,
lllld re1am ing 6.3. which wa' agree d.
Nelher land< sugge 1ed merging Ite122 Of"'cglall Beca use of the shon. 1ge of <1Jhv.Working Group
proposals for S hedule amendme nt>.w11h h1:2.Othe.t deal t with >pecific recomme ndauons for future research .
Thos group repon ed 1\AO. majo r obje ctives. g1ven lxlow .
mailers when discuss mg !he Rev~taa ncmcnS t~heme.
This wa• agreed and the ugenda was then adop1cd a• IIJ Ellamin;uion uf lr.luma :uod i1.-conseq uem:es. caused by
modified .
harpoons and olher dev1ces used 10 capture "'hales. and
371Annex 55
REP. I'I \\HAL COM,\L-.; 46. IY'}() 29
Sanctuary was no1 proposed for sctenufic rea.-.oru..and forignifi lcpaonramm e of killing in a destgna led sanctuary
lhl!.e reasons had not panictpm tthe vote la.<;tyear. area.
Dominica had always been worrted b; the CommtSst n India and Austria expressed their >uppon aod Swi!Zerland
rushin10 a final position without adequat e!) addre,, mg allgges ted taking a cleclsion by consensus, bul Japan thought
thefuctors on an issue. It supponed l.he reques110 lea'e 1il \\-Ould prohib u measures necessary to provide data and
mauer open for funh er discus;;ion. mforrnation for bener management and monitoring of the
On resuming. ew Zealan d commenlt>d that lhe Southern Ocean :utd so opposed. Be<:au ~tcwa~ an
Commission llad reached a bindmg dcctsion by ils vole ht-1tmportan t pnnc1ple. :-lorway called for a vote.
year.10 \\h ich only one government had objected (lo the Japan propo"\Cdan amendment. lOadd ·where pracucal
inclusionf one spec ies). and the onl) remedy now:IJI) and pos:.ible· 1o Ihe operative paragraph. and thiS was
government who believes that dects ion was wrong is to ;,ccnded by S1Lucm and orway. but defeated by 7 vr10s
propose another Schedule :unend men1. It therefore mo' ed.favour. :!0 agains1 with 4 abstenti ons. Tite original
underRule of Procedu re C2( b). that deontthb , UbJeCI Re<;lulion (;,hown in AppendJx 9) was then adopted "'ith 23
be adjourned. l1lliwas seconded b~ lonaco. Ireland. votes111favour. "'ith 7 aga inst and I ab tcnlion.
Oman. France and Finland. and the discusston therefore M c:uco stated th11voted in favoubecause it , upponed
ended. lhe sptn t of 1heproposal to avoid unnecessary killing. bul Its
Jap:mandSt Vincent and the Grell:ldines. commen ted !halsctenll'L' have not fmmd enough evtdence 10 assure lhal
once again the majonty was pre,enung dtScus,ion and neeeso.d.f) reo;earch cafull}conducted "ith non·lelhal
consideration of a senous que;;tion thai had been rabed mean:-..
Japan ltllruduced a Re.ol ution on legal maners related to
13.3Action on recommendations an d the adop1011 of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and. a$
13.4 Action arising recommen ded b) the .orfo lk Island Workmg Grouon the
The USA proposed thai lhe Sctcnlific Committee >hould be San tuary. MJught to clarify the legal is- ues raised by
l'ftjuested to exam ine the question of re=h m 1he n:que,u ng theSecreUII)"to refer the matter 10 relevanr
Sanctuary andas a maller of priom) develop a programme internnuona l legal institutions. While recognJ.>ing the doubts
for non·lethale,carch. ThlS view was 'ihared by lodta of some count nes on lhe legal basis for the de is1on. the
AUSlralia echoed these remarks and referred to itO\n Kethcr lanlli though! 11\\ould be 'ery 5U11Jlgehaving 1al.e.n
allocation of funds for a major ne\\ programme of researchthe deci>ton for the Io submilll to another organi>ation
monitorig and manageme nt in the Sanctuary wh1ch w1ll for lgal rev1cw Chile also opposed 1hc Re<;Oiulion and
allow it to develop and paruct pate in .:ooper.u ivc though!.a~Ne\\ Zealand had stated earlre r. lhat any change
inremauonal programmes. It also suggest.:d tltar the should be by amendmen t of the Sched ule. Mex.1cobelieved
Scientificom rnmee had a close lookm a paper tableb) the Comm1si ~n approved the SancLUary a cording 10 the
Japan on types of re'iearch programmes needed for pan1culaRule. of Procedu re as 1he "Lil of the contrnc ling pan1es. 11
iss~ . also foundnconsLh~:nc1 nsIhe proposa land though !a vote
Jap:m apprecia tedlbi ~ommenl. and 'uggested thai 1~oldunot >ct a good precedent. France. for the reasons
Rec.ommendalions 3, 7 and 9 (options for the geogrop hicaladvanced b) the three previous speakers.ed 10close the
boundari tfrom orfolk Islan~hould be lookedatb} the debalc under Rule of Debate C.2(cJ. Mex1co aothe IJSA
Scientific Comm inee. as well as the objecthes and .um.>ofseconded th~1morion. Discuss ionbell'~ nethe Rus ian
the Sanetuat) . The Chairman of thComnu ~sion and the Feder.uron. :-!oa}and France clarified that mtem was
Chairman of lhe Scientific Comrninec both though t the Iau10 close the1s~u eith no furthe r action . Thwa. ~o
wasmore a 1asi. fothe Com mission itself. on "hicthe oppo, ition 10 1his motion and the Chatrntan ruled lhat the
Sc1entific Comm111ee could develop rese:rrch programaes. t~ue >hould rem:un onthe Agenda and be dtscussed a1the
VIeW shared by St Vincent aod 1he Grenadines . The USA nextAnnu,ll Mectmg . a decisio n \\h1ch Japan appreciated.
agreed thathe Scientific Commi nee should sttmulat c and
coordinate researc h. such as the blue whale programme and
U .AI)OPT'I O~ Of REPOR T OF THE TE CHNICA L
the workshops on environmental threaalrea un~derway . COM tiTfEE
AustroJjencouraged countries repre>ented in the SCJenufic
Comm1ttcc 10 come prepared for this di.cu ssion In responsThe Techmcal Commi nee mel under lhe Chamnansh1p of
10a funher intervention from Japan. the Chauman ol the Mr M. C:lJIJI)'(Ireland ) and considered Agenda hems 6. I I
Comm isston recalled that one of theobjetvie~ of 1he and 12. II ad•Jpli~ own repon before 1hese mailers "'ere
Sancluary had beenarticulated as research and monuoring ofconsidered in the Plenary , which lhen fonnally adopted the
highly depleted populalions. repon .
Indiasugge>ted seeking help from Ihe IUCN Comrmssion
em Protected Areas. and the Secretary w~ asked to
communicate wtlh them 10 see 1fthey could add anytlung 10 15. SC IEYIT FIC PF.RMIT S
lbe discussion. while Japan identified GLOBEC and IS.I Report ofthe Scientific Comm ittee
CCAMLR as appropriate organisauo ns for rnform:uion and l..'llt>year. the cJeoufic Commi uee had noted the difficuhies
collaboration . n had m JlO'iding adequa le advtce on the effectsoe~
At a Ia1er >ess1on Australia introduced a Re.soluuon of >eJcnufic pcnm 1catches. hs advice has u ually tnken lhe
to-sponsoredb~ Br;uJI, Chile, France. German }. Monaco. tonn Ihalthe take of x whales for a shon pcnod "'ould ha,•e
Netherlands.New Zealand, Oman . Rus•ian Federauon. little effect on the status of the stock: bo"evcr. theeffec1 of
South Africa. pain. USA and UK. It was concerned aboul a ~rn:llale for a shon period will ah•ays be negligtble . It
lbe continuin g research bemg conducted under spec1al agreed thata fuller discussio n >hould take place thi> year. A
penni!pani ularly in sanctuaries . Au5l.rnlia h:ul rcmmded\Vork1ng Group "as established 1o draft guidelmes for
JljXIJl of the preference of lhe IWC 10 use non·lclhal pr011dmg advice totheCon1m1ssion. Comme nts were made
rech~ n.iqand 11was deep!) concerned about the increa.e b) 'lOmememben; late m the mee1ing dunng lhc dtscus,ton
m c:uch and area proposed and the conunualion of such a of the repon. The Scientific Comm iuee agreed Ihat allhough
372 Annex 55
30 CH.AIRMA:-I'S REPORT OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH AN"' L'Al MEIITING
some progress bas been made. the ma1rcr required furtherecost e~m and minke whale stock structure and biology are
cons1demtion nex)eat . cs...enrcontruiton~ to >etcnce of the Soutbern 0cedll. bul
In 1he Comm1ssion. Jap:lfl commented on tbela~coi il recogn ised tbe financial constram ls in the CoItts 10n.
consensus because 1hree memberhadlhoughtIhe approoc h "-OOid be prepared to h&.t, such a Working GItwould
Jakcn wa~ an !he fonnof a managemem procedure. bUI be pleased if non·lethal method.' could mee1!he aimsof us
Australia shared !he conce~pre~ byd1ho.e membcl"i. programme. which " erere~il anl iccessary.
St Lucia ques tioned if it is poss1ble to 1denttfy stocks by
non-lethaleans. and lhought that <nme srudies su ll requtrc
Results from t'.ttstmg pn-nrus lctiJal method s. A document lisJing various studies and !he
The Sc1enufic Com minee rece1ved seven documem from available researc h tech niques wa· referred 10 the Scien tific
Japan relaled 10the analysesII-;cienlific programme in Commine e for comment next year.
the Antarctic (JARPA) . llle se v.di~usse an. !he
Comminee also drew the Commi<'<ion'sanemio n 10 i~
prev101il>diScus 10ns of thi< proposal. and 1he lack of 15.1 Actio n arising
available :u Annual Mceling s to discu<Sre<ul!of 1he The UK. on behalf ot Austra lia. BrJz.il. etherla nd>.
JARPA program me. "'ew Zealand. Oman.South Afnca and the USA. introduced
Repons on the first cru1seof the Japfe~ibilstiu1~ a Rc<olution on whalmg under specipermi tTh1s d1d not
under special penni t in 1ortbPacific in 1994 and the affec1 ! <overeign ngh l of governments 10ue penruJ.s.
results obtained were c011<ideredb~ 1hc Scientific bu1 ghe n the deve lopments in non-le thal resea rch. It
Committee. The number of whales arnpled. 21 ioslead of replat:es tReso ullo n .1986 andI987 on the evalua!lon
!he 100planned . wa< the reuflabnormally poor wealhcr of )'cnn propol .ha~ !he Sc1enufic Commi ttee. Researc h
condi1ions. Sample\ were collectc Jfor geneuc. mtendcd to assist lht> Comprehcmivc Assem ~ent or
rnorpholog1cal. pollman! para>itolog1canaly~. and a unplemcntalion oflhe RMP should only be conduc ted usmg
ighting< survey " as al<o carried oul. non· lethal methods . and lethal methods should onI> be used
Results from the now comp le1e199-2199~ orweg1an in excep tionc~rcul a!nce soaddresscrtcil~limponam
programme. parricularl) those related to food and feedinque<tions. 11le Scicmific Committee is reque>ted lo
were presentdand the emphasi oth~ role ot minwha le~ undcr1ake a thorough apprai sal of all exb ling programmes in
in the ecoo;ystem was noted . the light of 1he recommen dauon on non-lethal research. and
toensure all future programme s are appmised in the same
light and have clea rly defined objecnve ;; rela1ed to idemified
Re•·il'w of new reis·tpermits researc h need<. are likely 10 be mel. aarenoo·lethal
11le 1!195/96 programme by Japan1hc Antarcuc is largely ahemal ives.
a continuation of the earher programme but "'ilh two maJorFinland ased what excepnonal Circumstances might lead
changes- the addmon of another obje.:uve, the eludda 1io1<the u.<of lethal methc:xis.anJ the UK thought it difficuh
of the effects of enviro nmental change on cetaceans. m topre ud~ wbat a Con tracnng Gove rnmen t or the Scientific
response to the Comum sion'; Resoluuons on the Comm inee might de ide.
environmenl andpoiiUiion: and the exlension of the =eruc hThe Russian Fedemlion proposed a number of editorial
areatothe west for oneyearI~a1llus stage and an increa>eimprovemenls to the text which we~ accepted by the
of 100±10 % minke whales. 10 clanfy the proble ms of stospon;ors.
strUcture thai hadme 10 liglu when cxamm ing the data t Vincent and !hGrenadi ~believed this wa, a moral
fromprevious years.The Scienti fic Commi nce agreed thaiquc~tin, not a <e1entific one. wh1ch mode whales special
more lhorougb review of Jhe prog ramme an1 1the data craetu- reot ro be swdieJ by~illni.h wondered if 1he
accumulating would be valuab le and shbelunder1akcn. Comm ission cou ld resolve th1s commd iclion. In response .
and a SJceri ng Groupwas e~atbi;hed to determine the India poimed out that it only carries oo1non·lethul researc h
featr~ of such a revic-.. The e1emific Committee on it'popultaionof~tiger;, elephants, lions and rhino,. St
endorsed ttrepor1 and the proposal for amterses• l1on~ Lu ia commem¢d on !he use of language which wa;, not
Working Grou p. quanntaJi, ·esuch as cetaceans/ whalesexceptional
ln theCommis ~on.!he USA called upon Japan refr«~n Circumstances.n ticnlly impona m i.soes. which cobed
fromwldenakmg the new elemem unul the proposed rev1e"' mterpreted differe mly. Mex.tco. while in favour of the
isc.ompleled. :md to adhere to the ,piril and mtent of !Re'>iution. looked for further cons idera1ion of the lethal
Sanctuary .II also cx:p. sedItsn:sen ation aboul the versus non-lethal research i<sue. Donnni ca suppor1ed 1.he
continuationf Japan ·s , orth Pacific programme. believmview<ofS t Vincent and !he Grenadines and Mexico. Klle
thai the stock identificau onobJeclives cou ld be clanfi w that the reque>t to the Sciemific Committee is wilh
accomplish ed by non-lelhal mean.,. The UK. 1'\eJherlarnhco;pcctonly to special po:nn 1t programmes.
arulAustralia all as.ocithem~ l,eew1tll this staJemcnL TIJCReso iUi n. show n 1n Appendi.>.I0. was tben adopled
New Zea land emphastSCdtb:u tbe mfonna tion necessal) fowith 23 votes in fa, our. 5 agamsl :md 2 abstenu ons.
manage.mem and conserva1ion can be obtained b) non·lelhal Japan inJioduced a Resolut1on. co·sponsb~edorway.
tecllniques, and 11was pani cularly concerned a1!he propon further researd 1needs rele\'Wll to bolh Agenda hems 15
to increase the camcthe Sanctuaryhe ..ccne of 1he "'orstand 16. Bcause ew Zealand IS<trongly opposed to lethal
excesse• ofcommercial whaling. lnd1ash3te<lthis view. an~a rchi1 moved a numbe r of amendmcnls to avo1d MY
France. Austria. Chile. Germanv . Brazil. Oman . suggestion of endorscmc m ofpal~lethal researc h and to
Switzerland.Sweden. Spain . Sou!h Africa. S1 Lucia and make clear thai any fUJurc research is conducted enurely by
MonllCO associa ted lem ,clve~ with the previous non-lethal means. beie~es that developments in gcncllcs
~taremcnts. anJ DNA techniques. use of dead animal s from other causes.
Japan welcomed thepropo~1 0 review us special permit photo-identificatiosghung~ survey' and previou.' catch
progromrm:, noting commen ts in the Scient ific Committeh1stones give no JUStification for any killwhalef ~o
on thehigh quali1y of the work. Elucida tion of the Amargam vital sciemific mfonnati on. Ch1le seconded these
373Annex 55
ch.m,ge'-hi·~.-.ere~l.o~urr,:,d bJ Au..t.r..mJ ttte ~s~t:!mrn,of \\ nah: '-locks.i tgen~1.. Jdennfi (:Jl!On
L J\.bm J.tpdli"nn..!..tlethem ...h. , uh,t:t ntl\ rand ahunJJ nc e ut ..t.fnOLb~. in 1he l.tuer ('.•lcg,,r)'
amencunl'nha~ lOt~ .1nl"\\ pr p<'...'tt.",har..dh~ l'\tnlllluau a n ot lht: 'cJi!!, of ctn:umpa br AnLl!t'lic minlc·
:'\on' a}- vh=-r-t~hl.nil!f!~'S1.
Denm ..- heiJ 1hc op[mon lh~rh>lrc'c.m:h ,h,,ui d b..: Th~S~<r r'hal ~olllud<:.Jlh31 the ongina l con.:ep1ol
,lnicled ~SJnt.fU:.ft) bd~no!genm cJ~oppo~ ,d1!1ht"." h~ IDCR t.nlC'l"ifrc•..;,carcetacc 311haoOC\ er be-
po-- •billly ol 'ckn u' h.tlmg r(,nv lla e .md hnd .Jchie..cd{!theI\"dec:1Ue,nus..~l,.,:to the faaltl'=
proolelll:)ilt1 the:.nn gmal an I amenll''-St Lun ..1 an nu'UIfCiJnltund~!rom the 1\\-C. mem bert.m'~nth·
a'""du moJcrr1tt.(::hnolng'okl determ i,rgll-.c>u..1l <'U:---Jfl"kned tx,0C.'.loutmore thanthemoq urgem
matunt) or prep Mn~ rate \\ uhoul l inmg rh..· \' h·,k·t'~ttt{"U~·;p.r.ngrumm ~~
boJ\ The Sc1enufic Comm ute~ 'flelll a con •dc mbume
Tht Chnmna n nded 1ha1 the p; P<''"d chon"~rr'.ill th.,..::su\m gn~dt: or olhcn \ ''for ' llnrd IDCR .
:unendmenr.•., luch " "' >UpJXmed h) BrdZJland Fml.J.lld. anJar~lln tit? u )lltil th·r,md d~:ign·0r1ina1J
·., rulind \\a s u\ Jhetngputt)1h< ute.\\ libq_,tc-. en\ 1,..tgt:d m 197.::_,cl~trtha i dll) <f.i,Ctbth~:'oln Ct'l
·n f3vour. 4 agaan"l-lah~enlll'.\;e\ tc.u c xplail.ecl nc:-f<'l~ne-"" bro.td re..c..:m.:h rc~mrde~1rt"ie~\
ab..t.;:ntloall'-the.-origmJI -.ponsu\·.r,n..t.th~l:rcJ)fillp~e._,e"'~.1:hprio rit'e' ,Commm~~ .n"' had
unendm<-..1'ub.anu:i~llh3ngcd .:.r~t CHlnrcr (0 thetr .dp. Xc n rec".,Hnml'nJ.b~d thl"" mrer'Ci n.31 gn-,up
I'"'I' '" JI 1!:-.atbh-.hed ,..,. 011rcvt<."oler~cuch propu.-.al-..
S" llzerla'Ugfel~d lh;fe>e~rh~1111el~1:OIJn-leih;,l Je scribed bck ·w .\: numb t.r' ot p•"rnr...were r.uc;;;d.- dun ng the
me,tns .~nut pos<tble lo~xam plIC>,rutlthed l~r-ol dl'-t"u-...\'w!l lcar lh:!l fuh.~~t.eij m ajt)f f:1n:nr
poHuant~ on ·rllc·mal vrgan....,ugg<~:tc-thephrJc~ i111hc hi,tuf) ttl .ctlnhl~lih; 'l' .1lac~~rondthe
'h~en~'er po:')l"hTb1~:tmt.:ndrn;"',_~con1ed h) t s, •tt.•nufil." CO!HHlJtleeSoml" mcmb l'COiltln e ntt".l'i
Vincen t and the Gre nadine, .wd 'uppun ed b) St Lucia.thJ e·(r:.tilhent?vpnont1e.n-lhC'ctenniiCCommi n~c.::
~'11 (m"an totmd thh wqrdmg confu.., g Th.l..~u;e.tg required <.:uJi. ronuyilh oth~rorgantloa!rton_,.fnr
~'..not adopted. recei\ tng 11 \tnt~·\ur.11 ..gaai n'' e'-'u-nplc ErTec1s PI Ennrn muent:tl Ch:Cetca~ms':
\...11:~renuon-. and thdth__\\ Ottlurm .. 1nct:~mgl~ important pan of
b pdn then \\lrhtlr,the ong111al pn>f'<h3 " hich the iemifi<- C mmi ner ·, •.w rL
h·.r:mn Jtedu.b:tl\! Otherm ~mht·. nntt'd thJlmo~ralll)thrpnoritJc~h.Jr
re-,e3rch rc4utred Cll'nllCom mn 1ee 10pro' tde1a!,;"
on the'ttu~ ot cct:tcento...k:--.\\ h\~hneprovu1mg
ad\.Jl:nn dtn.·:tot tndircct remo\ ab tabvngmJL
C'rnmerc•a.l -cieuupenn 11.mctdemJI •.tplllrelmrmr " '
lb SECO!'oD1\-rER.\ A'n O\ AL DECADE OF
CETACEA, RESEARCH ltl cnlb ho r~tude.... lor c"<amp!t'. PHthe rok ol <.t"•t:n.:ean'
'" thecu~~''em.
lb. I Reporufthe Scient ilic Commi11e.· The- S~.nuticc Comm11t~. reC'ogm_.;cth.uth~:tcnn
R t>'dofpro~I £'af 1/rt lvi the 5t.t.und atf t ' IOCR h:tJrecnru~large!~ ')non~mnu ... ..,i tb u-. tllaJOr
The Snro uric Commll'h;~ ne benefit opap,:prcparl.'d nn~v1ng.prOJCc.:tileoutt1en1ltemisph,·rmin~e \\ hdh:
b: 1hc.:St:'n'tre\IC\mg 1ht:t'\\ l '~c,cof cd:JC\.·.;w :l."'.cm cnH\c, _dnd '-"mrel~colb idered m rhli nI.(!''<
re~~U'\nu~Sta n t"J 1)9"7i.,1 r~p.h.(l('heC:'IJJ .J)f <•thema n1 ,rn .11ler 1>1ha1h•d he~nfund<d uJtdcr as
:en'...~ror~tonum on cornmercral \t hJJim! b\ lU~::
umbrell:>.
Coni·_,r,·cr.e on the Hl::mmrnem h IJ Tn St••:\,holm Some mcmbel'. vf thf' S.:tenlCommme<' belie' t d 11
t!l(9-;2_ TheS~.nrftcCurnmmee haJ f("CommcnJcd ,1 "'as appropna tc. g1'en the.: t ha..t1nepril\ntlc-. to
dec.: o.rtnr!Ifid n~.af'ho'ntt.i:<...ptJt.t(arl on de\t-lnp a m:v. p;ogranunrc~ear WILh 3 n~\ame The
problem, rete'an t 10 con-~rvUdOn.anJ h.tJ ura'"" up Commmee n:~..:ht n.•>J11rrn con lu-.ion'on the
:!hmo~·.plan...lOr '-Orld '.'•ltle rr ..c..arch. l11therr..>:pon, lh!lltll:.-..t.nd ob,J\(.''lt' 1h~recemng mtu accou nt
t~h'u~'''lllu!ndmg ca. lkd for froh~ Comm l" ton or dl:m,g~tn rnonue~. but~t;n U1h:t1he m;sncr 'h ould IX"
ou~tt. .·urr~. .1numbe rul proin1~ prvg.tn"e~ v.ere pl..tced h~ Ag'elhiutlb m~cl>mgm.".ta.'ear
•uppnrccd :mJ earn ed thn>ugh 111the fulliJwmg )c JI"'.> In th,· Comm1-- .Jap3n recalkh~ ongm' of the IDCR
The II)CR pu~r. nue '"" -ut-n1·d1 !O th~ pro~runl~nanJ the:earorj" hh lb: OrnCOf lhe" memb~
F.'\0/AC\ IRR B<rg<- C,m,ul!auon in 1'17FJ and ol the Comrni'' lliO to-ntar tls1gh11ngs ..u.r, ey' .Jnd
•onsulidat-into broJderprogrnmm~ I marme lllflllllll.then re:-.ultpoillit."Jt~ildrge~t.h:sr.~1n!-~man)
l-'C •:h. bult lw IDCKt'ota~ongJnallpm f<··.rw:'~->. notm~: n.L:.."t)''-·:.;ndcalk d for grem\:!r uuemannnal
nc• er full:. rel lau'~oi !hlatlr~10oht.nnh~ nt:IJ" ' <CJo')"r.ttJt•H10eluctd.ll!ng tht.eco"'sernrcll..:
(und~m I'Cljui r.:J . TI1emo~mleTt~II'c pn_)gr.unntt·
uoedna~'n ,..a;undoubtcdlj the ,~fei, of South<-m
Hemispha o:>min!.(haleas~e~'menl cruJ,,...addit1on. Rt'\/ pro<r dur tor·pn ·po'ialrcp(Ji,.J'lfp;\5ion!ll
iod1vidu.r..e.:trch .ICto n:t:la: ;.>.l:underta ken.e l,~rt.(UWtn,~,~.vup
a.nJlull.lblul~irUlin g ttnd re..c.arch \\ ere-.stUlltJA-..n>uh of diffi uluc...rhar al:h' l .t~ l"'etntlfil·
A scconJ J.:-cadc-. Ullt liltl!d m l4 '}.:\. be ame-cComm ittee had:~.rJctdat ir 'hvulf.1:\iu;.polt. ~n
up With ,.,,. Fr\0 /U EP Glob.tl Pl.m 01 A., uon for thcon, tdc·r..HJtln of rp·(~p...1.t..,;t~..t.:.lbli, hc:·Jan
Coos..!natum.~tant~cmem dnd L'lLia1nn t.'f~lannc: mt..·.rxc...corr~pondt·ct~:ruupto e'\ammethi rn:.nrer
Mammal,_ TI1e 1\\'C ;,ndor,ed,..,exrwc-ted ta~cth, Hutht:r. TI1i:."n:pon of tht" l..na1group. \\l lh lht:
lc::role Ill unr tcmculing t lacean<umpo~nll lI lk n mu n('ntrPm the SLtc-nu fi..:Comndel~ldi krt"\ j,ed
plan. touttil<' mone: on~mally anuc-1p:uedJ iJ111 procedure for the r~teo;. 01 l'"''l'<"a !, . 11th~dmg
I!Ullen:.Ji,c_\\'it h 1he .:hang mg tocum th~1\I'C.tie,\!StJ.bfi..h, mt<mtcr~e::On'l-r0up
~ secu11J Je<:!dc in luJ"u rl J>,OC I:th" ith the
The- n enu fiCvmmm r~ <:.d r<eth~ repo n41~111.>
Re\'ies~1ne~geemnr Pro(e dun:· und the C(\mpre-hl"lb irNo·nunenJuio•~.As an uu~rimme~ul<. i:lgiTedh.1at
374 Annex 56
56. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-EighthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47,
1997, pp. 17, 37-39
REP L'IITWHAL COMMN ~~.1991
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting
I. D.-\TA!'m PLACE 'eco dn method of-10M:Cond£ compared 14.7mmures.
The re appears 1.1.ncon~i,tnc~bcrween the theoretical
The~8thAnnu~ leellnl! of the Comml., wu~held in approach of Profeswr Bla kmore and the obsrevion~
Aberdeen UK. 2+-28 u~ 19% llll<kr tCht=a ~ htopf
Dr P. Bn dgewa ter(Aus tralulII was anendt.>d by whtch show thatthelancedoes cause rnprd deJiIt "'as
suggt.·sted t.haathe clectnc: current couimm~dtalc
Commtsstoners.ex.pens .md adVIsers from 30 of the 39 insens ibilily, but thai thiS ts su ll an ..:pten ques tion
Conrrncung Gove mme nls. Observer ;,5fnon-member
Nor-..eg tan experience mdu:ates !halt he use of nfles could
go"e mmenrs.7 mrcrgov cmmenralor~•misatw ardu92 be prefera blea.secondary method. but tamfc-.lSibili[}
non-gove rnmenl.al orgamsa ltons u.~rc nr.o
srd v 1sneeded.
J~p. .tmpres..ming four docume nclle 11''tLSic
2. OP[ , 11\G STATE:\1F.:"-IS po•iuon and thought; on th.s is>fooll~.
Openmg statement by member and non-member
t it The issue '' out, ide the compe rence of the IWC under
l!O\em menrs 3obse~e orgaru;,alions "ere drstn huted in the rerms of rhc Con•e nrion.
;linenfonn as meet idoc~meots
t2l II h:partici pated in am! •ubmi ned data rwcr.he
srrtilon a voluntary :md coope rbasia~d tlm "ill
J.ADOfYnO~ OF AGENDA remain unchangeTheref ore. Japan doesaec~ th1
sttuau on in whtch 11would be obhged to d:~mtsa
The pro,•isronal agenda circul3!ed 60 day, in adv!lllce a reqwremenr.Japan·> research i> in accordance wuh
meettng'-"adopted.
Antck Vlll of !he Convention "hi ch gu..traruee> a
The Chainnan drew aaenuon 10 rhe ltmerable he propo!.<!''gn atory nation'> sovereign ngh r to conduce re>carch
fordi'i<.toSn of rhe agenda isnruC~ hedTechm cal trrespec ttof other pro•istonsof rhe Conven tion
Commi uee to c01l£1dcr Agenda hems 4. 5 and 6 under its
including the Schedule.
Chainr. • n. Mr M. Canny (Ireland ). (Jl ln lig)lt of diverse value judgements on humaneness m
the "'·orld whtch are roote d m diffcren1 lradmom and
~- HUMANE KfLLJ G cultures. the objcc rive criteryarducs~must be
Wld has been applied. that ts redut1.lun of the rime ro
4.1 Schedu le amendmenon the elect ric lan ce
death. llte de,·eloprne nr of !penthnregrenade
ln tTcchmcal Commme ... New Zealanpre,r ~d11p.1per harpoon by Japan for use on m10kc whales and
b~ Professor Blackmore ancollea~ bases on -..ork
subseque nl improvemenrreduced rhe nrne 10 death
origm:.lly de\'elope d to dea•trandcd-..hale s. 'le"' coni ~crbl)'.
Zealan d explained th:u PmfcSM>rBlack"a.'unable to 1-IJ If and "he n discu S$ing !he 11 >Cetmfaar and
artend rhe meeting ro prescn l hts paper be a11e5 of til !l<alth.
sctenircaI~ju.~ti 1li•esuga le the >itualion of no1
The Techn icalCommi uec asked rhe ="'"" '!a l:u!d only Japanese acttll~lbur also of othe ype~ of
delegarion to .:on\tiS besr "ishesand grau tude 10
'"'M iing. includtng aborigmal a.nd >Ubsisteocc whahng .
Profeswr Blackm ore for all the '"'ork he had done. (51 \ tthegar d to !he electric lJns...-condaryktlling
Following r.he 1995 Works hop on Whale M ~thod>. method. the re;ulof the e• rensl\ ·c resean:h <Ubmmed
funhe r expe nm ent> on dead whllle' demo n<lor.llc<l that tbe
'ho" edtha rtits.IJefiecmc method.''omention of
amounl of electnc!hat mtghl re.ach lhe hean and bram of rhe eoctr~lance was made in the revised Acuon Plan
li-'-"Mies exposed ro elec tric lances "a < lr,..,,an whi.:hwas agreed b~onsen1 su1)ar
thought.FU11hcrmore. the re~sruy (res tsrancro
16) An} allempt to ban the electnc lance is unJUStified :md
elecrriwy l of nssue<; den eases u.irh rime post-monem. "ou ld frustrorefururevolumar y co..•pera rand
rhu,.he l3ncc LSeven lesseHcc uve than previoUIy
collabo r.llioi~rp3rt.
suggsted. The paper nored thar15no e1idence thai rhe
r lnic lance is effect iin inducmg tmmed iale .md The results ohtamed from 19'J~5 Anrarcttc upcr:nions
pennanen r mS<:nsibility. The conclu.,ion ' ru.drown ;howed. among other rhing>. thar rhc mstanraneous death
lance ts01an effe t:tive secondary kilhng merhod and rate tmproved 29.-1%from 23.-1'1: for the I'N 4JII5season
hltely 10 cause c'tra pam 3nd suffe ring 10 an alreadand thar. ns observed abovt.>. the clecrri c lance "'as much
d~tres' a> edl. more ef fecuvc- in sooneni!he kjlllngaime lhan rhe
New Zealand nuted thai both this paper and the papt<ecoa nd hurpoon . The resu ll• further showed that !he Lime
presented to rhe 1995 Workshop on Wbak Killmg Merhodsfor app licarion of electn"'3much >hOnl'r than in the
h:lbeen peer-rev tewed and accepred for pub hC'ation tn '"'"~eas fli.e. 30 seco nd ru-o-v rs 40 secthe' in
prestigious sctcntific joNe"alZealand e' pre,sits mcdtan value. This "aurnbe utro rbeo:.eof pul;,ating
regret thnr aOlon a Schedu le amendment10 bao the direcl <-urrenrmsteah~uf ng curre nt. lo the removal of
electnc lance appeared rneces~. since u would prefer rhe <econdaryrests ran~uach~ 10 the prevtous lance
to-.ea 'o luntary phase-<Jutu..<.e.; sylcm and to the increas ~olta ged for • hmlled
ProfessoWalloe (Norway ! presemeda paper which number of the samp oo440V from 220\1.
analysed rimes to death of the891 wha le'~rild rn Ocher Japanese doc uments 'ho wed. among fotlter thmgs.
hpanesewhali ng operatio ns during the ye~. This
1I I the relarioru.hip between rhe degree of harpoon wound
demor~l e~dtraathe electric lance is quicker and moreand apphcan onnme of the electnc lance.and l~l
efficie nt than the cold ho.a.•3n~eocodar killin g efrecm ·enes s of the ean~tm10 shortthekilling ume
merhod. with medtan times aftthe applicauon of !be b) punmg !heelerrod~behind the brain. rarher than acro•s
375Annex 56
REP. INT. WHAL COMMN 47. t997 37
protecting whales from funh cr overfishi ng. The Republic oComminee agreedtoconsi dert his maner againat next year's
Korea suppon ed the need for a sanctuary where the meeting and encoura ~g{mjembers to submit documemauo n
resourc-esareseriou.sly depleted. presentingfun her proposa ls.
13.4Other mailers
Austral.ia.. on behalf of Argentina.. Clule, New Zealand. Rel'iew of results from uis rS<gienrifPemu'u
JAPAN • SOUTHERN HEMJSPiiE RE
South Afria and Uruguay co n~rtUL hegValdivia Group,
read a statementThe delegations had mel and consulled Seven pnmary papers were subnuncd nod discussed arising
duringthe 48th Annual Meeung in Aberdeen with BraZJI from the JARPA programme, covering sightings.
anending as an observer and associating itself with the photo-identtfication.genetic analyses. oceanograpluc
statement. The Group was estabUshed in March 1995 to tnrde~.levels of polluumts. populalion and age analyses.
fostr exchange and cooperation on environmental and The Scientific Conun inee agreed to carry over its
rel:ued scientific maner.; among Southern Hemisphere recommendation fmm last year for a major review of'
nations. lt reaffirmed that the creation of the Southern OceanPA.
Sanctuary was a significant step towards the conservation of
whales. expressed st.rong support for the Sanctuary and
placed empbasas on the importance of developing a J>U>AN - NO RTH PACIF'I C
coordinated programme of monitoring and managem ent of Ten papers on the general results, genetics. cmch
composiJion. foetal conception dates, morpbological
whales and their environment within the Sanctuary. The me asureme nts :md observation s. parasites. pollutants and
Group proposed to meet for this purpose well before the 49th
Meeling. and noted the Sciemilic Corrmtinec 's plans and stock slrocturc were considered in the Working Group on
other de\'elopments rela1to the SanciUary. Fr.lllce wished Nonh Pacific minke trials.
to associate itself "'ith this statement.
Japan welcomed the additio nal monitorinand research Rl'\-it'"·kof """' or rn<isfd SciP~nniirproposals
activityand reques ted !hat a list of these aclivities, objectiv es
and results be prvided 10 lhe IWC and the Scientific J>U>AN - SOU T II ER..'I H£.\liSPH"ERE
Comminee. The 1996/97Research Plan for the Japanese WhaleResean::b
Programme under Special Pennu in the Anlarclicislargel y
a conlinualion of the progrnmme thai has been discussed
tJ.S Action arising
The Commis $ion noted all lhe commenls m~de on !he legal previouslyby the Scientific Comminee.The extens1on oflhe
question.. and the need 10 ensult' that the Scienti.fic research area to the west last year into the Area Ill will be
repealed for the second area intoArea VI. for thesame
Commiuee and olher member stales are kept fully aware of rea.ons i.e. tryand clarify problems in s1ock slrocture that
research and mnitonng programmes. had come 10 lighl during prevtouyears llte inlention is 10
use information from a number of approaches (.genetics.
1~S.CIE.l ~TCl PERt\UTS morphometric.s. poUwant buredrL. parasite loads) to
examine stock sll1lcture. since informal ion from genetic
14.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
New crri~irfnr assessing l!nnirs studies alone ha.> not proved sufficienl for slock
differentialion.
Last year. the Commassion had adopted Resolution 1995-9 FollowinJl discussion. the Scientifi c Commi nagreed
(Rep. im. Wl!al. Commn 46:46-471 concerning whaling thai the informdlion provided on the number. sex, size and
under Special Penni t. Amongst other things. the Resoluuon stock of the animals 10 be taken had been specilied to the
bad requested that the ScientifiC Commiuee srructure ils
extenl possible. and that tlte opponunities for panicipatio n in
reviews of all Special Penni! programmes to: theresearch progr.unme were adequale. as in previous years.
(I) identify the relationslup belweenobJectives and researchith respect to the addilional items referred to it under tbe
R esolution. the Scicmific Comm ittee recalled that it had
needs previously identified by the Sc1en1ific
C ommiuee; discus!oed essentially the same programme for a number of
(2) evaluate the likelihood of tbe progmmme meeting its years now and referred to iiS de.:ision last year 10 hold an
objectivesby providing reliable answers to the questionsintersess ional meeting to review the overall programme. It
believed !hat thw~ the most appropriate forum to discuss
posed:
(3)identify. where a propo>al specific• lelhal melhods. the long-tem1 reo;earcb programme funher.
non-lethal methods andaltemmive >OUcie.sof data lhat
might be used in meeting the researc-h objectives.
JAP AI'i - NO RTH PA.CIFl C
In addition, the Scientific Comminee agreed 10 asse's 1l1e programme to clncida.te the stock structure of minke
SpecialPerm tifoUowtng the provisions of paragrJph 30 of
whale5 in the nonhwes tem North Pacific continues with a
theSchedule. calch of I00 minke whales proposed. although the sampling
There was a bnef discusSion of the relative meritsof letharea has moved further towards the coast_No adverse effect
versus noo-lelhal techniques. on stocks is an1icipmed. The minJ-.e. whale feeding ecology
study is an additional research objective. While n01ing the
Provi.sioof ad, •iron the 1!/eJct osrock(.sof Scientific: similarity of this programme 10 those i1 has previously
Permit carchu reviewed. the Scientific Committee had no additiona l
Lrut year, the Scientific Commi had discu~ proposa ls com meniSto those il had made in previous years.
for an approach to the way in which il should provide advice
to the Commiss ionon this subject but had been unable to
reach agreementItconsidered some new ideas 1h.si yeand NORW AY
established a Working Group which made some progress bul 1l1e Sc1entillc Commi nee had discussed a proposal from
had insuffiiem time 10 reach agreement l1le Scientific Norwa y. buJ tlus was subsequently withdrawn .
376 Annex 56
38 CHAIRMAN 'S REPORT OF TilE FORTY-EIGHTH ANNli.A.L MEETING
I4.2 Actio n a rising believed the research goes against the spirit of the Sanctuary.
The Netherlands endorsed the conclus ion of some members a position shared by the VaJdivia Group.
of the Scientific Committee that the RMP could form the :-lorway was strongly opposed to the Resolution as there
basis for providing advice and a fr3meY.ork to evaluate are impo rtant obJec tives such as feedin g ecology and stock
identi ty whi cannot yet be studied by non-lethaJ means .
potential long-term effects on the stocks of scienufic permit
catches. Japan pointed out the large number of scientific papers it
The USA culled on Japan to refrwn from w1denakmg its has contribu ted from its research which have been highly
appreciated. It appeaJed for spectfic programmes of
proposed research until t review of its researc h programme
in the Antarctic has been completed. and urged it to adhere non-lethal researc h which could provide equa l or superior
lo thespiri t of the Sanctuary . , ew Zealand endorsed these rsults. It believed the Southcrn Ocean Sanctuary was
comment s. Norway reminded these delegations that the introduced contrary10 An iclevm. it had a right to conduct
rev1ew had nm been undertake n because the Commissi on did this researc h, and to process and deal witthe proceeds . It
not give it sufficiently high priority . could not respec t the Resol ution if it was adopted.
Ja pan introduced a pape r giving comments on past rwc St Vincent and The Grenad ines thought that the positions
R~ol utio onsthis subject.Itargued that these Resol uuons of lbe majority and nunority con tinue to be as polarised as
"ere in conni ct with Anicle VTll of the Convention, the C\'er.
Report of the Scientific Com minee which did not entirely The Reso lution shown in Append ix 7 was then put to the
den ~ the effecti veness of lethal research. and wnb the vote and adopte.d with 21 vmes in fa,·our. 7 agarnst and I
Sch edu le conc.:ming the need for the best sciennfic advice m abstentio n.
keeping paragrnp h IO(e) under review, the basis for which
had now been changed. Japan also indicated to the
Netherlands that other members of the Scientific Commi nec 15. SC JEYilFI C RESEA RCH
expresse d different views. 15.1 Resea rch pr oposa ls
The UK, which introduced the Reso lution last year which The Scie ntific Commiuee's proposa ls we.re presented to the
Finance and Admintstrdtion Commiuee and are reponed
had received 23 ''otes m support, obse rved that while
sovereign rights canno t be removed by a Resol ution. the there {Item 19.2and Appendix 9 ).
Commission can recommend how those rights are exerci sed:
15.2 Consen ·ation of whale stocks
that initiaJ implemen tation ofthe RMP can be based on
broad knowledge of stocks obtained by non-lethaJ means: I52 .1 Report oftlifScienrificCommmu
and that the Comm ission can change u.s mmd and give PROGRESS WITH ACOUST IC STUD IES
Last year the Scientific Comminee had encouraged funJ1er
different mstrucnons to the Sciemific Commmee.
Japan. in response . was pleased to have the JARPA revie w research Wldde velopme nt leading towards mcorporatio n of
before tbe next meeting and aJso sought the non-lethal means acoustic techniquesinto Sou thern Ocean blue whalesurveys .
by wttich sufficient in forma tion for implementing thRt\11' It welcomed the repon this year of a feasibility study
could be obtained in a reaJistic time·frJ.me. but was puu lcd com binmg visual and acousnc survey techniques undertake n
by changes in the Resol utions when the Convention doe5 not off CaJifomia. The Scientific Committee considered a
change . nwnber of questi ons rela1ing to the advantages and
AustraJia mtroduced a R esolution cosponsored with disadvantages of acousuc and visual surveys and
Brazil ,rance. Netherlands. New Zealand, UK and USA on recomme nded that deve lopment work should c;,nlinue.
Spec ial Penn it catches by Japan. Australia and others do not wge ther with work to develop a theore tical and practical
su ppon or condone the use of Anicle VIII of the Convention framework for combined visuaVacoustic assessment
for research involving the killing of whales and hold that surveys.
almost all informanon essenttaJ for management can be
gained using non-lethaltechn iques. IIhad particular concern / APM</ tWC BLUE Wtt!'LLE CRUISE
where permits granted appear by their scale and nature to A blue whaJe cruise was conducted south of Australia as a
subven the intent of the moratorium . The Commi ssion has joint venture between Japan and the rwc. with cooperntion
adopted Resolutions expressing the view that research in the from Austra lia and the USA. The main aim was to o btain
scientificinformation relevan t to develop ing shipboard
Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be undertaken using
n on-lethal means and estab lishing criteria agains t which the identification methods for separa ting 'true' and pygmy blue
programmes should be assessed . A large majority of the whales. Re>earch techniques includ ed skm biopsy.
Comm ission has expressed deep concern at Japan 's photo-ide ntification. photogrammetry and acoustics. The
continuing proposals and the mcrcasi ng number of whale. cru ise was successful in meeting 1he primary objective of
being taken . The Reso lution notes that neilber proposaJ for lca ting concen trations of blue whales. but the number of
1996/97 meet the criteria esta blished under IWC Reso lution biopsy samples obtained was low and pho ogrammt ~r
1995-9 and requested Japan to reconsider and restru cture its proved difficult.Most blue whales were lentativcly
research programmes using non-lethal means and 10refmin identi.fieds pygmy blue whal e~.
from issumg permits w take mmke whales in the Southem Acousuc recordmgs of sounds most likely to have come
Ocean Sanctuary and lbe 'onh Pacific. ew ZeaJwul from pygmy blue "h ales " ere reported and there is a need
associa td itself with these comments and empha5ised the for more aco ustic reco rdings of blue whaJes from high
devel opment of non-lethal techniques and the commercial ltitudes.
income derived from the saJe of the whaJe products from The Scientific Committee received the results of genetic
scientific whaJing. Denmark also opposed scientific whaJing analyses involvmg bio~py m:ncnal from the cruise and other
in lbe SanctDary without prejudging its more genera l altitude samp les. conducted in response to last year 's
10scientific whaling . Austria firmly believed that non-lethal recommen dation that genetic 'types' be established for 'true·
researc h is thegeneraJ trend. state; should refrain from and pyg my blue whaJes. h noted the need to collect fun.her
issuing SpeciaJ Perm its, and the aim of the Sanctuary is blue whale samples. and to include those. particularly from
c onserva tion of wildlife lllld the ecosystem . Chile abo 'true· blue whaJes. sampled on recent minke " hale
377Annex 56
REP 11'-1 Wllo\L C0 \1\~7.I<J97
assessmen l cruisItwas advised 1hm 1he Iaue<amp e~ hest sde mific advicfor 1he Com missoon 10 de1crmone
were be1ng forard..from Japan 10 the La Jolla l.lbomlol~ppropnat response stra1cgu:jlhe~ ee" choUncgc~ .llc
viathe Secrc1arb1. bul thai there had been dJific ullicScocnuftc Commiuee agreed thai mou:Uwork ontlusissue
olluininthe neec~sry UK CITES pe-rmi1llleScien1ific v.ould onclude te holding of mo worko ~ops:one on
Commiltec recommended thai pa.,sag< of the sample chemic al polluuon acetacean tai was held las! year and
through tht.:Kbe given tugh pnorily 10 pe-rmil dasaly>h111<one on climate change thai is discussed here.
soonaspo~.sieband reques led 1\\'Cmember nauon' tr) n 1e maon uosks of 1hc Work>hop were tnkcn 1be 10
tofocili1a1c 1hi, , (In n:•ponsc 10 u by1hc Ru"uJJI dclenninc ; laJ whoch predtt'led clima 1ic chan!le' t ould
Federatoon lhco rnmi•sion agreed 10 urge 1he UK CITES ompact cc1acean populalions. and woth wha1 likd ihood will
authon lies 10 gi'c hogh pno10pa....agufIhe ~mple' !hey do so.(bl whal would be 1hc likecoheq ucncc of
lhroughlh~UK J 'ut·h ,·hange !l" en cum:nt knowl<!dge: and lc) what rc>earch
1be Scienl ific Commollee no1cd !hal the Japa ne.e anwould improve understand ingof !he conseq uence•ot
USA JI'OUJ"or kong on blue "'hale ,;un ple' would cum par<mute dmnge onceato:c,:·U~l
then:.sulls of lhelf analy>cs and agreed Ihat fun her 'amBefore addre,~o hesc <jUC>Iioru.!he Work>hup
from awode rnngc of regions were needed; :opproxima1el)considered t resu lt' of !he recently comp leted repon of 111<
12·20 ~amk p' "ou ld be required !rom each local II'<T', tln lcrgovemme ntnl Paneon Climalc Change)
popuh11ion. seco nd n>>C'-'ment ol clnnate change. it~m pemiUr.:
Tbe Scientific Commillee nolcd !hal some progrc.<' ha..Cdlevel n<c. pollulanls , •tab i>Cayicc and zonal
been mode in re..on~ In lasl )(a r·, rcc.-ommenJ,uaon.,
dofft·n:occ'mcen regiolb. 'llonclrp~lbelween globa l
cona:mong th<.'e"a bh>hmcn l of g'~pe·lfur 'true' and .loman ,·hange. chemocal pollutioand pathogen s was
pygmy blue wtuJ..-,, bul thai !he re,ult>. so f•r in<locc>rhtdcred. Wlulst moompach can be expec led 10 <hifl
blue "'hale t.nonomyrna) "e ll be more complc• 1h.111 c.,~ ng pollutoon to nev. area.,some duna 1e-rel:o1cd
previow.ly!hough!. II made a numt>er of re~a chr pcnurba~oni• "'IIres ult in a genera l onlcnsifocauun ol
~mm endaotni polluuon prot>lem>. As>ociaimp~ct on cetaceum would
b.:"' ll«te d to be mu' l ''gmficam in populalion, lovongncar
fUT\I RE " ORK hoghl) popu laled coru.1al areas :md/or where wc1land' are
A proposal for~ 'ccond blue whalere>c.h~ncu o<eW.t ' lo,l.
comidrrcd . The Scicn ufic Cumm illee welcomed lhe vcn Separate upprnio;al othe ompacb of en' imnmcntll l
generousoffer of Japan lo provide two vesselois~t~i changes may no! be sufficiem to cvnluare c~acean
suppon 1M 1he ~riusc. A numbo:r of rc>Carch response,, Noting the potentialsognifoc:on.of ma's
recommendallon>forlhc crosc and "' plannongwere made. mun:olilic' .1nd emergcdsea:;~lo populallon dynanw :s
which will be earned oul off Modaga.\Ca',pan of th and thc1r po1en1ial role as ontcgra tor>change~bt.e
JWC-SOWER prngmmm t•.The lull •oopcrn llun ol !he ScocnlofiL'Cum miu ee 'hould consoder holding a v.ork:.hup
rek:vant ..:oa,:t,ul 1:') cc;3cnuand. the Sc1mttfic on tha..,ahc.:m
Comnullee re.:omme ndcd !hal rc:lcvant )!Ovcandelht The IPCC repon 'uucsted lh31uvcrfishing and divt·rse
Scm~ar provode a'"SU\Ilcc on ot>tninaJl)necc:.-ury human ''re'-.e• on the environment will probab ly conunue 10
pennis ston 10 emer EEZs of coasuol 'lales and fncoluuruulweigh dtm~let:hangc impacts for >cwrdecade~.
lbeconduc t of lhe .:ruO>e TI1c WcJr~< phu\Cill on lo do-cus~cy •pcc oe' and
oJcnufoedanumber uf ccl:IL"'1P'-"i,"'oc~;ha1w uldb.:
/51.1 Mrc.lwnu·m\ to finam e rt~se Iuprro~trummc of p~ntcul carce rn on 111<conte'r of conscrva11on and
1lleSecn:1ary recal led thaoIhe Commo~gree Id>!)C.u management if prcdiclcd cllmah: change occurre d lha>ed on
10fund oL'<·onlrlbutoon 10I9\if•trc.eard1pron~unme lhrec faclur>: lu" J bundancc ; hfe hoslol) charot'tcrs; mdlor
by :Iauoc~uo fom u.s re>en e funds. lo be replcmshed bre>tricted rangeThese included; all non hem right whale
membo:rstn~ \'Oiuntary comnbuliom . Only Au>lr.lloa madpopuiUliOih . <>'tern Arcuc aO~hotsk ca bov.•heads.
a C<llltllbutoona!>0111reserve'v.ere depletedb~ lhe wc, tcm grny"hJi ~e;rno>l blue "'hnk popu laloon>; whole
ballln<outstandong.The Chainnan of the Fonance and " hale': narn·h.th ; river dol phins; Black Sea dolphons. and
Admu "' lrnllon Comm utee ondtcatcd thai lhc re•e rvc' the \'J<jUIIah "'.l'abo n01ed !hat all " h• le
amplewul onIheab>en~ orean)omplicJIIons for Ihe curre n,pc.·oc•lpop ulauooh >UlJ10 nplo otaiJuareor spe-cial
budget.the maller was k ft. mdllagemen t imeres1 1o IWC'.
noc Work. hop .tl>uJe\'clu~cli•l of 'P<pdnIculul~
15.2J Action arismg sunahk :I'obJects u! rc.ean:h oro ll1e e f!CCI> of domate
Japm welcomed !he niu: vu~ of !he Scienl ific C'ummoltcch;ongt•.IIcnrnpn>cd minl.c. humpback. n(:hl. blue.
wilh rcspccl ru re,car.·h on large baleen " hale' in thhov.head grny.koller ami whole whalelo~lchc \ lth lhe
Soulhem Hemisphere. and the Commos!.oon ugreed 10 llt< bon lerto:.e dulph m and harporpio .
~ ommenda ton<a< amende d Th< Worl.., hop rccog no.e d thai gl\cn lhe unccnainlle' on
mr..Jclh ng tl!ma le <·haa1ca 'unable -ca lc anlhu~
15.3 Resw rl"nn the en•·ironm eand wha le stoek.s modelling efle ct5 on biological proceso;e>.a1present il is not
153.1Rep"rr •ithe S,iemijic Cvmuuurt• po's oble 11•moc.ld inpn:d1 icemanner the efel<. 'ft~
WORKS IIOP OS CU lATE CIL\ Sia : AND CETACEANS domalc ch.tnge on .:etaccan popuhu,,oIJcpu~ lho•. 1hc
lbe meeting was held on Hawaio in MarchOJ% and "a> W orkshop believed thai 1he 3\'ailable ev idence ossufficoem
pn:ceded b) a IWO·b<y •ympo.•ium. A fearurcmccm t~e to "'arrant some general concern for cel.acean,
was lhal 11broughl luge!her Sc1entifi.: Commonee membc" TI1eWorkh ~op dcvc lop.xl a list of factors to be borne on
and s.:n1ne~ from appropruue disc optines not nom1all! mond " hen as>es'lng potential research programme>.
rq>resenlednthe Scoenuioc Comm lltee. Tllc Work,hop >lrcs'<:J 1he maJor difficuhreahong
In 1993,the Commo~lo oadnMated 1h:11!he Sc1enlific thr lng-lcrm goa l of bemg able 10usfel!~ pred tct 1he
Cornmm ee ;hould give priori1y to rc:search on the effec ii CCof change on cetacea n populauonsgoven the
environmem achan~e o.'elaceam onorder 10 prm ide Lhe comp lc" llc•of 1he physicaland boologocalprocc~"""
378 Annex 57
57. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-NinthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48,
1998, pp. 17, 37-39
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 17
Chairman's Report of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting
They share a total of 100 pilot whales and 54 beaked whales
1. DATE AND PLACE
The 49th Meeting of the Commission was held in Monte each season. However, the nine small-type whaling licences
Carlo, Monaco, 20-24 October 1997 with Dr P. Bridgewater issued around 1960 are stillin existence.
(Australia) in the Chair. Commissioners and delegates Minke whales are important in the food culture of
Abashiri and itssurroundings and in Ayukawa, whilst pilot
from 32 of the 39 Contracting Governments attended, whales and beaked whales are important in Taiji and Wada,
together with observers from six non-member Governments, respectively. Whaling in these four small-type whaling
the European Community, six Inter-Governmental towns supports a number of Buddhist and Shinto religious
Organisations and 99 Non-Governmental Organisations.
rituals and ceremonies as well as secular festivals. The
financial contribution that whaling makes to the local
2. ADDRESS OF WELCOME fishelies cooperative association is extremely important , as
this association serves as the principalnancial and fishery
His Serene Highness Prince Rainier ill of Monaco delivered administrative body for fishermen in these coastal
an addressof welcome. He recalled his family's tradition and communities .
affinity with the sea dating back to the 14th century, and the Community-wide whale meat sharing practices have
legacyof his great grandfather, AlbertaIpioneer in the field
of oceanography. The Prince spoke of the conflict between important social, economic and cultural significance; such
whaling and anti-whaling nations, and the need to find a sharing occurs at various times during the year, but more
good faith solution. Otherwise he believed whales were especially during the six-month-long whaling season and at
year end. Whale meat is also used for payments-in-kind
likely to be the losers. His own government is opposed to made by boat owners to crew members and flensers; boat
commercial whaling, lethal research and painful killing owners also provide gifts of whale meat to temples, shrines,
methods. However, he believed that the best strategy.is one schools, the hospital, the oldpeople's home and various
that is acceptable to the largest number and which results in
the least number of whales being killed. He wished the community groups. Local tourism also benefits from the
Commission a fruitful conference and an enjoyable stay. availabilityof a distinctive whale-based cuisine.
There was a wide-ranging discussion of these issues, and
consensus was reached on the following points:
3. OPENING STATEMENTS
(i) all delegations recognised that there was cultural value
Opening statements by members and observers were in whaling for small-type coastal whaling (STCW)
distributed in written form as meeting documents. communities;
(ii) there has been economic distress as a result of the
moratorium on commercial whaling;
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA (iii) the Workshop was aware that there was ongoing
The provisional agenda had been circulated 60 days in STCW for species other than minke whales, and that
advance of the meeting. The Chairman asked the Technical there was some minke whale meat from whaling under
Committee to consider Agenda Items 5 and 6 before they Scientific Permits availablen STCW towns;
went to the Plenary. (iv) the Workshop recognised that for the communities
concerned other species are not a complete substitute
for minke whales, especially in the towns of Ayukawa
S. SOCIO -ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND and Abashiri where minke whaling was
SMALL-TYPE WHALING
predominant;
5.1 Report of the Workshop on Community-Based (v) STCW has commercial elements, and has had for
Whaling hundreds of years;
Dr K. Chu (USA) had chaired the Workshop held in Sendai, (vi) there was disagreement as to whether or not the
Japan, 17-21 March 1997. That Workshop had been opened cultural aspects of STCW are sufficient grounds for an
with a speechof welcome given by Mr M. Ishikawa , Deputy exemption to the zero catch limits for commercial
Director General, Fisheries Agency of the Japanese Ministry whaling set by Schedule paragraph lO(e); and
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, who referred to the (vii) there is a need for cultural sensitivinyapproaching
significanceof whaling and whale meat in the customs and this issue.
dietof the coastal communities of Japan. This culture had The Revised Action Plan put forward by Japan was reviewed
been seriously affected by the moratorium on minke
whaling. Serious intangible difficulties for peoples' mental in considerable detail and there was considerable discussion
well-being, as well as socio-economic distress, were on whether it was possible or desirable to remove all the
recognised and these have been reported by international commercial elements. The Chairman summarised the
discussion on this agenda item as follows:
anthropologists.
During the Workshop, Prof. M. Freeman reviewed the (i) the Action Plan is a good faith effort toesponsive to
Japanese small-type whaling operations which use boats questions by IWC member countries about commercial
(15-49 tons) with a crewof 5-7, catch whales about 20 miles elements in STCW;
offshore and return to port each night. Seven out of nine (ii) some commercial elements remain in the Action Plan,
boats are family-owned. Before the moratorium , each boat such as the sale of whale meat in traditional guest
took 35-40 minke whales and around a dozen small houses and inns, and these commercial elements are
cetaceans (pilot and beaked whales) each year. Since the importan t to the STCW communities for cultural as
moratorium, only about half the boats have been operating. well as economic reasons;
379Annex 57
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 37
14. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS Initially three vessels (plus the mother ship) had been
employed, but a fourth had been added in 1995/96 to allow
14.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
for an increase in searching effort in the sighting survey. This
A Scientific Committee Working Group met in Tokyo in and some other changes during the progress of the
May 1997 to review the Japanese Antarctic Research programme had been made in response to comments from
Progranune (JARPA). Two particular items in the meeting's
terms of reference were: the Scientific Committee. Initially both dwarf and ordinary
forms of the minke whales had been sampled, but sampling
(1) the specific research carried out, and its results; of the fonner had ceased in 1993/94. A total of 1,546 (Area
IV), 1,546 (Area V), 110 (Area HIE) and 110 (Area VIW)
(2) the contribution made by those results to the stated
0bjectives of the research programme, and to the aims of ordinary and 16 dwarffonn minke whales had been sampled
the IWC as expressed in its Resolutions. by the end of the 1996/97 season. ·
The meeting completed all but the final task, judging the
ScientificCommitteediscussion
merits of the results in terms of the Commission's Discussion in the Scientific Committee had concentrated on
Resolutions. That more general task was forwarded to the two topics. The first concerned issuesof stock structure, the
full Scientific Committee.
Five components of JARPA were reviewed: sighting other, the problems associated with obtaining representative
samplesand their implications for the programme. In view of
surveys and abundance estimation; stock structure; the importance of this itwas agreed toestablish two Working
biological parameter studies; marine ecosystem studies; and Groups:
those addressing environmental change. For each
component the Working Group considered the following:its (1) to address general issues of stock identity and the
representativeness of samples in the JARPA report;
background including original and additional research
objectives; methodology of data collection; data analysis; and
results, and potential of results in the context of the (2) to specifically consider a paper submitted to the meeting
on the issue of stock identity and the use of historical
objectives of JARPA and of stock management.
Japan's original objectives for the research had been: samples.
Turning to more general issues, the Scientific Committee
(1) estimation ofthe biological parameters to improve the
stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke recalled that the review meeting had provided the following
whale; summary of its view on the JARPA objective of estimating
biological parameters.
(2) elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine
ecosystem. 'Theinfonnation produced byJARPA hasset the stage for answering
many questions about long tenn population changes regarding minke
Subsequently, as part of the natural evolution of the whales in Antarctic Areas IV andt surprisingly, at this halfway
programme and in response todeveloping requirements, two point in the JARPA programme there are few definitive answers
because of thetime scale required to obtain sufficientage distribution
further objectives had been added: and ;~bunda naae and because of unanticipated problems in
designing representative sampling regimes and in understanding the
(3) elucidationof the effect of environmental changes on
cetaceans; stock structuref minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere. For
(4) elucidation of the stock structure of Southern example, JARPA has already made a major contribution to
Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock understanding of certain biological parameters (e.g. direct measures
of the age at sexual maturity) pertaining to minke whales inAreas IV
management. and V, yet such analyses hnve not fully addressed potential problems
related to stock structure.'
OutlineoftheJARPAresearch The question was raised as to whether these unexpected
Two feasibility studies had taken place in 1987/88 and problems had been resolved, and if not, how this would
1988/89, with the full-scale 16 year research commencing effect the potential for the JARPA programme to meet its
the following season and alternating each season in Areas IV objectives.
and V. In 1995/96 and 1996/97 coverage was extended to With respect to stock structure, the representativeness of
Areas IIIE and VIW respectively, for a limited period the sampling and bias in the JARPA estimates of abundance,
feasibility study of stock structure. The full programme has unresolved questions still remain. There is an interaction
two components: a sighting survey whoseprimary purpose is among these questions as·abundance estimates and the
the estimation of trends in abundance, and a sampling representativeness of samplin'g need to be evaluated relative
component to allow biological parameter values to be to the stock being sampled.
estimated given also the abundance information provided by The Scientific Committee noted that the problem of stock
the sighting survey. identity is common to almost all cetacean assessments. The
In the programme as originally proposed, it was planned data collected and the research carried out in the JARPA
to take 825 animals in any one season from either Area IV or programme along with historic commercial catch samples
Area V. For two years of feasibility studies, 300 animals are uniquely valuable in attacking this problem.
(with an allowance of±lO%) were planned to be sampled in The Scientific Committee identified ten main areas to
parts of Areas IV and V. Following the results of the address these unresolved problems and work on all of these
feasibility studies, considerationsf the balance between the is either in progress, has recently been initiated or is at the
expected precision of estimates of the mortality rate and the planning stage.
research capability available led to the decision to set the With respect to the catch-at-age analyses, the JARPA
number of animals to be sampled each season to 300 with an review meeting concluded
allowance ±10%. In the 1995/96 season additional samples 'thatthere was merit in pursuing [certain}approaches ... further, but
of 100animals with an allowance of±lO% were planned for that estimates from such methods could not be considered reliable
Area IIIE, and subsequently 100±10% in Area VIW in the until difficulties associated with the estimates of abundance from
1996/97 season, for studying stock structure. JARPA ... have been resolved'.
380 Annex 57
38 CHAIRMAN'SREPORTOF THE FORTY-NINTHANNUALMEETING
The Scientific Committee noted that JARPA is at the additionalstudieswererecommended.It wasalsonotedthat
halfwaypointandhasprovidedsubstantialimprovementin theinformationobtainedwouldbe of interestto CCAMLR
theunderstandingof stockstructure.It is anticipatedthatas andSouthernOceanGLOBEC.
stockstructurebecomesbetterclarified,theinformationwill The review meeting had agreed that the work was
beincorporatedtoprovideanalysesofbiologicalparameters pertinentto someof therecommendationsof the Pollution
by stocks. For some of these analyses, this may not be Workshop,althoughsomeconcernswereexpressedin the
straightforward. ScientificCommitteeabouttheextenttowhichtheworkon
In conclusion,the JARPAreviewhadidentifiedareasof minkewhales directlyaddressedonerecommendation.
additional future work that could contribute to resolving
some of the, unresolved and unexpected problems in
samplingand stock structurethat could limit the ability of Newor revisedproposals
JARPAtoestimatebiologicalparameters.Effortinresponse The Japanese Southern Hemisphere proposal is a
to all of theseidentifiedareis beingundertakenand this continuationof the programmediscussed previously,and
additionalworkmayimpmvethe valueof theJARPAdata willsample300minkewhalesinAreaIVand100inhalfof
andresults. Area III(±10%).ThesamplinginAreal1IEis toinvestigate
FinallytheScientificCommitteeagreedthatnoneofthe inter-yearvariability.
sampling and stock identity problems that had been TheJapanese NorthPacificprogrammeis a continuation
identified either in the JARPA review or subsequently, ofthe researchbegun in 1995after a feasibilitystudy in
would in principle prevent JARPA from achieving its 1994,to examinewhethersub-stocksof minkewhalesexist
objectivesin terms of estimationof biologicalparameters. in the Okhotsk Sea-Western Pacific, and whether an
Alloftheidentifiedproblemsappeartobeaddressable.Most additionalstockexistsin thecentralNorthPacific.
members were optimistic that the JARPA data, in TheScientificCommitteereferredtheCommissiontoits
conjunction with additional work planned, would allow previouscommentson boththeseproposals.
estimation of the biological parameters with reasonable
levelsof precision.
However, others thought that the problems associated 14.2Actionarising
withbiasandthelevelofvarianceintheJARPAabundance Norwaycommentedthat the JARPAprogrammehas been
estimates, and with interactions between catch-at-age repeatedlycriticisedeveryyearoverthepast tenyears,but
analysesanduncertaintyinstockstructure,meanthatitisnot thatthereviewmeeting,comprisinginfluentialmembersof
yet possible to determine whether reasonable levels of the ScientificCommittee,had reachedan agreedreportby
precisionwill ultimatelybe achieved. consensus.
The Netherlandsrecalled that at the 48th Meeting the
majority of Commissioners thought that the Scientific
Resultsin relationtoIWCResolutions Committee should not spend time considering Southern
TheScientificCommitteeagreedto addresstheissueof the Hemisphereminkewhales.
Commission's Resolutions with respect to JARPA by New Zealand pointedout the numbersof whalesbeing
referenceto relevantcommentsfromtheJARPAreportand taken under Special Permits in the Southern Ocean
its discussionsas summarisedabove. Sanctuaryand the NorthPacific, and that 3,000 had been
It was noted that frequentsighting surveysin the same caughtin the first eightyearsof the Antarcticprogramme,
localities would facilitate estimation of interannual withanothereightyearsstilltogo. Itnotedthecommentin
variabilityin local abundancewhichwouldin tum lead to the ScientificCommitteereport that the results from the
improvedoverallresultswhencombinedwith,forexample, JARPAprogrammearenot requiredfor management,and,
IDCR/SOWERand/orJSVdata.However,improvementsin citingthe needfor a moralcompass,drewattentionto the
methodologyweresuggested. factsthatthereare manyareasof unresolvedproblems,the
Therewasgeneralagreementthatthestockstructuredata researchis takingplacein a sanctuary, non-lethalres·earch
wereofvaluetomanagement.Howeveradditionalresearch techniques are availableand there should be a scientific
was recommended.It was agreedthat the informationwas direction.Austriaagreedwhilstacceptingthe data maybe
relevanttoimprovedImplementationSimulationTrialsand, interestingforscientists.TheUSAconcurred,wonderingif
in thelongerterm,an improvedRMP. theworkisnecessaryascommercialwhalingundertheRMP
It wasalsoagreedthattheprogrammeprovidedvaluable isunlikely,whilethepolarareasareimportantintheclimate
information on a number of biological parameters changecontext.Monacoalsoexpressedtheviewthatlethal·
(recruitment, natural mortality, decline in age at sexual research is unnecessary, and was only occurring now
maturityandreproduction).However,it identifiedthe need becausetheConventionwaswrittena longtimeago.Chile,
for further work particularlyin view of the difficultiesin theUKandSpainsupportedtheseviews.
obtaining fully representativesamples. Although there is Norwaynoted that the ScientificCommitteehad stated
much still to be done, it was agreed that many valuable thatresultsin theshorttermcouldbe valuableto aspectsof
resultshavebeenobtained.Itwasnotedthattheresultsinthe theRMP.AntiguaandBarbudaexpressedembarrassmentat
short-termcouldbe valuablewithrespectto severalaspects the way the Scientific Committee is treated by the
of the RMP, provided certain identified problems were Commission,hijackingthe workof that Committee,andSt
resolved. LuciastatedthatitsreasonforbeingintheCommissionwas
Estimatesof daily foodconsumptioncouldbe usedwith theworkof theScientificCommittee.
confidenceforestimatingtotalfoodconsumption.However, Japan concluded by commentingon the distinguished
therewereconcernsoverthe useof a bodyconditionindex workoftheScientificCommittee,andreviewedthereasons
for inferringinformationon the migrationof minkewhales for its entryinto AntarcticwhalingaftertheSecondWorld
withrespectto timingof arrivalonthefeedinggroundsand Warwhenit sufferedseriousfoodshortages. Itbelievedthe
overwinteringinhighlatitudes.Themeetingagreedthatthe Antarcticresourcesshouldbeusedbymankindinthefaceof
studies were contributingto Objective2 above.However, a worldfoodcrisisinthe 21stcentury.
381Annex 57
REP.INT. WHAL.COMMN48. 1998 39
Australia introduced a Resolution on Special Pennit Committee's recommendations and to directions of lhe
catches in the Southern Ocean by Japan. This was
Conunission. As an economy measure it was agreed to
~;-~vousor eyuAustria,BrdZil,Finland, France, Gennuny, convenetwo small groups, one in Texel, theNetherlands, to
Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand. Oman, South Africa, address recommendations arisi ng from the Pollution
Spain, Sweden, UK andthe USA.Itrecognised thatalthough Workshop and lhe otherin La Jolla, California, USA to
Japan's programme is strictly legalunder Article Vlli ofthe address recommendations arising from the Workshop on
Convention, science should endeavour to adopt the highest Climate Change and Cetaceans. As a result, the Scientific
standards and that there are civilised limitsto the pursuit of
Committee recommended that the Commission support a
knowledge: killing should only occur where critically meetingofcollabo.-ators toplan workassociatedwilhstudies
important information is otherwise unavailable, and that theoncetaceansandpollutants, andproposedcollaborationwith
scale and nature of thesecatches subvertsthe sanctuary and CCAMLR andSouthernOceanGLOBEC onprogrammesof
the moratorium. The Resolution notes that lhe JARPA relevance to cetaceansand climate change.
review COJllcuded that the results are not required for The Scientific Committee identifieda list of continuing
management and thisadvice from the Scientific Committee topics for considerationin thefuture, includingdevelopment
should be heeded. of field programmes and wotkshops. It was noted lhat
Japan responded by referrillgto Artivme and the fact studieson phytoplankton reaction to increasesUV•B as a
tbat the SouthernOcean Sanctuary exists regardless of the result of ozone depletion in polar regions, for which there
status of thestocks. It views these Resolutionsas an affront,ppears to be no defence in lhe Arctic, was important for
becauseof lhequality andquantityofthe research whichthe futureconside.-ation. ·
JARPA review identified as having potential for
management. Antiguaand Barbudacommentedon anattack 15.2.2Actionarising
earlier in the meeting on the Scientific Committee and A Resolution on environmental change and cetaceans was
considered that a votefor this Resolutionis an indictment ofproposed by Austria, Australia, Brazil, Finland,France,
the ScientificCommittee:itcalledfor strongelinkwithlhe Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, Nelherlands, Oman,
Animals Committee of CITES. Spain,Sweden, Switzerland,UKand lhe USA.Japandid not
The Resolution shown in Appendix 5was then put to the oppose this but commented on lhe term 'non-lethal' which
vote and adopted with 18votes infavour, 11against and2 appeared in the last paragraph, since comments in lhe
abstentions. Pollotion Workshop report were pertinent. Nonvay
The Netherlands then introducea Resolution on Special remarkedthatthe resourcesforresearchareoutofproportion
Permit catches in lhe Norlh Pacific by Japan, co-sponsored withtheresultsachieved.andSwedensuggested adding 'and
by Austria, Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, physiological'tothe potential effects.h Ibisamendment,
Monaco, Nelherlands, New Zealand, Spain, UK and the the Resolution shown in Appendix 7 was adopted.
USA. It noted that despite previous Resolutions lhere had
been no changes byJapan, and called for non-lelhal biopsy
sampling and analysis of existing samples, believing lhat
stock identification is not a critical need, and reiterated the .16.COOPERATION WITH OTHER
ORGANISATIONS
request toJapan toefrainfromlhe programmeand use only
non-lethal methods. 16.1Observers' reports
Japan noted lhat many of the same points were being The observers' reports of meetings of other
repeated. The identification and mixing of sub-stocks is Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) were distributed
important, only a small number of whales was being taken to themeeting.Those ofparticularrelevanceto its work were
and it was not deterred baResolution which was a breach considered by the Scientific Committee.
of its sovereign rights to help management based on
scientific findings.NorwaynotedlhepresentResolution has 16.2 Other
no reference to the Scientific Committee and recalled d1at At d1e45th ArulUalMeeting itwasagreed that d1Secretaiat
last yearlhere was overwhelming support inlhe Scientific shouldidentifymeetingsofother internationalorganisations
Committeefor Ibisresearchas a help in management, and it in which the IWC should have direct participation. In
is alsocriticallyimportant fordetermining therole of whales addition, at the informal meetingof Commissioners held in
in the ecosytem. Gren ada in January 1997, the Secretariat was asked to
The Resolution given in Appendix 6 was then adopted develop a paper outlining the IWC's •·elations with otber
wilh 15votes in favour, 10against and 6 abstentioJls. IGOs. The document had been distributed to the
Commissionas a whole, and lheFmanceand Administration
15. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Comminee made no comments due to the strictly
informational nature of lhe paper.
15.1 Research proposals
I5.1.1Reportof theScientificCommiuee 16.3 Memorandum of Under..1anding with ICES
15.1.2Actionarising Commissioners at the 481hAnnual Meeting had agreed that
The research proposals from the Scientific Committee were the IWC should enter into a formal relationship with lhe
submitted to the Finance and Administration Committee for International Councifor the Exploration of lheSea (ICES),
conside.-ationfor funding. and a draft memorandum was circulated. The ftrst two
paragraphsof lhedraftMemorandumofUnderstanding were
15.2 Research on the environmenl and whale stocks unacceptable to certaindelegations for various reasons, and
15.2.1Reportof theScientificCommittee theUK suggested that lhe preamblebeeliminated to :avoid
The Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group disagreement about what itshould include. Tbe Chairman
reviewedtwoproposalsdesigned tofurther lheCommittee's notedthatoooneopposedthissuggestionandoonclod ed that
work on cetaceans and the environment. These proposals the Commission should proceed with lhe Memorandum of
had been prepared intersessionally in response ro the Understanding on this basis.
382 Annex 58
58. Chairman’s Report of the FiftiethAnnual Meeting,Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 1998, pp. 3, 28-29
ANNUALREPORTOF THE INTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION 3
Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE 3.2 Statements by Contracting Governments and
observers
The 50thAnnual Meeting of the Commission was held in the Opening statements by Contracting Governments and
AI Bustan Palace Hotel, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, 16-20 observer organisations were included in the meeting
May 1998.Mr Michael Canny (Ireland) was in the Chair, documentation . Italy, as a new member , spoke of its
and Commissioners and delegates from 35 of the 40
Contracting Governments attended, together with observers particular interest in the whales in the Mediterranean Sea. It
has never engaged in whaling activities and has no intention
from five non-member governments, the European .of starting. It is a member of several international treaties
Community, five Inter-Governmental Organisations and 70 which provide for the conservation of marine mammals and
Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs). The List of will do its best to facilitate the achievementof generally
Delegates is given on p.53. acceptable solutions to current problems, provided that they
are based on the premise of conservation of cetaceans.
2. ADDRESS OF WELCOME
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The meeting started with an Opening Ceremony addressed
by His Excellency Dr Ahmed bin Khalfan Al-Rawahi, The provisional annotated agenda, which had been
Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman, circulated60 days before the meeting, was adopted. Agenda
with the patronage of His Excellency Sayed Badr bin Saud Items 5 and 6 were allocated to the Technical Committee for
bin Harib, Minister Responsible for Defense Affairs and on initial consideration . The Agenda as adopted is given on
behalf of the host government. He recalled the importance p.Sl.
placed on the protection of environmental resources and the Japan commented, with respect to Agenda Item 9.1.2,that
preservation of biological diversity in Omani waters and on Norway had indicated in previous meetings that issues of
land in the development of the country under the leadership trade are outside the competence of the IWC and that Japan
of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos Bin Said. He wished the shared the same view. It believes such issues are within the
Commission memorable success at the commencement of jurisdictionof the CITES or WTO; they are not within the
another half century of mutual cooperation and competence of the IWC. However, Japan is always prepared
understanding. to present infonnation related to trade to the appropriate
The Chainnan of the Commission responded, thanking the international organisationsnd it is prepared to present it to
government for the magnificent meeting rooms, the facilities anyone who wishes to gain such information.
and service, and the friendliness of the people. He looked The Netherlands gave notice that it would raise the issue
forward to continuing dialogue between the delegates, of Canada and the IWC under 'Any other business'.
helped by the work of the Scientific Conunittee and the
contribution of the NGOs.
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND
SMALL- TYPE WHALING
3. OPENING STATEMENTS
5.1 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
3.1 Statements by past Chairmen In the Technical Committee, Japan outlined the history of its
Fonner Chairmen of the Commission had been invited to request, repeated annually for the last ten years, for a modest
attend this50thsession and to present a statement. Mr Sture interim allowance of minke whales for its small-type coastal
whaling communities. Japan had considered the moratorium
Irberger (Sweden), Chainnan 1988-1991, spoke of his
subsequent experience in EU environmental affairs and the unreasonable from the outset since its small-type coastal
influence and importance of the Rio Declaration and Agenda whaling operations had never depleted the resource and had
21 as guiding principles for responsible stewardship in maintained a sustained annual harvest. The moratorium had
managing limited global resources through partnership and caused distress to the communities affected and had been
the precautionary principle. imposed despite the abundance of the stock. Japan recalled:
Dr Peter Bridgewater (Australia), Chairman 1994-1997,
sent a message of congratulations to the Commission on (1) the Commission's Resolution in Kyoto (IWC Resolution
reaching thisSO'hmeeting. He emphasised the success of the 1993-3) to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress;
Commission in the past decade as shown in the recovery of
populations of most species of great whales, underpinned by (2) the Action Plan it had devised in response to concerns
one of the strongest scientific bases of any wildlife raised;
(3) the Sendai (1997) Workshop on Community-Based
convention. Whaling; and
The Secretary then read messages from Mr Thordur (4) the well-documented need.
Asgeirsson (Iceland), Chairman 1978-1981 who sent his
warmest greetings and best wishesfor a successful outcome,
as did Ambassador Eduardo Iglesias (Argentina), who was Japan attributed the absence of progress to a lack of goodwill
and the dysfunctional natureof the IWC. Because of this, it
Chainnan (exceptionally) for four years from 1981-1985,
Mr Ian Stewart (New Zealand), Chainnan from 1985-1988 no longer felt itself bound by the Action Plan, although it
and Mr Luis Fleischer (Mexico), Chairman 1991-1994 . remained committed to small-type coastal whaling.
383Annex 58
CHAIRMAN'SREPORTOF THE FIFfiETH ANNUALMEETING
28
WhenAntiguaandBarbudaattemptedtospeakagain,the Southem Hemisphere, without increa~epl~thriikobn~ve
the level indibythe existing /mpfemenratwnStmula/lonTnals
UK raised a·point of order on the number of interventions,of thRMP for these minke whales.'
considering the heavy agenda. Following exchanges
between Norway, Japan, Grenada and Dominica, the JAPAN - NORTH PACIFIC
Chairmanruledthat Commissionersshouldspeakonce,but
witharighttoreplybytheproposer.Ona showofhandsthis The ScientificCommitteenotedthatanumberofdocuments
that incorporated information from JARPN had been
was agreed by 20 votes in favour, with 1 against a7d presentedand werediscussed.
abstentions.Japan did not takepart in thevote, considering
theresult wasalreadyknown.A secondvoteon limitingthe Reviewofnewor revisedproposals
lengthof an interventionto two minuteswas adopted11
votes in favour, wilhagainstand16 abstentions. JARPA - SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
The 1998/99JARPA research plan is a continuationof the
The Plenary was then adjourned for a Commissioners' programmethat has been extensivelydiscussed previously
meeting. After this it was am10uncedthat agreement had bytheScientificCommittee.Itisthe10hfull-scalesurveyof
been reached such that there could be two interventionsoa 16-year researchprogramme.The survey will cover Area
reasonablylimitedlength.
V and the westernhalf of Area VI to focus on the issue of
stocks withinthe frameworkof thefour majorobjectivesof
the programme.
13.3Action arising Thesurveyperiodis thesameasinpreviousyearsandthe
Australia, on behalf of Austria, Brazil, France, Germanysample size is 400±10%. One resear vces1,et~~ee
India, Italy, Monaco, Netherlands,w Zealand, Oman,
SouthAfrica,Spain,Switzerland,UKandUSAintroduceda sampling/sightings vessels and onededtc~ ste~dhtt~gs
Resolution setting out agreed?jectivesfor the Sanctuary vessel will be used. Participationby internatiOnalsc1ennsts
is welcomed.
and promoting increased scientific research and The Scientific Comniittee noted that the addition of
cooperation. quantitative echo-sounder equipment to the dedicated
Because of the large number of co-sponsors and
wide-spreadsupport,Australia suggestedthattheResolution sightingsvesselthisyearwillprovidetheaddedcapability.of
determiningthe distributionand abundanceof foodspec1es
could beadoptedbyconsensus.Japanstateditsviewthatthe includingAntarctickrill.Theeffectofusingsuchequipment
Sanctuarydoesnot havea scientificbasis,whichwaswhy it onsightingssurveyswasbrieflyconsidered.Somemembers
had lodged its objection, since it applies regardless of the
stock condition. The Resolutionshown in Appen.4iwas noted that information provided by JARPA could be of
then adopted.The Commissionnoted Japan'sopposition. significant value for the elucidation of the effec~f
environmental change on whales and the AntarctiC
A further Resolution proposed by Japan, Antigua and ecosystem.
Barbuda,Dominica,Grenada,St Lucia and St Vincentand
The Grenadineshad the purpose of immediatelyabolishing
the SouthernOceanSanctuary and instructingtheScientific JAPAN- NORTH PACIFIC
Committee to proceed with implementation trials for The programme, which began in 1995 after a feasi?ility
study in 1994,isto examin(1)whethersub-stocksext ~ft
Southern Hemisphere minke whales. The Chairman ruled the Okhotsk Sea-WesternPacific stock (O·stock) of m1nke
that this would commit the Commission to amend the whales,and (2)whetheranadditionalstock(W stock)exists
Schedule and was thereforeout of order; in addition,it had
notbeensubmitted60daysinadvanceof themeeting.Japan inthecentralpartoftheNorthPacific,andifit does,therate
of mixing with 0 stock. One hundred animals will be
saidthatit wouldobservethe60 dayrule at next year'sor a sampledin two or three areas among sub-Areas7, 8, 9, 11
later meeting. and 12.
Withregardtothesamplingareainthe1998survey,itwas
reportedthat ifit seemsdifficultto get pennission from the
14. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS Government of the Russian Federation to operate in its
waters,sub-Areas7 and8(inMayandJune)and 11(inJuly)
14.1 Report of the Scientific Committee were to be covered.
Reviewof resultsfrom existingpermits
JAPAN- SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE The Scientific Committeenoted thahad not reviewed
thisproposal in detail since 1994.
Last year, the Scientific Committee had und~rt .a k~n Itwasstatedthattheprogrammecouldbeterminatedafter
detailedreviewoftheJARPAprogrammeandhad1dent1f!ed thecompletionofthe1999cruiseiftheScientificCommittee
anumberofareasforfuturework.Progressonthatworkwas agreedthattheresearchobjectivesd been adequatelymet
reportedand a numberof documentsrelating to theJARPA
programmewere presented to the meeting. by that time. After some discussion, the Scientific
Committeeagreed that a comprehensivereview of JARPN
In discussion of the Commission'sResolution last year shouldbeplannedfor2000.If theprogrammeis extendedto
(IWC Resolution 1997-5), it was noted that it did inclutheyear2000orthereafter,a detailedandthoroughresearch
information on the potential for JARPA to improve
management.However,forclarity,theScientifiCommit~ee proposalshould be submittedfor review.The Government
agreed to repeat its full statementfrom last year (Rep.rnt.Japan would elaborate the programme for 1999, taking
into account the comments made during the meeting and
Whal.Commn48:101)on this"lnatter: analyses of the 1998 data; it would circulate this to the
membersof the ScientificCommitteeprior to departure of
'whilJARPA results were not required for management under the
RMP, they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (I)
reductions in the current set of plausib.le scenarios considered in
Implemr:ntalion Simulation Trials; and {2) identificati14.2Action arising
scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation TrJapan commented that it was pleased that the JARPA
have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of sprogramme wascontributingtoresearchon resourcesinthe
structure). The results of aJARPAedata coubeused in
this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the that at the review meeting scientists had
384 Annex 58
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 29
appreciated the results. Concerning the North Pacific, it Antigua and Barbuda proposed adding a paragraph that
noted the attempts to solve the stock structure problems. On the Commission 'note the grave concern for the lethal usef
behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, cetaceans for military research purposes'. Dominica
Norway, St Lucia and St Vincent and The Grenadines it
seconded this, but New Zealand thought the amendment
introduced a Resolution concerning Special Permits which concerned research outside theConvention which should be
reaffirmed the rights of Contracting Governments under separated and properly presented. Denmark restated that it
Article VIII of the Convention, and the need for scientific believes that small cetaceans are outside IWC competence.
information for the proper conservation and management of Japan, on a pointof order, requested Antigua and Barbuda
whale resources. It hoped for consensus on this. to withdraw the amendment, but the latter asked for it to be
The Netherlands had no objection to the operative clauses put to the vote, when it was defeated by 6 votes in favour to
but proposed deleting a preambular paragraph which it 16 against, with 12 abstentions. The Resolution shown in
thought did not correctly reflect the conclusions of the Appendix 5 was then adopted by 17 votes in favour to 9
Scientific Committee concerning the potential for against, with 8 abstentions.
management from the results, and the use of non-lethal South Africa explained its abstentionas it objects to high
research. Australia and New Zealand voiced their opposition levels of lethal scientific sampling in the Southern Ocean
to lethal research and Switzerland, Sweden, Italy, Finland Sanctuary, but had doubts about extrapolating these
and India supported the Netherlands. objections to sampling in the North Pacific. Antigua and
Antigua and Barbuda pointed out that the text was a direct Barbuda voted against because it believes Japan's research is
quote from the Scientific Committee, and St Lucia spoke of completely legal and useful, while Japan regretted the
the need for a lethal take for some research. increasing number who ignore its rightful scientific activities
Denmark said it was against scientific whaling in the and stating thatit was also concerned about the manner in
Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The Chairman of the Scientific which the incorporation of ethical matters was being
Committee pointed to his Committee's views on this issue. introduced.
The People's Republic of China spoke of the current
technology and advocated the study of research methods to
reduce lethal methods. 15. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
The Resolution was then put to the vote and defeated with 15.1 Research proposals
10 votes in favour to 19 against, and 5 abstentions.
15.1.1Reportof the ScientificCommittee
Switzerland explained its abstention because it is opposed The Scientific Committee recommended that the 1998/99
to large-scale lethal research in the Sanctuary but had no SOWER cruise should take place principally in Area IV
problems with the operative paragraph. South Africa south of 60°S, with a blue whale component taking place for
indicated the same. 12days in the southeastern part of Area III where relatively
Monaco, on behalf of Australia, Brazil, India, Italy,
high concentrations of blue whales had been confirmed by
Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK, put forward a the past IDCR cruises and JARPA surveys. It recommended
Resolution on whaling under Special Pern1it which: that there should be a specialist planning meeting for this
cruise in Tokyo in October.
(1) requested the Secretariat to undertake a comprehensive Five proposals were reviewed by the intersessional review
review of the ethical considerations;
group and outside reviewers and discussed further during
(2) recommended that if whales are taken this is done in a this year's meeting. A proposal for retrospective analysis
manner consistent with Section III of the Schedule; and method development for integrated analysis for the
and SOWER 2000 survey of baleen whales and krill, received
(3) requested Japan to refrain from issuing any further the highest rating and was recommended for funding. The
permits.
others were not included in the list of highest priority
proposals.
It spoke of the concern over lethal research as expressed in The Scientific Committee noted that £59,888 is already
a letter from a number of scientists, the large numbers of available in the Research Fund to finance ongoing projects
whales taken and the appearance of whale meat in continuing from the current year. It strongly recommended
commercial markets. It commented that scientists do not that the additional research-related activities proposed
operate in a vacuum and that the science of whales has should be funded in the1998/99 financial year. This leaves
advanced over the past 50 years. a potential shortfall of £37,354. Given the importancef the
Antigua and Barbuda could not support the Resolution, items requested, the Committee strongly requested that the
mentioning the merits of JARPA, the lack of non-lethal
Commission funds all the designated activities.
means to address certain issues and noting lethal military
research. Norway commented on the necessity to conduct RESEARCH PROPOSALS - PREAMBULAR TEXT
multi-species research for interactions in fisheries. The Secretary outlined the terms and conditions (in the form
New Zealand commented on the many signatures on of specimen wordings) which have been included in the
petitions opposed to scientific whaling, reflecting the depth
contracts given by the IWC for research proposals during
of feeling that thereis no need to kill whales to carry our recent years. These are used selectively and modified as
research.It believed that there should be an ethical review appropriate for the particular proposals and contracts under
and that research must be guided by a moral compass. Italy consideration.
noted that two of its eminent scientists had signed the letter The language used defines:
referred to, and also believed that lethal research must be
brought to an end. Denmark stated that it is opposed to (1) the tasks to be performed;
scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and (2) the schedule of work;
would support the Resolution, while the USA was (3) the costs, including support for attendance at a meeting
increasingly concerned over research whaling and strongly of the Scientific Committee to present a report on the
opposed unnecessary lethal research.
work carried out;
385386 Annex 59
59. Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-FirstAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 1999, pp. 7, 48
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 1999 7
Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE The Secretary reminded the Credentials Committee of the
The 51st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission's decision 'at the 35th (1983) Annual Meeting
Commission was held in the Grand Beach Resort and that
Conference Centre, StGeorge's, Grenada, 24-28 May 1999.
It was agreed that for this purpose [the fonn of accreditation by
Mr Michael Canny (Ireland) was in the Chair, and governments] by the tenn 'govemmen rs' is meant the Minister of
Commissioners and delegates from 34 of the 40 Contracting Foreign Affairs (including: on behalf of the Minister of Foreign
Governments attended, along with observers from 7 Affairs), the Minister responsible for whaling or whale conservation
non-member governments, 3 Inter-Governmental (including: on behalf of this Minister). the Commissioner, the
Organisations and 91 Non-Governmental Organisations Diplomatc Mission(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:28).
(NGOs). The List of Delegates is given on p. 63.
The Credentials Committee decided that all credentials
should be accepted this year, but Japan indicated that it
2. ADDRESS OF WELCOME
would submit proposals next year to clarify matters, It
The Prime Minister of Grenada, the Hon. Keith Mitchell; believed it irrational and contradictory for Commissioners to
welcomed participants to thepice Isle. He recalled that the sign their own credentials; Government Ministries were the
IWC has been addressing the various issues surrounding the proper authorities.
preservation of the world's whale stocks for more than 50
years, during which time there have been substantial changes
in the methods used to gather and analyseta. However, the 5.SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND
balance between conservation and harvest continues to SMALL-TYPE WHALING
challenge the Commission. Sustaining marine resources is
an important objective for coastal states like Grenada, which 5.1 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
must harvest the resourcesof the sea, while tourism includes Japan recalled that for the paSt II years it has made an
recreational use of the sea. He expected vigorous
negotiations in managing this shared resource and wished application for a modesttake of minke whales for its four
coastal communities. It has submitted more than 50
the meeting well. documents dt;tailingthe importance ofminke whales to these
The Chairman thanked the Prime Minister and the people communities, and has minimised the commercial aspects of
of Grenada for their warm welcome to this Annual Meeting, the proposed operations. Agenda 21 emphasises the use of
the first to be held in the Caribbean.' sustainable marine resources, and the I995 IS:yoto
Declaration on Food Security gave a broad framework for
3.OPENING STATEMENTS international cooperation in this area. The 1993 IWC
As usual, the Opening Statements submitted by Contracting Resolution recognised the socio-economic needs and the
distress of the four communities, and Japan requested an
Governments and Observers were included in the meeting interim allocation until the is implemented. It proposed
documentation. a Schedule amendment to add a new paragraph 10 (f):
4.ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Notwithstanding the other provisions of pamgraph 10 and those of
The Chairman outlined his proposals for meeting paragraph 12, the taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk
management, including a daily order of business, and seasoinordertoalleviatethehardshipinthefourcommunity-basedn the 1999
requested thatno repeat Resolutions should besubmitted. He whaling communities.
asked Commissioners tolimit themselves to one intervention
only on each subject. The provisional annotated agenda, This was accompanied by a proposed Resolution which had
which had beencirculated 60 daysin advance of the meeting, the effect of agreeing that the take of minke whales provided
was adopted. Japan requested that Agenda Items 23.1 Voting by paragraph 10 (f) of the Schedule be allocated to the
Procedures, 23.3 Observers and 22.6 Observer status of communities of Abishiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taijii in
Greenpeace should be considered first. The Chairman. Japan.
referred Agenda Items 7 Sanctuaries and 13 Revised· Sweden commented that this could only be accepted as
Management Scheme to the Technical Committee for initial part of the Irish Initiative, a position held by Finland,
consideration,The Agenda as adopted is given on p. 59. Switzerland,Spain and South Africa; Austria also could not
Japan requested that the credentials all the delegations give support. Australia could not support a new categoryf
and observers should be checked by a Credentials commercial whaling. The USA pointed out the similar
Committee, which the Chairman established. This requests since 1988 and the commercial element; it was
Committee ~e dturing an adjournment in Agenda Item 23.1 ·sympathetic to the needs and wished to continue a dialogue.
and was attended by the Chairman, Secretary, Antigua and The Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, France and the
Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Dominica, Italy, Japan, UK had similar views.
Norway, South Africa, Sweden, St Lucia, UK and USA. The Denmark, Norway, Oman, St Vincent and The
Credentials Committee noted that all Governments had been Grenadines, St Lucia, Dominica, Solomon Islands and
asked to submit credentials in February 1999. Members of Grenada expressed their support. '
the Committee expressed concern thatsome credentials were On being put to the vote, the Schedule amendment and
presented by fax or e-mail with originals to·follow, and that Resolution received 12 votes in favour, with IS against and
some credentials had been signed by the Commissioner. 7 abstentions and so failed.
387Annex 59
48 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF THE FIFrY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING
Japan responded that many irresponsible statements had . environmental information and since views expressed were
been made. The actions had been against international and well known, a secret vote is not necessary to protect
domestic laws, including trespass, and the vessels had been anyone's position. Sweden, the Solomon Islands and the
immobilised for days. It detailed a catalogue of numerous Netherlands agreed; the latter favouring the first Norwegian
similar actions against whaling and fishing vessels and asked amendment.
if such an NGO is still acceptable. StLucia supported Japan, Antigua and Barbuda spoke of the countries vulnerable to
but the Chairman believed that a majority were against the threats by individuals and organisations, and supported
proposal. Japan thought the evidence was simple, clear and Norway so as to vote without fear.
transparent, but when the matter was put to the vote it was . Brazil was in favour of transparency and so did not
defeated,· with 9 votes in favour, 22 against and 3 support the Norwegian proposal, while Germany wished to
abstentions. safeguard transparency and so supported the Monaco
proposal.
The Chairman concluded that, with support indicated by
22.7 Action arising Austria, Dominica, Grenada, Ireland, South Africa, Spain,
In the Commission, in addition to noting the comments Switzerland,UK and USA, the first addition by Norway was
described above and endorsing the decisions with respect to agreed.
the individual items, the following observations were made The second addition proposed by Norway was then put to
and conclusions drawn: the vote, but was not adopted, there being 9 votes in favour,
21 against with I abstention.pain explained itsvote against
(I) The USA and Japan spoke of the value of the Verbatim
Record of the plenary sessions, where it is easy to locate was to improve transparency.
topics. It was agreed to continue with the tranript this A proposal bYJ.apan to amend the original Monaco text by
year and to consider the matter again next year. adding:
(2) It was agreed to experiment next year by not convening and proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure may be debyded
the Technical Committee. secret ballot. For these matters a secret ballot shall if used
(3) The Chairman of the Commission announced that he had requesred by aCommissionerand secondedby at least five other
asked Mr Daven Joseph (Antigua and Barbuda) to Commissioners
convene the Contributions Sub-Committee, and the
Hon. Jim McLay (New Zealand) to ·convene the was also defeated with 11 votes in favour, 22 against and 1
Budgetary Sub-Committee. abstention. Denmark stated that it accepted the majority
position, even though it felt it was not transparent enough,
and the Chairman confirmed that all the reservations
expressed would be noted.
23. AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE
23.1 Voting procedures 23.2 Environment Research Fund
By IWC Resolution 1998-6 the Commission agreed to
The Government of Monaco had proposed the following consider at the 51stAnnual Meeting the establishment of a
amendment to Rule of Procedure E.3.(d) (new text italic): dedicated Environment Research Fund to facilitate research
on environmental change and cetaceans as well as the
Votes can be taken by a show of hands, or by roll call, as in the
opinionof theChainnanappearsto be mostsuitable. The election ofttendance at the Scientific Committee and other related·
the Chair, Vice-Chair, the appoimment of the Secretary of the meetings of Invited Participants with relevant expertise in
Commission, and the selection of IWC Annual Meeting venues shathe priority areas of the Standing Working Group on
all proceed by secret ballot. Environmental Concerns.
Japan announced in the Finance and Administration In the Finance and Administration Committee, Japan
Committee that it would propose an amendment during the stated tat it was not happy with the creation of this fund. It
Plenary session. Given the political nature of this issue, the would propose at a later stage a modification of the name of
Chainnan of the Committee suggested that it be referred to the fund. It was Japan's view that the creation of the fund
the Commission. requires the amendment of the Financial Regulations. The
In the Commission the USA stated it was in favour of USA explained that this subject was under this Agenda Item
transparency, recalled the long history of open debate, and in case a change to the Rules of Procedure were needed,
supported Monaco. Germany spoke similarly. which would be the case if a stand-alone fund were
Norway proposed that the secret ballot should be·'upon established. The alternative would be to earmark funds
request by a Commissioner' and that 'if at least five within the existing research fund, which couldbe done by a
Commissioners so request any other vote shall proceed by simple Commission decision. The Netherlands agreed with
secret ballot.' These amendments were supported by the USA, and it supported the alternative solution.
Japan. . Denmark stressed its green credentials, but said it was
Denmark preferred the maximum transparency as a very concerned with this item because of its belief in free
general rule and opposed a secret ballot. It was against the choice among scientists. It was unhappy with the idea that
last addition and did not like to change the tradition for scientistswill be able to propose research in onlyne area.
election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, was hesitant The Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee
about secret voting fr the meeting venue but could accept it pointed out that unless a country proposes a change to the
for the appointment of the Secretary. rules ofprocedure, the Committee does not have to deal with
Italy and Finland wished for maximum transparency but the issue. The Chairman closed the discussion by saying it
could go along with a vote for officers. appeared unlikely that a proposal to change the Rules of
New Zealand supported Monaco and Norway si nce this Procedure to establish a separate environmental research
conformed with the 1982 UN draft Rules of Procedure for fund would emerge.
election of officers. It was in favour of the freedom of In the event, the Commission took no further action.
388 Annex 60
60. Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-SecondAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2000, pp. 11, 34-38
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2000
II
Chairman's Report of the.Fifty-Second Annual Meeting
1. DATE AND PLACE changing international community values and suggested that
the marine environment should be managed in line with
The 52"" Annual Meeting of the International Whaling
Commission was held in the Adelaide Convention Centre, these changing values. He wished the meeting well and the
Adelaide, Australia, 3-6 July 2000. The Chau·man of the delegates an enjoyable stay in Australi
Commission, Mr Michael Canny (lreland) and the
Vice-Chairman, Prof. Bo Fernholm (Sweden) presided over
the proceedings. Commissioners and delegates from 34 of 3. OPENING STATEMENTS
the Commission's 40 Contracting Governments attended, The Opening Statements submilled by Contracting
along with observers from 4 non-member governments, 6 Governments and Observers were included in the meeting
Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and 88 documentation, according to the Commission's normal
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
procedure. The Republic of Guinea, which had adhered to
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
2. ADDRESSOFWELCOME on 21 June 2000, spoke of its pleasure and honour in
attending the meeting of one of the oldest international
Senator Roben Hill,leader of theSenate and Minister for the organisations involved in marine management. It expected to
Environment and Heritage gave an address of welcome on
behalf of the Government of Australia. contribute to the debate on the management of marine
Senator Hill believed that the Commission's first meeting resources, including cetaceans, basedon the principles of
of the new millennium had the potential to be significant in sustainable management for future generations, and with
respect to ecosystems.
determining its fu ture direction . He suggested that the
passing of the old century was a time for reflection, the
dawning of the new century a Limefor recommitment and
noted the particular responsibility of those charged with 4. ADOPT ION OF AGENDA
managing and protecting the marine environment. Senator The Chainnan outlined the order of business he intended to
Hill reflected.n the changes in attitudes towards marine
follow, and proposed adoption of the revised agenda,
resource management since the previous IWC meeting in including items added by Japan after the 60-day notification
Australia 20 years ago, citing IWC's decisioto establish a period due to delays resulting from the Golden Week
global moratorium on commercial whaling as an example. Holiday (i.e. a proposed amendment to the Rules of
He also spol<e of the growing recognition of the need for Procedure regarding secret ballots, and proposed Schedule
global action and cooperation to conserve the oceans and amendments relating to Agenda Items 5.1, 7.4.2 and 12.2).
their biological diversity which are facing serious and Japan appreciated the Chairman's suggestion and indicated
worsening threats from pollution, ove.·-exploitation, thatat tltis meeting it would not pursue its proposal for secret
conflict ing uses of resources, and damage to or destruction ballots, although these had been adopted by other similar
of habitat. He noted that Australia is conscious of its organisations.It would submit its proposal on this matter
responsibilities in contributing to conservat ion efforts and again next year. The agenda was adopted.
described a number of steps being taken, such as the Japan requested the Commission to withdraw the
establishment of Marine Protected Areas like the Great credentialsof Greenpeace as obsetvers to the Meeting. lt
BaJTierReef Marine Park. believed lltat this would be consistent with previous actions
Senator Hill spoke of the severe depletion in whale of the Commission. It noted that last year the Commiss ion
numbers caused by unsustainable hunting in the last century had withdrawn the credentials of an NGO following a
and recognised the pan played by Australia in this. He noted demonstration at the IWC headquarters in the UK.
thatthe moratorium has had some positive benefits in the Previously , the Commission had also withdrawn the
recovery of whale numbers, but commented on the observer credentialsof another NGO for its illegal actions
uncertainty as to whether the moratorium came in time to against whaling vessels. Japan claimedthat the Greenpeace
save cenai n species. He noted the arguments of those who campaign against its research programme in the Antarctic
believe that numbers of cena in species have recovered earlier tis year invo1ved illegal and violent actions that
sufficientlto allow the resumption of commercial whaling, caused a collision with a Japese research vesse1and risked
but cautioned that the second chance we have been given to the liveof scientists and crew. It argued that the campaign
conserve whale populations should not be lost. He added that of violence against a programme of sciemific research
tlu·ough increased intest in whale conserva tion, Australia catTicd out under the Convention should be su·ongly
now generates more revenue each year from protecting condemned by the Commission.
whales than it ever did through hunting them, an experience The USA noted that there were conflicting accowtts of the
incident, whichwas still under review, and that CITES had
shared by others.
Senator Hill considered that among the im~rtan itues taken no action in response toamilar requestKew Zealand
the Commission had to consider during its 52" meetingwas and the Netherlands believed thiswas a legitimate, robust
the proposal from Australia and New Zealand and supponed but peaceful protest and opposed the suggest ion. Sweden ,
by the Pacific Island States, for the creation of a South UK, Germany, France, Italy, Monaco, Austria, Spain,
Pacific Sanctuary. He was ce11ain that the proposal would Finland, Australia, Mexico and Denmark held similar
quite appropriately be subject to robust debate. views.
Finally, Senato r Hill noted that the International Norway supported Japan, recalling the harnssment of one
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling provid e.~ of its vessels in the North Sea, resulting in an mrest and
fromework for the regime of regulation to evolve in line with subsequent sentence by the courts. Antigua and Barbuda
389Annex 60
34 CIIA!RMAN 'S REPORT OF THE FIFTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING
and subseque nt Resolmions on the RMS (i.e. other elements
programme between 1994 and 1999. She then repo1ted on
such as DNA tracking and welfare issues. should be the outcome of the Scientific Committee's review of the
considered). Other countries (Antigua and Barbuda, proposals in JARPN 11.
Norway,Japan, St Lucia,Dominica) were concerned that the
draft Resolution does not commit the Commission to a IJ.l .l.l OUTCOME OF Tllf:: .IARPN REVIEW MEETING
Schedule amendment and that it does not prejudge the
The main objectives of JARPN were to determine: (1)
positions of Contracti ng Government s regarding the status whether or not the hypothesised 'W' minke whale stock
of paragraphs lO(d) and lO(e) of the Schedu le. Norway exists and if so to estimate mixing rates between the '0' and
considered the reference in the Resolution to the proposed 'W' stocks; and (2) the feeding ecology of minkc whales in
text for the Schedule amendment was unnecessary. the Nonh Pacific. In 1999, the sub-objective to estimate the
Japan offered to host the intersessional meeting of the
mixing rate between the 'J' and '0 ' stocks was added.
RMS Wor-kingGroup_ Regarding the existence of the 'W' stock, revised DNA
Finally, following revisions to take into account some of analyses carried out during the workshop gave a significant
the comments expressed above, Resolution 2000-3 was effect between sub-areas 7 and 8 on the one hand, and
passed by consensus, although the strong reservations of a sub-area 9 on the other when commercia l dala were
number of countries regarding the last two operative
excluded, and a small but not significant effect when
paragraphs wCl-enoted.The Resolution is given in Appendix com,nercial data were included. The workshop agreed that
I. this should be examined further. It also agreed that the
Australia asked that their established policy on possible existence of a group of minke whales tothe east of
participation in discussions on the RMS be noted for the Japan that differed from the '0' stock could not be 11l1ed out,
record.
but thatthedata nevertheless provided a basis to restrict the
numbelj of 'W' stock hypotheses that need to be considered
in the Rl'v1Ptrials. The workshop also reviewed results from
a number of other data types with respect to stock structure.
13. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS In summary,the workshop noted thatsome of the difficulties
13.1 Nort h Pacific minke whales (JA RPN) experienced in discussing stock structure arose from lack of
13.1.1 Introduction by Japan clarity in UteCommittee as to what constitutes a stock.
Before hearing the report from the Scientific Committee, Regarding mixing rates betwe en the '0' and 'W' stocks,
Japan requested that it be allowed tostate briefly its positionthe workshop agreed Utat it would be premature to draw
on this research and to present an overview of the JARPN II conclusions on the extent of the possible presence of 'W'
proposal. stock Emimals west of sub-area 9, prior to completion of
Japan believed that its programme is important for the further Malys~ It lso agreedtlut if there was a 'W' stock,
management of whales but also important in that it will there had also to be a non-negligible level of dispersal
address issues suh as pollution and consumption of marine betwe en this and the '0' stock. Regarding mixing rates
resources by cetaceans. It commented that the question of between the 'J' and '0' stock, the workshop reviewed
cetacean-fishery interactions has become a major issue estimates of the proportion of 'J' stock animals in subr-~a a
throughout the world. Given some estimates that cetaceans 11 by month and sex, based on data fmm JARPN surveys
may consu me 3-6 times the amount of marine resour-ces and past Korean and Japanese coastal operations. The
harvested for human consumption, it is an important issue in worksh.op recommended that the sensitivity of these resullS
thecontext of food security. Japan noted declining catches in to the omission of samples for the west of sul>-area9 in 1995
some of its own fisheries and that its research had shown that be checked as it may contain some 'W' stock animals.
minke whales are eating commercially important fish The workshop noted that the discussions and decisions on
species.lt considered that this issue mube add1-essedfrom mixing rates were relevant to !mplemelllation Simulation
a scientific perspective without delay. Japan stressed that Trials. However, a key aspect in the trials, not covered by
whale research programmes: (I) are providing valuable those discussions, is the variety of assumptions about the
information and addressing important resource management proportion of animals in sub-area 12 (the Okhotsk Sea) that
issues; (2) are legal Wlder ArticleUI of the Convention; may originate from the hypothesised 'W' stock since there
and (3) pose no risks to the whale populations. are no data available from JARPN for this sub-area. The
Dr Kawahara, Director for the Far Seas Laboratory,stated workshop therefore recommend ed that further genetic
that the overall objective of JARPNfi is to try to contribute samples from sub-areas 12 and 9, and possibly from 8, be
to the conservationof the marine resources (including whale obtained to help discriminate among alternative 'W' stock
stocks) to enable sustainable use in the 200 mile EEZ of hypotheses.
Japanese waters, especially in the western North Pacific. Since the focusof the JARPN review meeting was on the
JARPN II has three objectives: (1) to study feeding ecology stock structure work, the results from work on feeding
(highest priority), including prey consumption by cetaceans ecology were considered only briefly. The workshop noted
and prey preference; (2) to elucidate stock structure of thatthe consumptjon calculations were performed only for
August and September . It was also noted that with the
minke, Bryde's and sperm whales; and (3) to monitor the
impact of pollutants such as POPs and heavy metals on sampling design used in JARPN so far it was not possible to
cetaceans and the marine ecosystem . Dr Kawahara gave (!) obtain a quantitative measure of temporal and
furtherdetails on how the objectives were to be achieved geographical changes in minke whale diets, or (2) to perform
(see Sectjon 13.1.2.2). extrapo lations to calculate the annual consumption of the
entire population found in the researcheas.The workshop
agreed that if surveys nre to be perfomted in future, tt.e
13.1.2 Report of the Scientific Commiuee
The Chair of the Scientific Committee began by sampling design should permit such calculations. However,
summarising the outcome of the February 2000 Scientific it was noted that the feeding ecology investigations under
Committee workshop to review methods, results, and JARPN were only a feasibility study and that the primary
success in meeting its objectives of the JARPN research objectiveof JARPN had been to obtain datn necessary to
390 Annex 60
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2000 35
address questions related to stock identity implying a detail and that they were willing to respond to furthe~·
sampling design less than optimal for the ecologicaltudies. comments and questions after the Scientific Committee
The latter were conducted using well-established and
m eeting. Ashon summary of the proposal, itsobjectives and
appropriate methods, and the workshop considered the study its methodology is given below together with the comments
to be successful within those limitations. and discussion of the Scientific Committee. In reviewing the
In future studies, in addition to improving the sampling .JARPN II proposal. the Scientific Committee took account
design to enable amore quantitative estimation of temporal of the Commission's guidelines on reviewing scientific
and geographical variation in diet, the workshop also agreed permits.
that it is necessary to obtni11a1n improved understanding of
tbe distribution and abundance of relevant prey species to THEPROPOSAL
better understand the dynamics of minke whale food choice The overall goal of the research is to contribute to the
and consumption. It therefore recommended that acoustic conservation and sustainable use of ma1i ne living resources
and trawl s urveys, designed to address such questions, including whales in the westem No11hPacific, especially
should be conducted concurrently with future whalesurveys, within Japan's EEZ. F or the overall goal, it is important to
if possible. gather the infonnation on resources and to merge it as a
The workshop noted thut under R esolution 1999-2 on whole ecosystem. In this research specal attention will be
special permits for scientific r esearch, the Scientific paid to the ecosystem surrounding cetaceans, and the data
Committ ee had been asked to advise the Commission on and materials related to cetaceans, prey species and
whether the infonnation sought in research programmes oceanographic conditions willbe collected. The sub-projects
under Special Permibwas: (a) required for management; and are: feeding ecology (including prey consumption and
(b) could be obtained by non-lethal means. The workshop preferences of cetaceans and ecosystem modelling); stock
did not have a longdiscussion on this itemastheChair of the structure; environmental effects on cetaceans and the marine
Scientific Committee had advised that full discussions ecosystem.
should be held intheCommittee rather than in the workshop. Numbers of animals and their management stocks are
In fact only item (a) was addressed, the outcome being that specified in the proposal. A total of 100 minkc whales
information obtained during JARPN had been and will (effectively '0' Stock and putative 'W' Stock),50 Bryde's
continue to be used to refine Jmplememation Sim11latio11 whales (Western North Pacific Stock) and I0 sperm whales
Trials for North Pacific minlcewhales and wasconsequently (Western Division) will be sampled in each year. Random
relevant to their management. sampling will be carriedout and thus the sex and length of
Two further recommendations were made by the the catch cannot be specified.
worksho p: (I) that research be undenaken to find the
breeding grounds, recognising that the most definitive stock Comments and discussiou
structure data will come from such grounds; and (2) that tbe Some questions were raised about the more detailed
age-composition data co llected during JARPN be analysed objectives of the sub-projects. In particular the proponents
futther to provide information for use in conditioning clarified that the overall hypothesis to be tested is:
lmplem emation Simulatio n Trials.
Top predators influence the dynamics of prey species wlheeh are
The Chair of the Scientific Committee reported that the target of commercial fisheries and competition exists topween
Committee had endorsed the workshop recommendations pred:o1ornsndfisheries.
and that some of the matters dealt with at the workshop had
been further considered during the Committee meeting and However, they stressed that thisis intended tobe a feasibility
used in re-specifying trials. Regarding the question on study and that more detailed hypothes es corresponding to
non-lethal research from Resolution 1999-2, the Scientific each compone nt will be developed later. Some members
thought that the proposal was too poorly developed and
Committee referred to all its previous discussions on the narrow to distinguish among the effects of such factors as
subject and noted that there was no consensus. fishing, predation and climate change such as the recent
t3.L2.REVIIl\VOP JARPN IIPROPOSAL 'regime shift'.Others stressed that the ma in purpose of a
The Chair of the Scientific Committee explained that the feasibility studyis to improve methodology, and that from
such a perspective, the proposal is reasonably balanced
major discussion on components of the JARPN II proposal between derailed hypotheses and established methodology
related to the stock identity of minke and Bryde's whales on one side and more open ideas on the other.
took place in the Sub-Commiuee on the RMP, while that
related to pollutants took place in the Standing Working
Group on Environmental concerns. Given the extent of the OBJECTIVES
proposal and the overall workload of the Committee, the The proposal states that tlte ptimary objective of the
programme is broader than the fWC's remit. It considered
Chair explained th at she 11od. encouraged participants to this to be a critically important research need. However it
submit working papers with questions and comments on the identifies some aspects of the programme that address
proposal. These working papers areincluded as an Annex to research needs identified by the Committee, some of which
the Scientific Committee's report.
The Chair drew the Commission's attention tothe fact that are directly relevant to management. These include:
there had been insufficient time to fully discuss each of the (I) elucidation of minke whale structure on whether the
questions or comments made tothe proposersof the proposal hypothesised 'W' stock exists, and mixing rates for 'J'
or to the responses they received. The authors of the and '0' stocks;
questions to the proposers, while appreciative of the effott (2) elucidation of the stock structure of Bryde's whales;
made to answer their poims, indicated that the replies (both (l) and (2) are imponant in the development of
received did not fully satisfy all their concerns even though lmplcmematiou Simulation Trials for those species)
considerable time was spent addressing some of the (3) elucidation of the stock structure of sperm whales - this
questions raised.The pt·oposers indicated at the end of the is relevant to the future Comprehensive Assessment of
discussion that they h~d tried to respond to the qucsllons in that species;
391Annex 60
36 CHAIRMAN'SREPORTOF THE FffTY-SECONDANNUAL MEETING
(4) information relevant to some aspects of the possible caught, from stomach contents and trawls and from lower
effectsof environmental changes on whales (and their trophic levels,ir and seawater. A varietyof chemicals will
prey); be measured ,large lyorganochlorines and heavy metals. The
(5) studies on poJiution; health condition of the animals will beexamined byexternal
(6) information relevant to dte Commi!lee's consideration and internal examination and chemical tests/measures of sex
of marine mammal - fishery interactions; hormones, enzyme induction, immune system etc.
(7) elucidation of the role of cetaceans in the ecosystem. Oceanographic observati ons will be made using XCfD,
Section V of the proposal details the consideration of CTD; EPCS and echo sounders. This and satellite
sample size.
infonnation will be used in the feeding ecology and
environmental studies.
Comments am/ discussion The proposal also considers the question of the use of
There were some concerns expressed that the estimat ion of non-lethal methods. For the feeding ecology project, the
sample sizes was inadequate in certain cases, notably with existing comm ercial data are not appropriate because only
respect to allaspects of the sperm whale component and some qualitative and rough quantitative records are
aspectsof the pollution and stock structure components. In available.
response, the proposers stated that this was intended to be a
feasibility study, particularly in the case of the sperm whale Cam11e111 1Saud discussion
componenL Sample sizes f orsome aspects of the programme There wasconsiderable discussion of methodological issues.
wou ld be modified in the light of the results obtained. These can beroughly grouped under two headings: (1) is the
Some members expressed concern that most of the methodology described likely to meet the programme 's
objectives of the programme did not address questions of objectives; and (2) can the •·esearch be carried out using
high priority for the rational management of the stocks non-lethal methods? After t he initial presentation of the
concerned and would not contribute significantly toresearch proposal, some concerns were expressed that insufficient
needs identified by the Committee - the Bryde's whale methodological detail was given to allow proper evaluation
samples do not relate to ImplementationSimulation Trials. of parts of the proposal. Further details were provided in
They particularly doubted the value of the sperm whale some of the Annexes (see below).
component that they believed would not provide any useful Several members discussed the value of simultaneous
results foranyof the three sub-objectives. In response the prey sampling. As one example of the methodological
proposers stated that for allree objectives the study could problems, some members stressed that the methodology
obtain useful information to formulate a full-scale study does not exi st to sample quantitatively the range of
especiallyof feeding ecology as the sperm whale plays an cepha.lopod species consumed by spenn whales. Given this,
important role in the ecosystem. thy asserted that there was no scientific rationale for the
Some other members stron gly believed that the proposal inclusionof sperm whales in JARPN II. In response, the
does not directly address any of the fie guidelines above. proposers noted that deep-sea squid may be caught using
They recognised that the prim ary objective of the proposal driftnets at night or mid-water trawls for quantitative
that pertained to top predators was scientific in nature,t analysis. There was no time for further discussionof this and
believed that none of the objectives or sub-objectives were no agreement was reached.
necessary for the manageme nt of any of the large whale Some members commented chatwith the sample size and
species being killed. methods proposed, it was unlikely that several of the
Other members drew attenti on to the ambitious nature of ohjectivesof the programme would be met.In particular they
the programme and drew parallels with the feeding ecology believed that the sperm whale component would provide
programme carried out by Norway, which also began with a little information and that atleast should bedropped from the
feasibility study and has now made a valuable contribution proposal. Concem was also expressed that the ecosystem
towards multispecies mode lling and management.They also modelling approach was poorly developed. They also noted
noted the need to determine the impact of cetaceans on fish that the likely precisionf any fisheries information (both
stocks as a matter of some urgency. Thus in addition to the past.ata and future) was poor and that this would be a key
infonnation on North Pacific minke whale stock structure component of any modellingexercise. Given their concerns
relevant to lmplememation Simulation Trials, they believed they believed that the research programme was premature
that itpresented an attempt to address acritically intportant and that ite reconsidered by Japan following the FAO and
research need. IWC workshops on related matters. Until that time at least,
they believed that the study should not proceed.
METI!ODOI..OOY The proposers stated that Japan was willing to review the
Random sampling is tobe employed for stock structure. The resultsof the meetings of FAO and others and incorporate
feeding ecology project will follow the protocols established useful information into JARPN D in order to improve the
in the Norwegian research programme regarding number, programme. However, Japan could not agree with the view
weight and size of prey. There will be concurrent prey that these meetings are a prerequisite for initiating the
surveys conducted in the area using echo integrators, research.
mid-wnter trawls, driftnets and jigs. Prey consumption will Other members stated th at this was a feasibility study and
be measured indirectly (based on standard metabolism) and that one of the aims was to investigate the methodology.
directly (temporal changes in stomach contents per day). They referred to the success of the earlier Norwegian
Prey preference studies will mirror those used in the programme. They elt that the sperm whale component was
Norwegian surveys. important in the context of trophic levels. Although there are
1l1e stock structure sub-project will employ a number of not decades of abundance data for fish (the TAC
genetic and non-genetic techniques (as did JARPN). Final management approach was only adopted in 1997) as is the
case in Norway, there are substantial relat ive abundance
choice of sampling area will depend on whether permission
is obtained to enter the Russian EEZ. Pollutant studies will data.Several Japanese Fisheries Agency research cr uises
be carried out by examining samples from each whale would also becooperating and providing abundance data for
392 Annex 60
ANNUALREPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2000 37
several fish species. Model development is at an early stage, developed over a number of years, and noted that this remark
but they believed that the combination of ECOSJM and was also made in the Scientific Committee. Italy furU1er
MULTSPEC had the potential to address fundamentally mentioned that three of itsscientists (experts inpollution and
important questions and the approach would be developed biopsy work) had developed a working paper that was not
on a srep-by-step basis. Allpects of the programme would discussed, but tabl ed alongside a response from the
improve as dara became available. Government of Japan, and it questioned why non-lethal
With respect to the use of non-lethal means, some approaches were not properly discussed. The Commission
members believed that insufficienl use had been made of has repeatedly advocated such approaches, and once again,
presently existing samples and data, noting, for example the Japan has refused to acknowledge their usefulness.
suitability of frozen samples for genetic analysis. They also The Netherlands commented, as they had on previous
noted that techniques now existed to address many questions occasions. that in itsview, the grantingSpecial Permits for
related to feeding, stock strucrure and pollution through research involving the killiof cetaceans should be Jjmited
biopsy samples and such techniques were rapidly evolving. to exceptional circumstances where the research addresses
Other members noted that detailed infonnation on tl1ese critically important research needs for the management of
items can not be obtained fmm biopsy samples. They also whaling, and where alternative sources of data are nol
commented on the difficulties in obtaining biopsy samples available and non-lethal research mctl1odscannot be useIt
and OlliSthe need for lethal sampling. There was no rime for regretted that in spite of various IWC Resolutions affilming
further discussion of this item, and, as in previous that the current lethal research programmes of Japan do nol
discussions within theCommiuee on this,no consensus was address critically important research needs, Japan continues
reached. to grant pem1its under these programmes and to allow the
meat and other products of the catch ro be traded
BFFilCTOFCATCHESONTHESTOCK commercially. The Netherlands added that it is particularly
The effect of catches on the stock was assessed using the concerned about the proposed extension of the North Pacific
research programme by an annual catch of 50 Bryde's
standard J·I[TTER method and a variety of stock structure whales and I0 sperm whales. This would be the ftrsl time
hypotheses based on the results of t.heJARPN surveys and
assuming a catch of 100 minke whales. From the results of that these species were hunted since the moratorium took
HITTER calculation, the proponents concluded that the effect in1986, and will be widely regarded by the outside
effect on the minke whale stock is negligible. world as a n ew threat to these depleted species. The
Netherlands added that it also has misgivings about the
The 50 Bryde's whales will be sampled from the western scientific merits of rhe proposed JARPN II. Firstly it
Nonh Pacific Stock.It is unlikely that Bryde's whales from
other stocks wjll be taken. Two stock scenarios were used: considers it highly unlikely that the objectives will be
whole area and sub-area I according to the recent achieved with the programme size and methodology
Implementation Simulation Trials. From the results of the proposed - paniculnrly for the Bryde's whale and spe1m
HITIE R calculation, the proponents concluded that effect whale components. Secondly, The Netherlands considers
that the pollution component will not allow adequate
on the Bryde's. whale stock is negligible. monitoring of pollution u·cnds for temporal or spatial
Sperm whales will be sampled from the Western Division .
While no calculati on was made for the sperm whales, the variation, andso will not contribute to the overall objective
sample size is so small that the proponents believed it was of ecosystem monitoring.
clearly below the critical level to affect the stock. Monaco associated itself with Italy and with the
Netherlands. In addition, Monaco,referring to papers tabled
but not discussed by the Scientific Committee, commented
Comment and discussion
Some members commented that the values chosen for the thatit has serious doubts about theinternal procedures of the
HITTER method for the minke whale case were insufficient Commiuee as far as allowing flow of information during its
meetings and asked its Chair to comment on the basis for the
to adequately addness the effect of the catches on the stock. decisions she must have made.
TI1ey also questioned the criterion used to define The 01air responded that there was no censoring of
'negligible.' Other members believed that the approach papers, and certainly no censoring of discussions on the
taken used the best data available and the conclusion was
valid. TheComm ittee noted that the calculations were based lethaversus Olenon-letl1alissue, which has been discussed
on the assumption that catches continue for only two many times by the Commiuee.
New Zealand associated itself with the comments of Italy,
years. the Netherlands and Monaco and remarked on the use by
Japan of comments taken our of context to provide a
RESEARCHCOOPERAT ION
The proposal stated that participation of foreign scientists, misleading impression of the view of the Scientiftc
Commiuee . In stressing its concems about the JARPN II
especially those from neighbouring countries, is welcome, proposal, New Zealand focused on three aspects. FirsOy,that
insofar ns their qualifications meet the requirements set by the primary objective of JARPN II is more concerned with
the Government of Japan. These requirements are the same feeding ecology than witlt managemen t issues of vital
as those for JARPN.
importance in the Comprehens i ve Assessment. Secondly,
historicalsamples from previous commercial whaling
Comments and discussion operationsarenot being used inJARPN II allegedly because
As it had fo•· JARPN, the Committee agreed that this fresh samples are used (although historical frozen samples
guideline had been met. have been used successfully by a Swedish scientist). And
thirdly, non-lethal samplingf Bryde's and minke whales
/3./.3 Commissinu discussions may provide the best infonnation on stock structure. New
ln the Commi~s n,ioiscussions focused on the JARPN 1.1 Zealand therefore strongly urged Japatotake account of all
proposal. Italy commemed that JARPN II had no comments made by the Sciemific Committee mtd the
relationship 10 1he IWC Pollution 2000+ that has been opposition expresstd by Commissioners and U1c public
393Annex 60
38 CHAIRMAN'SREPORT OF THE FIFTY-SECOND ANNUALMEETING
around the world, to reconsider the JARPN I! proposal and enforcement, pollution, global warming, etc. The UK had
to withdraw all clements of lethal research from the political as well as scientificconcerns over !he proposal, and
programme. with other counnies had raised these with the Japanese
Norway recalled that similar comments had been made in
government. It noted that most members of the IWC are
1988 wl1enNorway presented similar plans for a feasibility oppose d to whaling under Special Permit, and considered
study of the feeding ecology of minke whales in the Barents that only in exceptional circumstances can scientific
Sea and the North Atlan tic, and then three years later researchjustify the killing of whales; studying cetacean-prey
submitted plans for a full-sca le 3 year research programme. interactions is not such an exception. The UK believed that
On both occasions Norway was criticised (the plans were including Bryde 's and sperm whales represented a major
immature, there was a lack of methodology, etc.), but 13
extens ion of pelagic factory ship whaling. It believed that if
years later, the criticisms have been proved wrong. The commercia l factory ship whaling ever resumed,
research is not yet fmished, but Norway reponed that in management would not be able to withstand commercial
collaboration with Iceland, valuable contributions are being pressures to maintain returns on investment. 1l1e UK was
made to multi-species modelling and management of fish concerned that the proposal represented notjllst a feasibility
stocks and marine mammals in the North Atlantic, and are of
study for a research programme, but alsoa feasibility study
great interest to fishery scientists. Norway thought it for the resumption of full-scale pelagic whaling. It hoped
important that another country with extensive research these particular concerns were unfounded and that Japan
facilities such as Japan enter this important field, and it would decide not to proceed with JARPN II.
looked forward to close cooperation with Jap an.Itfelt sure The USA expressed its grave concerns about the JARPN
that Norway and Japan would supply the world with H proposal and the future direction this implied. It took
critically important research needs for the future
major exception to the proposed expansion of lethal
management of marine living resources. scientific whaling to Bryde's and sperm whales, and
The People's Republic of China, speaking as a coastal continues to have serious concems about the minke whale
country in the area of the North Pacific Ocean, referred again component that it believes is not providing useful
to its concern regarding competition between cetaceans and infmmation to the Scientific Committee. The USA noted
fisheries, and supported the Japanese proposal. S tLucia that the distribution of whale products on the nnarket in Japan
referred to the right 11nder the Convention for Japan to maintains consumer demand.
petfonn this research, noted the concern of FAO regarding Australia strongly endorsed the comments of the UK and
declining fish catches and St Lucia 's concern with food USA and spoke about recent developments in international
security, and also supporte d Japan's proposals. aw that raise the possibi lity that Japan might not be acting
In response to the critici sms it received, Japan commented within its legal rights when issuing scientific pern1its. These
that ithad provided information on why the use of non-lethal
reservations are based on the proposition that rhe rights set
methods alone would not meet the programm e's objectives, out in Article VIT Iare not unfettered and that they are
and referred to poor success rates for biopsy sampling of qualified by-tl1ewell-recognised international legal trine
Bryde's whales in the North Pacific. Higher success rates known as abusive rig~Austr relortad that this doctrine
would be expected with humpback whales since they tend to has been ad.opted-bytfie 1982 Convention on Law of the Sea,
move more slowly. Referring to the analysis of historical quoted a number of cases where it had been referred to by
samples, Japan noted that it had supplied Sweden with the international courts and mentioned a recent decision
samples,appreciated that it could be analysed, butadded that involving this concept) by WTO's appellate body on the
in theew proposal. sampling would be done within the EEZ shrimp-turtle case. Monaco and Sweden also expressed
of Japan for which historical samples are not available. ooncem about the Japanese proposal and expansion to other
Regarding comments that responses to questions raised species.
about the JARPN II propo sal were inadequate and that Norway did not support the Resolution and considered it
insufficient time had been spent on the issue, Japan noted inappropriate under the Convention.
that the Scientific Committee had spent nine hours Japan considered that countries against the proposal may
discussing the proposal. Finally , Japan as an archipelago not understand it sufficiently to refute its scientific premise;
island country, referred to its dependence on fish and it believed that this type of research is needed to manage
cetaceans, its concerns for food security and that itwanted to stocks sustainably.It also recalled that Article VIII states
be able to continue to benefit from the ocean. that whales taken under special permits shall be processed. It
noted that many countries were promoting non-lethal
13.1.4 Action arising research and invited them to develop and implement such
The Commission noted tl1e report of the Scientific programmes themselves. It fmther believed that the
moratOtium and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were without
Committee . scientific bsis and thus are in contravention of the
Convention and that the targets of any criticism should be
RESOLUTIONON WHALING UNDERSPECIAL l'llRMIT INTil E NORTH those countries that are putting such propos1:1lsin placTf
PACmCOCEAN any countries wanted to take up matters legally, then they
The UK introduced a Resolution on behalf of the other should do so. Japan has considerab le experience in dealing
co-sponsors (Australia, Austria, Brazil. Germany, Italy, with legal issues.
Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the USA), Antigua and Barbuda congratulated Japan on its detailed
strongly urging Japan to refrain from issuing Special Pern1its explanation of its research plans. As a coastal state, Antigua
for whaling in the North Pacific Ocean under JARPN TI. It and Barbuda considered itself a vanguard with regard to the
associated itself with others who had expressed serious Law of the Sea Convention, and that it is committed to
concerns about the proposal. It considered that the impact of upholding the provisions of that Convention in which the
whales on fisheries was negligible compared to the undertaking of marine research is one of the most imponant
numerous human-induced problems including increased pillars. Antigua and Barbudaspoke about the way in which
it believes the Scientific Committee to be restricted (e.g. in
fishing ffmt and overfishing. improved technology, poor
394 Annex 61
61. Chair’s Report of the 53rdAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2001, pp. 5, 29
ANNUALREPORTOF THE INTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION2001 5
Chair's Report of the 53rdAnnual Meeting
1. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS work, wished all participants a productive and successful
meeting, and expressed the hope that the efforts of
1.1 Date and place
The 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling delegations would be dedicated to the completion of IWC
objectives.
Commission (IWC) took place from 23-27 July 2001 at the Iceland described the reasons behind its withdrawal from
Novotel London West, Hammersmith International Centre, IWC in 1992 and the reasons for its re-adherence to the
London, under the Chairmanship of Prof. Bo Fernholm
(Sweden). A list of delegates and observers attending the Convention on 8 June 2001. It had withdrawn since it
meeting is provided as Annex A. believed that IWC was no longer operating in accordance
with the Convention and had become a non-whaling
commission rather than a whaling commission . However,
1.2 Welcome address
Mr Elliot Morley MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Iceland considered that there are now signs that support is
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs increasing within IWC for sustainable whaling in some form
and had therefore decided to become a member so as to have
welcomed all delegations and participants to the3rdAnnual an influence on the discussions taking place. Iceland also
Meeting of IWC on behalf of the Government of the United
Kingdom. noted that since its withdrawal, a number of countries, both
Mr Morley thanked the Scientific Committee and the for and against sustainable commercial whaling, had urged it
to rejoin. In viewof this encouragement, it was disturbed by
Commission sub-groups whose hard work had paved the the reactions of some Contracting Governments to its
way for the plenary meeting.He noted the many contentious instrument of adherence. Iceland considered that it had made
and high profile issues to be discussed, but stressed that it
would be essential for countrieso put differences aside and use of the right it has under international law to adhere with
a reservation, and that there is no legal basis for rejecting
to work together if progress was to be made. He wished the It considered it outside the competence of IWC to take a
delegates and participants well and hoped that consensus and decision on Iceland's reservation by voting on it, and that it
constructive solutions on these vital issues could be reached
during the course of the meeting. is up to individual Contracting Governments to accept or
oppose the reservation unilaterally as had already been done
by several St~te and, as was done with respect to
1.3 Opening statements - reservations to the Convention lodged previously by
The Chair welcomed new members to the IWC. Before
inviting them to address the meeting,e made the following Argentina, Chile, Peru and Ecuador. Iceland also had no
short statement concerning the adherence by Iceland to the doubt that its reservation with respect to paragraph0 (e)of
the Schedule is fully compatible with the object and purpose
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling of the Convention. It further noted that international
(ICRW): relations are based on the ruleof law and that it could not
'Iceland's recent deposition of an instrument of adherence to the
lntemationalonvention for the Regulatof Whaling ie;~.pressly believe that countries present would sidestep this principal
conditioned on a reservation to the commercial whaling moratoriumour of political objectives. Finally, Iceland reported that it
found in paragmplz 10 (e) of the Convention Schedule. Unril thehad rejoined IWC in good faith with a finn commitment to
work constructively towards achievement of the objectives
participation of Iceland in the IWC does not prejudice tlzepositions
of the Convention and pledged to co-operate with other
of individual members of tire Commi011this matter.' Contracting Governments that have undertaken to do the
Morocco, which had adhered to the Convention on 12 same by participating .in the work of this important
organisation. ·
February 2001, informed the meeting that it had joined IWC
so that it could contribute to establishing a sustainable Panama, which rejoined IWC on 12 June 2001, reported
management policy for marine resources. It noted it that it is that its Government's policy is to participate in all
convinced of the principle of sustainable development and international and regional fisheries organisations to promote
rational utilisation natural resources in compliance with the interestsf its people and to contribute to the responsible
relevant international conventions and arrangements management and conservation of all living marine resources.
adopted by the international community. While Panama explained that it is active in other intergovernmental
acknowledging IWC's work to conserve and protect whales, fisheries organisations such asA0 2,ICCAT 3,IATI~ and
Morocco urged the Commission tocomplete and incorporate OLDEPESCA 5 where it has supported the principle of
sustainable use based on sound science and in harmony with
the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) into the Schedule.
It noted the importance of science in IWC's work and urged the marine ecosystem. Panama noted that fisheries are an
it to explore partnership possibilities, particularly with FAO, important source of employment and revenue as well as an
regarding development of a sustainable whaling essential component of its food security. It therefore hoped
that during the53rdAnnual Meeting, common ground could
management system. Morocco's view on non-commercial
whaling activities not having a significant effectn whale be found and that IWC could move closer to adoption of the
stocks was that they should be considered according to their RMS. Panama considered that, as with other marine
scientific, cultural and fmancial impact within each specific resources, whales would benefit from a responsible and
reasonable management scheme and that if this could be
context. Finally, Morocco thanked the Secretariat for its
1
Iceland's instrument of adherence stated that Iceland 'adheres toUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.
aforesaid Convemion and Protocol with a resen•ation with respect4tInternational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna.
pamgraph JO(e) of rhe Schedule to the Convention. The resen•arion Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
forms an imegral partf this instrument of adherence.' 5 Latin American Organisation for Fisheries Development.
395Annex 61
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2001 29
be examined and abundance estimates agreed before specific LEGAL ASPECTS
advice on the effect of JARPA on Antarctic minke whale Japan introduced two documents it had submitted to the
stocks can be provided. Commission refuting Australia's comment at the sznd
Annual Meeting that recent developments in international
11.1.2Reviewof resultsfrom existingpermits law raised the possibility that Japan might not be acting
The Scientific Committee received a number of documents within its legal rights when issuing scientific permits. Japan
detailing results from the JARPA and JARPNII programs. noted the assertion that the issuance special permits would
Results were considered under relevant agenda items. constitute an abuse of rights if the following two criteria
applied:(1) that the research programme made no significant
11.1.3Reviewof newor revisedproposals scientific contribution; and (2) that the work was
Much discussion at the 2000 meeting had centred on a implemented for commercial rather than scientific reasons.It
proposal for a new programme (JARPN II) that involves considered that these two criteria are not satisfied, that there
taking 100 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales and was no basis for any allegationf abuse of rights, and that its
10 sperm whales each ye~. 0 The stated goal was to obtain research programme is fully consistent with the
infom1ation to contribute to the conservation and sustainable requirements of Article VIII of the Convention.
use of marine living resources in the western North Pacific. In response, Australia noted that Japan had just
It includes sub-projects on: feeding ecology; stock structure; demonstrated its own remark last year, i.. that it is possible
and environmental effects on cetaceans and the marine to get different legal opinions. Australia reported that the
ecosystem. There had been considerable disagreement legal opinion to which it referred last year has since been
within the Committee over most aspects of this research published in an internationally peer-reviewed journal ~ the
programme , including objectives, methodology, sample Asia/Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, and suggested
sizes, likelihoodof success, effect on stocks and the amount that Japan might wish to consider submitting its own
and quality of data that could be obtained using non-lethal documents to similar scrutiny.
research techniques. This year, the Committee received
preliminary results from the first yearf the programme and 11.3 Action arising
again there was considerable disagreement over the value of The Commission noted the report from the Scientific
the programme. Committee and accepted its recommendations.
The Committee also briefly considered the continuing
programme on Antarctic minke whales that was last RESOLUTION ON SCIENTIFIC WHALING
extensively reviewed in 1997 31.Discussions on how best to Ireland recalled that at the Annual Meeting in Monaco in
assess the effectsof scientific permit catches on stocks are 1997, it had put forward a packageof proposals that included
continuing. the phasing-out of scientific research whaling, but that until
Recognising that scientific benefits are only one several now, it had not putforward any further concrete proposals on
criteria given by the Commission to evaluate proposals, the this particular issue. While recognising the rightsf Parties
Scientific Committee has established an intersessional under the Convention to issue Special Permits, the draft
steering group to: generate a list of approaches potentially Resolution (co-sponsored by Spain, South Africa,
useful for quantifying the scientific benefit of research Switzerland and Oman) proposed that a voluntary code of
catches and the features of a proposal needed for such practice be adopted under which countries would agree to
analyses. only issue such permits under certain defined circumstances.
Ireland indicated that the purpose of submitting the
Resolution was to stimulate discussion, but that since
11.2 Commission discussions insufficient time was available to do this at this meeting, it
SCIENTIFIC COMMI'fTEE REPORT would withdraw the Resolution but return to it IWC/54. It
There were no comments on the report from the Scientific
added that it had already had useful discussions with some
Committee. countries outside the meeting, and that it would welcome the
opportunity to develop its ideas further.
JARPN II- PRESENTATION BY JAPAN
Japan reported the results from the first year of its two-year
RESOLUTION ONSOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES AND
(2000/2001) feasibility study ~ JARPN II under special SPECIAL PERMIT WHALING
permit. It reminded the Commission that JARRPN II had 3 Due to time constraints, the Chair ruled that the Resolution
main objectives: (1) to study the feeding ecology and
ecosystem of common minke, Bryde's and sperm whales by on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales and Special Permit
Whaling, sponsored by New Zealand, Australia, Austria,
investigating prey consumption, prey preference and by Brazil, Germany, Mexico, UK, and Argentina proceed
ecosystem modelling using these data; (2) to study the stock directly to a vote, noting that it was similar to others adopted
structure of these whale species; and (3) to study
environmental effects, particularly pollution, on cetaceans. in the past. The Resolution received 21 votes in favour, 14
against, with 1 abstention and was therefore adopted
Japan drew attention to possible competition between the (Resolution 2001-7, Annex C). Iceland noted that it did not
three whale species and commercial fisheries. In support the Resolution.
summarising the 2000 data, it noted that:(1)the first attempt
at prey consumption/prey preference had been completed In brief, the Resolution: (1) commends the Scientific
Committee's proposal to complete its review of minke whale
successfully , although some adjustments were required: (2) abundance in the Southern Hemisphere; (2) endorses the
that interesting but preliminary results had been obtained Scientific Committee's proposal to present revised
from the ecosystem modelling work; and (3) that work on
stock structure and environmental effects is continuing. abundance estimates and trends on Southern Hemisphere
minke whales at its2003 meeting; (3) requests the Scientific
Committee to provide tothe Commission at IWC/54, (a) a
30 listof plausible hypotheses that explain the apparent
31See J. Cet. Res. Manage. 3 (Suppl.): 6!-5.
See Rep.itrtWhat. Commn 48: 95-105. population decline, and (b) the possible implicationof such
396 Annex 62
62. Chair’s Report of the 54th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2002, pp. 5, 31-32
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2002 5
Chair's Report of the 54th Annual Meeting
1. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS the Scientific Committee and the Commission's other sub
groups could be heard. He noted that resolution of the
1.1 Date and place whaling issue is not easy, but believed that a sensible
The 54th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling solution could be found ifall participants could express
their views in a rational manner based on objective and
Commission (IWC) took place from 20-24 May 2002 at the
Kaikyo Messe Conference Centre in Shimonoseki, Japan scientific data.
under the Chairmanship of Prof. Bo Femholm (Sweden). A Finally, Mr Kiyoshi Ejima, Mayor of Shimonoseki
list of delegates and observers attending the meeting is thanke~ participants for coming to Shimonoseki,
provided in Annex A. recognised the hard work and lively discussions that would
be taking place during the meeting, but encouraged
The associated meetingsof the Scientific Committee and evetyone to take time to enjoy Shimonoseki's beautiful
Commission sub-groups were held at the same venue in the
period 24 Aprilo 19 May 2002. surroundings. He wished the meeting success.
1.2 Welcome addresses 1.3 Opening statements, credentials and discussions on
the status oflceland's adherence
Mr Tsutomu Takebe, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and 1.3.1 Status of Iceland 's adherence and credentials
Fisheries welcomed all delegations and participants to the
54th Annual Meeting of IWC on behalf of the Government The Chair welcomed new members to the IWC, i.e., San
of Japan. Referring to Japan's 5,000-year tradition of Marino (adhered on 16 April 2002), Benin (adhered on 26
utilising whales, he noted the significance of holding the April 2002), Gabon and the Republic of Palau (adhered on
8 May 2002), Portugal (adhered on 14 May 2002) and
54th Annual Meeting in Shimonoseki, where Japan's Mongolia (adhered on 16 May 2002). He invited them to
modem whaling originated. Recognising the polarised gi~ eriefopen~ nttements. However, before proceeding
views among IWC member countries regarding the
utilisatn of whale stocks, he explained that Japan's policy wtth these, Anttgua& Barbuda questioned why Iceland had
on whaling and whale resources was to make sustainable not been.in~lud ie dhe list of new members. In response,
use of robust and healthy whale stocks without adversely the Chair mformed the Commission that Iceland had
deposited an instrument of adherence together with a
affecting them, while protecting depleted and endangered reservation and accompanying declaration on 14 May2002
stocks. Referring to the view of some that whales should
not be taken under any circumstances, even from abundant and that the depository government was informing
stocks,r Takebe stated his belief that protection measures Contracting Governments accordingly. He recalled the
alone would not maintain the balance of nature. In this decisions taken by the Cotrunission at its 53rd Annual
respect, he noted the rapid recoverymany whales stocks Meeting in London last year regarding Iceland's instrument
of adherence deposited on 8 June 2001 that included a
since implementation of the moratorium and referred to reservation to Schedule paragraph lO(e) concerning the
estimates on the amount of living marine resources 1
consumed by cetaceans, the agreement by AO that studies moratorium on commercial whaling. He reminded the
should be conducted on the competition between whales Conunission that it had discussed this matter in detail in
and fisheries and the objectives of Japan's whale research London and that the Commission had decided, with some
difficulty, that: (1) IWC has the competence to determine
programme. He hoped that at this meeting, Contracting the legal status of Iceland's reservation; (2) the
Governments would not make exceptions of cetaceans but
would regard them in the same lights other living marine Commission does not accept Iceland's reservation; and (3)
resources so that progress could be made toward the basic Iceland was invited to assist as an observer. The Chair
principle of the sustainable use of whales based on science explained that since Iceland's new instrument adherence
and in compliance with the International Convention for the contained the same reservation, but with an additional
declaration, he believed that the position remains governed
Regulation of Whaling. He looked forward to a fruitful and by last year's decisions. As Chair he felt bound by last
constructive meeting.
Mr Uetake, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs also year's decisions unless and until the Corrunission decides
":elcomed participants. He recalled that since becoming a otherwise.
stgnatory to the Convention in 1951, Japan, as a Iceland stated that if it is considered that its reservation
and thereby adherence was rejected in London and
responsible user of the resources, has supported the main therefore not in effect, then the new instrument of
ObJectand putpose of the Convention, i.e. the preservation
and sustainable useof the world's large whales. He noted adherence deposited on 14 May 2002 must be regarded as a
that it is Japan's belief that, like other living marine fully valid new instrumentf adherence. Iceland noted that
creatures, the whale is a precious resource for human the Convention is very clear on what happens when a
beings. He considered, however, that some countries have government deposits an instrument of adherence with the
depository, i.e. (1) the USA as depository informs all other
not understood this belief, leadingo intense arguments at Contracting Governments; and (2) according to Article X.4,
Annual IWC Meetings. He again expected heated
arguments on many issues (e.g. on theRMS, the necessity the Convention 'enters into force with respect to each
to conduct research under scientific permit the renewal of Government which subsequently ratifies or adheres on the
aboriginal subsistence whaling catch lim{ts, the need to date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or the
receipt of its notification of adherence '. Further noting that
establish sanctuaries and the socio-economic importance of
small-type whaling for Japan) but hoped that rational and
constructive discussions based on the recommendations of 1See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm 2001: 6-8.
397Annex 62
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2002 31
toothedwhalestocksin this Sanctuary...') that there is no Committee Chair also made a request to this effect. She
scientific basis for the existing sanctuaries. Japan notedthat the draftResolutionincludedboth scientificand
consideredthat for sanctuariesor Marine ProtectedAreas non-scientific issues and considered that the Scientific
to serve a useful conservation purpose they should be Committee could help sort these out and bring back its
defined according to ecologicallyappropriateboundaries, recommendations to the Commission next year. She
applyto speciessubjectto utilisationand managementand believed that this would help to clarify whether the
that their duration should reflect conservation needIt Commission does or does not want the Committee to
further considered that conservation measures totally consider issues on which it cannot reach consensus (in
prohibitingthe use of abundantresourcesover large areas which case itwould probably stop the considerationof
isagainsttheprinciplesof sustainableutilisationand in the sanctuaries)or whetherit wants the Corrunitteeto give the
caseof IWCwhalesanctuaries,an unnecessaryduplication best advice it can, which will sometimes not be by
of the current commercial whaling moratorium. Japan consensus. However,the sponsorsof the draftResolution
notedthat oncethe moratoriumis lifted,whalingwouldbe did not agree to simply submit it to the Scientific
managedunder the RMS with catch limits being set only Committee, and after some revisionto clarifYthe text and
for abundant stocks. In Japan's view, this would provide with the addition of France and Argentina as further co
adequatesafetymeasures. sponsors, the draft Resolution was put to a vote and
Norwaysupported the ScientificCommittee's proposal adopted(Resolution2002-1,see AnnexF). Therewere 24
to developmore precise criteria for reviewingsanctuaries votesinfavour, 19againstandoneabstention.
and agreed that the review of the Southern Ocean A numberof countriescommentedafterthe vote.Japan
Sanctuarywouldbenefitif the Committeeinitiateditswork requestedthat only responsibleResolutionsbe passedand
nextyear.Denmarkalsowelcomedthe workandproposals indicatedthat its scientists might not take part in further
fromtheScientificCommittee. work on this issue. Norway indicatedthat it voted against
Referringto the Conunission's Instructionsagreed last the Resolutionnot because it disagreedwith the operative
year,Mexiconotedthatthe Committeehad beenunable to paragraphs,but becauseit consideredthe Resolutionto be
reach consensus on advice on whether the Indian Ocean an expressionofno confidencein the ScientificConunittee
Sanctuary is consistent with the precautionary approach. and particularly the CommitteeChair who had expressly
For this reason, Mexico along with Australia, Austria, requested that the draft Resolution be submitted to the
Ireland, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Scientific Committeefor further consideration.Morocco,
South Africa, Sweden, Brazil and Portugal, believed that St.Vincentand The Grenadines,Dominicaand Antigua&
the Commissionshouldmake a decision and give further Barbuda made similar remarks. St. Vincent and The
guidance on the sanctuary review process. They had Grenadines called on the Scientific Committee and its
therefore submitted a draft Resolution to this effect. In Chair to resign in protest at the apparent lack of respect
introducingthis, Mexicoexplainedthat a series of criteria shown by the proposers of the Resolution, a comment
shouldbe taken into accountwhen reviewinga sanctuary. echoed by Antigua & Barbuda. Denmark re-iterated its
These should include not only scientific data from the earliercommentthattheResolutionwaspremature.Mexico
sanctuaryunder review (whichmay be limited), but other did not agree that the Resolution was a vote of no
issuesconsistentwith the establishmentof the sanctuaries confidence in the Chair. ClarifYing the precautionary
themselves. Mexico noted that as sanctuaries are principle (Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration),
establishedas part of an overall management scheme, a Australianoted that it is a matter of policy not of science
temporary overlap of management measures should not and felt it appropriate that the Commission provide
automatically invalidate the longer term scientific and guidance to the Scientific Committee on the accepted
conservationvalue givento a sanctuary. It also considered internationalpolicynprecaution.
that if consensus is not possible within the Scientific In respondingto St. Vincent and The Grenadinesand
Committeeon a sanctuary review, then the Commission Antigua & Barbuda, the Scientific Committee Chair
should decide that the precautionary approach should admittedthat she was temptedto resign. While having no
prevail.Brazil, the USA, India, Monaco and Oman spoke problem with the first operative paragraph of the
insupportof thedraftResolution.
Resolution,in her view she felt that the second operative
Switzerland found it disturbing that Scientific paragraph read as though it was telling the Scientific
Committee had found it almost impossible to reach Committeethat it could not consider certain things. She
consensuseventhough it had been given clearinstructions consideredthisa dangerousprecedent.
by the Commission. Monacomade a similar remark. The 10.1.2ReviewoftheIndianOceanSanctuary
CommitteeChair explainedthat the difficulties were not REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
dueto lack of clarityin the Commission'sinstructions,but
An intersessionalworkinggrouphaddevelopedaproposed
due to valid scientific disagreements as to whether this framework to carry out the review in the light of the
particularsanctuarydidor didnotdoparticularthings. instructionsdevelopedby the Commissionlast year. The
Denmark and Antigua & Barbuda thought the draft Committee's discussions of sanctuaries in the past have
Resolution was premature. Antigua & Barbuda also beensomewhatinconclusive,with attentionbeingdrawnto
considered that some of the text circumvented previous a number of general arguments both in favour of and
Commission decisions whereby sanctuaries should·be against sanctuaryproposals. The discussionof the Indian
science-based.Norwayconsideredthatthe draftResolution·
Ocean Sanctuary followed a similar pattern. On most
contained valuable comments on the precautionary issues, there were three groups of views and this is
principle, but felt that rather than being adopted by the reflected in the report. The Committeenoted that lack of
Commission, the text should be submitted to the consensus in evaluating the scientific aspects of this
appropriateScientificCommitteeworkinggroupwhocould Sanctuary was not surprising considering that the
consider it and report back next year. The Scientific sanctuary's original proposal did not clearly state its
398 Annex 62
32 CHAIR'S REPORTOFTHEFJFTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING
scientificobjectives.Giventhis,it is extremelydifficulttowhales,Kenyaalsostressedthe importanceof tourismand
evaluatewhetherthesanctuaryhad achievedits objectives. thereforeits ecosystemto its economy. It notedthatit was
It stressed that the review process would benefit from the first countryin Africa to establisha marinesanctuary
explicitly stated objectives in Sanctuary proposals. andthatitspolicyhasbeenforthenon-consumptiveuseof
However,while there was little consensusin the overall wildlife- apolicythathadserveditwellinbothitscultural
and economic development. For this reason, Kenya
evaluation of the Sanctuary, a considerableamount of
substantive advice and infonnation was provided on a stronglysupportedtheIndianOceanandothersanctuaries.
numberofsanctuary-relatedscientificissues. Kenyaprovidedinfonnationon the degreeof supportfor
At theendofherreport,the ScientificConm1itteeChair thesanctuaryfromotherrangestatesnot membersof IWC.
respondedto commentsmade earlier that the Committee It reported that in December 2001, the Nairobi UNEP
should have reached consensus.She noted that it is not Convention for the Protection, Management and
unusualfor a Committeeofover 150scientiststo notreach DevelopmentoftheMarineandCoastalEnvironmentin the
consensusovera contentiousissue; iftheCommissiondoes East African Region reaffirmed the need to retain the
not wishto receivedifferentviews,thenitshouldnot ask sanctuary. Signatories to this Convention are France
theScientificCommitteetocomment. (Reunion), Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique ,
Seychelles,Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania as well as
COMMISSIONDISCUSSIONSANDACTIONARISING Kenya. Italsoreportedthatthe IndianOceanCommission ,
INCLUDINGAPROPOSALTO AMENDTHE SCHEDULE
Commentingonthewayin whichtheScientificCommittee that includesmany of the same membersas the Nairobi
perfonned the review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, Convention,declaredits support as indicatedby a letter
Monaco consideredthat it was strange to split into sub from that Commission to the IWC Chair (Document
groupsandnot thebestwaytoair scientificviews.Iturged IWC/54/18).Kenyafurthernotedthat:
the Commissionto engage in a review of the mode of
(l) thesanctuaryhadalreadybeenlookedattwicebyIWC
functioningof the ScientificCommittee,suggesting that andoneachoccasiontherewasnoconsensus;
this couldbe doneby the AdvisoryCommitteewho could (2) no countryfiled an objectionto Scheduleparagraph
reportto the Commissionat next year's meeting.Sweden 7.(a);and
supportedtheseviews.NewZealandhowevercommended (3) no whalinghas taken place in the sanctuarysince it
the efforts of the ScientificCommitteeto deal with the
wasdeclared.
sanctuaryreviewusinganovelapproach. It wasthereforeKenya'ssincerehopethatthe IWCwould
Japanintroducedits documentlWC/54/8 - a 'Reviewof respecttheviewsof therangestatesandreaffirmthestatus
the ScientificAspectsof the Indian OceanSanctuary'.The
documentgave some backgroundto the establishmentof oftheIndianOceanSanctuary.
the Indian Ocean Sanctuary and then reviewed the A number of countries including Monaco, Australia,
sanctuary following the instructions agreed by the India, Gennany, France, UK, New Zealand,Ireland and
Finlandnotedthe importanceof takingtheviewsof range
Commissionlast year. From its review, Japan concluded statesintoconsiderationand supportedcontinuationof the
thatthe sanctuaryis maderedundantby themoratoriumon Indian Ocean Sanctuary. The USA reported that the
commercialwhalingandunnecessaryby theRMP,bothof
which were adopted after the sanctuary. It further fonnation of the sanctuaryhad promptedtwo significant
consideredthatthesanctuary: cetacean surveys by its scientists, one in the western
tropicalIndianOceanin 1990,andanotherat a laterdatein
(1) is an inappropriatemanagementstrategythatdoesnot the EEZ of the Republicof the Maldives.It continuedto
provideadditionalornecessaryprotectiontowhales; support the sanctuary. The UK commented that the
(2) doesnotimproveprotectionofthewhalehabitat;
(3) doesnotaddressotheranthropogenicor environmental precautionaryprinciple has become well established in
fisheriesmanagement,and that someof theproblemsthat
factors; exist in the world's fisheries exist because it was not
(4) impedestheconductofscientificresearch; appliedmuchearlier.
(5) is inconsistentwiththeprecautionaryapproach;and Denmarkproposedthe strengtheningof researchin the
(6) doesnot meet the requirementof the Conventionthat IndianOcean Sanctuaryand suggestedthat the Scientific
regulationsbebasedonscientificfindings.
Committeebe invited to assess impactsin the sanctuary
Forthesereasons,JapanproposedthatScheduleparagraph from other human activities such as fishing, seismic
7(a) be deleted, thus abolishing the Indian Ocean surveys, oil and gas exploitation and whalewatching.
Sanctuary. Denmarkconsideredit importantthat sanctuariesaddress
Dominicaand Antigua & Barbudaconsideredthat the therelationshipofa sanctuarywithotherexistingmeasures
IndianOceanSanctuaryhadoutliveditsusefulness. to protectwhalesand theirhabitatfrom all anthropogenic
Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, Monaco and New Zealand factors.
viewedIWC/54/8asmoreofa politicalpositionpaperthan Notingthe differentviewsexpressedandthattherewas
a scientific review and called for the sanctuary to be noconsensusto abolishtheIndianOceanSanctuary,Japan
retained.Omanconsideredthattherewasinsufficientbasis withdrew its proposed Schedule amendment.However,
toremove the sanctuarygiventhelackof consensuswithu1 Japan drew attention to the declining condition of the
the ScientificCommittee.Irelandalso advocatedretention bigeyetunastockintheIndianOceanthatisnowat40%of
of the sanctuaryin the absenceof scientificadviceto the its sustainablelevelandcausingconcernwithinthe Indian
contrary. OceanTuna Commission(IOTC). Itfwther reportedthat
Kenyanotedthat althoughit had beenunableto attend 30% of the tuna hooked by fisheries in this area is
IWCmeetingsfor sometime,it hadneverthelessfollowed e~tim ao b e consumed by cetaceans, a problem
keenly the work of the Commission . Referring to its reco.gnised at the IOTCby countriesincludingOmanand
government'sstrong commitmentto the conservationof Kenya, i.e. countries that at this IWC meeting had
399400 Annex 63
63. Chair’s Report of the 55thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2003, pp. 5, 8-10, 29-31
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATlONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2003
Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting
1. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS whales towards issues better carried out by others. For
example, Nicaragua believed that (1) small cetaceans,
1.1 Date and place primarily resident in waters under national jurisdiction,
The 55th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling should be managed under the authority of national
Commission (IWC) took place from 16-19 June 2003 at the governments or a regional organisation entrusted with
Estrel Hotel and Convention Centre, Berlin. Itwas chaired
marine conservation; and (2) trade in whale products is the
by Prof. Bo Fernholm (Sweden). A list of delegates and function of CITES. Nicaragua noted that it must live by the
observers attending the meeting is provided in AnnexA. pmdent use of its resources on land and in the seas. It was
The associated meetings of the Scientific Committee therefore opposed to those who would curtail sustainable
and Commission sub-groups were held at the same venue use for their own ideological purposes and would work
in the period 24 May - 13June. hard to.help get IWC back on track.
1.2 Welcome address Belize adhered to the Convention during the meeting
(i.e. on 17 June 2003). In its opening statement, Belize
Renate Kunast, Federal Minister of Consumer Protection, indicated that in the same spirit as it joined IWC in 1982
Food and Agriculture welcomed all participants to the support the moratorium, it was now rejoining committed to
meeting on behalf of the Government of Germany. She conservation and the principlesof sustainable use.
began by noting that over time and due to a growing During the meeting, a number of Contracting
awareness of environmental degradation and pollution, the
German people's perception of nature had changed from Governments drew attention to problems with opening
statements from certain NGOs. The opening statement of
viewing it as a threat to be overcome to recognising it as a· IWMC was withdrawn as it violated Rule of Procedure Q.3
scarce and valued resource worthy of preservation. with respect to the fact that such statements 'shall be in the
Recognising the responsibility Germany has, as an ex form of views and comments made to the Commission in
whaling nation, for theconcerns ofiWC, she noted that it is
now keenly aware of the need for whale protection and is general rather than directed to any individual or group of
Contracting Governments'. Following a private meeting of
strongly committed to whale conservation. She called for Commissioners to discuss a number of NGO opening
the conservation aspect of the Commission's work to be statements and publications, the Chair issued a statement
strengthened, indicating Germany's view that the on behalf of the Commission. He noted that the
Commission should be responsible for the protection of Commission had been severely distressed by a number of
small cetaceans as well as large whales. She also asked the
meeting to reflect on the nature of the sustainable the written statements made by NGOs and in particular by
the content of two ECO publications released during the
utilisation of marine mammals, suggesting that the 21st meeting. It was the Commission's view that these
Century could open new and modem possibilities, i.e. publications contained language that was extremely
whale utilisation not by catches but by whalewatching. offensive, impugning the sovereignty of a number of
Recognising however that mles governing whalewatching Contracting Governments and containing significant factual
must also be in place, she believed that this new industry
should be placed under the regulatory powers of IWC, thus inaccuracies. The Commission called on ECO to print a
formal apology to be distributed during the meeting, and
updating the Commission's tasks while strengthening the directed that ECO publications could no longer be
Commission itself. Finally, she wished the meeting every circulated within the confines of the meeting halls and
success and hoped that participants would have a pleasant associated areas for the remainder of the meeting. The
stay in Berlin.
Commission unequivocally condemned the statements and
1.3 Opening statements considered that they constituted an abuseof the privileges
The Chair reminded the meeting that the Commission's accorded to the accredited observers. Finally, the
Commission called on those organisations listed as
practice is to accept opening statements from sponsors of ECO to dissociate themselves fonnally from
Commissioners and observers in writing and that only new the offending statements, failing which their accredited
Contracting Governments would be invited to make short
opening statements. Noting that Nicaragua had adhered to status as observers might be called into question.
the Convention on 5 June 2003, the Chair invited
Nicaragua to address the meeting. 1.4 Credentials and voting rights
Nicaragua recognised the good work that the IWC The Secretary reported that, with the exception of one
(particularly its Scientific Committee) has done, in Contracting Government for which only fax notification
developing advanced conservation and management had been received, all credentials were in order.he noted
systems that have set the model for other resource however, that the credentials committee (that had been
management organiSations. Noting that the management of established by the Chair the previous day and comprising
whales is inter-related with, and important to, management Australia, Japan and the Secretary) were prepared to accept
of fisheries, Nicaragua considered it vital that developing this fax notification on the understanding that a hard copy
nations dependent upon fishery resources participate in the would arrive by midday.
work of the IWC. However, it considered that in recent The Secretary also reported that voting rights were
years, obstacles have been put in the way of progress by suspended for Costa Rica, Gabon, Kenya, Morocco and
those who, for political reasons, wish to prevent the Senegal and that when voting commenced, she would call
sustainable use of whale resources. It believed that on the USA first. Morocco's voting rights were later
attention had been diverted away from the management of restored.
401Annex 63
8 CHAIR'SREPORTOFTHEFIFTY-FIFTHANNUALMEETING
Committee might not have been needed if the Commission wider consultation on the draft Resolution but hoped that
agreed on its competency to deal with matters such as there would be continued contacts between different Parties
whalewatching and habitat protection. Mexico believed so as to build on it and make the Conservation Committee
that only a proactive, dynamic and solid conservation an important element in realising all the objectives of the
agenda would lead to a realisation of all the objectives and Convention. Switzerland noted that the Scientific
purposes of the Convention. The co-sponsors, who did not Committee and Commission has been dealing with
believe that the only purpose of the Convention is to conservation issues (e.g. quotas, sanctuaries, giving
regulate whaling, considered the Berlin Initiative to be a management advice, RMP) and like Sweden supported
bone fide attempt to help theommission escape its current completion of the RMS. It also supported the draft
stagnation so that rather than one side prevailing over the Resolution but requested clarification on how the
other, the Convention would prevail over the divisionof its Conservation Committee will be composed and how itwill
Parties. Finally,itnoted that the proposed Conservation relate to the Scientific Committee. Monaco pleaded ·for
consistency in countries' attitudesto conservation. It did
Committee would be on a par and equal with the Scientific
and Finance and Administration Committees and should not see the sense of Contracting Governments voting for
not have major implications for either cost or conservation in other fora and against it at rwc and
responsibilitiesf the Commission. · believed that there is a need to reflect and integrate this
new body of knowledge within the work of the
4.2 Commission discussions and action arising Commission.
In suppmting the draft Resolution, the USA considered
A number of co-sponsors reinforced Mexico's introduction that it did not undermine its commitment to the
and spoke in support of the draft Resolution. Australia
considered that the draft Resolution represented a milestone management principle within the IWC nor did it consider
in the evolution of the IWC that would help the · the proposal to be an anti-whaling initiative. The USA
supported the draft Resolution because it believed it to be
Commission clarity, develop and meet the conservation
objective of the Convention. It believed that the good governance. Finland reported that since 1983, whale
Conservation Committee should fully involve all conservation had been its main objective under the
Convention, but noted that it had never said that there could
Contracting Governments, that it should be supported by not be controlled sustainable commercial whaling once an
and promote good science and have an ambitious agenda.
Australia indicated that with this initiative, it would acceptable management system is in place. It referred to
redouble its efforts within IWC. Germany believed that in the Convention on Biodiversity in which, like the ICRW,
conservation and sustainable use are the two basic
view of the variety of threats to cetaceans from, for
example, pollution, climate change, noise, bycatch in principles. Finland associated itself with earlier remarks
fisheries, shipping and off-shore activities, many regarding the purpose of the draft Resolution and regretted
that it had not been possible to broaden the support even
conservation measures were needed and that the Resolution though efforts had been made to do so.
would provide a sound basis for future conservation efforts.
It stressed that the propose'd Resolution is riot against Although Brazil noted that it fully embraces the concept
sustainable use and is not linked to the moratorium or the of sustainable use of natural resources, it stressed that direct
harvest is not the only option for sustainable use.
RMS. As such, Germany could not understand some
countries oppositionto the proposal. Accordingly, it believed that conservation of whale
New Zealand considered that the Berlin Initiative would resources is not limited to setting catch quotas but must
also include adequate action to address other threats to
provide the framework for meeting the obligation in the ensure the long-term survival of these species. It
preamble to the Convention, i.e. of 'recognising the interest
of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future considered that to vote against the draft Resolution would
generations the great natural resources represented by the be to deny the conservation principle. South Africa
considered that the proposals in the draft Resolution
whale stocks'. It also considered that the initiative would
help synthesise and prioritise issues and assist in future worked in favour of developing countries that could benefit
planning and would enable the Commission to respond from whalewatching and tourism. Ireland expressed some
sympathy with the comments of some of those opposing
more efficiently than at present. Italy believed that the the draft Resolution. Like them, it believed that completion
Resolution would restore the balance between sustainable
use and conservation and improve co-operation within the of the RMS is important and noted that ithad worked hard
IWC. Noting the concern regarding cetaceans in the towards this goal, including the tabling of the 'Irish
Proposal' some six years ago 3• However, it considered the
Mediterranean, Italy urged those countries that had ratified
theACCOBAMS treaty to support the Berlin Initiative. development of the RMS to be in a state of paralysis and
For Sweden, a continued balance between the objectives therefore supported the draft Resolution since it felt it
would help drive the work of the Commission forward. It
of the Convention is essential, underlining the link -with did not doubt that Japan, Norway and others believed
ongoing broader discussions on sustainable development
within the Rio/Johannesburg process. As others, it noted conservation to be important. Spain and Portugal also
that conservation issues are not just linkedo questions of spoke in support of the draft Resolution and associated
themselves with the remarks of other co-sponsors.
sustainable use, since various forms of environmental
degradation and fisheries practices are threatening the Denmark expressed a number of concerns over the draft
world's whale populations. Sweden hoped that the new Resolution relating to procedure, substance and timing.
Committee would be able to strengthen actions in response With respect to procedure, Denmark believed that the third
operative paragraph violated an earlier decision by the
to such threats. It supported completion of the RMS and
believed that the Conservation Committee would ultimately Commission that Resolutions cannot be used to amend
be seen as a support structure for an efficient RMS.
Sweden regretted that therehad not been sufficient time for JRep.intWhalingComm.49:35
402 Annex 63
ANNUALREPORTOFTHEINTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION2003 9
eitherthe Scheduleor the RulesofProcedure. It therefore the Commissionin 1982when it agreed the commercial
questioned the legality of the draft Resolution. With whalingmoratoriumand thereforedidnot seethe needfor
respectto substance,Denmarkconsideredthe introductory a Conservation Committee. It noted that like other
text to have a number of notable omissions. The draft developingcountries,it alreadyhasdifficultiesin attending
Resolutiondid not refer to the role of the Commissionin the whole AnnualMeeting series, and expressedconcern
managing whaling, it did not mention the Revised that the ConservationCommittee,if established,may not
ManagementProcedure and it had omitted NAMMCO attractwide enoughparticipation. Dominicareportedthat
from the list of regional and international it had beenput underunacceptablepressureto supportthe
organisations/agreementsthat have been establishedsince draftResolutionby certainNGOs.TheRussianFederation
the ICRWand that may affectgreatwhales. RefelTingto notedthatit gavehighprioritytotheconservationofwhale
the operativeparagraphs,it consideredthat creation of a stocks in the context of sustainableuse. It agreed with
Conservation Committee would detract resources from Denmark that there might be room for compromiseand
other activities and it expressed unease that the ninth suggested that whale conservation could be given high
paragraph might give NGOs undue influence in setting priority under the framework of the Convention on
Commissionpriorities. Denmarkbelieved that this is a Biodiversity(CBD). Like others,Japanbelievedthe draft
responsibilityfor ContractingGovernmentsalone. It also Resolutionto be contraryto the primary objectiveof the
took issue with certain parts of Annex II of the draft Convention. It expressedconcernregardingthe possible
Resolution,particularlyregardinglanguageusedin relation establishmentof a trust fund, believingthat instead,effort
towhalingunderSpecialPermit- a right clearlyenshrined should be made to broaden participationin IWC through
in the Convention. With respect to timing, Denmark reducingthefinancialburdenofmembershipbydeveloping
believed that in view of the existenceof the temporary countries. Noting that about half of the Commission
moratorium on commercial whaling and other area appearedstronglyopposed to the draft Resolution,Japan
restrictions(Scheduleparagraph8)andtwocomprehensive questioned how any Conservation Committee could
whalesanctuaries,there is no urgencyfor other measures. functionproperlyunder such conditions. Grenadaasked:
Itdidnotwishtoexcludethepossibilityofdevelopinga set (1)howthe so-calledconservationagendadiffersfromthe
of guidelineson how the IWC might wish to deal with regulatory and conservationobjectives of the RMP, the
conservation,which might be a good idea. However, it RMS, the moratorium,sanctuariesand other management
considered the current priority is to agree an RMS, tools;and(2)whatwastherealpurposeoftheproposaland
althoughifthetwothingscouldbedoneatthesametimein how did the proposers interpret the meaning of
goodfaith,then it believedtheIWCwouldbe backon its conservation. St. Lucia believedthat the proposalwould
dualtrackofconservationandmanagement. undermine progress on the RMS and the work of the
Iceland noted that it supports whale conservationand Scientific Committee. It believed that the Scientific
believedthatall whalingmustbe sustainable. However,it Committee's workshouldexpandtoallowtheconservation
consideredthat the draft Resolutionwas hi-jacking the agenda to be investigatedand achieved and that funds
tenns of the Conventionby selective quotation from its should be used to advance the work of the Scientific
preamble, would draw attention away from work on the Committee.
RMS and increase polarisation in the IWC. Noting Althoughit was not necessarilyagainstthe Committee,
Mexico'sremarkthat the Berlin Initiativewould help the Moroccodid not considerit necessarysince conservation
Commission escape stagnation, Iceland therefore issuescan be addressedwithinthe existingstructureof the
consideredthat at the very least, the proposersshould be Commissionandits sub-groups. Itconsideredit preferable
willing to postpone a decision on this issue while the to improvethe functioningof the existingstructurerather
Commissiontries to find a morewidelyagreeableavenue than establishinga new group that would face the same
fora conservationagenda. LikeDenmark,it hadconcerns problems. Whileit recognisedthe significanteffort made
withthelegalityof the3rdoperativeparagraph,notingthat in developing the draft Resolution, it believed further
itcontravenedRuleof ProcedureR.l thatrequires60-days discussionwas necessaryand that without consensusthe
noticeofamendmentstotheRulesofProcedure. ConservationCommitteewouldnotwork.
Norway,the Republicof Korea,Antiguaand Barbuda, In responding to a number of points made, Mexico
China,Dominica,theRussianFederation,Japan,Grenada, acknowledgedthat amendmentsto the Rulesof Procedure
St. Lucia and Morocco made similar remarks. While couldnot be madeuntil the draftResolutionis adopted.It
agreeingthat the Commissionhas a conservationagenda, agreed that if the Commissiondid decide to establish a
Norway expressed the view that this agenda has been Conservation Committee then the Rules of Procedure
exercisedconsistentlyat the expenseof the main purpose wouldneedtobeamended. Itreportedthattheco-sponsors
of the Convention (i.e. the orderly developmentof the werewillingto deletepart of the 3rd operativeparagraph
whaling industry) and that the Berlin Initiative would (i.e. the part reading 'andto amendparagraphM.l of the
furtheraggravatethis imbalanceand create a radical and Commission'sRules of Procedure accordingly, together
lasting change in the character of the IWC. Norway with all the resulting budgetary implications') on the
consideredthat the only proper way of making such a understandingthe it will propose appropriate Rules of
change would be to call a diplomaticconference to re Procedure prior to the next Annual Meeting and in
negotiate the Convention. Realising that this is not accordancewith the 60-day notice rule. Respondingto
feasible,it believed that those ContractingGovernments Switzerland,Mexicodrew attentionto the third operative
unhappywiththeConventionwerechoosingto circumvent paragraph of the draft Resolution indicating that the
it via the 'BerlinInitiative'. Antiguaand Barbudanoted ConservationCommitteewould be opento all Contracting
thatthe sponsorsof the draftResolutionhad not consulted Governments. Itnoted that it would be up to individual
withthosecountriessupportingsustainablewhaling. China governmentstodecidewhomtosendtotheCommittee, but
recalleda significantconservationmeasurewas taken by it hopedthat there would be a combinationof those with
403Annex 63
10 CHAIR'SREPORTOFTHEFIFTY-FIFTHANNUALMEETING
experience in conservation issues and those with will continue to work on data collection issues in the
experience in the science of conservation. Mexico noted intersessionalperiod.
that the relationship of the Conservation Committee with The Committee also reviewedwhalewatchingguidelines
the Scientific Committee was described in operative and regulations, and new infonnation on dolphin feeding
paragraph 7 and that there would be no major costs and 'swim-with' programmes. The Committee also
involved. The main cost would be that associated with welcomed the news that a whalewatching management
workshop will be held in late 2003 or early 2004 in Cape
holding aCommitteemeeting. Withrespectto theproposal
of the RussianFederation,Mexicodid not believethis to be Town, South Africa. It recommended that workshop
an appropriate alternative since the CBD does not have participants should be geographically representative and
competency over cetaceans, unlike the IWC, and that in include scientists, managers, conservation organisations,
addition,not allWC membersare also Parties to the CBD. whalewatching operators and representatives from other
Mexico again stressed that there was no hidden agenda discip luihnas ec,onomics and social sciences. The
behind the Berlin Initiative but expressed the view that to Committee established an intersessional correspondence
vote against the draft Resolution woulpe to vote against group to provide scientific advice for the organisation of
conservation. the workshop.
Noting that there had been an exhaustive debate, the
Chair ruled that the draft Resolution, with the third 5.2 Commission discussions and action uising
operative paragraph amended as described by Mexico, be The Chair and a number of countries welcomed Doug
voted upon. Norway challengedthis ruling, but the ruling DeMaster as the new Chairof the ScientificCommitteeand
was upheld when put to a vote - there being 20 votes in thankedhim for his report.
supportof the challengeand 26 against. The amendeddraft The UK, New Zealand, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South
Resolution was therefore put to a vote. There were 25 Africa, Australia and the USA all spoke of the importance
votes in favour and 20 against, thus the Resolution was
of whalewatching, with a number of them regarding it as
adopted (Resolution 2003-l, Annex C). A number of the only sustainable way to use whale "resources(given
countries explained their vote. Grenada, who had not appropriateregulations)and as a moreeconomicallyviable
participated in the vote, believed that to establish a activity than whaling. Its contributions useful scientific
Conservation Committee without consensus is information on whale stocks and its benefit to indigenous
counterproductive. Antigua and Barbuda, Norway and peopleswere also noted.
Japan considered that despite the amendment to the third · The UK announced that it was pleased to contribute
operative paragraph, the votewas still in contraventionof funds to the workshopbeing arrangedby South Africa, and
the RulesofProcedure. Japan consideredthat this outcome together with a number of others expressed the hope that
would further polarise the IWC and together with Antigua IWC fundingcould be found to supportthe participationof
and Barbuda,Norway and Dominica,reservedthe right not representativesfromthe ScientificCommittee.
to participatein the Committeeor to contribute financially. Norway considered whalewatching to be outside the
Iceland associated itself with other speakers. It also asked remitof the Convention.
the proponentsnot to misrepresentthe outcome, i.e. voting The Commission noted the report of the Scientific
against the proposal did not mean that countries were Committeeand endorsedits recommendations.
against conservation. On the contrary, Iceland believed
that all countries supported conservation,but it considered 5
6. WHALE STOCKS
that the proposal would direct attention away from the real
purpose of the Convention, i.e. conservation of whale
stocks to allow sustainable use.1thoped that this would 6.1 Southern Hemisphere minke whales
6.1.1ReportoftheScientificCommittee
not mean the end of the RMS developmentprocess. China The Committee has carried out annual surveys in the
felt that more time should have been made available for Antarctic (south of 60°S) since the late 1970s. The last
consultations.
agreed estimates for each of the six managementAreas for
In drawing discussions to a close, the Chair noted that Antarctic tninke whales were for the period 1982/83 to
establishment of the Conservation Committee would not 1989/90. At the 2000 meeting, the Committee agreed that
solve the problems within IWC and stressed the need to
whilst these represented the best estimates for the years
continue to work to find a balance between conservation surveyed, they wereno longer appropriate as estimates of
and management. current abundance. An initial crude analysis of available
recent data had suggested that current estimates might be
5. WHALEWATCHING appreciablylowerthan the previousestimates6•
At the 2001 meeting 7, considerable time was spent
4
5.1 Report of the Scientific Committee considering Antarctic minke whales with a view to
In 2000, the Committee had identified a number of areas obtainingfinal estimatesof abundanceand consideringany
for further research on possible long-tenn effects of trend in these. This included a review of data sources and
whalewatching on whales and a number of possible data analytical methodology. After considering many of the
types that could be collected from whalewatching factorsaffectingabundanceestimates,there is still evidence
operations to assist in assessing their impact. The of a decline in the abundance estimates, although it is not
Committeedeveloped this further at the 2003 meeting and clear how this reflects any actual change in minke
5
For detailsof theScientificCommittee'sdeliberationon this ItemseeJ.
CetaceanRes. Manage. 6 (Suppl.)
4For details of the ScientificCommittee'sdeliberationon this: J. Cetacea11Res. Matrage.3(Suppl.):29·32.
CetaceanRes. Manage. 6(Suppl.) J. CetaceanRes.Manage. 4 (Suppl.):30-6.
404 Annex 63
ANNUALREPORTOFTHEINTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION2003 29
Japan'sproposedScheduleamendmentwas not adopted population structure, pollutants, parasites and pathogens,
when put to a vote. There were 19 votes in support,26 andtheapplicabilityofnon-lethalmethods.
againstandoneabstention. There was considerable disagreement within the
Committeeover most aspectsof this researchprogramme,
12. SCIENTIFIC PERMJTS includingobjectives,methodology,samplesizes,likelihood
of success,effecton stocksand the amountand qualityof
22 data that could be obtained using non-lethal research
12.1Report ofthe ScientificCommittee
12.1.1Improvementstoreviewprocedures techniques.
Last year, the Committee had noted that the existing
guidelines, which had developedover a number of years, 12.2 Commissiondiscussionsand action arising
Japan gave a short PowerPointpresentationon its JARPA
inevitablyincludesomeduplicationandoverlapwithinthe andJARPNIIprogrammes.Therewasno discussion.
broadheadingsused. Withtheaimofprovidinga proposal The Commissionnotedthe ScientificCommitteereport
totheCommissiononrestructuringtheguidelines,itagreed
torevisitthisissueina yearinwhichthereisnomajornew andendorseditsrecommendation.s
scientificpermitproposaltoreview. ResolutiononwhalingunderSpecialPermit
The ScientificCommitteealso agreedto start planning Germanyintroduceda draft Resolutionon Whalingunder
for the review of the final JARPA results, which are Special Permit on behalf of the other co-sponsors
expected in 2005, and recommended that a small (Argentina,Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany,
intersessionalWorking Group be formed, includinginter Ireland,Italy,Mexico,Monaco,Netherlands,NewZealand,
aliasomeJapanesescientistsfamiliarwiththeprogramme. Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,UK,
USA). ThedraftResolutioncalledontheCommissionto:
1?1.2Reviewresultsfrom existingpermits
(1) express deep concern that the provision permitting
JAPAN: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE (JARPA) Special Permit whaling enables countries to conduct
The Committee received a number of reports of work whaling for commercial purposes despite the
undertakenas part of the recentfield seasonof JARPA as
well as documentsusing some or all of the JARPA data moratoriumon commercialwhaling;
collectedthusfar.Thesewereconsideredwhererelevantto
(2) state that the current and proposed Special Permit
themainScientificCommitteeagenda. whaling operations represent an act contrary to the
JAPAN: NORTH I>ACIFIC (JARPNII) spiritofthe moratoriumoncommercialwhalingandto
TheCommitteereviewedthe resultsofthe firstfullyearof thewilloftheCommission;
the JARPNIIprogrammereviewed last yea 3•~A total of
(3) statethatArticleVIIIoftheConventionisnot intended
100commonminke,50Bryde's,39 seiand5 spem1whales to be exploitedto providewhalemeatfor commercial
weretaken. Itagreedthata moredetailedreviewshouldbe
undertaken after the completion of the two years of purposesandshallnotbesoused;
researchunderJARPNII. For this review,comprehensive
resultswill be provided,includingrecalculationof sample (4) reaffinnthatnon-lethaltechniquesavailabletodaywill
usuallyprovidebetterdataat lesscostto both animals
sizes. andbudget;and
12.1.3Reviewofneworrevisedproposal
JAPAN: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE (5) urge any country conducting or considering the
conductof SpecialPermitwhalingto terminateor not
The Committee briefly discussed the JARPA proposal. ·commence such activities and to limit scientific
Thisis a continuation(lS'hyear)of a 124yearprogramme.
Progresshadbeenfullyreviewedin 1997. researchtonon-lethalmethodsonly.
ICELAND: NORTH ATLANTIC Germanyspecificallyreferredto the ongoingprogrammes
Mostof the discussionat the 2003 meetingcentredon the of Japan (JARPA and JARPNII) and that planned by
proposalfora two-yearfeasibilitystudyinIcelandicwaters Iceland and indicated that it did not believe that the
involvingthetakingof 100commonminkewhales, 100fin scientificargumentsusedto defendsuchprogrammesstood
whalesand 50 sei whales.The statedgoal was to improve thetestofthoroughscientificscrutiny. Inaddition, itnoted
understanding of the biology and feeding ecology of that it believed that over-fishing is causing declines in
importantcetacean species in Icelandic waters for better fisheries,notthefactthatwhaleseatfish.
managementof living resources based on an ecosystem The USA associateditselfwith Germany'sremarks. It
approach.·It includes multiple specific objectives with remainedopposedto Japan'slethalresearchprogrammein
differentpriorities for the differentspecies.For common theNorthPacificandnotedthatmanyScientificCommittee
minkewhalesthe primaryspecificobjectiveis to increase members were of the opinion that there were no
theknowledgeof the species'feedingecologyin Icelandic
quantifiable objectives and reasonable performance
waters. For fin and sei whales the primary specific standardsto legitimisethe study. The USA particularly
objectiveis the study of biologicalparameters duringthe objected to the expansionto takes of sei whales and 50
apparent increase in population size in recent decades. minke whales in coastalwaters and drew attentionto the
These objectives are the basis for the proposed sample numerousResolutions adopted noting that the data from
sizes. Other research objectives include studies of permit catches arenot critical tomanagement.Regarding
22
~etaRdeces.aanage.6(Suppl.)cCommittee's deliberationonthisItemseeJ.
lJ. CetaceanRes. Manage.5(Suppl.):63-77
Rep.Int. WhaJ. Commn48:95-105
405Annex 63
30 CHAIR'SREPORTOFTHEFIFTY-FIFTHANNUALMEETING
Iceland'sproposedresearchplan,the USAconsideredit to appropriate lethal research is needed. Dominica made
bealmostthesameasitspreviousfeasibilitystudybetween similarremarks. Denmarkdrewattentionto ArticleVIIIof
1986and 1989, notingthatdataon stomachcontentsfrom the Convention regarding the right of Contracting
the fin andsei whalestakenremaingenerallyunpublished. Governmentsto issue SpecialPermitsfor lethaltakes for
TheUSAbelievedthattheonlypart of the latestproposal researchpurposes. Whileit consideredthe report of the
relevantto IWCmanagementis thesecondaryobjectiveon ScientificCommitteeon its review of existing and new
population structure, but noted that such work is now proposalsentirelyappropriate,Denmarkdid not believeit
routinely studied using non-lethal techniques involving appropriateto establisha Commissionpolicyon scientific
geneticanalysisfromskinbiopsies. pennit whaling since this would be contrary to the
New Zealandagreed with the commentsof Gennany Convention. Itindicatedthatitwouldnotparticipateinany
and the USA regarding the JARPNII programme. voteon theResolution.AntiguaandBarbudaalsoreferred
RegardingIceland'sproposedresearchplan,NewZealand to the rights given under Article VIII and that the
believedthat it was clear from the ScientificCommittee ConventionrequireswhalestakenunderSpecialPermitto
report,that manyof the scientistshad difficultieswiththe be utilised. It noted that UNCLOSencouragesmarine
scientificrationaleunderpinningthe proposal, particularly scientificresearchand drewattentionto the factthatlethal
because,likeJARPNII,it appearedtobe mainlyconcerned research on other animals is conducted in many IWC
withissuesof no directrelevanceto theConvention.New member countries, including those opposed to Special
ZealandconsideredIceland'sresearchplan to be outside Permitwhaling.
the Termsof Referencefor such proposals. Italso asked In respondingto the commentsmade concerningits
how Iceland intendedto disposeof any whale products proposedresearchplan, Icelandnoted that most of them
generatedfrom such a study, if implemented. Monaco were of a scientificnature and that the Commission,a
associateditselfwiththe viewsof Gem1any,theUSAand politicalforum,wasnot the rightplaceto discussscience.
New Zealand and considered the lethal research Itstressedits rightundertheConventionto conductlethal
programmesto be rather outdated. The UK, Mexico, research and to utilise the whales taken, but noted that
Australia,Spain, Sweden,Switzerlandand Austria made scientiqc permit whaling is not commercially.viable.
Icelanddrewattentiontothedifferentviewsexpressedwith
similar remarks as previous speakers. While the UK
recognisedthat lethalresearchprogrammeshave provided the ScientificCommitteeon the merits of its proposed
some useful data, it believed this had been done at research plan, and felt that the draft Resolution
considerablecostin termsof the numberof whaleskilled. misrepresented the Committee's discussions. It also
ItwasdisappointedthatIcelandhadput forwarda research consideredthat the draft Resolutioncontained incorrect
plan and commentedthat Iceland's ecotourismindustry statements.Itbelievedthatthebottomlinewasthatthereis
wouldbe damagedif it resumedwhaling. As Icelandwas a fundamentaldivideamongContractingGovernmentson
notyetcommittedto whenit mightimplementitsplan,the how to look at whales and believedthat IWC should be
UK urged it to reconsider. Mexico, Switzerlandand guidedbylawratherthanemotion.
Australia expressed particular concern regarding the Like Iceland, Japan also drew attention to its rights
proposedtakebyIcelanqoffinandseiwhaJes. Brazilwas under Article Vlll of the Convention and could not
concernedregardingtheincreasingnumberofwhalesbeing understandwhy these could not be accepted. It referred
taken under SpecialPennit and consideredit an abuseof ContractingGovernmentsto its originalresearchplansfor
Treatyrights. Swedenconsideredthat the analysisof the their scientific justification and did not agree that its
diet of whales is importantbut believedthat such work researchis not relevantto management. Japanalso noted
shouldawaittheresumptionofcommercialwhaling. With that the results of its research are published in both
respecttoIceland'sresearchplan,Austriaconsideredthatit domesticand internationalscientificjoumals, and asked
shouldhaveincludedinfonnationonintendedwhalekilling thatpaperswerenot discriminatedagainstmerelybecause
methods. Italsoexpressedinterestin learningof the costs theyuseddataobtainedfromlethalresearch.
of such a programme. It did not consider Iceland's The Resolution was passed when put to a vote
proposal to be finalised, and hoped that Iceland would (Resolution2003-2, Annex F). There were 24 votes in
submit a final version for review by the Scientific favour,21againstandoneabstention.
Committeein2004orlater.
Resolutiononsouthernhemisphereminkewhalesand
Norwaynoted that the draft Resolutiontargetedthree SpecialPermitwhaling
different operations. It noted that Japan's JARPA Australia introduced a draft Resolution on Southern
programmehadbeenreviewedbytheScientificCommittee Hemisphereminkewhalesand SpecialPermitwhalingon
andthattheScientificCommitteehadgenerallyagreedthat
it had provided new interesting infom1ation. Norway behalf of the other co-sponsors(i.e. Argentina,Austria,
furthernotedthatthisprogrammehadonlytwoseasonsleft Brazil,Finland,France,Germany,Italy,Mexico,¥onaco,
NewZealand,Portugal,SanMarino,SouthAfrica,Spain,
to run and that consequentlythere would be no point in Sweden,Switzerland.,UK and USA). Noting,inter alia,
stopping it now. With respect to Japan's "JARPNII that Japan continuesto issue·Special Pennits for lethal
programme and Iceland's proposal, Norway noted that scientificresearchon minkewhalesin the SouthernOcean
these were designed,inter alia, to study feedingecology
and wouldprovidecriticallyimportantinformationfor the Sanctuarywhenthereare novalidabundanceestimatesfor
understandingof interactionsbetweenspeciesand in the this populationand whenalternativenon-lethaltechniques
are available, the draft Resolution called on the
long-tenn provide information needed for multispecies Commissionto:
management. Norway referred to two NAMMCO
workshops on this subject. The Republic of Korea (l) request the Scientific Committee to provide, after
consideredthat ecologicaldata are neededand in viewof completion of the IDCRJSOWER abundance
the limitations of non-lethal research, considered that estimates, all plausible hypotheses to explain any
406 Annex 63
ANNUALREPORTOFTHEINTERNATIONAW L HALINGCOMMISSION 2003 31
declineinabundanceestimatesthatmayemergeandin ofcetaceanresources,whetherthisbewhalewatching orfor
doing so to considerfully (a) the possiblenegative food.
impactof the take of minkewhales,includingstruck Respondingto a questionfromMonaco,the Scientific
CommitteeChairclarifiedthatthereis currentlynoagreed
and lost data, and (b) the impact of environmental
changefactors; abundanceestimateforSouthernHemisphereminkewhales
butthattheCommitteeexpectstoprovideanewestimatein
(2) call on Japan to halt the JARPAprogramme,or to twoyearstime.
revise it so that it is limitedto non-lethalresearch The Resolution was adopted when put to a vote
methodologiesa;nd (Resolution2003-3,AnnexG). Therewere 24 votes in
(3) recommendthatnoadditionalJARPA programmesbe favour,20againstandoneabstention.
considered until the Scientific Committee has
completed(a) an in·depthreviewof the resultsof 16 13.ENVIRONMENTALANDHEALTHISSUES
Thereisan increasingawarenessthatwhalesshouldnotbe
yearsofJARPA,(b)itsreviewofabundanceestimates considered in isolation but as part of the marine
for SouthernHemisphereminkewhales and (c) the
actions requested above, and that any such environmentd; etrimentalchangestotheirhabitatmaypose
programmesbelimitedtonon-lethalresearch. a seriousthreatto whalestocks.TheScientificCommittee
has examinedthis issue in the contextof the RMPand
Australiaconsidered the large-scale whaling operation agreedthat the RMP adequatelyaddressessuchconcerns.
conductedunderJARPAthathadtakenover6,000whales However,it has also emphasisedthat the species most
fromtheSouthernOceanSanctuaryto be an affrontto the
Commissionand to the commercialwhalingmoratorium vulnerableto environmentalthreats mightwell be those
andpelievedthatthe overwhelmingpurposeof JARPAis reducedtolevelsatwhichtheRMP,evenifapplied,would
resultin zerocatches.Overa periodof severalyears,the
to maintain a supply of whale meat to markets for ScientificCommitteehas developedtwo multi-national,
commercialreturn. Finally,Australiaconsideredthat the multi-disciplinaryresearchproposals,one concerningco
hypothesisthat too many fish are eaten by whales had operativeresearchintheAntarctic(SOWER2000)andthe
alreadybeen repudiatedby respectedscientistsand that
depletionsinglobalfisheriesarecausedbyover-fishing.It other concerningthe effect of pollution on cetaceans
(POLLUTION 2000+).
urged all membersof the Commissionto support the
ResolutionN. ewZealand,Germany,theUSA,Monacoand 13.1Cetacean-fisheriesinteractions
BrazilspokeinsupportoftheResolution.TheUSAnoted 13.1.1ReportoftheScientificCommittee
that the current JARPA programmehas only 2 years TheCommitteehasbegunto lookattheissuessurrounding
remaining. It lookedforwardto its completionandhoped fisheriesand cetaceans.The main long-termobjectiveof
thattherewouldbenoextension.Monacostressedthatthe
theCommitteeonthistopicis toanswerthequestion'how
legality of issuing scientific permits was not being are changesin abundanceof cetaceanslikelyto be linked
challengedb, utconsideredthatthenumbersofwhalesnow (intheshort-andlong-tenn)tochangesinfisherycatches?'
being taken under SpecialPermit is much larger than A Workshopto addressmodelling-related issuesrelatedto
envisionedwhenthe Conventionwas established. Brazil theinteractionsbetweencetaceansandfisherieswasheldin
consideredJARPA to bea violationoftheSouthernOcean July 2002. Its aim was to evaluateexistingmodelling
Sanctuary. approaches,includingidentifyingtheirconstraintsanddata
Japan acknowledgedthat a new estimate for minke requirements,in order to identifythoseapproachesmost
whaleabundancein the SouthernHemisphereshouldbe likely to answer the above question. The Workshop
availablein twoyears,butnotedthatresultsfromJARPA reviewedalltheavailablemajormodellingapproachesthat
inAreasIVandVhaveshownminkewhalepopulationsto deal with top predators and multi-species fisheries
be stable. It re-iteratedthat some of the information
interactions.
gatheredthroughJARPAcannotbe obtainedbynon-lethal The Workshopconcludedthatdespiterecentadvances,
·techniques.Respondingto Brazil,Japanpointedoutthatit most multi-speciesmodels are still in the development
has an objectionto the SouthernOcean Sanctuarywith phase. Itthereforeagreedthatno singleapproachcouldbe
respect to minke whales, and that, while it has a recommendedat this stageto providereliableinformation
responsibilityto reportdatafromJARPAto the Scientific of value to considerationof cetacean dynamicsin an
CommitteeandtheCommissioni,thasa rightunderArticle ecosystemcontext.However,thisdoesnotnecessarilyrule
VUIof the Conventionto issueSpecialPermits. Norway outthepossibilitythatusefulinferencesmightbe drawnif
noted that the draft Resolution referenced Scientific a number of different modelling approaches yield
Committeereportsfrom2000and2001andconsideredthat qualitativelysimilarresults. The Workshopalso agreed
it shouldhave referredto the latestCommitteereportin that despite these difficulties, the consideration of
whichsomeofthestatementsarenotnowsostrong.Inany
ecosysteminteractionsbetweenfishstocksandcetaceansis
case, Norwaybelievedthat the numberof whalestaken apotentiallyimportantresearchtopic.
underJARPA is insignificantin termsof the size of the TheCommitteeendorsedtheWorkshopconclusionthat
·stock. Antiguaand Barbudare-iteratedits earlierremark forno systemat presentarewein theposition,intermsof
concerning other lethal research and Iceland again data availability and model development,to provide
commentedthat the Commissionwas being driven by quantitativemanagemena tdviceontheimpactofcetaceans
politics, not science. Monaco disagreed. Dominica on fisheries,or of fisherieson cetaceans.However,this
commendedJapanfor its workunderJARPA and looked does not rule out the possibilityof providingqualitative
forwardto the establishmentof a similarprogrammein advice if a number of different approaches yield
futureto provideinformationto allowthe sustainableuse qualitativelysimilarresulItalsoendorsedtheconclusion
407408 Annex 64
64. Chair's Report of the 57thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2005, pp. 5, 37-39
AI--'NUARL£PORTOF TH£ ll'ITEATIONALWHALINGCOMMISS ION200S 5
Chair's Report of the 57tbAnnual Meeting
1.3Openingslatemenlli
I.INTRODUCI'ORYITE."'S The Otair welcomedthe foUowingnine new Contracting
Govemmeots who badadhered totheConventionsince the
1.1Dote IDd place lastAnnualMeeting:
The S'l"'Annual Mee< ing of lhe International Whaling Moli- adhered 17August2004
Commission (JWC)toolc.placefrom20-24June2005at the
Lone Hotel, Ulsan, Republicof Korea. WBS chaired by Kiribati-dhcrod 28December 2004
Henrik Fischer (Derunorl<). A list of delegates and • CzechRepublic- adhered26January2005
SlovakRepublic- adhered22 March2005
observers oncnding the meeting is providedAnnex A. The Gambia- adhered 17 May2005
Titc asrociated meetings or the Scientific Commiuee and • Llfxemhourg- I0 June2005
Commission sub·groups: ereheld atthe samevenuein the Cameroon- 14 June2005
period30 Mnyto 17June.
• Nauru- 15June2005
• Togo- 15June2005.
The Chairinvited the newmembercountries taddressthe
1.2 Welcotne addresses
Welcome addresses were given by Kco-Don Oh, the meeting if they sowished.Kiribati;the Czech'Republic,the
Minium·oFMaritimeAffairs and Fisheriesand Maeng- Slovak Republic and Luxembourgdid so. Mali, The
WooPark, the MayorofUisan. . Gambia and Togo wemf10t repr~~s aet11m1eeding.
Kiribati informedthe meetingthot itaicountry made
On behalf of his Governmentand the people of !he up of 33 low-lying atolls with a land arof only 810
Republicof Koren,tileMinisterwelcomedthedelegations,
IWC Secretariat and observers and congratulated the square kilometres scattered across 5 million square
Moyorond the people of Uls:m for hosting soch a large kilometresof the Pacific OC<lanand with three distinct
EEZs totalling more than 3.5 million squa.rc kilometres.
intematio1l gathering. He hoped that the meetingwould The countryis thereforevuloernble toclimate change. It is
focus on how co promoleconservationand sustainalbe heavily dependenton its marine resources,partiC\IIarly
management of whale stocks. He reported tbat Korea's rum, and therefore committed to the su.stain•ble u.seof
policies withrespect to wholes focus on the proper
theseresouroe.It has formulatednationalinitiatives,based
conservation of whale stocks and me susminableDseof on traditionalpraclices incorporated with modem
these rtSOurecs and u such are compatible wilh tbe approachesto better manaae and utilise resource,but
principlesembodiedin the InternationalConventionthe given its limited capacities and the geographical nature of
Reaulation ofWhaling (ICRW) which it adhered to in its islandsfmds ita cbtlllengto implement initiatives
1978. Tbc Minister appreeilled tile efforts mbyelhe effectively.ribati is thereforewort.ina ainumberof
Commission's Chair witb ~peel to proposals for a regional (the Forum Fisheries Agency, the Paclr.e
Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and hoped that Community, the PacificRegionalEnvi.ronmenProgramme
J>1011CcSoSuld bemadeon this issTheMiniStet reponed andtheWesternzndCcntntlPacificFisheries Commission)
thathisgovernmentbanned commercial whaling in 1986 and UN Ol'g*nisations (UNCLOS, Convention on
but IIO(Ctltar socnetwentyurs later,controversiesexist Biological Diversity, P to better address su.slllinolbe
rcgandingthe size of minke whale Stocks exisring around use. Kiribati had adhered to tbe lCRW to continue its
theKoreanPeninsula tmdwhetherthe increase in some efforts to achieve effective and sustainable use and
wbale stocksis having a ne8lltive impacton fisberies. Heconservation of its resoun;cs. h l.oolced forward to
partic-ipatingate Annual Meetingin the spirit of murual
therefore welcomed tho in--depthassessment of Western
Nonh Pacil1c common min.ke whales around Korea just respectand co-operation and to ochieving the long-term
initiad by the ScientificCommillee andlookedforwardto goals of the Commission nnd the mandate of the
tangible resul in the near funu-e. Finally the Minista Convention.
The Czech Republic noted that despite it having no
hopedtbat the meetingcould resolvesensiblymanyof the whaling history, its peopleare not indiffereni iOthe fateor
issues faced by the Commissionby sharing and n:specti11g
different points of view and by being prepared to whalesandan: in factconcernednot only about their local
environment butal~ ao>out sl\llxllenvironmentalissues •
compromise. theconservationof whalesbeingoneofth~n.
Tile MayorofU isan welcomedall panicipantsto Ulsan, The Slovak Republic 1110ed that even though it is a
the 'City of Wholes'. He drew attention 10 the lo1g landlockdcountrywith nohistoryof whaling, it wishesto
assocition between the people of the area and whale$,
noting ~mt the Bangudae petrogtyphs are the only conservewhales for futuregeoemtions. As a party to other
natureconservatioagreements such asthe Conventionon
pctroglyphs in the world to feature whales. The Mayor Biodiversity,CITES,the BornConventionand the J.Umsnr
thankedthose Involved in the preparntionand organisationConvention, the Slovak: Republic is committed to
of the meeting nnd expressed his pleasure in the proteciiognatureandto contributingto tpr~~t soenofv•
opportunityit providedto develop a relationship between
a common heritage,including theooe:ms.It hoped that the
Ulsanandthe IWC.Hehopedthatthe policiesdeveloped m mistakesthatledtotheovercxploitaiton andnearextinction
themeetingwould bringbenefits10alland that themeeting of somewhale species in the past can be avoidedand the
wouldbe long-rememberedforits achievements. protectionof vulnerablewholepopulationssecured.
409Annex 64
ANNUALRI!.PORTOFTHEINTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION2001! 37
IO.lReview or newor eonllnulng propo..ts The proposed annual eatcltes for the filii prog1ammeare:
JQ1.1 Jopon:soutl!.rh•mup/ren (JARPA 11) &SO(wilb 10% allowance) An-.ic minke whales, SO
lf..U .I PRES£NTAT IO.S BYJAPAN humpl>ockwhales (00110 begin ~ lwo )"::ln) and $0 fin
Japongave oshon PowcrPointpre$ematiooon iu resean:b wbales(10in the fmttwo yean;).
plans prior10 prescnllllion or lhc Scientific Committee As in previous years, there wa~ disqreemcnt
report on discuosionson JAR!'A II proposals. Therewere •
within the Comminee regardingadvice that should be
num~r of queslions. providedon a numberof issues,illclud: tborelevance of
New Zealand a5ked how Japan could be certain that lhc proposed "'""arch managemc appropriate sample
JARPA II would have no adverse effeciS on isolated sizes and applieabilily of alternate (non·ltthal) research
populationsof humpbacks in lhc South Pacific if sampling
mothods.
of humpbackswas101lll<eplace in the western partor Area
Vl. Japanclarified that humpbacks would only be taken
from Arens IVend V. IIbed no plans to s•mple thfrom IO.l.UCOMJiflSSIO.S DISCUSSIONSANDACTION ARIStNC
Area VJ.In response,New Zealand asked bowJapan could
Gennany expressed deep eonccr.t thot not only is Japan
be sure lhat humpbacks from Area V are nOI the planning to continue its researchwlurling in the Ancarcci,c
endangered breeding popul•tions from Fiji, che Cook but also to intensify it by doublingnum~r of minke
Islands and Samoa. Japan noted that the 0-s toclc,whose whales to be takend includingc.kesof humpbackand fin
breeding grounds are located off ~te west coast of
Australi,aoccursin Area rv, while the E-stock, whose whales. II regrettethat Japan is 11{)recognising the
international starus of these stocks in which the humpback
breeding srowtds arIOCitloff the casCOO<!of Australia stoekisclassifiedas 'vulnerable'and tho fin whale stockas
occurinAreaV. ln response toanOhlcrquestionfromNew 'endangered'.ermany believedJapan's oosis ror liSwhale
Zealund, Jupan olarilicd thnt il has no pions at presenthunt is an oversimplified and distortc'd apoach to
sample other specie•, suoscrnbenter seals and seabirds.
ecosystems, in which it ~ levsc that different whale
Rather it l>pcto useexisting infonnation fromCCAMLR speciesare compelingor krill andthatby culling wlurlesof
in the initial stages of the work. one species it can promote the recoveryof others. Germtlny
The Republic of Korenwhile noting !he need for lethal called on Japanto end icicntijjcwhaling programmes.
resoarch progrnmmcs, did noc unders111ndwhy Japan
B111 an.~ France associated themselves with the
needed to double the takes of minke whales. Japan remarks of Monaco made under the previous agenda ilem
explained dtat such an increase is needed to obrain in relationto lethal programmc;.sBrazilalso noted
sufficient statistical powerto detect significant temportheconcern with which it has watched scientific wlurling
changes in variobil oo~ilparameters(e.g. age at sexual
escalate over lhe years in spiteof past recomm<'lldationsof
maturity, pregll!lncyrate, blubber thiclmess, ete.). Thethe Commission. It believed lhat despite the large number
noted that Japanwos planning to continue to includa of whales killed in such progmnmes, very few peer
Jol0% allowance for lheminkc whale lllkcs (ie:tI0% reviewed pape<S had beeo published. II therefore
fOtJARPA II). Given the consistency with which the upper
allowablecatch limitas been re:>chedduring JARPA, the ooosiderodJap;m'saction as a blatoncabuseof lhc riches10
Contr.~ <o:vtnmnentsgranted under Article Vlll and
UK did not believe it nocc:=ry for Jap10 continue to siJ!lla means of maintaining a market for whale meaL
allowforthi$marginof cnor. Brazil considered this lalCSI research plan to have a
Reforring10Japan's earlier prescnllltion,!be USA notedpolitical rather than a scientific objective. ie. to
lhat the age of sexual maturity of minke whales ha5 Commissioninto adoptingcompromisesin ordertobringin
decreued from 17-18 years to around 7-10 yeatS. Given a commercial whaling S<:hcme.By including humpback
this, it su&&estedthat the doubling of the take of minkewhales, Brazilliev hat Japa.oideli~ t<ylan.elcing
whales proposed in JARPA II is problematic. Japan a speciesf great importance bol1 for oon·lcthal research
believeddte opposite 10 be true. II believed that the by other nations but also fOt non-lethal appropriation for
decrea.. in the •ge of sexual maturity, due to improved whalewatcbing. It believed that lhc proposal woulddestroy
feeding conditions,\plains the increa5e in minkc whale any hope of reaching a compromise end bcUer
understandingof the rightsof SouthernHemispherenations
abundance that hod been seen. Such conditions prevailed
untilthe 1970.when the age of sexual maruricybegan to to the non-lothal management of whale l'W)Urees.Bmzil
leveloli ond ionow showing a tendency to increaseagain. requested Japano1l!leceount oflbc broader implications
Jopan believes that this implies rl>alavailability of food hasir actions.
The USA noted that icontinUl$to oppose lethal whale
becomeless favourable.
researchprogrammee sxceptin exceptional circumstance.s
10.1.1R~I'OTROFTIIRSCIENTIFIC COMM!Tl '£~ It tooexpressedconcemoverlhe significant C.XJ»>n.oifon
JARPA U over JARPA and believed that there is 11<>
Discussionon scientific permit issueswithin theScientificompelling justification of this •incc, in gene.-al, much of
Cootmillee this year centred on Japan's new proposal
(JR.PA II). Tite staled objectives of the new long-rem> the information can be gained through non-lethal rcscnrch
researchprogramme proposal are: or is in fact not needed for maoagement purposes. Tho
USA considered that JARPA II would make icmuch mon::
( l) monhorlngof the Antorcticecosystem; difficult if not impossible co reachconsensus on an R.MS
and that it wouldserveto polarise lWCyet further. It urged
(2) modelling competiton among whale species and
developing future tnanagcmenlobjectives; Japan to not go forward with JARPA U. Spain and Finland
(3)elucidationor remporal and spotlal changes in siOCk associatedhemselves withtheemarksofGennany and the
slnJet ou rc~ USA. New Zealand assoeiatcd itself with Cem»ny, the
(4) improving the mana;ement procedure for!he Antarccic USA and Brazil, ooting that it has been a consistent
minkewhale stocks. opponent to Japansciencifie wbalifll!prosrammes. lt also
410 Annex 64
38 CHAIR'SREPORTOFTHBFIFTY·SEVEN ATNNUALMEETINO
drew attention to the objection by 63 members of the VI being those that migrate tohe South Pacific islands).
Scientificommitteeto a review of 1he JARPA II proposal With respect to the publication of papers in peer-reviewed
before a fonnal reviewof the JARPA programme results westernscientificjournals,Japanootedthatmanywestern
basbeen conducted and to a recent (16 June) article in thejournalswill not accept papers presenting results obtained
jountal Naturethat interalia delivered whatNew Zealand from lethal rese~r pcohrammes. It considered such
considered to be a forceful rebukeof JARPA IJ proposals. treatment of its scientists to be untair and unequal. With
However,NewZealand'smostseriousconcernin relation respect to the position of tl>e63 membersof tbeScientific
10 JARPA ll is its p<>tenrialimpact on populations of Committee referred to by New 7..ealand,Japan notedthat as
threatened or endangered species in the Southern the Committeecomprisessome 200 scientists, the vast
Hemisphere,againreferring to dtereal threat to endangered majority had not objected to taking part in a review of the
breeding populationsof humpbacks from Fiji, tl1eCook JARPA ll proposal. With respect to the articleNature,
Islads and Samoa. Finally, it noted with surprise the Japan no1ecl that some of its authors are Scientific
statement from Japan during Scientific Commiuec
Committ ee members and nationaldelegates and that tbere
discussions thatno-conflict had been found betweenthe bad been abreach in lhe Committee's confidentialityrules
plannedresearchand Japan 's reviseddomesticlegislation in relation to information included in the article. Japan
on animalwelfare. requested that such breacheso not occur againFinallyit
St.I<ins and Nevis, SLVincentand The Grenadines, tbe again stressed that some of the informationit believes
Republicof Palauand St. Luciaspoke insupport of Japan's necessary to collect cannot be oblained using non-lethal
proposalsontained inJARPA D.St. Killsand Nevis noted techniquesalld did uot believethat its proposals in relation
tbat UNCLOS recognises the importance of scientific toan ecosystem approacharetoo simplistic.
research in the sustainable use of marin.resource and
gives clear rightsto coastalstates to conductsuch research.
RESOlUTIONONJAnPA II
It noted: (I) that since developing countries havemited Australia introduced a draft Resolution on JARPA U on
resources, they ar-.edependent on the work of more behalf of 25 other co-sponsors (Argentina, Austria,
developed countrie;s; and (2) the importance of marine Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Finland, France,
resourcesin the sustainable development and poverty Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
alleviationof coastal developing states. These were the Netherlands,New Zealand, Mexico,Monaco,Portugal,San
reasons why countries such as St. KiLtsand Nevis are Marino, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
membersofiWC. finaUy it expressed theview tbatscience Switzerland,the UK and the USA). While recognisingthat
wid 1in the organisation is much further advanced than its the Ce>nvetnion allows Conh·actingGovernments to grant
politics which it considered to be backwar St. Vincent
special pennhs for the purposeof scientific res:ea(chon
a.nd The Grenadines was satisfied lhat Japan has provided whales, the proposed Resolution drew attention to the fact
valuable information that has been used to advance d1e thatsiuce the comne1rcialwhaling moralorium came into
work of the Commission and had no problems in force in 1985186,IWC hasadopted e>ver30 Resolutions on
supporting itsew proposal.The Republicof Palauand St. special permit whaling lhat have called for. scientific
Lucia both gave importance to gaining an understanding of research toe limitedto non-ethal methods:sanctuariesto
ecosysteminteractionsso that management of fishery be respectedthe recoveryof populations to be unimpeded;
resourcescould be improved. Like St. Kitts and Nevis, the and accountto be takenof ScientificCommitteecomments.
Republic of Palau stressed the importance of nuorinc The draft Resoluti noted tl>at: the resultsof JARPA have
resources to its people. It believed that emotionalcriticism
not yet beenreviewed by the Scientific Comminee; under
ignoresbothscience andinternational lawandis a rejeciton JARPA U, Japan intended to double the take of minke
of the basic principle of resource management based on whales andalso 10 include lin and humpback whales; tbat
science.St. Lucia believed thatthe takes proposed by Japan data from the Third Circumpolar Survey indicates tbat
would not adversely afect lhe stocks in question, and that abundance of Antarcticminke whalesissubstantiallylower
in anycase, reviews are pJnned after the2-yearinilial than the previous estimate of 760,000; aod that some
feasibilitysrudyand againafter six years. humpback whales that will be targeted byJARPA Ubelong
In responding to a number of comments, Japan finnly to small,vulnerable breeding populations around small
opposed the view that its proposals arc politically and islandStates in the SouthPacific. The Resolutionexpressed
commercially motivated,anddrewattentionto Convention
concernthat; morethan6,800 Antarctic minke whaleshave
ArticleVIII.2lhat states thany whalestakenunderthese been killed in Antarctic waters during tbe IS·year JARPA
specialpermitsshallsofar aspracticablebeprocessedand programme (C()mpared with a total of &40 whales killed
the proceeds shalf be dealt with in accordanc-ewith globally by Japan for scientific researchdu~1neJ.year
directions issueby the Governmentby which the permit period prior to the moratorium);that lhcrc are agreed
was granted'• the use of the word 'shall' conferring an data to indicate thatn whale popttlati()ns have increased
international obliga·tion. It disagreed that the JARPA II since thecessationof commercialwhaling;and thatJARPA
proposal would have a detrimental effect on RMS ll may have an adverse impact on established long-tenn
neaotiations since it has been clear for some years that thwhale r~rt:: phmjec:tinvolv1ne humph1~wki~IP . "e
process has been. breaking do wn. Japan found it Resolution called on the Commission to: (I) request the
unacceptable that JARPA U is being used as a scapegoat Scientificommittee to review the outcomes of JARPA as
for stalledMS discussions. It also could not accept that soon as possible; and (2) strongly urge the Governmentof
the proposed takes of mink&,humpback or fin whales Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposalor to revise it so
would have an aclverse effect on the stocks as they that any infonnation neededto meet thestated objectivesof
represented such a small percemage of !he Ictal stock
tbeproposalis obtainedusingnon-lethal means.
numbers. It again stressed that with respectumpbacks, Japan opposed strongly the proposedResolutionsincet
no animals wou ld be taken from Area VI (whales in Area contravened<:ertainclements of theConve inone.g. that
411Annex 64
ANNUAL 1\.EJ'OKTO Tli6 INTERNATIONA WLHALING COMMISSIO:N ZOOS 39
science should be thebasisfor decision-making and tbe permitsbut noagxeementwas reachedon any proposalfor
clearrightSprovidedunder Article VIIJ.It furthertook tbe changes.Followinga short discussionof severalaspectsof
view tl1atthepreviou30 Resolutiousalsowcmalil)linsllhe scientific permwha in~ thisyear,the Committee agreed
spiritof Articvrn andinternationlalaw, andpointedout thatlittled changed rognrdingthotwo disparatepositions
that theConvention haa higherstandingthen Resolutions, describedin lastyear'sCommitteeReport.Whenreviewing
which are non-binding.Japanconsidered that denyingtbe scientific permit proposals. the Committeerecognised me
right to lethal research was a volue judgement and an chronic difficulties it laces in separating purely scientific
imposition of others ethicalpositionsandthatscienceand issuesfrom those issues that are more appropriate for
international law should prevail ovu emotion. It found discussion in other forti and notably the Commission.
pnn.•of the proposed Resolutionto be misle3ding,noting However,it d~w the Comm1ssino•s attentionrothe fact.
for example,thatwhile it could agree that there are 'no that tbc integral nature of tbe scientifiCand non-scientific
agreed data' on fin whales, scientisl$have8&fCC tdat issuessurroundingexpandingscientifiCpennitprogrammes
abundance is increasing. What is llOI agreed is by how makesit extremelydifficult for me review process within
muehthey are increosingJa~ suggestedthat lWC began tbe Committc:cto function effectively, since it wishes to
ignoring science when it adopted tbc moratoriwn, which limititsdiscussion.s to purely scientific aspectS of the
was not a recommendationsupported by the Scientific proposals.TheCommiueonoted two i..Ues thatmight be
Commiuee. It believed that thefuture of IWC is more given furtherconsiderationat next year's meeting:(I) the
impootat thanemotionalattitudes and natiorlal politics. possibiliof an independentand objective review panel;
The Resolution was adopted when put to a vote (see and(2) the debate over whether or not tlte proponenasof
Resolution 2005·1, Annex C). There were 30 votes in proposal should participate in a review of their own
support,27 against andI abstention. Denmark explained proposal. It furtherconcludes rhatany new review process
rhnt because of a change in its position following a must be consistent with the Convention and with
parliamentary decision, it bad voted in suppor1: of the establishedRules of Procedure.
Resolution.Previously it bad notparticipatedin voles on
similar Resolutions. Denmark noted that Greenland's
Home Rule Government does not support the changed 10.3.1Commissiondi.rCUSlionasndoct/on arising
po.sition. There were no comments on this pan of the Scientific
Japan withdrew a proposedResolutionin support or its Committee report. The Committee noted the report and
endorsedanyreoommendttion..s
researcprogramme intheAntarctic.
/0.1.2 Japa1: onh Pacific (JARPNJI)
tU.l.J REPORTOFTtll!SCIENTIFIC COMMITTlll!
11. ENVIRON:\1ENTALAND HEALTH ISSUES
Lastyeara revisedIARPN II plan hadbeensubmitted,and
the research in 2004 had beenconductedaccordingto those 11.1 ScientifiCommlttoe •ct1vlrtes
plans.There were nochangesto tile currentresearch plans.
on which the Committee bad divided views. The 11.1./ Reportoftht SclantificCommittee
Thereis an increasi gawarenessthatwhales should notbe
Committee therefore refers back to previous statements considered in isolation but as part of the marine
madebyproponentsandcriticsof thisresearchprogmmme. environmen;t detrimental changesto theirhabitatmayposo
a serious threat to whulc stocks. The Committee has
10.1.1,1. COMMISSIONDISCUSSIONSANDACTIONARISING examinedthis issue in the context of the RMP and agreed
There were no commentson this part of the Scientific that the RMP adequotely nddresses such concerns.
Committeereport. However, it ha.s also emphasised that the spedes most
vulnerable to environmentalthreats might well be those
reducedto levels ot whichthe RMP, evM if applied,would
10.2.J lcelond: Nonh Atlantic
IO.lJ.t RUORT OFTilt SCt£N'T1nCCO>t~UTf££ resultin zero catcbe$Over a perindof several years. the
The initial Icelandic propo$&1bad been changed with Committee bas developed two mulri·national, multi·
respectto the proposed rate of sampling, and this year's diseiplinary n:searth proposals. One of these,
POLLUTION 2000+, bas twO aims: todererminewbelher
sample si2ebad yet to be determined,ahhough the Marine
Researchlnstinne'sproposal was for 39 common minke predictive and quantitative relationships exist between
whales. Once •!ll'in, in tho obsencc of any significant biomarkers (ofexposure10 anclloreffectofPCBs) and PCB
change to the plannedresearch,he Committeerefers back levels inoenaintissues;and tOvalidate/calibntsampling
and anal}1icaltechniques. The other, SOWER 2000, is to
to previousstatementsbymembers. examinethe influenceof temporalandspatialvariabilityin
the physical and biologicalntarctic environmenton the
10.2.3.2COM>OSSIONDISCUSSIONSANDACI'IONARISING distribution,abundanceandmis,radonof'whales.Progress
There were no comments on this pan of the Scientific reportson bothof theseprogrammeswereconsideredat the
Committee report. The Committee noted the report and 2005meeting.
endorsedanyrecommendations. The Committeereceivedthe report of the intersessional
Workshop on Habitat Degradation that took place in
Nove~r 2004 at the University of Siena, ItalyThe
10.3 Proposals to facilitate th< review process of Committee Stre$Sedtlte importance of undertaking work
ScientificPermits
10.3.1Reporrof theScientificCommlllt«
Lastyear,effortSweremade to ~pare apropo$)1 10 me :. fOr&e.alkof b: SamtifteComnaiUH:•csk:libc:ratiS~J.dCishem
Coro.mi$$ionon restructuringthe guidelines for scientific c-R.,_ Mono,«.{S.pp1(2006~
412 Annex 65
65. Chair’s Report of the 58thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2006, pp. 5, 23-25
M'l>lJAL REPORT OF TMEINTtRNAnONAL WHALING COMMIS OS~1006 5
Chair's Report of the 58thAnnual Meeting
1.3 Opening statements
1.INTROD UCfOR Y ITEMS
The Chair repolted doatsince Horsr Kleinschmidt (South
1.1JJate and place Africa) bad resigned as Vice-Chair during 1he
intersessiol period, the Commissionersat their private
The 58" Annual Meeling of lhe International Whaling mccling on IS June had electedBillHogarlb (USA} as
Commission (IWC) took place 11 the Marriott Hotel, St. Vice-Chairfortheperiod of the meeting.
KiiU andNevis from 16to 20 Jun2006.b waschairedby
Henri!Fischer(Denmark). It waauendedby 67of 1be70 The Chair welcomed the followingnew Cont111Ctgin
Contracting Governments. A tislof delegates and observerscrrunentl wbo had adheredto 1he Conventionsince 1be
Ia" AnnualMeeling:
auending the mceling is provided in Annc:.xA. The
associated rnee1ings of the Scienlific Committee and Guatemala- adhered 16 May 2006 (but did noauend
Commissi onsub-groupswert ~ d at thesamevenuein the diCAnnualMoeling);
period26 Mayto l3June. Morshall lsl•ods- adheredl J2006;
Cambodia - adherd l June 2006;
1.2Opening ceremony and w<lcomeaddress • Israel- adhered7Juno 2006. .
The opening ceremony included music from lhrcc local The Chairinvliedlhenewmembe r untri eoaddresslbe
groups(St. Christopher S1ccl, ONE Voice, Jingle Bells meeting. if they so wished. nlis invitation was also
Saing "Band),an invocation (by the Rev. FathIsaiah exlended to Mali who bad adhered prior to las! year's
Phillip}, a monologue(fromLoughlin Tatem) andwelcome meeting bur bad not been repu:sented in UlsanMati,
remarks from Dr Hermia Monon Anthony, Pennanent Israel, Cambodia and the Marshall Islands made opening
Secretaryin thoMinisll')'of Housing, Agriculture, FisherMCments. They all 1han:kedthe Cr"ovemment of St. KillS
and Consumer AlThirs and Chair of rbe Local Organisingand Nevis for hostingthemeeting.
Comnrittee. The welcome address was givea by the Mali highlightedthe importanceof iiSfisheriestoctor
Honourable Dr Timolby HIII1, Minister of Foreign its national economy, noting thor the activity also has an
Affairs. important socjo..cutl role iitfishing cn.munit.ies. It
MinisterHarriswelcomed oildelegaresandobserversto n01ed that it is n member of a number of inlomarional
lhc58" Annuol Meeling on bclmlf of the Prime Minister organisations andn signatory to severo!~greemen, ts
Sl. KitiSand Nevis and his government. He believed thaprotocolsandconventions that advocatethe suslaillllbleuse
the islands would provide an il environment for the
of naruralresour=. particularly fishresourcesbased
meetingandhoped lb~arather than leaving wiviewof on scientific lmowledgeMaticonsidered the~utaniale
the Caribbeaas merely a holiday destination, panicipanuseof resources to bevifordeveloping countriessuast
wouldleave rememberintghepeopleof St.KinsendNevis itsel11believelhM IWC, like FAO, lakes decisions that
asa people acrivcl)l shaaiuniquely-textured Caribbean have repercussions for developing countries fnccd with
civilisation while groppling wilb the needsand challengfood security$SUCSll. was ili~:ohfthese fac1orsthat
of development and globalisation. Noting thatthe processli bad adhered to tblotemarional Convention for the
of &lobalisationis conecntratina power and marginalisinRegulation of Whaling. suggcSiiOS that lWC could
1he poor, both counrriesand people, the Minister reponc:ontribu1e sifll>,ificontly 10 the reduc1ionof poverty, hunger
batt he CARlCOM' member slnlcs arcseeking nllconative and malnutrition In rbe world. Mali explained thai its
development strulcgies and have committed 1hemsclves rointerest inparticipating in IWC's octivscd notonly
deeperintegnuion and to a Single Market Economy. He in lbc information it could draw from the teebnical aod
s~tsse the importMce thesestates place on sustainable seieotific diseussiO!l,$ but also in ill wish to mark its
development (including sus1ainable livelihoods) and lhepresenceon the intemtrtnal scene and to have an
role marine resources play wilhin ruch development influence overmeasures taken.Mali noted tloal rbe
Referring to tho polarised nature of !WC ond tlte Convention bas two objectives.. conservation and
propaganda associ:u:ed with iiS meetings, the Minister exploitation, and believed tthe credibility of IWC
nored thatL Kittsand Nevis lllkesexception to the view dependedon irsabilitYto address bothor lhese. IItherefore
thatSt.Kittsand Nevis is tbc echo of anod~ eWrC requestedthe ~foc inusof the organisation towards its
member. Itmakes 10 apology when there is a congruence sUlledobjectives.
of interesbetween its policy position aod tofod1er Israel ored 1he importllnce It attribures to the global
coun1ries. He coiled for counlri<$10 rise above the mncoursystem ond lhat it is already a psrty to •ovcral
and acrimony. I()bring rea- and respecl 10 the inlemational conventions dcdicaled to the protection of
deliberationsmodconclusionsof lbc meeting andto move global biodivti". Noting that ilaws prolect species
forward with the benefit of the available scientific bodyofhcan be foundin Israelas well as beyond itsborders,
lmowledge to • comprehensive, just and equitable regimeilwasable to adheto the lnlemotionalConvention for the
for the explomrion of marine resourecs. He suggested thRegularion of Whaling withour 1he need for :tddilional
diCneeds of people should bo given reasollllble weight legislation. !scacl noted its concern regarding the over
thed iswssions. epxloi~a ot ieopnst whicb had driven some whale
speciesclose to extinction. It lherefore thetaking
of all mearures necessary to protect whales and proven!
1 over-exploitationattd looked forward 10work;ngwithother
CJtribnCommunit y~ CommonMmktr
413Annex 65
ANNUALREI'ORTOF'JloEi INTERNATIONALWHALINGCOMMISSION2006 23
Iceland, however, notedwith &omesurprisethateven diplomatic or other high-level possibilities to resolve RMS
!hough the Scientific Committee had concluded that the issues among tlJC Contracting GoveClllllc!ll!Sto the
pre-lmplememaclon asses.smem on North Atlantic fin Convention.
whales had been completed, it ltad reeommcnded that Wid1respect to the intcrsessionnlmeeting inCambridge,
/mplcmcntation not be initiated until 2007 because of a the RMS Chair recoiled that d1ere had been a valuable
lackof resources. Iceland indicated thallstngesof the exchange or views and idea• onnnumber of tbe difficult
process todate, the Committee bad concluded that it had isses sutroundiog completion of an RMS. He noted
sufficienquality datato proceed, suggesting • data-rich however. tbat while sontc furtherwork was agreed in
siluation tllat should facililate progress compared with relationto compliance and l.he codeof conduct for whaling
othersillJaljons.It she recent formalisationof tRMP under special permitthe Working Group bad agreed that
Jmplementatkm process a$ a positiv.: step forward, but an impas$ebadbeen reached indiscussions and that further
Jiven the time--framenow foreseen for North Atlantic fm collectivwo<k should be postponed for the timebeing
wllales, sought clarification on: (I) whether the Scientificxcept on the two ipccifie oaivities)with individual
CommitteeCbairconsidered thistime-frameas satisfuaory go•=cnts or groups of governments free to work
or whetbe.- there are special circumstances causing the togetbe{if theyso cbOO$.<'With respect toa high level
delay;and (2) what is meantby a laek of resourceand meeting, the Chir reported that !here had clearly been no
whethercffieieneycould be increasedby reallocating funds consensusforsuch an approachot the present time.
from other areas (e.g. whalcwatching and smallee11ceans). Given the outcome of thediscuuions in Cambridge, the
In response, the CommitteeChoiragreed that although the RMSWod<ingGroup metduring IWC/58 to:
Committee was dealing witb a data·•·ich situation. the
"RequiremenlSandGu_ dilines forlmplemellfatlons·'stated (I) reviewthe inter·sessional workagrondthe draftcode
of conductand on compliance and to assess whether
that(I) an I1plementationmu•t bocompletedintwo years further progr'"-'scould be mode in lhesoeareas and if so,
i.e. the BryoSwhales lmplementatlolmust be completed how;
this year; and (2) practical difOcuhies may preclude
carryingoutmorethanonelmplcnumtationsi1nultaneously. (2) consider any other lntersessional activities that may
baVeoccurred;
The Committee therefore planned to stan the Nonh (3) considerwhether therewasanything further that could
Atlandc fin whaleImplememotioJ n 2007 and finishitfn be done to make progresson an RMS or whether
2009. The Committee Chair explained that in the pre$Wt
circumstancesthe practical difficulties reftothe fact discussionsrcmoinatanimpasse·;and
(4) develop recommendations as apprr oip~eto the
thtl theomescientisiSaren~ed for worlcon bothstocks; Commissio.n
additional financial rcso.mcs wouldnot help.
The Commission noted this part of !he ScientifiC With respect to a eode of conduct for 'scientific
Comminee·sreportand eodorsedtiSrecommendations. whaling'Jsomec:ountrierse·itera1edthat sucha code is an
essential part of the RMS process and must be binding. A
8.1.1ESTIMATIONOFBVCATCII AND OTit ERIIU)IAN·
INDUCE D MORTALITY numberof countries stated that they belieispremarure
Regarding the estimation of bycotch based on genetic to consider theissue ofa code of conduct in an RMS
context before the Scientific Committee has completed iiS
work. Sweden no ted that the Comminee had reported that discusionson howits presen t proceduresforreviewing
e.tiamcs ftom market sunreys could be improved special permit proposals and results can be improved.
considerably if data from DNA n:gi$ters were usod ia
collaborativemanner and only a relatively low level of Several of d1esealso re-iternted their view that a code of
conduct is not ncceptnblc to them and that the only
sompling would be required. Sweden strongly acceptable approach is to amend the Convention and
rccommcnd.ed thatthis typeof data sharina should occur. phase-out special permit catchaltoge~> W irh.respect
The Commission noted !hisp11rtof the Scientific
Comminee' sreportandendorsedits recommendations. to compUanee, the RMS Working Group notod a
paper on options for compliance mechanisms, including
enforcement,undertheRMSbut there WIISno discussion.
8.2 Re•'lstd Management Scheme (RM.S)
8.1.1Reporlof theRMS Worl:ingGroup The RMS Worl<in&Group was unable to recommend
Themeeting ofthe RMS Wofki n to~p took placon I0 any further colk:ctivcwort to devetop an RMS and
confinnedthatdiscussionsremainal animpasse.
June 2006 chaired by Doug DeMaste-r (USA).
Delegates from 32 ContniCting Govcrruncntsparticipatod. 8.1.2Commissiondiscussion.ttmdactionarising
A summary of !he discussions is given below. 1be full Japan expressodregt ~!eal RMS discussions appeared to
reportisgivenin AnnexF. remainatan impassedespite the rnanyyearsofdiscussions
At 1s meeting, the RMS Chair recalled th3t through in w(lic.h it had participItbelievod that is situation
Resolution 2005-4 adopted last year, the Commission had signifies that IWC has lost its function as a management
agreed that to try to advance the RMS process, the RMS organisation. Japan reminded lhc Commission of ils
WorkingGroup should meet twice before the Commission proposed Schedule amendment to incorporate the RMS
at IWCI58,i.e. an interscssional meeting(!hottook place insubmittedat IWCI57 which iwiiSstill prepared to discuss.
Cambridge from 28 February to 2 March 2006), and Regarding tbo meeting of ~"' RMS Working Group at
another in conjunction with IWC/58. The Commission had IWC/58, Japan expressedits grotin1de to the authors of the
also agreed to consider, if appropriate, ministerial,
doucme~ n dealing with furthe< thoughts on a code of
conduct for whalin¥ under specitl permit. It indicated that
if there 1vas Qgteemcnttha1adopting an RMS would be
' la.semarK!aJblli-a.gCommissio.n2005. RortheSeloenlific: linked10 thelifting of the moratorium, then it would be
Committee. Annc:lcR.t:por tie~ Connt.tico•lhcR.cYtxd
~illl'l Pr.ccc'.cAlltc.ailR.eq\t~ U: ..- ~.ncbs prepared to discuss a voluntarycode of OOI!d. s it had
bop •/"•"•'"J. ~-l~ ,~ ,,114-92. at the intematJooal RMS Working Group meeting. Japan
414 Annex 65
24 OlAlR'S REPORTOf 1l!E FIFTY-EIGHTHANNUAL M£1mNG
againcalled for'normalisation'oftheCommissionso as 10 !here hadbeen the sugges1ionthat, white recognisingtbat
refocus!he organisationbi>ck10iiSfundamentalpwpose as Anicle V!D mean$ t:biUany code of conduct would he
mandalcd by lbc 1946 Convention. h believed lhal such voluntary,governmentsmi&}tlagree to follow ii if ii was
'nonnal!salion' would needto take place before an RMS agreedbyconsensusand if allGovernmentsmade• formal
could be agreed. The Republicof Palau, lhe Republicof declaraiiondlat IIIeywould abide by i1.The UlCbelieved
Guinea.St. Lucia.SLKitiSand Nevis,St. Vinceniand The thailheonly way 10 havea bindinaagreement"ould beto
Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda also expressed have a Schedule amendment to which no objections or
concern !hat RMS discussions had come to a halt and reservations ore taken. It went on to identify fut1hcr
agreed that olhcf altemalives such as that proposed by problemsit hadwith the pfOIJOSIIfIoSr a cndc of conduct,
Jap2nshould be pun.~ to make progress. Antigua and includingthatthe draft code gives100muchdiscrttton to
Bnrbud• considered that it is difficult 10 reach a
ConlraCting Governments conducting specilll permit
compromise on tl1e RMS due 10 differing slrong whaling.The UKrefu1ed1heview!hatit is ~lo set takin&
ideological positions and the lack of respect of some whales !hal are deliberatelyfn•sttoting lhe adoption of an
countriesfor,andunwiJlingncs.tso recognisetherightsof, RMS,noting that it had participatedin RMSdiscU$Sionsin
coasmtSIDles10 usewhale resourcesfor food. St. Killsand
good faithover1he yearsand hadpushed fora robustRMS.
Nevis hopodthat a wayforwardcould be identifiedat Ibis It recallodtbat part of the RMSExpert Oral\ingGroup
meeting so dun discussions on the RMScould resume. In discussions,significantcompromises had been offered by
Icelund'sview, it was alreadyclearatlast year's meeting the UlCand others wilh a •imilar posilion, but 1hat these
lhot the1·o woo no will to rt\Optog~t~ i: fincliGing on were not accepted by tho whaling oount'rio:t. The UK
RMS in lhc 11oorfuture. Subsequenl discussions had not therefore questioned whether the toilet actually wanted a
changed ilview. credibleIU\4Sand if 1hcy did whelher lhey would be
Denmark believedlhat lhe Chair'sproposal for anRMS prepm-edto return to the negotiating mbto.The UKSlt'CSSed
presented at IWC/56 in Som:nlo in 2004 had provided a its view that an RMS ignol'ing special pennit whalin&and
glimmet·of hope that an RMS could be developed. It withoul a proj>er compliancemechanism is no basison
reminded d>eCommission that the Chair's proposal had which even the most open governmentcould consider lhc
indicntcd!hat it isonly throughintcmationalregulation!hat liftingofd>emora1orium.
Ihe long-lenn conservationof whalescan be ensured, !hat
Sweden had symparhy wirh Ocmnerk, also believing
lc RMPis the most advancedmethodfortheconservation !hat it is not in the best intcresl of whales to not adept a
and manogcnJetllof a natural rcsoutu and that the presenl rigorousRMS. It reported thai il h•d nol supj>Ord the
sllllemate will jeopardise IWC's future. Referrinto the Resolution proposod las1 year by Denmati< and the
Rcsolutioll il proposedlostyear together with the Republic
10 Republicof Korea as the proposaldid nol havesufficiently
of Korea regardi"Jl a way forward with lhc RMS , broadsupport.h ag:reedwithdteUK'sdetailedeonunents.
De11markindi02ted that wltile it could understand why Australia remindedthe Comn1issionlhat its basic
counrriestakingwhaleshad oot supponed itsinceado.,tion position is thatit docs not wont tosec mresumptionof
of on RMS may lead to reduced catches. ii could 001 commercial whaling and that it will noaare o an RMS.
understand why those countries that do not tlke whales Referringto Denmar1c'scomments,11could 001agree tbat
vo1ed again$! it1• Oenmarl<believed !hat those voting it is theconsavation-mindtdmembersthaiareresponsible
against iiS' proposed Resolution cemented the level of for the number of whales killedunder objectionor under
currentCMchestaken underobjectionand throogbwhaling special permit whaling because they will not agr<cto an
under special permit. Denmark noted its willingness to RMS. II believed that coiUCrvation-mindocclountries de
wort to sccu~ the long·tam cooservauon of whales.,but no1kill whales.Australiatndtaned !hat!here had not been
considered lhat tbe lime is oot yet right for furtherwork. an RMS proposal !hat has purported to con1rol special
The Republicof Koreaalsobelievedthat lbcClair'sRMS permitwbaling and !hat in anyC3$C,as highlightedby the
proposal should fonn the basis for future discussions 10 UK, this would Jt()(be possible under the current
achieve a re:ISOrtabland practical RMS. II expected all Convention.
Cont111Clin Ggovernmentstoco-operate10thisend. New Zealand noted tltotwhilethe Resolution proposed
The UK suuested lhat Japan and Iceland interpret last year by Denmarkand Ihe Republic of Korea was not
Anicle VIII of the Convention as giving themselves aceeptod,an allemotive Resolu1ionproposedby Gel1lllllly,
complete discretion in pursuit of !heir special permit Ireand nnd South Africa was odopted 1, resulting in 1bc
whaling activitiesnnd thattheyclaim thatthe regulations Cambridge intersessional rnee1i. 11associatodItself wilh
rorsuch whaling, including reporting requirementsunder dJeremarksof the UK.Like the UK, NewZealnodreported
Chaplcr VI of the Schedule, foiloutside the remit of the !hat it had participated •ctivcly in RMS discussions. had
Commission. The UK lherefore concluded !hat a code of anended every RMS meeting held since work on on RMS
conduct forsciontilicpennit whaling would haveno effect was inilitued, and hadhnd continuity in its representation
olher 1han to reduce tl1c tmnsparency of such operations and views regarding what i1considet•cd to be "'' acccptublc
and their rview by the Scienlilie Committee. It noted that RMS. From its persp<:ervie, an RMS should include
lhc Commission has attempted 10 regulate special pennit provisions for internationol nb5Clvorsou aU vessels,
wh olin!lt hrougb the adoption of over 30 Resolulions but
tracking of products through the marketwithoutrestricting
l.hnt lhcsc hove beendisregarded by the whaling nations. 11 n-ade, vessel moniloring and real-lime reponing of vessel
recoiled tbat at tho lntcrscssional meeting in Cambridge, positions,reportingfonitnal welfareinfom1:ation,astrong
compliance mechanismand costs bome by those pror.ting
fmm enmmerd1ll whAHne. New Zt:l~ntthnliftvcd1hesco
'Am1.R,p.hu. WhuiiI omm.l004 :&'2.9.1 be inlinewiththe best practice of olhcr marine n=source
11Am1. Rep.!1. itall'lflCmmt.200S:27-29.
Therewtre2'ot n~k!ppcmorChtResolulionoa 1heR.proposed
byDenmartMdlhcRq)llbhcorKona,16as,ail~nd;27absteut;on t!Rel:olui200$-.,AutRep 111.tWlrDimaC01200S·67.
415Annex 65
ANNUALRfPORT OFl'HEINTERNAllONAL WHAUNGCOMMISSION2006 2S
man•gemcnt bodies. However, New Zellland noted that reso= non-consumptivelyand noted thot wheling and
during RMS discussions,whaling OOW!Iricb sad rejected wbalewatchingactivities can and do co-exisl. includitli in
cenaindemt111S,such •• a Catch DocumentScheme,that Japan.It generallagreedwith thecommentsof the USA,
they are prepored to accept in ocherfora. In addition, itre-iterating its view !hat IWshouldbe a """""""'"" '
believedthattheR.MSproposedby Japm last yearfailedto org;lllisation.Japenreluctantto rq>eatcommentsit had
includemany of the provisiom requiml for a robuStRMS. made at earlier meenngs, but considered this to be
New Zealand mdic:aledits wilhngneo;sto participate in necessaty since in its view, some facts were being
funuc RMS c!i>cussioos,but stressed that it coosidered
convenientlydroppedfromthe recordby $0QJCcountrios. h
reacbinS agmmcnt on an RMS and the titling of 1he therefore reminded the Commission tbot Japan has
commercial whalingmoratonumto be issuesthatshould be supported the Chair's R.MSproposal, which it believes
dealtwilhseplllltcly. includes in a balanced way many of the elements oso
Belgium, Monaco, tile Czech Republic, Soulh AfriC3, C31led'best practice'. It stressed that accepting 'best
Gcnnany, Mexicoond Brazil associated themselves with
practice' does not meenthata managemetnregimebasto
the remarks of the UK, Australia and New Zealand. necessarily includeeverypossible measure. Japan believed
Monaco con!tidcrcdthatsome Contractnig Governmetns the Chair's proposal to be the only way forword in making
wereabusing the provisionsof Artivme which it sawas progress.
being incompatible with tltc udoption of an RMS. Brazil At d1e end of discussions, the Commission noted the
qtestnicodwhy whaling countries refuse to accept best Working Group's report, accepted that on impasse bad
lntemnttonnl prnctlce in WC when they accept it been reachedatthe t:ommtssion level and did not identtty
elsewhere. It elso asked why the same nations refuse to any fonnal activity on the RMS. for the coming ycllr.
discuss, recognise and ttegotinte the rights of coastalstaHowever, it notedthat individualgovernments or GJ'Ouposf
toappropriatewhale resourcesnon-lethally and wbcthcr it govemnteniScould woti<towards the development of un
is conducive to tho m:gotinting process fora highly RMSduringtheintersessionalperiod.
developed nation from the Nonhem Hemisphere to take
whalosfromtheSouthernHemisphere withoutconsultation
withrangestatesof thosesharedresources,asmandated by 9.SANCTUARIES
modern internationallnw. Spain stressed that a robust and
9.llssucs raised in the Scientific Committee
modem R.MS is needed and that it could not accept No issueswereraised.
anythina less than what Is best pracrice in other resource
management OI'Snll'satioos. Ftnland agreed. France could
not accepa liak between reachingagreementon anR.MS 9.2 Proposal toamend theSchedule toe!tobll ~ houth
lllld the liOinaof the moratoriumand suggested that some Atlantic Whole Sanctuary
9.2.1Reponji-omthe ConsetVationCommillce
issues shouldnot besubject to objectionor reservations.It Brazilbad introducedthe proposalpresentedby Aracntina.,
supponed amendmentof the Convention with respect to
spec:ialpemtlt whalingand the ability for the Commission Braziland Sooth AmC3at IWCIS7 for a South Atlanttc
to imposesa.nc1ions. WhaleSancnluy, indicatingthat the clearly st4tedgoal
the sanctUaryis topromote and consolidutc a non-lethal
Noting chat IWC is the body responsible for whale management regimefor cetaceanresouroes in the area the
management. theUSA suggestedthat manypeoplebelieve
itisfailinto fJifil its responsibilitiesparticularlysince thetuary ent0111pa5$0Brazil stressedthe sanc1Uatyas a
numberof whilesbeing takenwithoutinternational control management too! and notedthat the lackof scientific dam
is increaltinmch year. To the USA, it was• foregone un m~l c~ spec:ieslivingthen:shows how much
there is Still to be done to assess them properly. It also
conclllSion!hata way forwarmust be found if whales are highlighted that further scientific findil18$ansoc~
to beprotectedand stocksn:built forthe future,but itnoted
that a lack of trustamongContractingGovemmMISmakes economic reality prove thu the non-lethal management
thisdifficuiLTheUSAwas,however,committedto finding option con be of great benetotdie peoplesin me region,
a solution so that a robust RMS could be developed, thereby justifyingthe proposal in management tCI'!m .
Brazil also noted that the panics to the Convention on
although whetr,cror not it would vote for an RMS would Biologicnl Diversityembrace non-lethaluses of resoon:es.
be aoother question. It wns opposed to the simultaneous
liftingf the momtoriumas an RMS isagreed. Italy,South and that enusin~ proteetioo of coastal nations· rlghiS to
Amen and Mexicoappreeiated the remarks of the USA. non-lethal uses is importlnt. Argentina added dtat the
proposed sanctuary will support research on depleted
Italy considered reaching agreement on on RMS to be of stoeks and their habitats and will promote regional
utmostilllfJO''noe,butidentifiedspecialpermicwbalingas conservationmensureasndeducaitonal ocLivities.
being a significant obstacle to progress being made. It
considered that notwithstanding the provisions of Anicle The Conservation Commiltee endot·scd the South
vm, a binding code of conduct for special permit whalingAtlantic Whale Sancru•ry proposal, with the cxcept'ion of
DenmarkD . enmarlc:osnotsupportivebecause in itsview
is requird, andone t11oavoidsconfusionbetweensuch the proposal does not satisfy the neecssat·y scientific
operations on'"Y tradeor commercialuseof its proceeds.
It did not believe that tn1deof whale p• fromspec:ial criteria. See Annex G for the full report of the
permit whaling should be allowed. Switzerland also Conservaiotn Committees' discusisons on the soncruury
believed dlat rtnching ag)'nt on an RMS is cruciator proposal.
the f'lllure of IWC and thtttif most cnn agree on this, t9.2.2Introductionoftheproposaltoplenary
hope- ie ctill Alive. However it streu:ed th.ot. govcmmenOn behalf of the other princ:ipco~spo 'n(Ar&cntino
havetoseekcompromisesrather thantoblameothers. and South Africa), Brazil introduced a propos•! to create •
RC$pondingto a numberof comments,Japanstared that Sou<hAtlanticWhaleSanctuary.The amendmentproposed
it had neverdeniedthe rigbts of coastal statesto use whale
was the same as in the prcvtousfive years, i.e., lhc
416 Annex 66
66. Chair’s Report of the 59thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2007, pp. 7, 39-41, 46-47
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 7
Chair's Report of the 59thAnnual Meeting
1. INTROD UCTORY IT EMS peoples. have of their land and waters which play an
importa nt role in their lives. She believed that the work that
1.1 Dat~ and plac~ will be done by the Commission during the 2007 Annual
The 59th Ammal Meeting of the Intemational Whaling Meeting would be impm1ant for the sustainabi lity of
whales. of marine tomism. of whole ecosystems. of local
Commission (IWC) took place at the Hotel Captain Cook.
Anchorage. Alaska from 28 to 31 May 2007. It was chaired and global economie s. and of the rich culture of Alaska's
by Dr Bill Hogarth (USA). It was attended by 73 of the 77 Native peop le. She stressed the great extent to which the
Contracting GoYemments. A list of delegates and obse1vers social stmcture of coastal Eskimos is dependen t on the
capture of bowhead whales and the my1iad of
attending the meeting is provided in Amtex A. The
associated meetings of the Scientific Committee and accompanying activities and that Alaska's whaling captain s
Conuni ssion sub-groups were held at the satne venue in the and their families are respected in their communi ties. She
period 7 to 25 May. noted that their traditional knowledge. gained from
countless generations. supplement s the technology-based
1.2 Op~ui ng cH~mony and W<k'om~ addr ~ss research that infonn s the decisions of IWC. Govemor Palin
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. He noted reported that over the last 30 years. Alaska's Department of
that itad been a privilege to have been elected as Chair by Fish and Game has worked closely with the Alaska Eskimo
the Conuni ssion last year and that it was especially Whaling Commission (AEWC) and the North Slope
important since IWC/59 was being hosted by the USA for Borough to better understand the biology of the westem
the first time since the m..id1980s. The Chair recalled that. Arctic bowhe ad whales. the population of which is now
as he had indicated in the private meeting of ov er 10.000 animals and is continuing to grow. She
Commissioners the day before. his goal was to do believed that the AEWC had done a tremendous job in
eve1ything in his power to see that there is a thorough. managing the sustainability of the hunt a nd urged the
efficient andopen discussion of each item on this year's Conuni ssion to suppo11 the renewal of the bowhead quota.
agenda. He considered it important that all Contracting She thanked IWC for its role in the sustainable
Govenunent s have the opportunity to express their points tnanagetuent of whales for funue genera tions.
of view and he hoped that this could be done without Senator Stevens belieYed that IWC s stewardship had
interruption . He stress the impm1ance of finding a way ensured the recove1y of whale stocks around the world for
for theConuni ssion members to work together. not just for more than 60 years. Like other speakers he drew attention
the 59thAnnual Meeting. but also so as to find a way for
to the historical. culmral and nunitiona l importance of the
the IWC to be the effective organisation for the bowhe ad subsistem:e hunt to Alaska's Nati\·e people. He
tnanagetnent and conservation of whales iwas intended to defended these peoples· right to harvest bowhead whales in
be. a sustainab le manner. belieng that to deny them this right
An opening prayer by Albe11a Stephan. an Elder from would jeopa rdise their way of life. He noted that the
the native villageof Eklutna. was followed by welcome suspension in 1977 of the bowhead hunt had shocked the
add resses from the Honourable Mark Begich . Mayor of the Alas ka Natives since they belieYed that there were
City of Anchorage. the Honourable Sarah Palin. Governor thousands of whales in the area and more than enough to
of the State of Alaska. VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr. sustain the bowhead hunt. This had galvanised them into
N OAA Administrator and Undersecreta1y of Commerce fonning the AEWC. with the help of the federal
for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Honourable Ted govenunent. with the result that the hunt was resumed in
Stevens. United States Senator for Alaska. 1978 and has continued since. Govemor Sievens stressed
M ayor Begich noted that Anchorage was honoured that that the Native people have never taken whales for
the IWC chose to meet in the city whose residents are commercial pmposes and never will. He did not believe
keenly interested in its deliberations and for whom whales that IWC should be concemed about the sustainability of
and whaling are not abstract topics. He fm1her noted that the hunt since ihe ve1y survival of the Eskimo people is
the people live with whales in Cook Inlet and that they tied tothe smvival of the A11icbowhead whales. He urged
respect and value the unique culmral role of subsistence the Commi ssion to join with the USA in continuing to
whaling by Alas ka Native people. Mayor Begich refened recognise their right to harvestwhead whales.
to concem over the status of beluga whales in Cook Inlet VADM Lautenbacher welcomed the Commission to
which NOAA had recently propo sed listing as endangered Alaska on behalf of the Govenunent of the USA and
and indicated that he suppm1ed measures to improve their Conunerce Secretmy Gutie1wz. He noted that the U SA is
slams. While this may be a local issue. he believed that it honoured to host the meeting in Alaska and thanked
resemb les tnany of the broader issues the organisation Go\'ernor Palin and Mayor Begich for providing world
would be discussing at its meeting . In the fo11hcoming class meeting facilities. He stressed the USA·s great
deliberations he urged the Commission to keep in mind the interestin the conse1va tion and management of cetacean s
following val ues: respect for indigenou s people: the and w hile noting that it has domestic legislation for the
affection of theorld's people for the whale: and the need conservation of tnarine manunals it recognised that
of humankind to make use of natural resources. Mayor effective conservation and tnanagetnent of cetaceans
Begich believed that a balance among these values could requires intemational co-operation tluough IWC. VADM
be achieYed and that they did not need to conflict . Lautenbache r noted that the USA was proud to be one of
GoYernor Palin st ressed the deep understanding and the original signatories to the 1946 Convention and ihat it
appreciation that Alaskans. and in pa1ticular the native had pa1ticipated actively in IWC's work since then.
417Annex 66
~Al REPORTOFTHEIN'IERNATIONALWHALING CO~iMISS I007N 39
IO.LU JAP.IA of samples. as well as the impact on the reseaha\~of
The Saeolific COCDmlnH Chair reported !hat an 1<>ennina1e the fieseasonpremannly .
int~oual mteting 10 r.-.;.,IM ....Wts from the
A Sllll3lllof the Icelandic reseatcll programme on
JARPA research programme .,...., ton\-.oed in Tal-Ill common lllinl.whales in lcda:odic waten: was also
December 2006 IIwu aoted dJ>t c<>miderableda.a ha\, reponed. The Dl3inobjectn't of Ibiprognmme con<erns
t-Il coll<cted bytbeIARPA propammo by boib lethal feeding ecology. energetics andmulllspet1eSmodelling.
and DOD-ItthallllOibods. bw lbwne disageemem at !be
Ho\\'e..-erseveml additiosubproJeclSareincluded11the
wocla.bop r<p<lwg on.t1y>uand U!lft)><etaliooof some of programmeim·otving scieotisl&om various meardl
~ data. A ll1lOlborof r«:ommendaliOil'l for 1\Jrth..institmiO!land universities in addmoo to tbe ~
.-..earcll wen modt andfunber analys.. bned on IARPA ResearchInstitute.
data were addrossedby reiO·\am S1Jb.commineesat this
Annual Meellllg. 10.2.2Commissiondiscus:sionasndactionmisfng
1M Saenllfic Comminee l!l>dcnledIM cooclusions and Disrussions in the Commission focused on the resfrom
re<lODlll><lldatfrom tbe wortshop , iM nll1intopics and I ARPA Mexico noted !hat wbilelapan bas good scieniiSts.
coodusiODS boingmemioned Mlow. the scientific objecti\·es of JARPA won1ed it greatly. Other
Considerable progress bad Men madt in addressing coocans included rbf ''...large number of wbales !hat
Antarcticl1llllkewbal<!abundauoe and trends pro,~ded bave been t>keno,,. the period of the prop ·ammt . thai the
tbatt~rec~tions from theWOlhhop are followed.
stock •1ntcrore ;u ltsarestill incomplete and !hat the
tbe Comminee may be able to agree estimates. For estimate for nanttal mooali ty rate main ObJeeti\'t of
humpback whales the obwldrulte estilllates provided usefuJARPA when the programme was initiated) is still
steps towards nccept>ble eswnotes of abwldrulce. effectvely unkno·wn because of the wide cou.fideucel.tmits.
A considemblenmowll ofwo d<bad Men undertaken on
Japan thanked the scientist• that attended the JARPA
popuL1tionstmctw't s.iucttbt m.itd e~m review of the review mee.ting in Tol.-.yo. As noted by the Serenufic
JARPA progrOillllltItWO$ ogreed that therareat least Committee Cbair, JARP A bad pro,1ded n large rullOunt of
two stoW of Antarctic minl:e wbal6 present in the data. a.lthougb there w"" sODle disagretment over its
JARPA ~attb area. and t'Uare-aof t:t'ansitin the
analysis. Japan noted that it had t'e>pouded to these
region aroundtS0•-16S•E was suggested. The datdo not disagJreemets in its S\lbwissiou to the Saentific
suppot1 the currenIWC n10nag~ treas for Antarctic Committee andrbar it would couti not=~ethe data and
l1li.t>Uwbales. Sampl<sfrom tbe breeding areas would improve its analysis in tbe future. It further noted rhar its
greatly facilitatthe.., o.na.s and are likely to be
data are shared under rhe Scientific Committee ·Data
reqwred to resol\-eissues reltva10 stock stmctureand Av'3ibbilil~1 .With c-~t to thcootrib\ lbofO
mi:<ingwitlwlthe IARPA rese>rch area. JARPA to management, Iapan noted !hat the sl3rem<nr
\VIult the estintanon natura.!morta.lriy !be Dl3in frOill rhe ntid-tenre\~ew of the programme (see Lut
initial ob)ecti,.. of JARPA, the confidence limits around
paragraph of 10.2..1.1abo,, ) is often selec:ti,.. ty quored,
the cunenJ estimate $p3l11lsuch a wide mnge !bar the leaving out the pan !bar r<fers ro the potennal of the
paramtter is snll effea"'tly unknown. More precise progr-amme to impro,, the management of minkewhales
estimltes of naturamorta.lir.t!Hdependon the use of by belping to impro h~ RMP itself. Japan funber
cOIIllllefccarch.at-age daL>.bw thereare some as yet
commewed that it bas now ~ theecos >y~e mspect
unresol\ ·ed problems withtbese clara. of irs programmein the Anlarctic"'iticISCft13i"~be
Tbt Comwirtee\\..k<>medthe oceanographic and krill able to conttibwI<scientifu: undemOildulg.
relared """" undertakenStJJCethe 1997 Wod:s.bop.The
CowminH also agreedthat considerable role\'anl dal3 bad Furlher C01lllllelin re.latioo to JARPA """'made
when discussin!! !be draft Resolulioo on IARPA (see
t-Il coll<cted by the JARPA programme on maners section .103.2.1below).
re.lated to body ccodanon andfeedulg. Howe,,.. , it is dear
that thenann of ~ onaly•es pr.....Ued ar !be JARPA
""~etw lleA1l!halre.Ja yultleplro~ bad been made 10.3 Rf.ne w of new or continuing propo sa.ls
10.3.1 Repon oftheSrienrifk ComrmltN .
in addressing the rolof Antaretic minl:ewba.les in rbf Therewere no new special permitpropos.aito re"ew rhis
ecos)>letn.Ho\\·0\-.r.uumber of ~ refined analyses year. The Sci£ntific Comntittee did not bave tuDO to
werep1-..entedand d»ctlSsed. coosicler the cOIIlinuingresearpropooa1>of Japan and
Levels of to:uc lll0l3Is and or-ganochlorine compoundskelan d, but noted !hat there were no substantial changes in
were low compared wirb le\..ls in whale1 in !be Northem these proposals since the previous reviews by the
Hemisphere. Committee. The Committee therefore t'efelffd t~
1M Comntillee cOt>QU"I'tdtbat "Thererulrs of rhe 21
Commission to its pre\ious cowments . Hov.·t\"tlthf
JARPA progrnmmt, wltillnor roqrtiredfor management Committee was infomted that the s~ling phllse ofthe
undertheR..H,Phavt t1JpoMnrinlto fmpl'OVemanagement Icelandic programme willhe completed in tM 2007 field
of minkcwhalio'intiJSSourlttmHemisph ~enranumber season, bringinghe total nber of minke wb.1.1essampled
of wa)"i. As bas been the cas• in past Committee
1<:>00 in accordance u.'iththe original plan.
discussaonsou of lhe respectivemerits of lethalandnon
lethal methodology. it "''" uor possible ro reach consens103.2 Commissiondiscussionsandactioumislng
tull011S"the P"JtiCipants. The Commission noted this p:u1 of tM Scieolific
Committee'srepot1.
IOJ J .l R£SVLTSfllOll RESEARCHUNDEROrnER PElWITS
S=wi es of~ from the JARPA II and JARPN II
researc.h prop'allWles were reported to the Committee. u~ tor e:umple:Amt hp. Whaiffl:Com11f2.00S;.37·.38;2004. J8;
Discu.. ious on JARPA II focused on the repr0$eul3tivenes2003:29.
418 Annex 66
40 CHAIR'S REPORTOf THE FJFIT -NINI'ANNUALMEETING
10.3.2..1DRARESOLtrn:O~ ON JARPA believed that one of these is scientific pellltit whaling
New Zealand introduced a draft Resolution on JARPA an v-tbichit considered to belerous:to whale resources and
behalf of a nwnber of other co-sponsors(Australia. contrary to the commercia\Vila limoratorium. Monaco
Argentina. Austria. Brazil, Chile. Czech Repuhlic, expressed concem regarding the continuing take of whales
Ecuador, France, Genna ny, Hungary, ItalLu.~eu mrb,o in the Southem Ocean Sa11ctuaryatsug, g1ed thatJapan
Monaco, Mexi~ coNetherlands. Peru, Portugal, Souf:h should drastically reduce them Switzerland indicated that
Africa, UK, USA). Spain reque.ted that its name be added it did not oppose whaling in general but could not support
to the list of sponsors. scientificellltit whaling at. the cun-eut level. Germany
New Zealand noted itverystrong opposition to Japan's called on aootUtre~ conducting scientific penuit whaling
lethal re.search programmes in the Antarctic and recalledor cOOUllefClawlhaling to refrain from such activities.
that it had already spoken tUlder agenda item 3.3 of its D1<1wing attention to its long-standing policyon
depth of fee.linreg~di nhg proposed inh ~-on in Resolutions concerning Altic.le VIII, Denmark reported
200712008 of huwpback whales. It found it re.grettable ththat it would not participaanyvote.
sincelast year's meeting, there had been a se.rie4 of eventsNorway, Antiguaand Batb nda, Iceland, Mali, St. Kitts
that reinforcedtsconcem; including those related to the and Nevis, St. Lucia, Mo•occo, Repuhlic of GuiBenin_
envirO!llllenttailedon Japan to suspend indefulitely the Republic of Korea and Senegal spoke. against the draft
le·thal aspects of JARPAil conduc.ted within the SoutheJlResolution.
Ocean Whale Sancnl3l)l. While New Zealand re<:ogrtise<! Norv.'3did uot agree with New Zealaud•s condusion
that the Collllllittee considered that results fr001the ithat JARPA had not pro,i ded useful infonnation. As
JARPA programme ha '•e the potential to improve. the recognised by the Scientific Conunittee, Nonvay
management of minke whales in the SouthernHemisphere. consideredthat thprogramme bad yielded valuable ,..suits
it found it sobering that the Collllllittee concluded thatseful in poviding information: (1) on changes in the
results fromJARPA U~reenot required for managemen t ecosystem; and (2) for manageJUeut (e.g. on stock
under the RMP despite18 years of research and the killin.gbucture).Antigua and Barbuda refen·ed to discussiO!lSon
of nearly 7,000 minke whales. It therefore questioned thethe furw.. of the organisation and noted that if governments
usefulness of JARPAII but also ex-pressed alatm that the are. to be sincere. in their e.ff011s to improve. the
progr3lllllle had been expanded to indude endangered Jillorganisation. there nmsbe a commitment to stop the.
whales and vlllnerable htm1pbaclcwhales.New Zealand did grandstanding style used in debates, particu13lly when the
not believe that JARPA was good science and doubted that press are present Regardin g comments ou the abuse of
the science conducted under JARPAITwould be any bette1·. Alticle VIII. Antigua and Batbuda belie.ved that the
Finally, it welcomed the Scientific.COOllltitete's proposals
Convention is as good today as it was in 1946 and that
for a uew procedure for re\!ieu.·:ing scientific penuit regardless of whether some Contrac.t:ing Govenuneuts did
proposalsv.-iliit considered was long overdue. not like the concept, saeotpermitwhaling isexpre y~
Australia believed that the Convention had been brought
condoned in the Convention. It could uot~the erore~
in to replace unilateral ac.tiotheprotection whales mppo1t the draft Resolution. Iceland also referred to the
through international regulation. It therefore consideJ·erights of gove:mments under the Convention and associated
scientific peanit whaling to be contrary to this pwpose aitself with th e remarks of Norway. It further noted that
is not ub jet to international c-eutrot It believed that lethal research on animats is conducted in evety country
scientific pe.nnitwhaling is being used as atoretw:n sponso1ing the draft Resolution. It believed that the
to unilateral whaling. Australia cousideJ that whale oppositin to JapaJJ,.s research programmes derives from
reseat·ch could be done using non-lethal teclmiques, in cotUltries treating whales differently fi·om other aniu11.ls.
which it was a le.ader. Coutraty to couuneuts made earlieMali made similar remarks. Portugal noted that while lethal
Australiasugg,ested that a siguillcant amotUlt of data fromsearch onauiu11.ls is petfotmed in OlallYcountries, it is
JARPA had not been repotted to the Commission and that only acceptable when the,.. are no alternatives. St. Kitts
the puhlication record of peer-1..viewedpape!S from
and Nevis congratulated Japan for its extensive research. It
Japan's lethal research progt3lllllles is poor. It noted thated the.draft Resolution as frivolous, devoid of fac.tual
the JARPAll programme is of p.11tic.ular importance teoinfo1mation and emotive. St. Lucia noted the tendency of
Aus-tralia in view of the proposed inclusion in the. some governments to focus on some parts of the
2007/2008 season of tal.-.s. of humpback whales. All«raliaonvention and not others and drew attention to the fact
reportedthat ii hbeenin disc"ssions with Japan in which that the Scientific Corurnittee had agreed that the JARPA
it had taken an open and constmct.ive approach. It believprogt3lllllle. had provided valuable infonnation . Morocco
Japan should show goodwill and at least withdraw tb:e belieed thatrseea~thshould be encouraged. li noted that
proposed takes of humphack whales even if it would not while it ntighave been able to suppo1t a Resolution fine
drop all lethal aspects of the progr3lllllle. It also believedg Japan's research programme in the Autarc.tic, it
that the taking of htUllpback whales would further inflamcould notsupportthe simple Resolution proposed.
an already heated debate and would c"use au ad\·erse Japn noted that the issue of scientific pennit whaling
reac.tion of the Australia puhlic against Japan which it has been one of the most., contentious and confrontational
considered would br~ ·etta ebl issues within lWC for nJany years and that the content of
Brazil associated it\\ththe remarks of New Zealand the draftResolution simply c.atTied the same-message as
and Australia and COlllmlentthatit did not believe that previous Resoh1tions. It believed that the value of a
the JARPA programmes are. scientific in nant.re. France researchprogramme shottld be judged on the value of the
inter alirecalled that .it had always suppo1ted the vie.wscience performed and not on the kiud of animals involved.
that non-lethal research on whales is sufficient. Italy Responding to a number of comments made by the
considered that there are a mmlber of key issues that needroponentsof the Resolution, Japan noted that it receives
to be addressed for the organisation to function properly. It requsts for its data fr001scientists fiom almost all
419Annex 66
A."lNUALREPORT OFTHEINIERNATIONALWH.4l.INGCOMMISSION2007 41
member counlrie; only to be told by SOUlethat the data are drafting of a Resolution on Safety~at and Protec.tion of
useless. It could uot understandwhy requests were madeif the Environment that they hoped could be adopted by
the datrue cousidered useless. It was disappointed to hear c-onsensu.s
the paJtial quotation by New Zealand of the coUllllellls In beginningits intervention,. Japandrew attentionto
lll3de by the Scientific Comnlittee on the value of JARPA, Reso lution 2006-2 on the Safety of Vesse.ls Engaged io
paJticularly given Japan 's comments uoder item 10.2. Whaliog and Whale Research -related Acti\<ities adopted by
While Japan did not deny the value of oon -lethal research consensus last year'•. Io that Resolution. the Comnlission
methods. it disputed the claim that all required data could had: (I) agreed and <ieclared that the Commission aod its
be obtained by such meaos . It ooted that wheo studyiog the Contrac.tiug Governmentsdo not condoneany ac.tioas that
ecosystem. informationis often requiredon energy flow area tisk to humau life aod propetty io relation to these
betu•eeuspecies which is oftenrepresented by :itmatiou activitiesof vessels a1, -andurgedpersonsandentitiesto
on what differeot orga!lisms eat aod wheo and where they refraio from ;uch acts; and (2) eocotu·aged Contracting
do so. \Vbile some claim that such information can be Governments to takeappropriateme-asures, coasisteut v.rith
gathered from the analysis of whale faeces, Japan IMO guidelines. toeu;,urethat the ""b; taoce aod spirit of
questioned this, e.veo If faeces cou ld be collected giveo tthe Resolution are obsetVed both domestically aod
difficultconditions of working io ·the Antarctic. It internationally. Japannoted that despite last year's
recognised that whilau aoalysis of faeces nlight provide Resolution. dangerous and violent ac-ts had again been
infonuationon what a whale. had eat~ itwould not be petpetra tedagaiost its research vessels dtuiog its
possibleto ascet1ainwheufood andwhere fooditemswere 200612007 research programme in the Antarctic . Japan's
taken. Io addition. obtaioiog usoeful quantitative accompanyingdocument summarised theprotest activities
information from aoalyStS of faeces would be difficult. As by Greeopeace and Sea Shepherd Conserva tion Society
it had io the past, Japan also noted that it it. not possible to 1987/88 to date, but noted that the most recent attacks
get iufotmatiou on age using noo-le.thal methods. on its vesse-ls were t\Vorst tdate. In responsetowhat
Regarding criticism of the lack of published peer-reviewed Japan believed to be ao inteosif)iog level of violence, it
papt'l'.SJapan drew attention to the f.'tCthat western wished to bringtothe Commissionevicle.uceof the serious
publications will often not accept its papersas the data nature of the protest ac-tivities. It noted a series of
have beeo derived from lethal research programmes . harassments to its vess els conduc-ted by Sea Shepherd boats
Finallyinoted thatit would notpa~tic in aaytvote ou indudiug : a smoke bomb and chenlical (butyric acid)
thedraftResolution as it believedthatsuch avote.wouldbe attackon the NisshinMaro by the.Farley Mowat and the.
controven-ial anddiviUve. Robe11 Hunter causing injury totv.·o crew members; the
New Zealand thanked those countries speakiog in throwing of wires aud ropes in an attempt to
suppott of the draft Resolution. Recalliog the comnJeOts dalll3ge/disable the propeller of the NiMaro;1a smoke
from a number of those opposiog the Reso lution that the bomb attack on the sightiog veosel K.aikoMaro; the
scientific data from JARPA have beoen useful it agaio repeaed ramming of the K.aikoMaru by the Robert
challenged this view, •uggesting that these couolries had Hunter;aod dalll3ge to the propeller of K.aikoMmu as
not read properly the Scientific Comnlittee repott . It ag= a result ofthe repeated throwing of ropes front a Sea
highlighted the importance this issue has for both New Shepherd ioflatable Chat resulted io a distress call. Japan
Zealand and Australia , demon.;trated by the fact that both viewed the activities of the Sea Shepherd Cow~.tv-taion
cotmlries hadseot cabioet ministers to the AnMee.tiug. Society to be acts of terrorism, illegal and which
On being put to a vote, Resolution 2007-1 was adopted, fwthermore could result in the eutaoglemeut of marine
there be-ing 40 votes in support. 2 voresagainst and I species. Japan also roeportedthat aa fueon the Nisshi11
abste.uitou (see .:\nnexE). Tweuty-seveo cowttries did uot Man• that re.;ulte.d illl the death of a crew member aod loss
participate in thevote as theybelieved that the submission of power to thvess he~Greenpeace ship EspcratJZatook
of the proposal was oct conducive to building bridges advantage of thesint~iao by couductiog au aoti-whaliog
withintheConllllissiou. campaign iu fl-ont of the crew of the Nissllin Mmu. It
considered this to be highly insensitive.. Japan considered
that these types of actions should oot be tolerated by aoy
11.SAFETYISSliiS AT SL~ AND THIIR nations.
IMPLICA 110!\S New Zealanddtew attention to its doctunenton 'Search
Io commentiog on the Draft Ageoda circulated I00 days and Rescue a1d1 EnvironmentalIssue-sin the Amarclic •.
before the Annual Meeting, Japan had noted its setious ootiog that it has respons ibility for search aod rescue co
ordination in theRos:sSea areawhere theJapanese vessels
concerns about harassrueot direc.tedagainst JARPA1I were conducting whaliog under ;pecia l perulit between
researchactivities dtuiog 200612007 and a.«kedthat the
i..ue be added to the Commiss ion 's ageoda. AI the same December 2006 and Febmaty 2007. Becau;e of these
time, New Zealand had iodicated that it·\Vished to add au ~pouslbil, itewesZealaud•s Minister of Cou.setvation
had cootacted the GovernnJeOt of Japanaod the two NGOs
item on 'Searchand Rescue andEnviroruneutlaConce:sus that were sending ves-;els to the Aotarc.tic (i.e. Sea
in the Antarctic' to the agenda to raise concerns about
safety at sea in the An tarc.tic and the potential for Shepherd Cooserva:tion Society aod Greeopeace ) io
environmental damageresulting from \Y-ilalinandprotest advance of the 200612007J.-\RPAJI programme. It reported
that.it had urged all patties to exercise restraint, follow the
ac.iities. Given thatthe concerns of Japan aud New
Zealand were clearly related, it had heeu agreed to doeal IntematioualRegulatious for the Prevention of Collisions
with them tUldera single age-ndaitem. Both Contracting at Sea, aod re.;pec.t.IWC Resolution 2006-2. New Zeakmd
Govemmeols submitted suppottiog docauneots and Japan noted that it had also ;tressed to all patties that the
also showed film footage of the activities of the protest
vessels. Japan and New Zealand had collaborated on the lInn.Rep.Int. rl?;ah·l'lgC.omm.2006:69.
420 Annex 66
do so. Anup and B.ubudo ques.tiooed the real benefit
benefit ofuroregeneracions- • stac.emeoJcapStlg!~ted
ll«n1lllgto loealcommuwll ~rom -..1lalewatchil!g and was based on cexl from th<Kond pr~ paragraph
sougblanswen to • lllliDb<rof questi<= iocludingtheI) of the Con\~o .It eqtl6ted that the ~ pre-ambular
proportioo owha~ ..ttbiug vessels owned grass-cools paragraphof theResolution be m.-i<edtoreOect what it
poop~ lD Iota!C'OIDillllll(.!) thpercentageof Iota! consideredto be the realol)Jectn-es of thCom-en~ion.
poop~ employed as cnw momhers: aod (3) thllllOlbeof Secoodly, whileJapan did notoppose ooo-~ use of
coastal \\Ia~ and cCIIDIDil<litieothatl•r.b~ eeo "1lale stocks. it wished the Reso10also refe10 ~!hal
transfonne<l'impro\·ed "' omu web as health care and use to give abener balance btt\\'Ht1be rwo acri\l\lits...
tducauoo as a result of "'1lalewatching actiAntigua. Japani.odicacedthat it could support lbe Resoluboo If
andBarbudo belie tat~"'1lalew11tching,lil:e soodcellinthesere\ision"~ nnde . l>lalntadesimilar .......,.Ia.
and .alba cb\~ areocti•- uniter the oontrol of a In response to Japan. Costa Rica UJdicatedthat the
prt\-.legtd few. CosRicarespooded that it hashamany proposedResolution did noc deny lethal use but simply
good expeneo« $rom whalewatc.hing. It ooted that its focusedon noo-lethal use and its i!dvarua~fore it
~U\t.cU. ~Wy.IuIIl:W .iuh::aytl:lvpt\eolllw~~ luw Uitl uol Udie \'~atil y tu iuchlol.k 1it)yt~Ulli
op<roton cokingO\~ t betieved that in Latio America, the
revisions. After lhanhng Dennwkfor itssuppoc1(DOting
beneficiaries of whalewatcl!ing arepoor communiti es that this was one of the timesa cOilD<ry"'th differenc
and tb.11 coc~ m s in cbe region have c<>nSiderable views on the ruanagemenr of ettacta.a rMOW'Ct$ bad
e"perieoee in thiarea from which others could beuefit expressed solid:uity with those supportiog non-use).l
A.-geucina al>o highlighted the beuefits its local Braz.ilre-iterated Argentina 's eartier rem.vla regardwg the
tOillllnul.ihH b.1ve rectivtd from whalewatchiug the extensiYe con•ultation thac had calctn pla<e in de\'<loping
incttasedtolu·wnreulitg ti"Omthis. the proposed Resolution. It ooted that of the 28
n~ Coumussiou uoctd the Scientific Committee·s
amendment s received, none wet·e &om J~pa uespite a
ftPOt 1ldendor rsr~owmeud tnitl'l. request for coUllltent. Given ~hisCosta !Uta . Braz.il
indiated that it could not accept~visi oontst text.
Iceland •uggested that no delegation was oppotonon·
RtsoluHon on tiluon-lcil1lseof cetaceans
Afgeucina in<rod\1ted a proposed Resolutioo on the use oflethal liSe and that it should be possible to reoch consensus
non-lethal cecnceans on behalf of the other co-sponsors ou a Resolution. Howe\-e·r, it abo btlievtd that the
Resolution 's proponents should ha\'t lalownsomeiof
(Auscratia. All$tlia , B•·az.il. Chile, Costa !Uca, Ecuador,
F•-ance.Hungary, ItalyMexico, New Zealand. Panama thewording, pa..ticularly in relation co the Con\'entioo ·,
Peru, Ponugal and the UK). Tho proposed Resolution: (I) objecti\·e. would be c·ontrovef'Sllasinoe this mantr had
arisen manyt~ s before.. It calledfurthewotl; on the
r<eo!Jllsed the valuable benefi ts thai can be deri\·ed fproposedResolution Argentina suggested that was not
cbe oou-lelhal u<e ocetaceans.boch in cerm;of socio
ecooomic andscientific de\·elopmeut; (2) recognised non ihe Latin American counui .. that had opposed dialogue
lelhal use .. a~gitil mnantgement sntegy: and (3) andcalled for a vote. Tho RussianFedet·abon did see
ihe proposed Resolutioo as a ch<eacand mdtcated that ic
eoeoutaged memberStaces to wod: con;1ructi,·ely to,.wds
the mcorporatioo of the needsDO- ~ usersof "1lale couldsupport it without furihamendmenl . HO\\~- ~u
f'tSO!lrces in any future decistons and agreemems. e:.pressed swprise ac the 'ultiourum ' oarure of the clialog.
\\ilich it found unaccepcaand.thereluetancoi>O\\-'y
A.fgentioaDOledthatgreatelfons had beenmade to aYoid
contr"'~ ~ in the texand it therefure hoped theResolution 's propoaecm encertaifurihercbscus>.ioo
that the Resolutioo could be adopted by consensus. It notedan anempt to reachtollS<Il.UIt OO<edthatOenmadr.
hadchanged its proposedan,.,.,...regudmg abon8iJla!
the &st-gJO\\'UJIrure of "1>alewatching and the beuefits ~ wilalingon three occ:asiwubom cowpLaml.
ll«n1lllto Iota!commllllitie.Argenlim considered that
allCOUQintS could benefit fromllO-il me of \\1lale The Russian Federation called for further \\-od: oo the
resources and that sudl .,.. should be reflected the proposal
Sugg..ting that thiwould bean e:«eUent opponuoity
Comoussion ·s OCII\ities. It indicaled its desire that noo
lelhal use be lDCiudedin any future discussions and to reach consensus, the Chait indicated th11was his
negotiationaimed atbreoking the current deadloc.k in the preference for further wod: todone oo the Resolution
org.1llisauon. SpolDand Monaco indicated that they wishedtextso thata vote could be a\'Otde. This wu not
aeccpcablc tme pt'opc ~t ,ohla.occd thAt cowu luniOtU
tobe uxhldtd m thelisorspoosors .
Denm•rk incbcaced that it could support the proposed had alread)"beeo lengthy.On being put to a '"'• ·
Resolutioo a11did noc coo.tlict "'th I\VC's objectives butesolution 2007-3 onthenon-lechal tt<e of eecoceOJJ.($see
Anne:t E) was adopced~ \\~ e2 votes in titvot.-. 2
reco!JllSed that noo-lethal use is an emerging acti>ity tagainstand 2 abstentious; 20 t ltries did not participol<
wiU ba\ o bt cnke:intoaccoun t ifun~ erdeavou:rsof
theorgowsation. It hoped theResolutioo c.ould be adopted in the vote because they fellthatwith tnore tllllta
byc~l$ . consensus Resolution could have beeo developfd.
Switzerland noced that il had supported che Resohttion
Jap.'IU t"Pf es<ed cwo concetllS with the proposed
Resolutioo. Fu'$lly it cousidered that the text in the fitst.-auitdealt withan imponruuiu11e. However.1twas
pre-aUlbul:tt p:t.rngtnph did not ncC\uate ly reflect thedi. ppointed with how the a•,tter was hand led nnd
disappointedthatit was pur to a vote. becau,e of time
objective• of the 1946 Convention . Ratherthanreferring to
the objeccive gl\'eu in the last pre-ambular paragraph of thesw·es. Respooding to Swicze•1and, Brozil repo1ted tb.11
Conveucion (i.e. providofor theprop <~nrervationof
whale srock: and rims •na/ro possible the orderly
-T:h~eseco!ld prM.mbulup:.np11ph otbt COU.\.:ldoo rtW :
dtN•lop••cnt of/110whaling indu.sii')Jthe Resolution 'R«ognis tMKbtr.fNDfthnarimuqJtit# - ·o:({frpard.for
stated thac cobject ift~e Convention is to safeguard ft."!J~tm.S tilv«n rtttttU :.tJJJnprw:.nt•d b)r #·haJ
the natural t'tttteS represented by whale stocks for thesu~e'l:;
421Annex 66
AN.'JUALREPORTOF THE IXlER.c~TX I<O\1.IHALCIIG CO~SSI0)12007 47
the Resolution proponents at no time had problems with types of contanunants that have highlighted the importance
contributions received and with attempts to reach
of this issueItalso recalled that although me Commission
consensus. However, what it considered unbearable was had requested wcreased collaboration between IWC and
the lac:k of respect with which their interests have been WHO (World Health Organisation) some years ago. little
dealt wtth w the Commission. It regretted that at the last bad happened. It therefore encouraged both organisations,
minute, attempts were made, through technicalities, to stop perhaps starting with an initiative from the IWC
what it constdered to be a non-confrontational Resolution. Secretanat , to meet and exchange info=tion on the risk
It again thanked Dewnark for its support. to humans of consuming large quantities of whale meal.
RI:SOLl"llO :'I0:\ CITES
The UK introduced a draft Resolution on IWC's
14.CO-OPERATIO::" WITH OTHER relationship with CITES on behalf of tbe other co-sponsors
ORGANISA TIOi\"S
(Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgi um, Brazil, Chile,
14.1 Report of the Scientific Committee' 9 Costa Rica, Ecuador, Fran ce, Gem1any, Greece, Hungary,
TI1e Scientific Committee received reports of its co Italy, Luxembourg, Panama, P em, Mexico, New Zealand,
Spain, UK and USA). The UK noted that although not
operation with CMS (Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species), ASCOBANS (Agreement on Small perhaps i..nuuediatelyapparent, barriers the development
Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas), ACCOBAMS of commercial whahng other than the moratorium do exist,
(Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black a key one being that tJ·adein whale products is banned
m1der tenns of CITES. Itbelieved that if this was not the
Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area),
IA TTC (Inter-American Tropical TUna Commission), case, the pressure to resume commercial whaling and the
ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the extent of any whaling operations could be considerably
Sea), ICCAT (International Conunission for the greater than at prl'sent. The UK suggested that those
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), CCAMLR (Convention for countril'savourwg whaling often seize the opportunity to
Ute Conservatton of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), play I\VC and CITES off against each other, demonstrated
Southern Ocean GLOBEC. NAMMCO (North Atlantic this year by 1\vo proposals to CITES COP14 to review
CITES listingsof cetacean species in Appendix I (that bans
Manne Mammal Commission), IUCN (International Union
for the Conservation of Nature). PICES (North Pacific interntional trade). The UK considered the proposed
Manne Sctence Organisation), ECCO (Eastern Caribbean reviews to be UWlecessaryand undesirable. Noting that the
Cetacean Commission) and UNEP (United Nations I\VC is mtemationally recognised as the body competent to
manage whale stocks on a global basis. the UK believed
En\'lronment Progranune - Protocol on SpeciallyProtected
Areas and Wildlife of the Cartagena Convention for the that assessing the abundanceof whale stocks is the role of
Wider Caribbean). IWC's Scientific Committee. Itwelcomed the fact that in
thepast CITES bas recognised IWC as the major source of
14.2 Commission discussions and action arising infonnation on whale stocks, as enshrined in CITES
In the Conunission, UNEP Caribbean Environment Resolution 11.4 agreed at COP12. The UK was not
Progranune (CEP) gave an update on work relating to its suggesting that IWC s hould instruct CITES or any other
intergovernmental organisation how to act, but considered
Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
(SPAW) of the Cartagena Convention for U1e Wider ittime·ly to remind CITES and others U1atthe commercial
Caribbean. It welcomed the appointJnent by IWC's whaling moratorium remains firmly in place and that it
Scientific ColiUnittee of an observer to its activities. The c.ontinues tobe relevant in the protection of cetaceans. The
UK believed that the introductionof the moratorium was a
Secretary reported on progress on furthering co-operation
with IMO (Intemational Maritime Organisation), bold environmentalstep years altead of its time and that the
particularly in relatito ship strikes on cetaceans. reasons w lih persuaded the Conunission to adopt it in
India stressed the need tonhance co-operation between 1982 remain valid. It believed that pressures on whale
stocks have increased rather than decreased and although
IWC and oU1erorganisations, particularly FAO with whom
it believed there was considerable overlap in relation to some stocks are practically recovered, many are still listed
ftsheries, and bycatcb in particular. France welcomed the by IUCN as threatened, vulnerable or endangered. The UK
co-operation ber.veen the IWC and UNEP CEP and noted noted that among the pressures on whale stocks is the
effect mat climate change may have on cetaceans and their
that under the Cartage na Convention it works with
Caribbean countries on the protection and management of habitat.It be!Jeved that such effects are incompletely
marine biodiverstty. It supported the rwc ·s co-operation understood and thus mented the continued application of
with other orgarusations and believed that the IWC had an the precautionary principle to the management of whale
important role to playin co-ordination of work particularly stocks. The UK stressed the importance of the restriction in
related tocetaceans. trade in whale products in ensuring that the moratorium
As II bad on prevtous occasions, Monaco drew attention remained effective and considered it to CITES credit that it
has followed closely I\VC's lead by listing species on
to theinclllStnon the Commission's agenda of an item on
bmnan health ISSUes.Itnoted that this item stemmed from CITES Appendix I. The UK noted that whal ing bas a long
concerns that the consumption of cetacean meat could be history of illegal catches and that should any relaxation of
detrintental to human health because of high levels of current trade restnctions promote collllllercial whaling on
any significant scale, no management system is currently in
certain contanunants. Monaco recalled that in recent years
U1ere has been U1e emergence of particlliarly toxic and new place to pollee it. Itbelieved U1at any increase in trade
would put pressure on the moratorimn and open the
possibility for illegal whaling to become profitable and
more viable. TI1eUK therefore considered it imperative
"For deta ofthe centific Conunine<-'s deliberation on this Item •ee
J.CetacoonRes.Manage.{Suppl10(2008). that the Commission send a clear message to CITES as to
422 Annex 67
67. Revised Chair’s Report of the 60thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2008, pp. 5, 27-29, 42
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSI ON 2008 5
Revised Chair's Report of the 60th Annual Meeting
1. INTROD UCTORY ITE MS continue. Finally. on behalf of the Govennnen t of Chile
and President Bachelet. he wished the meeting success in
1.1 Dat~ and pla~c all its deliberations.
The 60th Ammal Meeting of the Internatio nal Whaling Minister Urimie also referred to the impo11aut role Chile
Commission (IWC) took place at the Sheraton Santiago played in estblishing UNCLOS and noted the impmiance
Hotel and Convention Centre . Santiago. Chile from 23 to
Chile gives to ensuring the sustainability of tnarine
27 June 2008. It was chaired by Dr Bill Hogalih (USA). It resources. She noted that Chile's national waters are home
was attended by 73 of the 81 Contracting Govenunent s. A to 50% of known cetacean species which she believed
list of delegates and observers attending the meeting
imposed on her counl!y responsibilities to their protection.
is given in Annex A. The associated tneetings of the She also repmte d that on this day. President Bachelet was
Scientific Conun ittee and Conuni ssion sub-groups were declaring Chile a whaling-free counl!y and refen·ed to
held at the same venue in the period I to 19 June. other measures being taken regarding the protection and
1.2 W ~lcom~ addr ess conservation of cetaceans including the indefinite
Welcome addresses were given by Alej andro Foxley. extension of the moratoriurn on w·haling in its waters.
Minister Uria1ie drew attention to the need for IWC to
Minis ter of Foreign Affairs and Ana Lya Uria1te. Minister address a range of environment al issues and the effects of
of the Enviromneu t. They both extended a wann welcome
to all participant s. climate change on cetaceans in pmiicul ar. She stressed the
Minister Foxley expressed his pleasure in welcoming need to guarantee a fi.1turefor IWC and believed that the
world would be watching the debate at the Ammal
IWC back to Latin America after a long absence fi·mn the
region .He recalled Chile's long history in maritime issues Meeting . She wished the meeting good luck and success.
and particularly its role in the creation of the United
1.3Op~ningst at~m ~nts
Nationa l Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS ). He The Chair welcomed the following new Contracting
noted that this year. in addition to its regular work. the
Commission would be discussing the Yery impmtaut issue Govenunent s who had adhered to the Convention since the
of its future . The Minister observed that when the last Ammal Meeting :
Intemational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling • Urugu ay - adhered on 27 Septembe r 2007:
(ICRW) was agreed in 1946. it had been a leading • Romania - adhered on 9 April 2008:
instnunent. designed to introduce regulation into a whaling • Republic of the Congo - adhered on 29 May 2008: and
indusl!y where it had been lacking. However. he suggested • Tanzania - adhered on 23 June 2008.
that over time it is impmiant for any organ isation to review Of the new Contracting Govenunents. only Un1guay was
and revise as appropriate its function so as to itnprove its represented at the tneeting . In its opening statement.
perfonnauce and fulfil the expectation s of the intematioual
counnunity . The Minister believed that the IWC had Uruguay indicated its pleasure to be back again in the
Couunlssion and thanked the Secretariat for the assistance
embarked on such a process at its intersessioualmee ting in itprovided dming its re-adherence to the Convention. Ii
March 2008 - a process that Chile fully suppmied. He thanked the Go\'enunen t of Chile for hosting the Annual
noted that during negotiations. it is necessmy for Parties to
Meeting and for its wann welcotne . Uruguay stressed the
seek solutions while safeguarding their fundamental issues itnportance itgives to the conservation of tnarine living
and those of the iutematio nal couunuuity . He recogn ised resources and refen·ed to a number of regulations it has
that this will not be easy. Minister Foxley suggested that passed since 1969 regarding the protection and
decisions based on consensus are the first steps to greater
manage ment of marine mammals. Ithoped for a successfi.ll
understanding and that consensus is a reflection of a outcmne of the tneeting.
couunitment to find common ground. He belieYed Yoting to
be diYisive. He noted that while procedural refonn s to IWC
1.4Cr~d~nta ilsand voting right s
are required. substantiYe issues must also be addressed and The Secreta1y repmied that the Credentials Committee
in this regard indicated that Chile's aims are to strengthen
the coiiServatiou of cetaceans through management plans at (Japan. New Zealand and the Secreta1 y) agreed that all
a regiona l and sub-regional level. to develop non-lethal credentials were in order for those Contracting
Govenuneut s present at the begitming of the meeting. She
research programmes and to strengthen science . The noted that voting rights were suspended for Cameroon.
Minister stressed the importance of taking an ecosystem
approach. following the precautionmy principle and COle d'Ivoire. Guatemala. Kenya. Mali. Mauritania and
applying best practices. He also stressed the impmi ant role Senegal. The new Contracting Govenunen ts of Congo.
Romania and Tanzania would not have voting rights until
of civil society in cetacean research and conservation and
encouraged their involvement in IWC which he believed they had paid their fmancial contributions for 2007/2008.
would be beneficial to the organi sation. Minister Foxley The Secretmy noted that when voting connnenced. she
would callon St. Vittcent m1dThe Gren adines to vote first.
considered science to be fi.mdameutal to the proper
fi.mctioning of the organisation and noted the inYolvement.
this year. of a greater number of scientists from Latin
Americ a in the Scientific Counnittee and hoped this would
1A minor revision has been made to the 4 sentence of the second paragraph in section 6.3 .8.2
423Annex 67
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER!\fATIONAL WHALING COMMISS ION 2008 27
In this approach, reviews will be undertaken at With respect to JARPA Il, 2007/08 was the first year of
intersessional workshopsof independene txpert.sA limited the full-seale researchprogrrurune \.'lhilepennits were
number of scientists associated with a proposal will be issued for minke, fm and, for the first time, htunpbac.k
allowed to attend such worksh ·ops in an advisory role, whales, Japan subsequentl y agreed to delay the taking of
primarily to present their proposal or results ru1dto answer humpback whales at least tmtil after the 2008 Atumal
questions of clarification. To ensure that the composition of Meeting. In the event, 551 Antarctic nllilke whales were
ru1y expert group is considered balanced ru1d fair, the taken ru1dno fin whales.
experts will be chosen by the Chtair and Vice Chair of the In the JARPN Il progranlllle , a total of 207 (plus one
Scientific Committee ru1d fWC 's Head of Science in lost) conunon nllnke, 100 sei, 50 Bryde's and 3 sperm
consultatio nwith a Standing Steering Group representing a whal<".swere taken in 2007. A review of the first six years
rru1ge of expet~en ancdeexpert:ise within the Scientific of JARPN Il will take place intersessionally prior to next
Commit tee. y<"ar's Alllmal Meeting following the new approach
The Sc.ientific Committee noted that it was aware of the mention<"din section 9.1 above.
ongoing process in the Commission regarding the future of keland 's progranune on North Atlantic connnon mitlke
rwc and recognised that the a~:re perdcedure might be whales has fmished its sampling phase. The total number
subject to changes in that context of COllllllOnHunke whales taken has been 200, the last
being taken in 2007. Currently the san1ples and data are
10.1.2 Commission discussions and acrion arising being analyzed and when this has b<"encompl<"ted, the
Mexico, Ecuador , UK, USA, S.witzerlru1d, Japan, India, programm<"w ill b<"subj<"ctto arwc review following the
Umguay and Australia welcomed the progress made, agreed new proc<"dure.
believed it to be an important step in relation to research Again, as in the past, the Comnuttee 's discussion on the
under spec.ial permit ru1dthrulked. the Scientific Committee results from existing pemuts reflected the deep division
for its work. The UK regretted that the timetable for the within tl1eorganisation regarding scientific pemu t whaling.
review of the JARPA II progrannme was still some years Tlils division is one of the main r<"asons why a bettet·
off and noted that the agreed pmcedure may need to be approach to the review of proposals ru1dresults had been
revisit<"d in light of th<"outcome of the Commission 's developed .
discussions on its future. Japan expressed its commitment
to follow the new procedure . It ~ope this new procedure 10.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Discussions in the Comnilssion focttsed on Japan's
will help to promote a better unders tanding of its research research programmes Ullderspecial pemu t, particularly that
activitis among a wide audience ..Australia looked forward in tl1eSouthem Oceru1.
to the outcome of tl1eJARPN II review following this new
approach. New Z<"aland welcomed tl1e Scientific Comnuttee 's
r<"pottand in the spirit of openness and no surprises wished
The Commission noted tlus part of the Scientific to make clear its objection to whaling tmder special pennit
Colll.tltee's report ru1dendorsed its recommendation s.
conducted by Japan in the Southem Oc<"an. Itstressed the
depth of feeling in New Zealand that such programmes
10.2 Review of results from existing permits create. It noted that Japru1's annual expedition to the
10.2.1 Report of the Scienrific Commitree
Southem Ocean inflam<"spublic opinion in New Zealand
Th<"Scientific Committee revi<"wed results from Japan 's leading to the receipt of many complaints regarding the
cml'eJlt r<"search progrannn<"s in the Antarctic (i.e. lethal takes in the Southem Ocean sanctuary. New Zealand
JARPA II ) ru1dNorth Pacific (JARPN Il 19)ru1dIcelru1d's noted that tl1e regrettable events in recent seasons (see
progranune in the North Atlantic ·0
section II) have underlined its concems regarding the
safety of vessels ru1d their c.rews and the dan1age to the
pristine At1tarctic environment tl1at may occur. It
acknowledged Japan 's decision not to take humpback
U)ARPA II a large-scale Antarcticprog1rth..commenced withthe whales last season . It recogtilsed tlus was a difficult
flrst year of a rwo-yearfeasibility study duringthe S\W.lllofr decision but respected the courage of the Japanese
2005/06. The objective!Oare defined by Japan as: (I) monitoring of igovemmen t. New Zealand looked to Japan's leadership to
Antarcticecosystem(2)modellingcompetition amongwhalespeciesand
developing funue management objectives; (3) elucidation of temporal andntinue to take hard decisions and call<"dfor a halt to the
spatial changesn stock structure; a(4)improving ihe m.111agemetn lethalasp<"ctsof its res<"arch in th<"Southetn Ocean.
procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks. JARII will focus on Australia associa ted itself with tl1e remarks of New
Antarctic minke, bnmpback and fill whales and possibly other species in
ihe Antarctic ecosystem ihat are major predato11o>fkrilDuring Zealand. It believed that whaling under special permit has
the 2-year feability study a maximum of 850±10% Antarctic minke been the most contentiotts and divisive issue facing th<"
wbales and ten fin wbales will be killed and san1pled in each seasonCommiss ion and that there is no need to kill whales for
Annual sample sizes for the proposed full-scale research (lethal samscientific purposes in the21" century. Australia considered
are850±10% Antarctic minke wbale, 50 humpback whales and 50 fill
whales. that the progranlllles purportedly conducted tmder Artide
1JARPN IIis a long-tenn r=arch progr.linme primarily aimed at feediVill of the Convention add nothing relevru1t to knowledge
ecology inthe conteA'otf coutnbutingto the'cousetVationandsustain.1bfor the conservation and mru1agement of whales that cruu1ot
use of marineliving resourcesithewesternNorthPacific, especilly
within Japan's EEZ.· The programme involves ihe taking of ISOminke be obtained by non-lethal meru1s or historical records. It
whales, 50 Bryde's wbales, 50 sei wbales and 10 spem1whales annuallynoted that because progr31111llestmder spec.ial pennit are
inthewesternNorthPacific. not subjected to fom1alised oversight by the Conmussion ,
"A proposed permit by lcelaprimarilyfor feeding ecology studies for
ihe takef I00 cnmmon minke whales, I00 fin whales and 50 sei whales whale population s - such as th<"J-stock mink<"whales - are
in each of two years was pr=tat the 55thAnnual Meeting in2003. In put at substantial risk of continued depletion. Australia also
theevetn~Icelandhas issuedpermist to telke38commonminkewhalin beli<"vedthat special pemut progr31111llecsonducted within
2003, 25 minke whales in 2004, 39 ntinke wbales in 2005, 50 minke a sanctuaty (i.e. JARPA Il) undemtine the substantial
whalesin2006 and 39 minkewbales in 2007.
424 Annex 67
2&
benefits of IWC sanctuariin a seriousand unacceptable Luxembourg, Petu, Uruguay. France, Panama and Spain
manner and Chatlhe e.'<istingsptC>al pennprog~·amme associatedtbemse\l-es\\itb previous speakersand re
co:ndutced by two countries are Ul reality commercial iterated their oppo$ition to whaling under special petmit.
whaling operations prob.ibitby !he moratoriun> Like believing it to be no longer n<cessary.
New z~ala , bd Austmlian Oov"""""'t ond its people As ithadoo.prtVtOUSocca!lino..celandnotedthatsince
were deeply conceroed that JA¥.Pn againtook plaoe1ll lethal scieotific teoearch ou ru>itnalsis carried out \\oidely
tb.e Southe.u Oceau during the austral$Wllll.fIt too including in aU IWC ul<t.llbercountries, it is an accepted
ac!knowledged the decision by Japau not to proceed to takpractice. Itrged nJ«nbers to becons~, tnenttstop
h"mpback wb.alesand noted ch.1tnofiwhales were ~1ken treating whale> differontly front other animals. S\Vitzerland
last season. e:<plaining chba$ipruti<ular c011tems for reponed ch.1tits posittSthat lethal research on animals
these species due to lb.eir CO!lS<fVBtioarm and the is ocly acceptable on two condition(I)Chatthe results
importance of humpback whales to the vigorous whale cannot be obcaiuedby other research n>ethod;sand (l) thai
watcl!ing iDdusuy in Austr.Wa and lhe South Pacific tbe principle of propottion.al.ity is followed, i.e. thai tbe
region. Again like Kew aoiaDd. Ausualia called for an e:<peeteresults of lheresearch will conlribule to science m
ending to lethal research and drew anention to two such a fashiOD!bar any suffering of anitmis can be
propooaisintended to helre501 \11~ritic:al problelllm ju>-tified.
the Commission by conseosus. St. Kitts and N0\1S uodentood that sciectific pennit
Firstly. Australiaproposed !bat lhe approach to whaling rem:unsacontroversiail!OS.eowe ve~rit stressed
scientific permits in the Commissioobe rtfOfllled. It notthatfordevt-lopingcountreis. mMinescientificresch as
lhat at preseuL Contracting Gonnllllent s are required toprovided for under UNCLOS and the ICRW is important
subl11itplans to tbe Scieutilic Comlllittee for t'f\oiew,inuldeveloping llWlllgen>entapproaches for marine
that the Commission does not CW1'f!ltlplay a role in liing rseow~es. wcluding tbe ecos·ystemapproach
accepting or denying • pennit . It welcoo>ed the new being advocated by o•'lllorganisations. It therefore
procedureforreviewinguew,exi,ting tUlon.golu.,special congratulated Jnpan for itscontinued commitment to
penui t prograJlllllfs agreed tyear by the Scientific research pruticulOJ·Iy in the Southern Oceau. St. Kitts and
Commi ttee noting Chatthis wilL llllpOttautly, rt111ovethNevis reminded Partiesch.1twholes in the high seaare
proponents from the review deliberattous anmake the considered c0111monproperty that therefore required a
process more coasistent\"itbaceep&abltse:ietlce review collective 111a!l3gementapproach woithifralll•m•urof
practice . HoweYer. Australiaalso propc»e< <h.1t the the ICRW. lt belie\'eel!some of the arguments against
Commissioo should a~ by C<>I1Sell$on its research special penui r whaling. especially with respect to
priorities and adopt critaia to \\'hich all research sboohumpback whales. "- being <lm-eo by the ecooomic
conform. Tbf Commission could then assess all penni! interests of thopromouug whalewatching. Hoon-er . SL
prcposals against strict scieucntena.and govemments Kills and }'.;,comidered that the intereStone group
would issue permits only with the agreement of tbe should1101supersedethe int.,..... of others.
Commission. Alh-.ralia·s secondproposal was ch.1t the Japan considered !bat special perntit whaling prO\ides a
Commission should de\-elop regional non-lethol. whale challenge to !he new y~st ahshed process to address
rese<U plns to coordinate and optuuise tbe research IWC's future, e.whether the Commission will be able to
prog~· ofIWsC 111etuber.gainst~ priorities and handle it in a diplomatic way or whether discussions will
o~ect eiIt-hoped to initiate sopion for the Southern revert to the acrimony of rb.e past Japan believed !bat
Oceau and !bat similar prutuerships could be established in
po.;tionson thiis~s thould be foruutlated on lhe basis of
otb.er p311Soflhe world (see sec15.3). evidence available. Howev. its impressionwathatsome
Brazil associated itself with the remill'b ofNew Zealagovenunentsfotm\Llate theiposition(jfirand then find
and Australia and believed that IS~S \f whalingunder lhe evidence to " lpp<ltt them., ignoring inf=that is
specialperntit will be one of the lllOStdifficult issues to
aot supponive. J3pan acknowledgedthat some countries
deal ,..;in tbe process establisregardingthe furure of sawnoneed. inthe21 ~e'nuy, 10kilwhales forresearch,
the IWC. It Yoiced its continued strong opposition to sucbul noted ch.1rit would be nJOa comoinced by this argument
practices and invited those cocducting lethal research tif theS3l11countrie~·tel there is no need to l:i1Jany
suspend such actnities !herebycontributinto the joint animal It thertfore supported. the viN "Sof Iceland in Ibis
efforts to acm ,-ea better uo<lentru>din gmong IWC respect.Regarding dal3 &em its research programmes.
member;. Japan r~ ch.1tlhese- at-ailaband shared with the
SlO\·enia, ;peaJcillgoo behalf of EUebelieved ch.1t ScientificCorumonee through the Data A\·ailability
•pecial perntit whaling programmes should be brought Agreemen1winch was agreed by consensus. Japan found it
under IWC comrol andpbased-ou <lOtllp.lettly in the shortronich.1tscienti$1$requesrmg data fitspecialperntit
to medium-ternL The lJK associated itselfv.i th the remarprogrammes are fr-equently based in counbies who are
of previous speakers. It considered whaunder special againsthese programmes . li questioned why these data are
penui t to be second ouly to lhe isSl10of alliulandwelfarequested if they are not needed. Japan accepted !bat while
found it hard to convey the r.ew.e of public outrage of ttherrue: m..1emotionalvie'\"\n special permti whaling.
majority of thUK public over Japan 's r<!leorch whaling.the responsibility of goven•neots was not to pto1110tesuch
Like others, it welco111edch·t Jap3ll had not ~1ken viewsbutrathft"to develo~itin o~basedou evidence. It
h~tmpb acales this last seasou and noted that fin also be.lieved ch.1t this issue is a challenge for good
whales were taken. In this respect and noting ch.1touly jouroalism whichshot be p0!1 of the solution rather tbau
fin whale.s hbeen seen by Japan ·s st1entim last season. pN1 of lhe problenItconsidered ch.1tthe equal treatment
it asked whether Japan could JUstify !hecontinued plannedof\i ews will help IWC to help itself. Japan recognised thai
take of 50 fin "'ilales in subsyean<of JARPA IL Tbf cootinuing!besmrusq11o,..;ththe organisation would be
USA, Atgeotina. Cosla Rico. CIWe. Ponugal. Mexico. easy bul it sttessed !bat -.nbersshould consider the
425Annex 67
ANNUALREPORTOFTHEIN!ERNATIONAL\\'KALINGCOMMISSION 2008 29
consequences of doing soItnoted that in ttying to change data shating. Given the pm1eity of a\'ailable or targeted
the orgauisatiou it wbelnecessasy to change the Olallller diagnostic labotatoriesnd diagnostic tests •pecific for
in which discussions are held. Fil, regarding the UK's m..r1ine m.."Ulllll3l.s a list of laboratories and expeats for
question, Japan indicated that this would be addressed •pecific or general diagnostic capabilities by counny,
during its lunchtime preseutatiou ou the results from continentand/or region \\tillbe.compiled and maintained.
JARPAII. The Scientific Comutittee receivereportfrom a two
The RussianFederation, Republic of Korea, Notway. day pre-meeting workshop on skin diseases in cetaceans
Grenada. St. Lucia and St. Vincent and The Grenadines held in Santiago on 30-31 May. The workshop reviewed
spoke in support of research under special pennit as the •fute of knowledge on the examination of, disbibution
provided for by the Convention noting that such of: and c.auses of skin diseases in cetac-eansUritha focus on
programmes have provided impottant information. ce.taceaus of South America+The potential for impacts of
skindiseases in small populations in areas where there are
11.SAFETY LSStiES AT SEA
high ttevels of en\wumeutaldegradation was recognised
This item v.'aincluded.on the ag,enda at the request of auU lt wl1-"Y~u thal:ye~;:1al.:itou lilioulU 1.Mf:';i,Vt'll lo
Japan in view of protest ac.tivities of the Se.a Shepherd prevatteuce and inlpact of skin diseases in dolphins from
southeru and south-eastem Brazil. With respect to global
Conservation Society that despite the adoption by
consensus of IWC Resolutions at the 2006 and 2007 ac.tiom. recommendations were made for research,
Aum>al Meetings" had again been launched against stand.:udisation and on data $hating.
JARPA II research activities in the Southern Ocean dtuing ll.l.UECOSYSTI:Al AIODELI.Jl<C
the austral summer of 200712008. Japan described the The C(Uf'tion of ecosystem modelling in the. context of
natore of the action taken which it believed had posed a
ce.taceruJ.conservation is important and hasbeenaddressed
serious threat to the.safety of its vessels and their crewby ihe Scientific Cornntittee on a muuber of pr\e~ous
referred to the "'atemeut that had been issued in March byoccasions. This year, the focus was planning for the joint
the Intersessional Meeting of the Corumission on the
CCA:.'\1L/I\VC worl:.;hop, to he he.ld in Augnst 2008. to
Fut.u-e of IWC, in which the mee.ting inter alia:(1) review inputdata required for ecosystemmodelsto provide
reiteratedthat the Cornntission and its Comracting advice on krill predators in theAntarctic m..r1ineecosyste111.
Governments do not condone and in fac.t condemn any
E'\-pertWorking Groups for each of the 1..-etaxawere.
actions that are a risk to human life and prope!ty in re.Lprep;uing for the wotkshop . The Scientific Cornnlittee
to theac\ttiieofsvessels at sea; and (2) urged Conn·actingagreed that he approach taken by these groups, and the
Governments to'take actions. in accordance with relevant progress being made towards the wotthop , was
mle-.sof international law and respective national laws anappropria te.
regulatious, to co-operate to prevent suppr ~eactions The u;e of the ECOPATH with ECOSIM software to
thar rishuman life and prope!ty at sea and with respect texplore the potenti.'\1impact of cetacean; on fishety yields
alleged offenders'. Japan we!cOOledthe cou.mltations and was also disc.usr.ed. The. Scientific Committee agreed that
co-operation it has had \Vith other rele.vaut govenunent'S
simulation te.sting of multiple models is a valuable
and the concreterel~ thst are being achieved. It hoped approach, reaffimtiug its conclusion of 2002 that at this
thar IWC would enc.otu·agefuture.co-operation. stage, no single approach could be reco1lll.lle1ldedto
A number of Contracting Governmentsal~ woelcomed provide reliable. infoouation of value to consideration of
the ongoing co~tiou with Japan regarding the recent c.e.taceau dynamics ia.n ecosystem conte:\..1 While this
protet activities in the Southe.mOcean. Theyexpre~d doesnot neces=i ly rule out the possibility that inferences
conceru over these ac.tivities and v.-illie they supported the
could be drawn if a number of differenl approaches yie.ld
right to peaceful protest they noted that this umst he donqmlit.atively similar results, the Comutittee agreed that it
in a wanner that does uot present a risk to human life.or may be some time beforethis situationchanges.
propetty and is in accordance v.i th domestic and
11.1.1.3 OTHER HABITAT REU.TEDMATTERS
ioletUational law. It was noted that IWC is not the CUMA'IE CHANCE
competent body in which to address matters of vessel
safef,~but that this matter was to be discussed the The ScientificConmlitteeput plans in place for a second
workshop scheduled for Febnwy 2009 in Sienna, Italy (the
following \Vee.kat the Iutemational Maritime Organisation firl.t took place 12 years ago). The ptinwgoal of the
wllu l.aa:s(.·uu4JCl't~1tisme. workshop is to deteurtiue how din>ate chaoge may affect
c.teace. aho.~to best dete.nniuethese effects, and how to
[1 . EllROl\I ~Eli\AL A.'\]) HEALTH LSSt..-ES improve cou.>:>etona under climate changes desc.ribedin
the 4:th report of the lnletnationalPanel on Climate
12.1 Scientific Committee acritities
12.1.1Reportof tileScientificCommittee Change. A SteeringComutittee was established to agree a
final agenda and list of invited participants.
12.1..CETACEA:. D~ISL'\.SES
The Cetacean Emerging and Re.stu·giog Disease (CERD) PLANNING OF PHASE n OF POLLVJIO N 2000+ n
group ffiablished last year prepared information on Due to time constraint;, the POLLUTION 2000+ Phase II
ce.tacean pathogens, biotoxios adi~""' repotts. It also mode'lliogworkshop planned for •priog 2008 was not held.
reviewed progress on disease identificationand However. a new Steering Group hasbeenasseJubled which
standardisation. case definition, diagnostic laboandories is flnali•ing plans for an inlersessional wotbhop that.will
1
~Res u.ti 006-2 ootheSafe')' of Vessels EinWhaling:md
WhaleResearc.b-relActir\<iResolutio:1 2007-2 oo SaSea. at tI OLLtmO N 2000+barwo:rimstod~ennw ie-ierprec:lictinad
andPtooectiof thaMariBmirownea; . quantimtive rela. ; e:<bobem:biam:ukel$expoSUJ"EeOaodfor
nFo~det:rils of the Sd eotific Colllllliaee 'sItemseeratioeffec! of PCBs) and PCBince,'\aiDms-ues1vaUd:a;e/catem
J.CQutuan hs. +\lan(SuppJ11 (2009). s:uupting: and ruWyticaJ techniques .
426 Annex 67
CHAlR 'S REPORT OF THE SIXTIETH ANNUAL MEETING
42
agenda since it may ha\·e a role to play if and when the
language only requires that rele\·ant domestic legislation be
in place. The USA do not interpret this sentence as RMS is completed and catch limits set. It was suggested
indicating that any \'iolationf domestic law is also an that the TC may no longer be needed and the Committee
a21·eedthat tlus could possibility be included in discussions
infraction of the Schedule for two reasons. Firstly.
compliance with domestic law isa domestic matter and not o;1the fumre of the organisation. The Commission agreed.
subject to IWC review. A domestic law may ha\'e
requirements not contained in thechedule. Rather. it is the 20.1.2 Frequency of meetings
Schedule pro\'isions themseh·es. such as catch limits and As in preYious years. during thF&A Conunittee meeting.
the prohibition on the take cah·es and cow/calf pairs that some countries supported a mo\'e to hold the Couunision
are rele\'ant. Secondly. the SA belie\'ed its \'iew to be
meeting e\'ery two to three years: others. while sympathet
supported by the legislative history of paragraph 13(a)(5). to this in principle. belie\'ed that such a mo\'e is premamre
It belie\·ed that there is no indication in the legislati\'e gi\'en the ongoing discussions on the funu-e of the
history to this sentence suggesting anything other than a
requirement for ree\'ant domestic implementing organisation.e\'eral cotmtries suppo11edcontinued ammal
meetings of the Scientific Committee e\'en if the
legislation. It recalled that prior to. similar language Conunission was to meet less frequently. The Committee
w;s only in the humpback whale aboriginal subsistence a1ueed that this isue would best be addressed in the
quota language because St. Vincent and The Grenadines
did not ha\·e rele\·ant domestic legislation in placethat cn~te ofxte discussions on the fumre of the organisation.
The Conuni ssion agreed.
time.but did so later. It fm1her recalled that in 2004. when
the Russian Federation sought a Schedule change with
respect to gray whales. it was suggested that the St. 20.2 :\G O partiripntiouand arrr~dit natio
Vincent and The Grenadines language regarding national Last year the Conmu ssiou adopted changes to the
leislation should either be deleted or made applicable to procedure go,·eming accreditation and participation of
all aboriszinal subsistence whalin2 . The Conunission agreed NGOs in IWC meetings. Inter alia. these changes
tothe la;ter. In conclusion. the USA noted that e\·en though
eliminated the requirement for NGOs to maintain
it does not consider the unauthorised take of a gray whale intematioual offices_ relaxed the res tncuon s on total
to be an infraction. it had rep011ed on the take to the attendees from each NGO. and adjusted the fee stmcture
Infractions Conuuittee. for equitability.
Responding to a question from France as to what it
The changes entail that NGO registration fees are now
planned to do to stop theillegal lnmtingf minke whales set per indi\·idual obse1ver (rather than per organisation as
the Republic of Korea expressed its concem regarding the in the past) and that this fee should be income neutral to the
continued illegal take. It rep01ted that thishappening IWC. The Secreta1iat worked with the Advis01y
despite the fact that it has been conducting extensive. Conunittee to detenniue the following new fee strucmre:
intensi\'e andnict sur\'eillance operationsf all possible
routes of whale products from the fishing \'essels • £500 for the fu-st obsen·er per orgatusation and
thems eh·es to restaurants. The Republic of Korea rep011ed • £250 for each additional obse1ver.
that it is to undet1ake a thorough re\·iew of its operations There is no charge for interpreters. but NGOswishing to
try to find a way to stop thegallnmt ing. nominate an interpreter must pro\'ide justification to the
The Conunission took note of and adopted the Sub
Secretariat.
committee 's report. The F&A Conunittee noted that the new system
appeared to be working satisfactorily and reconun ended
that the fees for2008-2009 remain unchanged from the
19. l'iGO SESSIOl'i
le\·l for 2007-2008. as was proposed in the budget for
TI1is year the Commission allowed NGOs to address the 2008-2009. The C onuninee agreed that the fee for
plenary session. Three organisations fr each side of the interpreters should continue to be waived but that the
spectrum were gi\'en fi\'e minutes each to speak. The simation should be kept tUlder re\·iew.
orszanisations selected by their peers were Cenn·o de
The Secretariat drew attention to the fact that it is
C;n sen·acion Cetacea. the High North Alliance. WWF. the impossible to deten:nine from the NGO application fom1
Women·s Fonnu for Fish. Greenpeace and Concepesca. whether an application is from a bona fide organisation. or
is simply from an interested member of the public. While
the concems expressed by the Secretariat were noted. the
20.ADMIXI STRATI VE :\1ATTERS Conunittee felt that problems should be addresed if they
Aszenda items 20 to 23 CO\'ering administrati\'e and arise and that the accreditation criteria should remain
fn;ancial matters were considered fi;st by the Finance and unchanged for thepresent.
Administration (F&A) Committee that met on 18 Jtme The F&A Comnuttee therefore reconm1ended to the
under the chairmanship of Amhony Li\'erpool (Antigua and Conuuissiou that no changes are needed at present to the
Barbuda). Delegates from 33 Contracting Go\'enmlents
new accreditation and pa11icipationprocedures for NGOs.
attended the meeting. The F&A Conunittee rep011 is but that they be kept tulder review. The Commission
included asAlmex L. agreed.
20.1 Annual ::~\~lignarrang~ m~ns tand pr or~dus r~
20.1.1 Needfor a Technical CommitTee
The Teclmical Committee (TC) has not met since IWC/51
in 1999. Howe\'er. the F&A Committee recoum1ended that
theneed for the TC be kept tmder re\·iew and remain on the
427428 Annex 68
68. Chair’s Report of the 61stAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2009, pp. 5, 10-11, 26-28
ANNUALREPORTOf THEINTERl'IATIONAW LHALINGCOMMISSION200?
s
Chair's Report of the 61•'Annual Meeting
I.INTROD UCTORYITEMS ago (e.g. clirnate change, byeatch, chemical and noise
pollution and ship strikes). While technicaland scientific
1.1Dateand plate adviceis requirby the IWC,Professor Correianotedhis
The 61" Annual Meeting of the InternationaWhaling conviccionthat discussions to resolve the stalemate will
Commission(IWC) took placeat the Pestanaasino Park requirean in=ued involvementof politicians,preferably
Hote M~adeirafrom 22·25June2009. Itwaschairedby Or at ministeriallevel.Finheteeogllisedlhedifficuhiesin
Bill Hogarlh (USA) and wasattended by 71 ofthe 85 achievingan-sree hat nilsolve alremainingissues
Contracting GovemmeniS ObsetVCn from one non· affectinghe IWC,bul hhopedthat progressrru>eurin&
membergovernment. fiveintcrgovemmentslO<gallisatioos, this me<ringwould be an importaot contributiontowanls
and56 non-governmental organisations(NGOs)werealso the construction oa fair and balanced agreementat
present. A list of delegates and observers attending theC/62nextyear.
meetingis given as AnneA. The associated meetings of
the Scientific CommitteeandCommissionsub-groupswere 1.3Openingslotenoents
heldat thsanoevenueinthe~rio 31May to18June.
The Chair welcomed the following new Contracting
Govcmonentswho hndndhercdto theConventionsince the
1.2 W<leomeoddrcss lastAnnualMeeting: Lithuania• adhered25 November
Welcomeaddresses weregiven byDr AlbertoJoaoJardim. 2008; Estonia -!ldhered on J~r anry2009; Poland -
President othe Regional Government of Madeira, and adherednn 17April2009.
Professor Francisco Nunes Com:ia, Minister of EstoniaandPolnndbothmadeopeningstatements.They
Environment, Spatial Planningand RegionalDevelopment. boththankedthe GovernmentofPort~ agdate Regional
They were preceded by a short perfOrmancefrom the Governmentof Madeiraforhosrinthe meeting.
MandolinOrchestraof Madeira. EstoniaWI$ pleased to become a memberof the IWC
Onbehalfof the RegionalGovemrnent,Dr-AlbertoJoao and looked forw.W to working with aU Contracting
Governments and the S~ As a country on the
Jardimwaspleasedtowelcomethe IWCto Madeira.As an
island verde~nd cnnte sea,the <OOSCrVatioand Balticea, k is fullyaware o(the itnpo<1aneeof the
sustaable use of marineresotJrcesi.s very important. sustainable usof marine ecosystemand resourcesand
Notingthe worldwide interestin the ·proceedingsof IWCnoted its intentionto provideuseful inputinto theworlcof
andthe different viewsregardin&whalandwhaling, Dr theCommission.
Jardimho~d that consensuscould be ruched at IWC/61
Polandwas )oonourcdto become a memberof the IWC.
ona way forward fortheorsanisation.Hestressed the neeIt believed thM worldwide co-operation and effective
fordecisionsand regulationbeobosed on soundscience, implementation or internationalconventions and
forahanmony to be developedbetwe<nl development and agreements can significantlyloelp reduoe global
the protection of nature and thnt today, more than evbiodiversity loss.land considered that the IWC plays,
there isa needfor agreeme10involve notonstatebut and ean continue to play, an importru1trole in cetacean
industryandcivil society. conservai1on- a role10whlchit will contribult.was
ProfessorFranciscoNunes Com:inchankedthe IWCfor awareof the ditfiities facedby JWC but hadadheredto
havingchosenMadeirafor its 61" Annual Meetingandthe the Conventionknowi1gly andwillingly withthe hoped1at
Regional Government of Madeira for its support in theIWC will overcome its problems. It believedthat the 61"
Annual Meeting and the $Ubsequet work of the Small
mteting's organisation. Professor Com:ia noted the
irnportanccof the meetingto Portugalgi•ehistorica~ Working Group on the Futureof the IWwillcontribute
cu.ltural andgeographic commiancnt to ooean issues andtowardsthisgoal.
gi,·en its tran5ition from a country thad whaling Lithuaniadid notattendthemeeting.
activitiesn the pasttoa country with whalewau:hing
o~rati Hoeisdcatedthat the latter contribute more t1.4Credrntiols and voting rigbiS
localeconomiesthan whaling and ereate employment for The Secretary reporteth~ tte Credentials Committee
fonner whale huntersand boatmen. PC>rtugaslupportedthe(Japan, New Zealand 3tld the Secretary) agreed that
commercial whaling moratorium which it considered had credentialswe<e in orde< for most Contracting
been successful in contributing to the si11inficantrecovery
Governmenst presentat thebcg.inning of themeeting;tflere
of several whale species. While Portugal's main goal wwerea few outstonding issues to l>eresolved.She noted
to find ways to reinforce the current international whthat voring righ.ts were suspended for Cameroon,Gambia,
conseov r.gm e,lkenothers it believed theIWC is notGuatemala, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Mali, Palau, Peru,
as effectiveas it should be. For this reas~n ittoas Senegal,Tanzanlnand Togo. The voting rights of Guinea
diseussions about ways in which the current slalemate
Bissau, Palau and ToQOwere restored during the meeting.
could be resolved. Poo1ugalwas willinll to listen, to The Secretary ntlledthat if and when votingcommenced,
promoteunderstandingandtru'l, to n>aeh a compromiseso she wouldeallon SonMarinoto votfU'.SI
that the IWCcould move into the21" Centuryandaddress
moreeffectivelyhe contemporaryissues affectingwhales I.S Mrrtiag •rnngtmrnts
that have arisen since rwc was eslllblished6years
The Chairexpn:.ssedhis pleasurewith theatmosph..-e
of IWCmeetingshad improvedin recentyears,particularly
sincetheCommissioncmbarlcedseriouslyupontheprocess
to adtlrcss IWC's future. He hoped that discussions at
429Annex 68
10 CHAIR 'SREPORO TFTHESIXTY -FIRSTANNUAL MEET ING
withtoasignif[c.antextentbytheScientificCommittee,the would also fail. He did not cder this a viable option and
SWG's proposals focused on issues of a more challenged the meeting to identify creative solutions
financal/admin istrative nat\lre. To this effect the SWG toward agreeing a 1-5year plan.
proposed that a.representative group be established to deal Alvaro de Soto, SIVG Chair made some observations
with the Conservaio tn Committee, data provision, based on his experience over the la5tmonths of working
develpmentsIn oceangovernancea ,nd environmnetal with t he JWC. He reported that since his initial
threats and marJne protected areas. Other recommendations involvemen·tat the March 2008 intersessional meeting, he
in relation to Category (b) issues w..-e: had learned a lot and had received the co-operation of all,
(I) a review of the Tenms of Ref..-ence for the Advisory for which he was very grateful. He recalled that at the
Committ ee and the Wotl<ingGroup on Whale Killing March 200& meeting, he had raised the notion of 'ripeness '
- a word often used in conflict resolution and meaning a
Methods and Associated Welfare Issues; point at which parties in conflict reach the conclusioo that
(2) improved eonununica tion of IWC's work on the
effectsof climatechangeoncetaceans; the cost involved insolvingan 'sisue is morebearable that
(3) establishment of a mechanism to consider again the the cost of not doing so. He noted the difficulty in
level of NGO participation; identifYing the precise moment when 'ripeness' has been
reached and that it is hard to define objectively because a
(4) the translation of scientific advice for Conservation
Managemoo! Plans into appropri ate mitigaion lot dependson percep iotns. In relation to the 'future'
measures;and process in the 1\VC, he believed there had beena clear
(5) continued wotl<to address the financial contributions improvementin theclimate·inwhich discussionshavebeen
conducted and in members' wmingness to listen and to
scheme. engage in dialogue. However, h.e also sensed at times 1hat
The SWG recognised that theoutcome ofdiscussions on
the anger tbat used to prevail within IWC was only just
IWC's future may have an impact em the role of, and belowthesurf4ce and thatthe lingeringsuspicionby some
expertiserequired within, theSecretariat butagreeitwas createdreluctance in mking the leaps of faith required to
premature for !hem to be discussed in any depth at tllis overcome the current problems. This had therefore.at times
stage.
In considering the way ahead, the SWG, while falli.ng made lhe S WG's task less e~y than it might have been,
although he believed that d1is did not detract from the
short of its stated goal of agreeing on a package or group'scon-clusions.
packages by IWCI61, agreed that: (I) significant concrete from his experiences with the IWC, Ambassador de
results had emerged; (2)sense of urgency in addressing Soto identified three points of process that he urged the
the futureof tllle IWC had developed; and (3) a greatly
improved atmosphere and spirt of respectful dialogue had Commission to consider as it considered the SWG's
recommendation1 s.l1efirstof Lhesewasthe imperative of
been achieved which must be maintained. Against this 'miniaturisation,' i.e. discussions/negotiations in small
background and to maintain momentum, rhe SWG groups. He noted that the SWG was small in name only but
recommended that the Commission should direct that the expresse histhanks forthetoleranecshow n bytheSWG
efforts underway be continued for a further year and
when agreeing that he could work with a smaller subset of
decisions taken at IWCI62. countries at particular times in the process. He stressed that
furtherminiaturisationwould beneededif theCommission
3.3 Discussions at IWCI61 decided to continuewith discussions on its futureand he
Discussions on the future of the IWC were held on
TI>Ursday 18 June in a session open to observers, on urged the Commission to give lht leader of those
discussions plenty of latihJde regarding the size of
Sunday 21 June at a private meeting of Commissioners and discussion/negotiating groups. Secondly, Ambassador de
during the Commission's plenary session . Soto stressed that idiscus o~ssiwere to continue, these
should be on the understanding that delegations will be
3.3.1Discussionsessionon11wrsday18June
During the pre-plenary session onThursday 18 June which empowered by their governmetns to negotiate
was open to observers, the SWG and ICG repons were compromises and he suggested that it would be help ful if
presented in some detail for the benefit of those those delegations involved couldeclare that they ha1his
empowemtent at the opening of talks. He warned ·that if
Contracting Governments who were not SWG members
and for the benefit of observers.The meeting also received there was no suchempowerment, il would be difficuh to
a report from the Scientific Com11i1ttee regarding the take advantage of existing oppe>rtunities to make progress
request for advice in relation to Japanese small-type coasta ld that the process could drag out excessively. Thi rdly,
whaling and a paper from Japan (i.e. SCI61/015 that had Ambassador de Soto recommended that if discussions were
tocontinue, thend1eCommissio11should plan for open
also been presented in detail the Scientific Committee)
regarding its proposed coastal whaling. The Scientific a11d ended negotiating sessions dlUs opening up the poss ibility
F&A Committee's discussionson the ICG report were also to have high-level delegations away from their capitals for
reported.Australia introduced two documents, one in 2·3 weeks. He did not believe tllat a way forward for JWC
could be found in2·3 day meetings.
response to the ICG report and ihe other in relation to
speeial penmithaling and the future of the IWC. DISCUSSIONS
Thediscussions focused on progress with the development
3.3.1.1THF. SWG REI'ORT ofa 'core package'.
ANDTHESWOMARKSFROMniE CHAIRSOFTHECOMMISSION
New Zealand valued the opportunity 10discuss the work
After presenting the SWG report (section 3.2.5 and Am>ex done since WCI59 in Anchorage and recalled the steps and
E), the Chair of the Commission urged member approach taken since then (see section 3.1). It believed that
governmnets to engage in serious discussions. He the March 2008 intersessional meeting in Heathrow had
expressed concern that if the discussions f.1ield, the 1\VC lead to vry concrete outcomes at IWC/60 with respect to
430 Annex 68
ANNUAL REPORTOFTH£ INTERNATIONAL WHALIN() COMMISSION2009 II
improv ing the atmospherewithin the organisation, agreed by the Commission. A number of countries,
improving pro<:eduers and creatingtheSWG. But it likened including theUK, Mexico, Chile, Brazil and Argentina,
the charting of the furureof the IWC to climbing a high welcomed Australia's paper and agreed that~1e issue of
mountain, such as Mount Difficullyin New Zealand, and whaling under special permit needed to be discussed in
noted that the organisation had only arrived at base camp moredepth.TheUKconsideredthat consensusin bringing
with muchremainingto be done. NewZealand considered special permit whaling under the IWC would help in
that the tim.,.frame.sst out for the SWG had always been findinga wayforward.Portugalmadea similarremark.
unre satl~given that once discussionswerelaunchedon Japan thanked the Chairs of the Commission and the
difficult substantive issues progress would proceed at SWG for their workover the last year. Whileit considered
slower pace. It noted d1at it may yet be found that itunfortllnate lhat the initialgoal had not beenachieved,it
agreement may not be possible, but observed lhat real believedthatsignificantprogresshoobeen made. However,
negotiationshad not yet taken place. NewZealand viewed it expressedits concernover recentcommentscallingfor
the Chairs' suggestionsas work in progress and believed the curtailing or cessation of special permit whaling,
that if further progress was to be made, consideration recalling the initial agreement when the 'future' pro<:ess
needed to be given to a number of issues. Forexample, it began on the need for compromise. It suggested that all
felt that questions should be raised as to whelher the parties needed to decide on where tltey can compromise.
Chairs' suggestions were too focused and whether the FO<Japan, it considered special permit whaling a right
pm meters included should be broadened. It supported under the Convention. Nevertheless, it believed it had
continuig the SWG'swooi<fora fuotheryear but stressed indicatedwillingnesstocompromiseon theseactivitiesand
the importance of heedingthe advice of the SWG Chair would not obstruct the creation of a South Atlantic
with respect to the way in which to proceed with
sanctuary. Japansupported the nOiton of a 5-year interim
negotiations.In particular it believed that it would be arrangement soas to beableto make progress,butbelieved
helpful tocreatea smaller•s,eeringgroup,'suchastheone that he insistence to phase out special permit whaling
used to plan the March 2008 intesessional meeting, to could destroy the pro<:ess.Iceland, Norway and the
provide direction to the SWG. It stressed: the critical Republic of Korea also expo'eSSedconcerns regarding
importance of the relationshipbetweescienceand policy; proposalsputforwardin relation tospecial permitwhaling.
the need for better, clearer and more transparent Norway stressed the importance of those involved in
commun icationwithgovernmentslessdirectly involvedin discussionsin having the politicalmandatetocompromise.
discussionasndalsowithcivilsociety;andtheimportance The three points of pro<:ses recommendedby the SWG
oflhe political will forlhe processto oucceed. FinallyNew Chair in his opening remarkswhich includedthe need for
Zealand believedthat any agreementmust be acceptable to furtherminiaturisation>ere supportedby manycountries
all but cautioned that the room for manoeuvre by including the USA,Antiguaand Barbuda, Portugal, Czech
governments was not wide becauseof the natureof public Republic, Cameroon,Mexicoand Chile. However, noting
opinionon the issuesinvolved. thatif therwas to be furtherminiaturisation in the sizeof
Australianoted itsfull commitmentto the reformof the negotiatinggroups, a mechanismneededto be put in place
1\VCbut noted that unilateral special permit whaling was toensuretransparency.
severelytestingthe Australian publicwho wished to see it The Chair of the Commissionnoted the points raised
brought to an end. 11expressed disappointmentthat the and suggested that they be discussed further during the
SWG had not engaged seriooslyon resolving lhe special privatemeetingof Commissioners.
permit whalingissuewhich hasbeenthe mostcontroversial
JAPANESESMALL-TVPECOASTALWHALING'
issue within the IWC for many years. In this context it PAPERFROMJAPAN(SC/61101$)
made referenceto the paper it had tabled (IWC/61/9) in Japan presenteda paperto theScientificCommitteeon the
which it proposed that IWC membersagree a principle scientificgrounds forsupportingits proposalfor Japanese
bas.:dapproachto all scientificresearchunderthe authority small-type coastal wl1aling. The ootline of the proposal,
of the Commission.In this approach,Governmentsshould
which wasessentially the sameas previousproposals was
commit to activities only when authorised by the as follows:
Commission.To implementsucha process, Australia noted (i) 150common minkc whales to be taken in
that three steps would be required: (I) a consensus-based
approachtodetermining key knowledgeg11psp,rioritiesfor Sub-area7;
(ii) '0' sto<:kminke whales to be targeted but
researchlhataddressthesegapsin a practicaland outcome scme few 'J' sloe.'<animals would be
focused manner, and mechanisms by which that research expectedto be by-caught;
will be delivered; (2) a prooess for assessing all science
activities againste approach outlined in (I) ; and (3) a (iii) the operations of lhe small-type coastal
catcher boatswould be outside I0 nautical
mechanism for the Commission to reach a decision on milesofthecoast 10 minimise the possible
outcomesand recommendationsderived from (I) and (2),
i.e. countrieswould agree not to undertake scientific takes ofJ-sto<:kanimals;
activities without Commission approval. Australia (iv) after the interim period the small-type
coastal catcher boats would return to the
indicated that lhe details of this pro<:esswouldneed to be research activities under the coastal
developed co-operativel by IWCmembersand agreed by 6
consensus. It believed that such a process would ensure COOiponenotf JARPN 11 unless Olherwise
determined;
that any scientific activity would be collectively agreed,
would have strong scientific underpinnings, would be
outcome-fo<:usedagainst agreed priorities, would receive ~frduails of theScientificCom'$deliberationthiItemsee
appropriate independentpeerreviewand wouldsupportthe J. CelaC<a naflJg.St.ppl 2) 11(2010).
'Japan•re~e :rwschmeminlheNonh Pa(:ilic- see sectiontOfor
conservatoin andmanagementobjectiveswhidl havebeen furth«inform3oCni.
431Annex 68
26 CHAIR'SREPORTOPTIIESIXTY-fiRST1\NNUI\lMEETING
lhc spirit, prineiples, procedures and cle<:isionsof the aod quantify spccifte. shorHenn objectives against which
Commission. includiog the commorcial whaling prosresean bejudged.
mora torium. However,itwi5hed tobrinalOthe attentioof The work on feeding ecology research and ecosystem
the IWC member governments the tmditionnl and c.oltural modellinghastheambitiousgoal of providing mukispecies
importance of whaling to the Ulscn oren throush u management advice, The Panel noted that obtaining
prescnlationfromtheChief Admin!>tratorof the municipal ecosystem modellin(lresults sufficiently reli10infonn
Southern District of Ulsan who gave a summary of the managementadviceshould not be expected withinatleast
country'swhalinghistorythat goes beck some6,000 years, the next few years and could requireconsiderably more
and the implications of tile commercial whaling time. The t>onelconcluded that while progress had been
momtorium. He noted thot between 1946 and 198S, over made, considerablymore work is required, ticularly on
sao minkewhales were taken each ycnr, with whale meat pammetcr estimates for non-cetacean components of the
beinga staple pan of thediet ofehe localpeople.However, ccosysteonas wellas analyticaland modelling techniques.
since the implementationof the moratoriumin 1986, whale With respectto prey consumptionand prey preferences,
meal has only been available through byc:augj>atnimab, the Panel l'<(()gnisedthe high quality of the foeld and
although Ulsan has endeavoured to retain its history and labomtory wooi<undertaken;the data hove the potential to
culture. Noting thot poragr.p IO(e) of· the Schedule be of grent value toetosystemodell iin ~tha generic
identifiea 1990 deadline foa comprel1cnsiveassessment andquantitativemanne r.Howee v~concernsregard ingche
of the effects of the moratoriumon whale stocks and the analyse>conducted meant that the Panel did not believe
considenllionof the.,11\biishmentof othercaleb limits(i.e.that the presentedestimatesoretac c:nsum~pnion"''"'
other thanzero),the Republic of Kon:a highlighted that can be considered reliable yet; seveI ,..,.ommendations
this hadnot yet been achievedand believeda reviewof the were made to improvethis elementof the work.1'hePanel
momlorium was overdue. T.he Ulsnn representative welcomedthe ecosystem modelling work,notingthat itis
informed the Commission of his rqjion's interest in still in d1e exploratory stage. However, it believed diRt
resuming sustainablewhalingand his hope thaat IWC/61 moreemphasisshould be placed on the ntOdellingwork if
theCommissioncouldachievethe Convention'sobjective the stoted aim of the programme is to be reached in a
of the conservation of whale stocks to make pos.sible to reasonnbletimeframe. Itnoted that the data obtainedmf'ro
orderlydevelopmentof thewhaling industry. sperm whalesprovided no meaningful input to ecosystem
models.
Regardingworkon monitoringenvironmental pollutants
tO.SCIENTIFIC P£RMIW 1
in cetaceans and the marine ecosystem, the Panel
concludedthat the JARPN II pollutant studies represented
10.1Reviewof results from JARPN n" a valuablecontributin to knowledge in this areaand that
10.1.1 Reportoftha Sclcll/ljic Committl!ll theongoingprogramme hasbeenaddres.sing itsobjectives;
The ml\ior focus of discussions on scientific permits this
year was thereportof the specialistworkshop to evaluate furtherworkwas r~n mended.
resultsromJARPN II. Thi.s was the tirsttime thtt thenew Regarding stock structuriss~ the Panel concluded
thatthe progmmmehad produa!da uniquelylargedata Sd
proecs.sI&J'O ast yoar (referred to as the 'AMex P'
process2) had beenused.A key component of the new for testina stock suucture hypothesesin the target species.
reviewprocessisthegreatlyreducedrole of the proponent! Analyses were methodologiccllysound and comparableto
of the research.The Panel of 14 independentscientistsmet other work within and outside the IWC Sc.ientifoc
Committee fJ'8Jllew'Ok.t TI1e Panel acknowledged dte
in Japanin January2009to review the firstsyearsof the
JARPN II researchprog12ntm.e Their primary tasks were general difficulties in examining questions of stock
to:(I) review the scientific,WOfk undertaken thus for structur«, panicularly for weakly-differentiated populations
against the stated objectives of the programme and to such asthosein the JARPNII area. However, it identifaed
review future plans in the context of the likelihood of numberof limillltions to the analysespresentedand made
meeting those objective(2) evaluate the techniques used deUilled suggestionsforaddressingthese. The Panelagreed
(lethal and non-lethal);(3) evaluate the appropriatenessofthat these genetic IMtdother analyses would assist in tlte
581tlp!esize and design for the reseatd>;•ndassessthe formulation/narrowing of hypotheses for use in R."'P
effectsf any catcheson the relevantstocks. ImplementationSimulationTrials.
10.1.1.1Til t PAJUL 'S R£f'0 tfl' Tite Panel welcomed other aspects of the programme
The Panel recognised that an enom1ous amount of including the simultnncouscollec,ionoFnsituseasurface
andwatercolumncharaclr cistics durina whale and prey
scientificork had been unde.1akenduring the first six
yem of the progr3mme. However. italso noted the surnys, lhe w lleetion of siglttings dafor non·t"'l)et
diffocultyit had in assessingthis initial progressagainst speciesand the analys.. of their distribution, along with
programme's expressed, broad long-term objectives. It photo-identification srudies and a number of other
recommended that long-term programmes should identify published research papers on reproductive biology,
physiology,andcetaceanphylogeny.
Tite Panel also discussed the relotionship of the
1For6e:wlsof lScitfttiCorrnittcc'sdc:hlla'nthisIteJN
Jc~,.. ,u..MN>B< ·SW.l.ltt[lOtOI programme tothe IWCand CommissionResolutions. With
1JARPNIIis•long-trmres~ prtaeahn:primlrialn-.edmlln1 respectto ecosystemandcnvironmentlll change researd>.
ecoll)gyhecontextoreoncrbiuto !h·conservdacmlswuainnbt~ the Panel agreedthat manyof the objectives of JARPN II
use of mtvlncl:ivingresoutilwes1cmNunhPaclflcc,spcJIIy arc relevant to Comm ission Resolutions and that,as
,..;,JIC)U(SEEl.. 1ptt'HOW~1ieYOh'CthSe tatirr:c or ISOminke
wtuks_j(Sryck''¥ttakJORi whalesald10spermwhak:sannUIIIIy requestedin several of those Resolutions. scientific results
in1bwc:JkmNorthPa<:ific. have been submitted to the Scientitie Committee on a
"J.c.'""" I<"lok_., .!Wpp i: 64:3- t. number or relevantissues.
432 Annex 68
ANNUALREPORTOf'THEINTERNATIONL A\\/HALINGCOMMISSION 2009 27
'ThePanelnotedthat il1eissueof IeibaI versusnon-lethalwas nor always provided with the information and
researchremainscontroversialwithinandouiSidelbe IWC. &uidance necessaryto reviewprogrammeprogress,to draw
A major contributory factor to this is that the is.ue is not
conclusions regarding the appropriatenessof programme
only a scietificquestion.The appropriatequantitativedata sample sizesand to assesstheeffects on two of the stocks
to allow a fullcomparison of vorious lclhaland non-lethal(commonNorrhPacificmlnkewhales andsei whales).The
1echniquesdo not exist. Given these infation gaps and Panel's ;:onecms regarding slow progress on ecosysrem
otherd ifficulties,the Panelcould notcomplclcthis itemon
modellingand its severequestioning of thescientificvalue
its Agenda. However. ir did rccoa,ni.:scth~t prC$Ctlt. Ofthe prOfi.1'1iliti UC'lloliHtitSC~Up:IlUc1ches Of
ecnain data, primarily stomach conlent data,artonly sperm whales were highlighted by some members. There
available via lethal sampling. The Panel also madea was COI$idcrablc discussion over lhe need for more
nwnber of recommendations, including that a full quantifie:l objectivesand sub-objectives for the
evaluation of the relacivemerits of l<thaland non-lethal
programone.
1cchniquesbe conducted as $000 as possible after oil1et
recommendedworl<basbeen completed. It specifoedhow 10.1.Comtt~ llscssskJnsandaction arising
such a fullevaluationmighttakeloce. A numbn-of ConlnletingGove.-nmentsthanked lhe Panel
Wiil1respect tosample size and dcsiBJI,the Panel and the ScientificCommittee for their hard woon il1e
JARPN n review. The en5Uingdiscussion addressed bOih
concluded that a full evaluation requires bene.-specifiedthe JARPN IJ review and lbe issue of special permit
objectiesandexaminationof whetheridentifiedsources of
uncertaintyarc sampling-related or not. Tite briefanalysishalingin ~:cne Somme.of lhe remarks reported below
provided by the proponents was ~.' sufficient and the weremade under rhe hem addressing tbe process used in
the review ('Annex P') but ore included here as they
Panel agreedthat unlil a fullanolysososdone ot wollnot brefenrednoore 10 the ootcooneof lhe review rather lhan to
possible to provideappropriate advice on sompling design
and sample sizes. A thorough review Is a major the process itself (seesection I0.4).
undertaking and the Panel provided guidance to the Monaconotedthat referencehad been made10 lhe issue
of lethal versus non·k:ihol work remaining eonlroversial
Proponentstoassistinthisprocess. within and outside theIWC and indicated that il would
Regarding assessing lhe effecls of JARPN II on the
statusof the stocks,there is no specificguidancefrom thehave l iked 10see some furtherexplanation of what
1\VCon how il1isshould be done. The Panel concluded 'controversial'meant in Ibis contexl Monaco also
lhal: (I) the information aV11ildid provide sufficient expressedthe hope that lhe controversywoulddecrease in
the near futute.t joined the Panel's questioning of the
basisto provideadvice on theeffect of planned JARPNII
catches on common minke whale stocks (the need to saontifJCvalueor raklnaspermwhales and noted Itswell
complete the in-depth usessment of •J' stoek as soon as known <1'fl0$ilion10 wha6ng unde.- special permit in
possible, along witha fulllmplem«n/QiionRe-:iew for geneml. Respondingto Monaco's questionon the m.eaning
of'controvcrsial' in lhiscontext,the Chairof the Sc1entofoc
westernNorth l'llcific minke whawas emphasosed);(2) CommitleenOiedthat the main reason for the controveiSy
the level of take does n01pose a problem to the stocks of
Bryde's whales; (3) the information available did provideoneems the appropriate use of Article VIII of lhe
suffocientbosisto provide adviceon the effectof planned Convention which he believed is a matter for lhe
JARPN II catches on sei whales (funher work was Commission,n01the ScientificCommittee. Monacodid not
believe that this is oalpolitical onatlerand noted that
recommended).Withrespecttospermwhales,althoughthe
Panel agreed !hal the effect on lhe stod< of the small 1here have been recent workshops and conferences that
JARPN II takes is negligible, it questioned the scientificve addressedhow non-lethal techniques can be used to
valueofd1eprogramm e'ssmall andunrepresentativetakes study largewhales.
Australianoted the great deal of technical detail in the
of this species.
Finally the Panel noted that it had nol been able to diseussioosf lhe Panel and the Scientific Committee but
completeits reviewndwouldnot beable to do so untia idenlioedwhat it believedto be a few core conclusions. II
numberof its recommendationsbadbeen addressed.These noted thfl in common with the resultof il1eJARPA"
review, te Panel was critical of the level of scientific
revolved around: (I) sample siWsampling des~
(including lile need 10 haveclearlystaled quontitolive anolysise,-otedto JARPN II and, forexamplesugges~ed
objectivesand sub-objectivesand 1heneeto have further that after six yeaiS the modellingwork should be more
quantitative informatioon both l<thal and non-lethal developedrotberthan still being in the exploratorystage.
Like Moaaco,Australia dn:w attention to the criticism of
teehniques); and(2) effeets of catches on Slocks for the need forany take of sperm whales andsuggested that
commcnNoril1Pacificminkewhalesandsci whales.
any eontinuntionof th~ take. along with the c-ontinued
101..1.2DISCUSSIOONrnte R£1'0RTWn·mN THE annualsat1plingof vastnumbersof stomach contents from
SCtENTIFICCOMMmEE otherpeeies,suggestsalack of commitment toaddressing
The proponents(Japan)concludedrhat whilethey believed thereal!!ienrifie needs of this Commission. In oddition,
that overall lhe Panel report was balanced and fair and
containedusefulreoommcndution ss.vc1·al of whichwere Australia also obseoved that in requesting a review of
special pennit whaling, the Commission is seek!ns
already being addressed, they did not agree with all obectiveodviccon three core issues:(I) can thescoentofic
corn1nentsorrecommenda tions.Insomecasesthiswnsdue objectives of the program be answe.-edwirh~on ~tahl
tocostand logiSiicswhile in other coscsit was moreto do techniques; (2) cathenumbers of. whales beong kolled
Wilhobjections in principle e.g. whh respcet to how to
examineeffectsof catches. each yearbejustifiedon a scientifocbasis;and(3) will the
The Scientific Committee comn1cndedd1e Panel on
havingundert2kenits reviewin a critical but conslruetiveuJapm"_ Jyt.WfUC:IIfphrO&flnne._ lie Ac:Ltrdi.;lMt fmishedi'n
manne,r. However,italsoexpressedooncun thai the Panel 200410S.
433Annex 68
28 CHAIR'SREI'ORl'OFTliE SIJITV.lfRSTANNUAl MEETING
number of whales being killed have an effect on me J0.3Rtvicw ofneworcontinuing pl'opo.snls
populations?It noted that the Panel was unable to ouch iO.J.i Reporto/the Sclenr!ficCommirree
anyconcluston ontheseissues suchrhat theCommissionis TheCommitteedid not receive any new infonnation 01
left withoutadviceonthe issuesofmostseriousconcern. It eitherJARPA IIorJARPN II forreview.
s~ thenoedfortheCommissionto finda wayfocward
on theissue ofwhalingund..- special pennit since it is an i0.3.2Commission dtsctmions and OCJioanrising
The Commission noted this part of the Scientific
issue that is fundamentalto many member governments. Committeerepon.
The UKe•l"...ed similar eoneems.
India shared the c:onrerns of MonacoandAustralia and
10.4 lmprovi_nJ:protedu•·esfor reviewingscientifte
stressed the need to develop and further refine non-lethal permit proposals
research techniques. A number of other governments, i0.4.i ReportofthoSciclll/flcCommittee
including Israel and the USA believed that non-lethal
With respect to improving the 'Annex P' process (set
methodsshould be used. Portugal highlighted me need to 10.1.1),JheScientificCommittee'sdiscussionsfocusedor
apply the cum:nt standards on II-"use of animals in issuesrelating to selectionof Panel members,the need fo<
researchtospceialpermitwhaling. •conflict of intercsl' slaternents and the question 01
New Zealandbelievedthat itwas clear fromthe Panel obseM:rsbeing praent. SomeCommitteememb..-5 wer<
review end the Seientif.e Committee's discussions that in favourof modifyingthe languageof •Annex P'to mor<
JARPN II hasa numberofproblems. Itreportedthe depth clearly specifY"ho may panicipale and observe. Other!
offeelingin NewZu landregardingJapan's whaling under
recognisedthe difficuhyinobtaininga Panelthat all wouk
special pennit and expressed its opposition to such consider fairandbalnnoed,notingthataddingspecirtcitytc
programmes. Itagreed withAustraliaon the needto finda the Annex would not necessarilybe an improvemem a!
ro:wlulion10this Issue. New Zealand acknowledged JhAJ Panelcompositiondepends on the scientificobjectivesol
humpbackwhales hndnolbeen takenso far underJARPA the researchbeingconsidered.The Committeerecognised
IIand looked to Japan to provide leadership In future. thata numberof important considerationshad been raised
Mexico, USA, Switzerland, Ireland, South AtTica, with respecttowhether 'AnnexP' requiredrevision. Oiven
that there isno need to establisha review panel in ~ ..
Luxembourg. Germany, Portugal, fi nland, Spain and
Frar.ceassociatedthemselves wiJb the remarks of Naw forthcoming inters=ional period,Jhe Committee agroecrlo
Zealandandothers. discussthe issue of possible revisioa1 its 2010 meeting
toallowtimefor furtherreflection.
The Commission noted this part of the ScientifiC
Committeereportandendorsedits recommendations. 10.4.2CommissiondisCtt1Jiona sndac1ionarising
Australia noted Jhe debaJe by the Committee on two
I0.2Reviewof results from other existing permits particularaspoets ofAnnexP, i.e. (I) the degree to which
the membersof thecxpco1panel were independenlof the
i0.2.1Repcm of theScientific Commillee programmethey reviewed;and (2) the issueof rronsparenl
Althoughresults fromother programmeswereprovidedto
the Scientific Commiuee (i.e. JARPA II" and Iceland's oversight and the capacity of the member countries to
programme in the North Atlantic'") they were not observethe firstimplementailonof the Annex.Notingthat
is intentiowas notto criticiseanyof thepeople involved
discussed.The Committeedid agree,however, that a full inthe process,nor to discuss me delails of theseissues,
review of the completed Icelandicp;ogr1lmmewould toke
placein2011 or2012. Australiamade seveC'tlgleneral points.Itnoted its belief
that in any review process, the 'independence' of the
reviewersis a fundnmeatttrlequiremetnandsuggcslcdthat
10.2.2 Commissionditcus.siouandactionarising
The Commission noted Jhis part of the Scientific a lack of clear lan.auajteabout this in Annex P led 10
differentviewson lhecompositionofthePanel.It was olso
Committco reportand ondornedlts rcco nc·:unotni~ of the opinoon that til¢ implementation of any new
procedure should include Jhe maximum amounJ of
lransparencyand that the ability of member coun1riesto
sendobserversis a core pan of building confodence in any
»JARPA It isa 14t&ej(-lllc AMI)I'Ogrlm•:tthea.tcommencedw(Sh new and importatnprocess. Noting that the topic of a
thefirstyeorI two-)'CirfcasibStud)'dW'ibt tllstnJl JWorfnC( possible revision of Annex P is on the Commiuec's
:ZOOS/0n6. ol>j<.r..o.dc(rneby,.., as:(I) _.,., of .....
AnW<Ik_, ...(1) modtDi"'.. ..... itioo""""-iesJ<ond proposedagenda for IWC/62, Australia UJ'ied the
.,.....,"" ,...,. - oe.,;ew.(3;duci<hlm oo.~ ond Committeeto consider these issues and to ensure thai
SJIIIl!a i•aocl:s:ruecuMed (4) impr:ovinfgie: mJRIItMtnl agreed language is developed in order that the AMex P
procedurefor Anwcdc mtnkcMallestocksJARPA11will focuson fl"Oceure can deliver outcomes to the Commission d>lll
A..ntu«icmi.nkc.h.:n;,o:nr.,wtlalcs Milpossibly~eta' In
the Anuwcticc:cos)'thaaremajop~dMO 'fIS\tUttlic kDwina satisfyits mand3lcofobjectivityandtransparency.
the 2·yeafc3i~ itldyo maximumof 3SOt10%Artmn:ticminkc In response to • number of critical remali<snbout
"~al ans en lin whaiH will be kiflc~mpl cdin e41eJ(fiSOfl. JARPN II (and reponed in section 10.1.2), Norway
Annllalsample sltc!Jfor1Mpi'Odll·scalereswrch(lct:hnls:unplinconsidered that a highly competent review had been
arc3~1 Oo/oAnt:wcrc ink:cwh:.les.SOhumj)MckwbaltlSOntin
wha~csN.ohumpbackwhJ~s have)'beentaken. conducted andthatlhc Panel membershadbeenchosenby
~Aproposedpermicbylcd• ld. primarilfeedinecok>tystudies ror very compelcntmembers of the Scientific Committee. II
thetakeof 100comn10mlfltt:whale$.100rm\malesud j0 sd \d:&ks noted thatthe Panel's conclusion had been regarded u
tncadt. t't)'tanw1.p«tcncd M lhcss- A11oMlcetiq lilt200J. In balanced by most members of the SeientifoeCommiucc
thecve...._lDdhu issuedermitsotake38ccnamonnUr.ke\llritas
2~ 2S lrir.b:,...in 20043.9rirtkt.wb.tic.200S.SO..,·,..e and tha!the Commissionshould thank the Commiuee and
whales in 2006 ltld )9 minl:cwhain2007. Thi~ hat Jl(){its report. Continuingin this vcin, Iceland foundJhe
fm.isbtditsSIIIJ1'i9lllphase. Panel'srq>0r1to be generallypositive,whileidentifyinga
434 Annex 69
69. Chair’s Report of the 62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International
Whaling Commission 2010, pp. 5, 21
ANNUAL REPORT OF TilE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2010 5
Chair's Report of the 62n dAnnual Meeting
1. Th"TROD UCTORY ITEM S In conclu sion the Ministe r paid nibnte to the Chair of
the IWC for his perseverance. and thanked the people and
official s of the city of Agadi r for making a1Tangements to
1.1Dar~ and plate
The 62"" Ammal Meeting of the Inremational Whaling provide the best possible facilitie s to the meeting guests.
Conunission (IWC) took place at the Centre de Congres.
Les Dunes d'Or, Agadir. Morocco from 21-25 June 2010. In 1.3 O p~ningSta t~m~nts
the absence of the Chair of the IWC (Ambassador Cristian The Chair welcom ed the following Contracting Govenunents
Maquie ira. Chile). the meeting was chaired by the Vice-Chair who had adhered to the Connntion since the last A.mmal
Amba ssador Anthony Liverpool (Antigua and Barbuda ). Meeting: Ghana (adhered 17 July 2009). Dominican
The meeting was attended by 73 of the 88 Contracting Repub lic (adhered 30 July 2009) and Bulgaria (adhered
Go\·enunents. and obserYers from 7 intergovenunental
I 0 Augu st 2009). Ghana made a short opening statement
organisations and 51 non-govenunental organisation s were noting their pleasure in attending and their intention to
also present. A list of delegates and observers attending the participate fully in the meeting ahead. Dominican Republic
tneeting is given as Am1ex A. The associated tneeting s of the and Bulga1ia did not attend the meeting .
Scientific Committ ee and Commi ssion sub-groups (which
included two days of discussion on the Fumre of the IWC)
1.4 Cr~d~ ntisaland votin g ri ghts
were held at the same nnue in the period 30 May to 17 June . The Secretary repolted that Credentia lswere inorder for most
1.2W ~locm ~addr~ ss of the C011t1'atcing Govenunent s present at the begim1ing of
the meeting . but that a meeting of the Credentials Committee
Opening addresses were given by the Deputy Mayor of (Japan . New Zealand and the Secretmy) was required to
Agadir and the Secretary General of the Moroccan Ministry
make a final review .
of Marine Fisherie s who spoke on beha lf of the Minister At the start of the meeting voting righ ts were suspended
of Agriculmre and Marine Fisheries. They were preceded
by a short perfonnance of traditional Moroccan music and for Cameroon. Cote d'Ivoire. Dominica . Dominican
Republic. Gambia. Ghana. Greece. Guatemala. Kenya.
dancing . Marsha ll Islands. Nicaragua. Pem. Romania. Senegal.
The Deputy Mayor of Agadir welcomed the IWC on
behalf of the town cmmcil and population of Agadir. He Solomon Islands. St Vincent and The Grenadines and
Umguay. The voting rights of Ghana. Marshall Islands and
thanked the IWC for choosing Morocco and Agadir to host
the meeting and hoped that delegate s would renu11.with their St Vincent and The Grenadine s were restored dming the
families and discover the culnu·e. tolerance and genero sity meeting. The Secreta1y noted that if and when any voting:
of the people of the region . He invited all participants to commenced she would call on San Marino to vote first.
contribute actively to the meeting and wished eve1yone
success and good luck. 1.5 M ~~tignarran~gtn~nst
The Secretmy General of the Minist1yof Agriculture and The Chair expressed his pleasure with the manner in which
Marine Fisheries com·eyed the apologies of the Ministe r discussions had proceeded in previous days. especially
of Agriculntre and Marine Fisheries and read a statetuent during discussions about the fi.1111roef the IWC. and his
from the Minister. The Minister welcom ed the IWC to hope that the Plena1y discussions would take place in the
Moroccan soil and noted that Agadir was chosen not only same constmctiw mam1er. He asked that all Contracting:
because itwas an inten1ational tourist town . but also Gonnunent s be ginn the opportunity io freely express
because it is an impoltant fishery po11. His Majesty King their views without intenuption. that calls for points of order
Moha nune d VI recently visited the city to present a strateg y
be kept to a tnininuun. and noted that second inter\'entions
for the den lopment of Moroccan fishe1y resource s. and the from comm ies on substantive points would not be allowed
city had hosted the first intemational fishe1y fair with the
second fair due to be held in Janumy 2011. Morocco hats until other cmmtrie s had their fhst chance to speak. The
Chair re·con:finned speaking: rights for interg:oYenunental
two coasts and a tradition of seafaring exce llence and is an orgm1isations (IGOs). i.e. that he would allow them to make
actiYe tnember of tnany inten1ational and regiona:fisheri~:s
organisations. Its adherence to the ICRW in 2001 reflected one intetYention on a substantive agenda iten1 and that any
!GO so wishing to speak should let him know in advance.
the country's detennination to contribute to the inten1ational
debate on the tnanagetnent of marine resources . Since ins He also indicated that Conunissioners had again agreed to
allow non-go,·enuuental organi sations (NGOs ) to address
adherence Morocco had contributed to the management of the tneeting during a special session. His intention was to
the organisation based on principle s of conser vation and
sound management. The Minister recogni sed the need for allow a total of 30 minutes of presentation s divided amongst
organisations representing the full specttum of Yiews on
tnember states towork towards a consensus and considered
that the propo sed consensus decision by the Chair and Vice whaling present at the meeting . with only one individual per
Chair of the IWC was a major step forward . He said that organisation being allowed to speak .
The Secreta1y drew attention to the anangements for the
the document testified to the detennination of its authors to
bring the positions of member counnies within the IWC ats submission of Resolution s. Opening Statements and other
close as possible to consensu s. docmnents.
435Annex 69
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2010 21
disagreetnent s retnained concerning the 'J"stock and sub~ preparator y meeting s and meetings of the intersessional
stmcmre within the '0' stock. The Committee ultimately working group which were scheduled as patt of the
agreed on a set of fh·e stock stmcnu·e hypotheses to take
forthcom ing Implementation Rl!l'il!lo'.It noted that there was
fmward s to Imp lemelllarion Re1'ie11.· considerable discussion and disagreement on stock stmcmre
The Committee received information on proposed hypothe ses for westem North Pacific conunon minke whale
future whaling operations frmu Japan and Korea. reYiewed within the Scientific Conunittee.apan stated that it accepted
abtmdance estimates and thanked both Japan and Korea for the decision of the Chair of the Scientific Committee in
undet1aking sightings smYeys. It also receind infonnation the spirit of making pmgre ss and working collectively.
on plans for fumre sightings surveys by Korea in the Yellow However it drew atten tion to Appendix 7 of Annex D I of
Sea in April-May 2011 and by Japan in the Okhots k Sea the Scientific Conun ittee Repot1 which contain s a minoriry
dtu'i.ngsummer 2010. statement giving Japan ·s views on the plausibiliry of two
The C onunittee recognised that there was stillconsid erable of the stock strucn tre hypothe ses that had been proposed.
work to complete ahead of the next Amma l Meeting and Japan wished the statement to fonn part of the record of
agreed a preparatory meeting be held in September before the Annual Mee ting and accordingly it is included here as
the First Interse ssional Workshop in December. A detailed Atmex H. Japan also expressed its great appreciation for
timetab le and work plan was deYeloped. the collaboration between scientist s fi·mn Japan and Korea
who had been conducting research and analysis on conunon
NORTH ATLANTIC COMMON MINKE WHALES minke whales in the westem Nor th Pacific and expre ssed its
The Scientific Conunittee agreed revised stock botmdaries
continued conunittnent to co-operatiYe research.
and abundance estimate s for use in the RMP for North Korea thanked the Scientific Committee for its work.
Atlantic common minke whales . It noted the importance of scientific advice in managing
7.1.1.3 BYCATC H the conser vation and sustainable utilisation of whale
The RMP estimates a safe limit for all human -induced death s. popul ations. It also noted the schedule to finalise the RMP
by 2012 or 2013 at the latest and encour aged the Scientific
rather than just providing a catch limit for conunercial
whaling . It is therefore important to estimate the munber of Conunittee to accelerate the proces s so that app ropriate
whales remow d from the population by indirect means (e.g. conservation and management plans cou ld be deve loped for
bycatch and ship strikes). This year the Committee discussed these whales based on the RMP as soon as poss ible .
bycatch mm1aliry of large whales in longline fisherie s. and The Chair of the Scientific Comm ittee clarified to the
USA that its Working Group on the Estimation of Bycatch
received evidence of death s of at least humpb ack, Bryde·s
and sonthem right wha les. as well as infonna tion on and Other Human -Induced Mm1aliry traditiona lly looked at
depredation by other species . The Committ ee considered all large whales. but gave greater focus to those tmdergoing
RMP Implementations or Implemenrarion Rel'il!li'S.
ways to estimate a time series of bycatch for westem Nor1h
Pacific common minke whales as these are importan t for the The Conunission noted the report of the Scientific
Implem enration Re•de1o'described above. Conuuittee and endorsed its recon1n1endations.
The Committee also reviewed relevant infmmation fi·mn
the IWC Workshop on Welfare Issues Associated with the 7.2 O thor
Before the RMP can be used the IWC has agreed that
Entanglement of Large Whales (see Item 5 above). The
Conunittee n1ade seYeral reconunendations rele\·ant to tneasures uulSt be in place to ensure that the agreed catch
tnetnber countrie s including : limits are not exceeded . It is this combination of scientific
(under the RMP) and non -scientific factors (including
(I) the establ islnnent of adequate progra nune s to monitor
amongst other things the need for obse rvation and inspection
entanglement of whales and of entanglement respon se scheme s) that comprise the Revised Management Scheme
progranunes where applicable:
(2) improv ed reporting via National Progre ss Repm1s: (RMS).
At its 2006 Annual Meeting. the Conuni ssion accepted
(3) standardisation of data collected to maximi se their that an intpasse had been reached at Conunission level on
usefitlness:
(4) when examining whale carca ses. to record (at a RMS discussions. Accordingly there haw been no specific
discussions on the RMS since then although the RMS has
minimum ) whether fishing gear is present and whether been included as part of the discussions on the fimtre of the
fresh scarsareYisible:and
organisation (see Item 3).
(5) to facilitate necrop sies on all large whales whenever
possible .
8. SANCTUARIES
Scientific Committee discussions of ship strikes are
given tmder Agenda Item 17 below.
8.1Issu~rs ais~d in tb~Srin~ tfi rnd Consorva tion
7.1.2 Commission discussions and acTion arising
Com mitt~ s~
Belgium noted that the Scientific Conunittee had 8.1.1. ReporT of the Scientific CommitTee
recommended change s to the specification of the RMPwhich The Chair of the Scientific Comm ittee noted that no new
would allow for adjustment of RMP catches for source s
propo sals for sanctuarie s had been submitted to the Scientific
of human -caused monali ry other than those which arise Conunittee this year. but that this item wou ld remain on the
tluough directed hunting . Belgium endor sed the inclusion Conunittee ·sagen da.
of these new specification s into the RMP framework. along
with the other recommend ations of the Scientific Committee 8.1.2 Report of the Consen·afion Connmttee
under Agenda Item 7.1.1. The Chair of the Conservation Conuni ttee repo11ed that
the USA hosted the First httemational Conference on
Japan congramlated the Scientific Conunittee on
completing the pre -Implemelllarion assessment for the Marine Mammal Protec ted Areas (ICMMP A) in Hawai' i in
westem Not1h Pacific cmrnnon minke whale. It also 2009. This successfitl meeting developed several valuable
welcomed the work plan and the anangements for initiaYes and the fitll proceedings had been made m·ailable
436 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRALIAv. JAPAN)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF JAPAN
VOLUME III
ANNEXES 70 - 149
9 MARCH 2012 VOLUME III
LIST OF ANNEXES
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION (IWC) (continued from
Volume II)
Resolutions
70. “Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme”,Appendix 3, Chairman’s
Report of the Forty-FourthAnnual Meeting,Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993,
p. 40 ............................................................. 1
71. “Proposed Resolution on Interactions between Whales and Fish Stocks”,
Resolution 2001-9, Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rd Annual Meeting,
Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2001, p. 58 .......... 3
72. “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006-1,Annex C, Chair's Report
of the 58th Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2006, p. 68 .............................................. 5
Others
73. “Final Report of the Committee of Three Scientists”, IWC/15/9, Special
Scientific Investigation of theAntarctic Whale Stocks (1963) pp. 4-6 ..........7
74. “Report of Special Meeting” (3-13 December 1974) pp. 33-34 ............... 11
75. “Criteria for the Classification ofWhale Stocks”,Annex C2, Report of Special
Meeting (3-13 December 1974) ....................................... 15
76. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 29, 1979,
p. 43 ............................................................ 17
77. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, 1980,
pp. 48-49 ......................................................... 19
78. BowettD,“LegalOpiniononScheduleProvisionforPriorReviewofScientific
Permits and Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to SupplyAll Data
Stipulated”, IWC/31/9, pp. 1-6 ........................................ 21
79. Lockyer C, “Age Determination by Means of the Earplug in Baleen Whales”,
Annex F, Report of the Minke Whale Ageing Workshop, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 34, 1984, p. 696 ............................................ 27
iii80. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987,
p. 41 ............................................................ 29
81. “Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Planning for a
ComprehensiveAssessment of Whale Stocks”, SC/38/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 37, 1987, pp. 147, 150 ........................................ 31
82. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988,
pp. 56, 58 ........................................................ 33
83. “Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee to Consider the
Japanese Research Permit (Feasibility Study)”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39,
1989, pp. 161-162 .................................................. 35
84. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40, 1990,
p. 66 ............................................................ 37
85. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991,
p. 59 ............................................................ 39
86. “Report of the Sub-Committee on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales”,
Annex E, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41,
1991 ............................................................ 41
87. Kirkwood G P, “Back ground to the Development of Revised Management
Procedures”, Annex I, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 42, 1992, p. 236 ............................................. 61
88. Resignation Letter from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Philip
Hammond, to the IWC Secretary, Ray Gambell (26 May 1993) .............. 63
89. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993,
pp. 57-62 ......................................................... 67
90. “Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a Revised
Management Procedure (RMP) for Baleen Whales”, Annex H, Report of the
Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp. 146-152 ......... 73
91. “Report of the W orking Group on MSY Rates”, Annex M, Report of the
Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44, 1994, p. 183 .............. 81
92. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46, 1996,
p. 83 ............................................................ 83
93. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47, 1997,
p. 96 ............................................................ 85
94. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998,
pp. 95-105 ........................................................ 87
iv95. “Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results
from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo,
12-16 May 1997”, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, pp. 377,
378, 382, 386 ..................................................... 99
96. “Summary Statements Supporting the Use of Lethal Removal and Refuting
its use, as it Pertains to the Collection of Information on Stock Structure”,
Annex H, SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 48, 1998, p. 412 ........... 103
97. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.),
2004, p. 22 ...................................................... 105
98. DanielsdottirAKetal,“ResponsetoAppendix2RegardingScientificPermits”,
Appendix 3, Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004, pp. 365-366 ................................ 107
99. “Report of the Data A vailability Working Group”, Annex T, Report of
the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004,
pp. 406-408 ...................................................... 109
100. Zacharias MA, Gerber L R and Hyrenbach K D, “Incorporating the science
of marine reserves into IWC Sanctuaries: The Southern Ocean Sanctuary”,
SC/56/SOS5 (2004) p. 2 ........................................... 113
101. Johnston S J and Butterworth D S, “Assessment of the West and East
Australian Breeding Populations of Southern Hemisphere Humpback Whales
Using a Model thatAllows for Mixing on the Feeding Grounds and Taking
Account of the Most Recent Abundance Estimates from JARPA”, JA/J05/
JR19 (2005) pp. 8-9, 20-22 ......................................... 115
102. “Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of
Japan, Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 (2005) .................... 121
103. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.),
2005, p. 45-46 .................................................... 145
104. “Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations”,Appendix 2,Annex D,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.),
2005, pp. 84-89 ................................................... 147
105.Adjunct 1-3, Appendix 2, Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, p. 90-92 ..................... 153
106. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.),
2006, p. 47 ...................................................... 157
v107. “Report of the Sub-Committee on In-Depth Assessment”,Annex G, Report
of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 ,
pp. 132-133 ...................................................... 159
108.“Progress Report of the JARP A Review Planning Steering Group”, Annex
O2, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.),
2006, pp. 265-267 ................................................. 161
109. “Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised Managemen Ptrocedure”,Annex
D, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.),
2007, pp. 94-96 ................................................... 165
110. “Report of the Standing W orking Group on Environmental Concerns”,
Annex K, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9
(Suppl.), 2007, pp. 243-246 ......................................... 169
111. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.),
2008, pp. 26, 58-59 ................................................ 173
112. “Summary of Recommendations from the JARP A Review Workshop”,
Appendix 3, Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, p. 349 .................................... 177
113. “Report of the Intersessional W orkshop to Review Data and Results
from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo,
4-8 December 2006”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008,
pp. 411-445 ...................................................... 179
114. Donovan G and Hammond P, “Scientific Committee Handbook” (2009)
p. 2 <http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/handbook/SciComHandbook.
pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ..................................... 215
115. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.),
2009, p. 64 ...................................................... 217
116. “Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results
from Existing and Completed Permits”, Annex P, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean. Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.), 2009, pp. 398-401 ....... 219
117. “Report of the Intersessional Workshop on MSYR for Baleen Whales”,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl. 2), 2010, p. 502 ..................... 223
118. “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from
the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission”, Annex E, Chair’s Report
of the 62nd Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling
Commission 2010, pp. 56-60 ........................................ 225
119. “The Future of the International Whaling Commission: An Australian
Proposal”, IWC/M10/SWG 5 ....................................... 231
120.“Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.),
2011, pp. 25-26, 57 ................................................ 233
vi121. “Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations” (As amended by the
Commission at the 63rd Annual Meeting, July 2011) <http://iwcoffice.org/
_documents/commission/rules2011.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ........ 237
122. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, pp. 3, 14, 24-26 <http://
iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/63-Rep1-with%20
covers.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ................................ 259
123. “List of Participants”,AnnexA, Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/
Rep1, p. 82 <http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/63-
Rep1-with%20covers.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ................... 265
124. “Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised Management Procedure”,
Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1, pp. 1-4 <http://
www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20
D%20-%20RMP.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ....................... 267
125. “Japanese Special Permits in the Southern Ocean: Clarification of
suspension of take of humpback whales”, IWC Circular Communication to
Commissioners and Contracting Governments IWC CCG 976, SB/JAC/31457
(16 December 2011) ............................................... 271
INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS
126. “Work of the Economic Committee during its Thirty-Second Session”
(1930) 11 League of Nations Official Journal 1346, C.353.M.146.1930.II.,
pp. 1353-1354 .................................................... 273
127. FAO, “Statement by the FAO Observer”, Special Meeting of the IWC
(March 1982) .................................................... 275
128. Secretariat of the CITES,Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties (1984) vol. 1, pp. 140-141 ............................... 277
129. Secretariat of the CITES,Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference
of the Parties (1984) vol. 2, p. 1047................................. 281
130. UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, “Plan of Implementation of
the World Summit on Sustainable Development” (August 2002) pp. 16, 18 .... 283
131. FAO Fisheries Department, “The ecosystem approach to fisheries” (2003) 4
(Suppl. 2) FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, pp. 5-6 ......285
132. FAO, “Report of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee on Fisheries
Roma, 24–28 February 2003” (2003) 702 FAO Fisheries Report, pp. 14-15 ... 287
viiJAPAN
133.Ordinance for Enforcement of the Fisheries Act 1950 (as amended 18 March
2009),Article 1 ................................................... 289
134.Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries etc. to
be taken in the 1988 fiscal year”, submitted to the 112th ordinary session of
the Diet of Japan,Association ofAgriculture and Forestry Statistics [Nourin-
Toukei-Kyoukai], White Paper on Fisheries [Gyogyou Hakusho] (1987) p.
22 [excerpt] ...................................................... 291
135.Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisp▯here
Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the
Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp. 3-4, 6-12, 16-18, 24-26, 46-51 ........... 293
136.Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The
Program for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for
Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in theAntarctic’”, SC/D87/1
(1987) .......................................................... 315
137.The Institute of Cetacean Research, Act of Endowment of the Institute of
Cetacean Research (30 October 1987) (As amended 20 October 1999)
[excerpt] ........................................................ 337
138.The Institute of Cetacean Research, Code for Special Research Programs
(24 November 1988) (As amended 28April 2009) [excerpt] ............... 339
139.Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 63 Suikai
No. 3427 (24 November 1988) ....................................... 343
140.Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction
with Note for ‘The Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere
Minke Whale and for the Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in
theAntarctic (SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989) pp. 1-10,A.1-A.9 ........ 345
141.Kato H, Hiroyama H, Fujise Y and Ono K, “Preliminary Report of the 1987/88
Japanese Feasibility Study of the Special Permit Proposal for Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whales”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 39, 1989, pp. 235-236 ..365
142.Kato H, Fujise Y, Yoshida H, Nakagawa S, Ishida M and Tanifuji S, “Cruise
Report and PreliminaryAnalysis of the 1988/89 Japanese Feasibility Study of
the Special Permit Proposal for Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales”, Rep.
int. Whal. Commn 40, 1990, pp. 289-290 ............................... 367
143.Government of Japan, “The 1992/93 Research Plan of whale Resources in▯ the
Antarctic”, SC/44/SHB14 (1992) ..................................... 369
144.Government of Japan, “The 1995/96 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale
Research Program under Special Permit in theAntarctic”, SC/47/SH3 (1995) ..377
viii145.Government of Japan, “Some Counter Comments on the Past IWC Resolutio▯n”,
IWC/48/36 (1996) ................................................ 387
146.Government of Japan, “The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale
Research Program under Special Permit in theAntarctic”, SC/48/SH3 (1996) ..391
147.Burke W T, “The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern
Ocean Sanctuary”, IWC/50/27 (1998) ................................. 403
148.Act for Establishment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(1999, as amended 15 June 2011),Article 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .421
149.Government of Japan, “Japan: Notification regarding the submission made
by Australia to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”,
SC/05/039 (2005) ................................................. 423
ix Annex 70
70. “Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme”,Appendix 3, Chairman’s Report
of the Forty-FourthAnnual Meeting, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, p. 40
40 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT OF l1ffi FORTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING
(CCAMLR ) and the Scientific Comminee on Antarctic (ii) that the Scientific Comminee should contact
Research (SCAR) toenhance our undemanding of the CCAMLR, SCAR and other relevant organisations
Antarctic environment; to exchan~ i.nfomtation on the effects of global
CONSCIOUS of the scope to develop existing links environmental chan,ge in the Antarctic region which
between the Scientific Commiuees of the IV' . CCAMLR may be of relevance to whale stocks;
and SCAR ; (iii) that the Scientific Ccmminee should develop practical
NOW THEREFORE t.he Commiss ion DECIDES : means to address the questions raised by these
(i) that the ScientificCommittee establish a regular exchanges .
agenda item to address the impact of environmental
changes upon whale stocks :
Appendix 3
RESOLUT ION O:S THE REVISED MANAGE!\.1ENTSCID!:ME
WHEREAS the lntemational Convention for the NOW THEREFORE th~ Commission:
Regulation of Whaling recognises the interests of the (I) ACCEPTS that the Draft Specification for the
nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations Calculationof Catch limits in a Revised Management
tbe great natural resources of the whale stocks; Scheme for baleen whales given in IWC/4414Annex H
WHEREAS Schedule paragraph lO(a) to lO(c) proved together with its attached annotations completes the
to be deficientin several important respects particularly main scientific component of the development of a
with regard to the expected advice which the Scientific Revised Managememt Scheme for commercial baleen
Committee was unable to provide in the face of uncertainty whaling;
0\·er the status of stocks, and which, therefore , often left(2) REQUESTS the Scientific Committee to provide full
documentation of the Catch Limit Algorithm and the
the Comnussion without adequate advice on classifications
and catch limits; control program ;
WHEREAS the Commission as a consequence of these (3) REAFFIRMS its agreement that commercial whaling
deficienciesdopted paragraph lO(e) of the Schedule and shall only be permitted for populations in areas and
seasons for which catch limits are in force. These calcll
committed itselfto the undertaking of a Comprehensive limits sbaU bave IM:en calculated by the Scientific
Assessment of the effectS of its decision ; Committee, and forwarded to and approved by the
WHEREAS the Commission, having considered the
advice of the Scientific Committee at its 43rd Annual Commission in confoonnity with aU the provisions of
the Revised Management Scheme . Commercial catch
Meeting: limitsor all other populations in aUareas and seasons
(1) accepted the Scientific Committee 's recommendation s haU be zero .
for the core single-stock management procedure for (4) NOTES that the additional steps required to complete
baleen whales; the Revised Management Scheme include agreement
(2) proposed, inter aHathaithe 'hightuning"of 0.72,and upo;;:
the protection level of 0.54, be adopted ; (i) minimum data standards ;
(3) requested the ScientificComm ittee to continue (ii) guidelinesfor conducting surveys and analysing
the development of multi-stock management the results ;
procedures;
(iii) a fully effectiveinspection and observation
WHEREAS the Scientific Commiuee has now provided scheme ;
to the Commission a Draft Specification for the calculation (iv)arrangements teoensure that the total catches over
orne are within the limits set under the Revised
of catch limits in a Revised Management Scheme for Management Sc:heme;
baleen whales (JWC/44/4 Annex H); (v) incorpora tion of the Draft Specification and the
GRATEFUL for the bard and dedicated work of the
ScientificCommittee in the development of the multi-stock other elemen .of the Revised Management
Scbeme into the Schedule :
Catch Limit Algorithm and its specification : CONSIDERS that until there is agreement on all
NOTING that the Sci.entific Committee has made aspectsof the Revised Management Scheme elaborated
considerable progress on the specification of minimum above, the Catch Limit Algorithm should not be
standards fordata and related issues; implemented .
12 Annex 71
71. “Proposed Resolution on Interactions between Whales and Fish Stocks”, Resolution
2001-9,Annex C, Chair’s Report of the 53rdAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the
International Whaling Commission 2001, p. 58
FIFTY-THIRD ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX C
58
Resolution 2001-9
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WHALES
AND FISH STOCKS
WHEREAS it is the purpose of the International Whaling experience, and interest in this matter, and the participation
Commission to provide for the effetive conservation and of experts from such organizations, as well as those
management of whale stocks; specificaly recommended by the Scientific Committee;
WHEREAS the JWC is the universa lly recognized
internationalorganization with competence for the NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION:
management of whale stocks;
ACKNOWLEDGING that better·understanding of marine GIVES notie that, as the competent international
ecosystems, including interactions between whales and fish organization for the conservation and management of whale
stocks, would contribute to the conservation and stocks, it has decided to make the study of interactions
management of living marine resources and is of interest to between whale and fish stocks a mater of priority;
nations as well as to regional fisheries management AGREES that any studies conducted by the FAO on
organizations and international research organizations; ecosystem-based fisheries management be holistic and
NOTING that the Council of the Food and Agriculture balanced in approach;
Organizat ion of the United Nations, during its 120'hsession, ENDORSES the recommendations of the Scientific
recommended that ecosystem-based fisheries management Committee concerning the workshop on interactions
studies to be conducted by the FAO, as agreed in paragraph between whales and fish stocks;
39 of the report of the 24'hsession of the FAO Committee on REQUESTS the Secretary to forward a copy of this
Fisheries, shouldbe balanced and holistic in approach; resolutin and relevant portions of the report of the Scientific
WELCOMING the Scientific Committee's Committee to the AssistantDirector-General of the Fisheries
recommendations to conduct a workshop on interactions Department of the FAO and to the Chair of the FAO
between whales and fish stocks, to be held intersessionally Committee on Fisheries, seeking their cooperation in the
between the 53'dand S4'h annual meetings of the organization and conductof the workshop;
Commission; FURTHER requests the Se cretary to forward a copy of
RECOGNIZING that, in order to effectively address the this resolution and relevant portions of the report of the
issue of interaction between whales and fish stocks, the Scientific Committee to regional fisheries management
planning and conduct of the workshop requires experts on organizations, international research organizaions, and
modeling and data sets and should therefore include other appropriate organizations in consultation withof
coordination with other organizations that have expertise, the Scientific Committee.
34 Annex 72
72. “St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, Resolution 2006-1,Annex C, Chair's Report of
the 58thAnnual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission
2006, p. 68
68 FIFTY-EIGHTHANNUALMEETING,ANNEXC
AnnexC
Resolutions Adopted at the 58thA.nnualMeeting
Resolution 2006-1
ST. KITTS AND NEVIS DECLARATION
EMPHASISING that the use of cetaceans in many parts of ACCEPTING that scientific research has shown that
the world including the Caribbean, contributes to whales consume huge quantities of fish making the issue a
sustainable coastal communities, sustainable livelihoods, matterof food security for coastal,nations and requiring
food security and poverty reduction and that placing the useat the issueof management of whale stocks must be
of whales outside the context of the globally accepted~normonsidered in a broader context of ecosystem management
of science-based management and rule-making for since ecosystem management has now become an
emotional reasons would set a bad precedent that risks ourinternational standard.
use of fisheries and other renewable resources; REJECTING as unacceptable that a number of
FURTHER EMPHASISING that the use of marine international NGOs with self-interest campaigns should use
resources as an integral part of development options is threats in an attempt to direct gayernment policy on matters
critically important at this time for a number of countriesf sovereigti rights related to the use of resources for food
experiencing the need to diversify their agriculture;. security and national development;
UNDERSTANDING that the purpose of the 1946 NOTING that the position of some members that are
International Convention for the Regulatioof Whaling opposed to the resumptionof commercial whaling on a
(ICRW) is to 'provide for the proper conservation of whalesustainable basis irrespective of the status of whale stocks
stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of is contrary to the object and purpose of the International
the whaling industry' (quoted from the Preari!ble to the Convention for the Regulatiof Whaling;
Convention) and that ihe Intern~ Wthalig nal UNDERSTANDING that the IWC can be saved from
Commission (IWC) is therefore about managing whaling to collapse only by implementing conservation and
ensure whale stocks are not over-harvested rather than management measures which will allow controlled and
protectingail whales irrespectof their abundance; sustainable whaling which would not mean a return to
NOTING that in 1982, the IWC adopted a moratorium historic over-harvesting and that continuing failure to do so
on commercial whaling (paragraphlO(e)of the Schedule to serves neither the interests of whale conservation nor
the ICRW) without advice from the Commission's management;
Scientific Committee that such measure was required for NOW THEREFORE:
conservation purposes;
FURTHER NOTING that the moratorium which was COMMISSIONERS express their concern that the IWC has
clearly intended as a temporary measure is no longer failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ICRW;
necessary, that the Commission adopted a robust and risk and
averse procedure (RMP) for calculating quotas for DECLARE our commitment to· normalising the
abundant stocks of baleen whales in 1994 and that the functions of the IWC based on the terms of the ICRW and
IWC's own Scientific Committee has agreed that many other relevant international law, respect for cultural
species and stocks of whales are abundant afld sustainablediversity and traditions ·of coastal peoples and the
whaling is possible; fundamental principlesf sustainable use of resources, and
CONCERNED that after 14 years of discussion and the need for science-based policy and rulemaking that are
negotiation, the IWC has failed to complete and implement accepted as the world standard for he management of
a management regime to regulate commercial whaling. marine resources.
56 Annex 73
73. “Final Report of the Committee of Three Scientists”, IWC/15/9, Special Scientific
Investigation of theAntarctic Whale Stocks (1963) pp. 4-6
(SectionII A)
~l!>.i!...J AIL.LYSIS
A. m~. .9£iL~.'!!'
6. Since moat o:f thec.nalysis'"" done et the Scctt lom~oti Ql1dr oported
on1n tho i.pvond.iootc the Report o!· the.L>o~f: ( i'iC./15/6), this roport
nccosa(\.rU y ropoamu6!1of' thatrcntoil~C.\1SOP.tparts ~ v.:ho~·, r.,been,.;,
coitt.c~s oi' sc:conciei.rlport foi'the currunt ::ancJ.,-a C1:d.sor..c.Oesn
rcvis q)d in the, li gll't ofm~theinttt.n.c.lyse.Satn(b.ppondic&s of" thAt
reportnat 1uol udc6in the. mc.in body of th:re)or1;er<> add~ oodAJ>j>cll>dJ.ee•
here tofn.ciJ.i rertrnce to them.
9. Som€ information 1s avnil ablo f'romm..trtk~nU sine<.t1pc:rtt.ins to both
tinend blue vhcles thic o.n1yc~isis 31Tt:nf'irst .
1
8eneol.~e;tods hav..:.boaus~c ..~nnn.:lly bose~ on ug....:l-en &-thkeys
( iloverton-flmethod : I .W. C. /15/6/A,•po>1 -inow lippendi:1 of' th iarejJort) ,
a.'l analys~><'. osotdv decline in oo.tcll per lL">it of ef'(DoLury lllut!tod)
&nda.n IHlClysie bo01'1coln eb"tilrtta:lon of' t ho cwail etblo ''sw'plus " stoc lc f or o£!.ch
sea$011 or periodoryo<~ (Ssho.ofarocthod) . Since 11ootat tho o.nalysc•
ralie her.ily on l:l&l'.auro:cC'h ~per unit of &f'IFortc.-ai.ndieof the
nbwldN"'oof t he e:f$1lo1t t.G stecl.::s, c:!lctTeru~edo or tho offeot of
weath" ou oetch<a'~.!'fio( IoWnCc/y15/6/E.ppe 3nt.- no.CcI.~ttao lh~
l~ppon sd2ir.nG 3of thi:> repo rt ) and of tho in cr&anos in cv.:~.fh1ce ncy
o.ver th" yoc.rs {I .li'. C./15/6/.<5 -eattnched a• 4Pvndix 4 of tM.a report).
10. 'l'h:l.t YJO:ltbor Mlei.mporLru1t rolin C<>tchor succo•• io welll<n01m.
Tho ctud ico of @-ul.lendo.nd Kastt>vvn sucoeil 1 mcoo.usriz \(i th e ot17ca.thor
q\lClltti vcly . Purthor stu6.ici.dic:ltodthc.tUui ~ecthc. ndr..x varies
gr<.:otly f'rom <.>:;..1,)odition t.otL~dr.tnthto month . Wh..ilu suoba..n
i.nduoould BTGr>tlYimpt•ovothe :mc.lysis , tinnnci cost prohibitits usa in the
pr-esent study. Such an indt.x ehoul d be used in rw·thostudios .
11. 1'hao'tudy of Rylen(J.ppenil14) incl.l.co.thet c~tohG eft'icieucyi s
approx:o lto;><optrtior -'.1 to to nn<.iicohine c.:'ls~s.C1f'tho s.ame quostion
proved Wlsatis f cotcboC!\uso of •tc.riat i ons 1n offi.ebctwoon oo\J.ntric:s,
duo to7t<>b<.r , Md othorcauso.s . .Chis isone o! th oprolb$ll l~att,eeds ~>uoh
fUtii.r:ork .
7Annex 73
(Section IT B)
1~. Novorthol oss the: -::~ng ~u·.lyoi oonf'il,JSthnt ut'fioienoy o:r the
ootohot·s lms 'lluc.i~:cro.:- 0 s.a l.'.t; th l!'.bu.*..llis:in l'cct dec:lining
bocn inol ud<:.odbr.&od on scvorP.l r.tC. uros of oc.toh p~ w'li.tof offo1·t (111\¢
these r.ll.load to ~hes~e.~vnurn lonol uaions .
B. ~£..Y ..t1O!I:'!.\_ l.J~ij.ahit:!fi
1 }. ln thu b='.rly yo::.rof most t:ishorl.o.!tho oc.,oh i.e.srn~ in r c.J.l!.iton
to tho tot~l mmibar i n tho lltvok , lh i1>rtt>.truu in J.ntc.rotionhalint; .
J.o tht.e:;.-ploit:t:c oontinu .~.r.n<lint:~nsit ,'tics.oprojlort.ionri !l<.o!lnnd
tiu, o1'1·eotof o:;.-ploi'c<.t!introd.uoin8 tho stock nw~bors buoo&c.s cvid~;:nt:
this c:.oolino in st ook i~ not
L~ ita~f ~videnco e:.ovar-o~>loi~n~i toho,~ it doos ~ndic~tt c~~t
ontohiu;; ( i . .:.. nhcl.ii:.{b.o~ e .ucjox-r.~ct dotr.r:aini.nQ~ ew.~~
etook :si~ .to
~· .ertnin C::>i .tp~foo r . r uduotion '..nde.cCl'tein 1.·::.t.vomortt'.l :i.ty i'r..e
dit'foronoo 'oet\:con th r.ho, tho.ill ,th ... oxoosao1' rGpl."'oduotio".l'.aub~ o
quont rooruitll~ ~otth.;; c;.;:·lol t.r.blll :ovc~.,the nntw.·!U dc.c.tha is
the mot-.suro ot th u "S\Il'Plu s" poJ)ul.-.tioor in other Ttord.l>tho oatoh
which ooul ll 'bo tn.kunfrcll ~m. t.st.ook. ...-tithoithOl.'C>ut'i.~ it to
1'his is .tth~.it t~l:lra.;>ort v.:tQrlt
;1111sust •.inablo y:i.W.d is zero
!.rl'-"w:uc;>lo1 t-..r..:.blc:,tock.
~·uo tc::it , r, ~defin ;;.dl:lt<: rr.tioi oi'f.::oti "T.liJrc.duct1onto
stool: :sizo) uuat !ncrc.ca.:. o~·he. r..t:coZ n.-.turd uort:-li.ty, t!, (t.hu ratio
oC na ~uru d(.C.tllsl:o atock si.ZC;;) r.ll'8.'C clc.01'iloth; t~is l>''OCOSS
rCJsul~ is r.n o.:c\::D:S of rcol'uitrJcmovet· nc'i:\IT1aort~li lhyoh oCill b<l
tt.kan..~aust~1la lvhcc-.tch.
14-. j'ho 1n&t$'.nt.:.nQious fi:shi;t~rt ..t•.ooc.fficit.r.t1!'i.:(~.,tclt c th::~
:;.·t.1:ioo£ cctchC ov<:r t. oc.rtcil'pcrl.od ( ar.y, •3vl'.s onto tllv :1Vor"-6e
tot::..stcok P cl.n-in;t!l. cciOO.. Then i.a ::>.nyG<-•.sonC • l?, but the
8 Annex 73
(6eotion II B)
If in rrr.y accson,:fexoeOO.s F11, tll ~:tch rtill be {,l't.~ thnr th~J oa.toh
D.stock of tllct !Ji:tc or.n sustl.lr..nd th ... stoc t. dc..clino . Ii'tb: stock
docs decline, only nn incr~sir 0 .woowttof effort, to incr c,r.acF'pro-J?ortion
<ltoly~~il roa\1J.tin tho prcv-.ioua co.tch lovol bl$in(l.,ir.t~.1ol, c.ndthr.t. only
il.t thcxpens of:l~st1ll fUrtl:.t.r ro:tuc-.ci stookifh6n tho stock is vary
saell the auatc11l4b l .: cnioic e~lc .r.Jrysrnull. .\t so.1o 1ntol'tBodie.tc oizo
tb6 austr~blo or.tcb is ct n mcxiawn.
to t.~ti~J ~cuG s;of' F, r, L~c.nd P u.n4 to uao thc.:so·to dot t.n.1ino fOo~:ch
stock:
(c) th<: cc.tcb v!lich tho atock oould '~ .its 1962/63 lvv cl suatein flithout
1.ncrG~ls o' deor cr.ain;
0 0
{b) tho t::(.u;i:sulrt;lil.:.byiold 1.t :,ugl:produce if pcn11Htcd to
rcbuUd;
(c) tho Olinil t;<. im would t:llcc. 'ftho stoo:C to srov t o tho ai ..e
ct 11llich it oould suatcin tho 1.trutimuyield . (This r~ou ltc:1·ii.'
wh~ina \toro tcopore.dly su:~pvn. dcd If \Jhr.liDU ccntinuod , thouah
nt a r<.ducOC:l't.t;such 1:h~ ct:-tcho11 c.aoh 110c.son >lkopt bol O'.<
th(;l lov <tls S\lctc.i no.blc o.t tll(\stocknocould evont\1C.l.ly c.ttcin
thv opticuo ~i~eb ,~t this tO~ tekv l~ur).
15. t'hc procilliono.nd rt.ng<: ofdt.taroctuil.·cd tmalco M:Hlssrnent (b) are
grotlter toon thoaol to mal1oa:sooa3rncnt (a), Lut.a:s the optilr..m lcvol is
appro;.ob.:dit ~y b(; t.st1ru. ~JteGp.ogross:lv(.!lytncron&inf; confickncc .
1l'h0 85.SI.l$!".(;iVCDDbt.lor. f'o~m\ll!l :SUGto.in,•.bl" yJ.el!hOuld , tho:-aJ'a1.:>
to ccnsi.derod.onl,yas c~prcltii c:stt~Jeu:t icsio those 1·oletin:; to the
pro:.ent sus~iell8bl catches ar c moro fire.~
6.
910 Annex 74
74. “Report of Special Meeting” (3-13 December 1974) pp. 33-34
lli~'ERNAT flALTNGG0>~·11OSSl
HEPORJ' OF SP::JOJI\iII JWIJJ OlifC
3 - 13 D1':CEl1R71+AT LA JOLLA,
cALIoFm~:u.
Of'fieg of tho Coruiss ion
iobbl'\lary.5.9"(
11Annex 74
- 33 -
a limit of not more than J.O% below !VlSYle vel) and a more
flexible approc.c:h (with the limit 20~o below J'.lSYJ evel).
7.4.2 Between sustained manage ment and initial management
stocks. It was ag-rEH?-d 1:hat the upper 1 irnit.£or a su5ta ined
Jllanagement stock should be further above the illSY le-..el than
t:he low er limit is belo\ •1the MSY level. A value of 20% above
fviSY lev a l.1~as proposed.
7. 5 Recommendations to the Commission
Follm...-ing considerable discussion it was agreed thai: t he
following criteria fo:;.· classification of wha le stocks he
recommended to the Commission (Annex C 2); bearing in mind
Fukuda's reservation, noted beloh' .
It ~Vas agreed that a "stock" for the purpose of these
CTiteria Should be defined as total, mature, OT exrloitabl<::,
as appropriate in each case.
A Sust .ained ~lanagemen Stock shall be de fin ed as a stock which
is not mo1.·e than zgc of MSY sotc k lev el beJ oN MSY 1 e:<el , and not
more than 20g• c>.bove that l evel, MSY being determined on the
basis of the number of whales; pTovickd that for stocks betl-ieen
the ~lSY st ock l evel and Z% bel01v that level the permitted cateh
shall be not more than is indicated by a straight line from zero
at the lower limit to 90% of MSY for s tock s at l·iSYlevel, and
that it shall not be more than 90% of MSY for stoc:ks abo ve MSY
level.
When a stock has rema in ed at a stable lev e l for a cons:lderab l.e
pe2 i.od under a. regime of appro;-~im:J c.n!c;:J.nt ~.(!tchc i:; shall
be classified as a Sustained Ma.n;tgemeJ>t !"-tock in the ::..bsence ('f
any po sitive evidence that i t shoulJ ~e ot herwise classified
m1dcr the preceding cr it cJ::La.
12 Annex 74
- 34 -
An In ii:ia l ~ltmHlCF. nlteStock shall be defined as a stock
more than 20% of ~ISY stock lev e l above J.!SY l eve l ; i t is
furth.n· recommended tha t t he permi tte d catch for such s toc ks
sha 1! no "t be more tha n 90'% of MSY as f:u· as t hi ~ is known,
o:r, where it tli l l be more apprcpri:1te, fishing effo .t·t~ha ll
be 1ilui ted to tha"t which Mill t ak e 90\ of iYISYin a st o~k: at
~ISY leve l .
A P~otcction Stoc k sha ll be defined &s a stock which is
be l 0\'zt of NSY stoc k le vel be low f.~S lY vel.
Fukuda, on behalf of the Japanese sci entists , madG a r eservation
that any value fo1.·Z could not be ac c ep te d e.s based on firm
sci enti fic grounds i n the lig ht o f the d is cu ssions thr oughout
th e meeting and t ha attached t abl e should , t here f ore, not be
conside-red as sci •mtific ndvice , but merely summary informa ti on
for conven i enc e of the Commission .
The ma jor ity of t he Committee considered that at presen t 10 % is
t h.:: most appr op ria te value for Z.
A proposal 11?.5 discussed conce r nin g t ha diffi .cul ties tho:t ~tigh t
axise i f a s to ck is reclassifi ed from Sustaine d ~lanage ment S·tock
t o P1·otcct ion Stock as a resul t of further kno<>led ge or ch anged
c'l'i i:exioand -,;o t he possible need for t r ansition procedures. It
t>a.s decic!cd not to proce _ed further wit h t his matter at pres on1:.
111ti:Coll'.rntitcagree d on a s t ate Jtent on the Classi f ico.tion of
Stoc ks whi ch summarise d the p:rinciples i t h&d con sidered i n
rlevclop in g th6 cle{'init.ic.ns of Stock Criteria. This statement
iS gi ven i n f•nnGX c~l,
8 . R.v~iew of Stoc ks Rfll ntiv e to the Cr i te ;:ia.
8. 1 ~~otccted !lpeci.cs _ The Com;ni·t-tee br :icfly consj, !er cd t hose
species curT~l.lt pry<:ecto cl, i.e. Right , Blue, 1-t•i•npbackand
1314 Annex 75
75. “Criteria for the Classification of Whale Stocks”, Annex C2, Report of Special
Meeting (3-13 December 1974)
AN~lE X2
SCIEI'fi'IFIC COI,I).HTIEE
Report of Specia l ~leeting
La Jolla 3-13 December, 1974
CRITERIA FOR 1HE CLASSIFICATIO:'l OF \~HAL ETOCKS
tJSustai ne d Nanagement Stock shall b.e defined as a stock * which is
I +
1'\0t more than Z%· of ¥.SY stock1evel bel ow MSYleve l, and not mor e t han
2b\ above that level, MSY being determined on the basis of th e nuober
o w~hales; provided t hat for stocks betwe en the ~~ stock level and Z\
belo1 ~hat le velthe permit te d catch shall be not J:IOre thani s indi cated
by a straight line from zero at the lo wer l icitto 90% of ~I S for st ocks
at ~ISY level, and that i t sh allnot be rore th an 90~•of f.ISYfor stocks
above MSY level.
h~en a st ock has remained at a stable .level fo r a considerable
period under a regime of approximately const .ant catches, i t shal l be
clas sif ie d as a Sustai ned~lnaagemnet Stock in the absence of any posi t ive
evidence that it should be otherwise classified under the pr eceding
criteria .
An Ini tial~~ nagemen tt ock shall be def i ned as a stock more than 20% of
~iSY stock leve l above ~fSYlevel; it is further recom mende d that the
permitted catch for such stocks shall not be more than 90% of 1--ISas f ar
as t his i s knOI-I"Tlo,r1~her et will be more appropriate, fishing eff ort
shal l be limited to that which will tak e 90% of ~1SYin a stock at MSY leve l .
A Protection Stocli. shal l be defined as a s tock whi ch i s be l Z~of .~1YS
stoc k level be l ow MSY level.
* · -Foot noton defi nit ion of .sto ck
. Stock for this purpose may be defined by the Sci entif ic Conunitteeas
t ota lmature or expl oi tab le as appropriate in each case.
15Annex 75
+ Footnote on·value ·of Z
The gaps and uncertainties in the data, disc ussed in the introductory
stateme nt , make it impossible at present to designate a numerical value fo1
Z on unequivoca l scientific grounds. There was a diversity of opinion
in the Committee as to Nhether it is possib le to suggest values for Z
solely on the basis of scient ific judgement or whether other factors
have to be taken into account. Values of Z which were suggest ed in
discu ssion by members of the Scien tific Committee ranged fro m 0 to 20%
of MSYlevel, depending on the individual assessments of the risks and
consequences of error, and on the interpretation of t he phrase "at or
near the MSYlevel " in t he Comm fss ion•s resolut i on. The attached table
(Annex D) sho•~sho•~ the var ious stocks 1~oul de designated if the
Comm sision selec ted values of Z, of 0, 10%and 20%of MSYlevel . The
majority of the Committee considered that at present 10%is the most
appropria te value of Z.
Fukuda, on behal f of the Japanese scient ists , made a reservation
t hat any val ue for Z could not be accepted as based on firm scientific
grounds in the lig ht of the discussions thr oughout the meeting and the
attac hed tab le should, therefore, not be considered as scientific advice,
but merely summaryinformati on for convenience pf the Commission.
'·
16 Annex 76
76. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 29, 1979, p. 43
REP.lNr.WHAt...COMMN 29.1979 43
The surveillance necessary to monitor both the conse to quantify. InInkingMSY (weight) 4%more males would
q-aence5f a possible moratorium, and the redevelopment be taken but 16% fewer females than in takmg MSY
ofstocks, in a manner which provides qu<mtitativc measures(number) . The quotas gien by the New \ia nagement Pro
~ssary to management in future generations. would
cedure applied to an MSY (wetght) objecuvc rather than
cDnlinueto requue the provision of adequate data. This MSY (number) would, in 1977, have been 7% fewermales
iqlllcs a system equtvalent to the main sources of data onand 19% fewer females and implied a loss in ti1977/78
Qlrrentlyexplottcd stocks, and increased effort m respect season of9% of the weight yield.
ofprotected species.
It is the opinion of the Scientific Committee that the 9.9.2 T'he choice of optimum minimum size ro maximise
p~ewn mtanagement procedure does safeguard whale yield byweight
~tes and identified major stocks for future gcnetalions It is well known that if the weight of an exploited animalis
ata very small risk, whilst enablinga continued yield to bto he maxirmscd, then the theoretical age of recruitment to
bl:en. Notwithstanding tile difficulties, the implementatiexploitationis chosen at that age where the growth rate
olthe New Management Procedure is leading to a better equals the mortality rate. This carries w11the imphca
kll(ledge of whale population dynamics. Thls would be tion that the explonauon rate on older ages is u1finitely
lostunder a moratonum unless there were a very ..-on large and it is usual in practice to choose the 11inimum
iderable mcreasein monitoring and researchactivity. limit at less than the exacl pointof equality of growth
The representative of Panama presented a minority and mortality rates. To ftnd lhh value requues an age
1111cmetnwh1chappears as Annex P weight model. Such a model has been given by Lockyer
(l;stimates of growth and energy budget for the sperm
whale, PJzyseter catodon, ACMRR/MM/SC/3!!, 1976).
9.9Criteria for management
Actually tlus paperives two growth curvesfor malespem1
9.9.1nle choiCe between yield by weight and yield by whales. Fitting quadratic equations to the curved upper
number for spcnn whales section as a rough approximation procedure yields an esti
trth~ aun of the exploitation is to maximise weight of mate of the age Bt which growth nte equals mortahty rate
p1odu regtrdless of cost then clearly regulations should as 41 47 yean. Thus it would appear that if one were to
beset so as to maxuruse weight Such regulations could choose a minimum age to get maximum weight 11should
tbtmsclvesbe expressedtnterms of a quota by number.On be somewhat below the above ages and could be calculated
* other hand, if costs are to be considered and the for any given rate of exploitation. It is not clear without
further analysis that such a minnnum lengthlimrt is con·
aitenon to be used ISsomething else, for example maxi
mumnet revenue, then the chotec is much more complex. sistcntWJth the catch quota detennincd from the model.
Sincethe Committee has no information on such costs If the lower limil does not pennit the required catches the
lbtreis no way it can make any statcmeot on wh•ch,. the length limit woulneed to be lowered.
lllOSrational choice. The same constderation appltcs. of If any females are 10be taken, the lcng1h lwould be
mursc,to the present poUcy of seeking to rnaximi5Cyteld immDterial since there is almost no relatio9shtp between
ilnumhers. length and age above l 0 m in length, which includes
As a separate consderation, it is true that if the regulassentiallaUof the female catches.
tionswere set so as to maximise catch by weight rather
llW b.ynumber, then the exploitation of females would be 9.9.3n1e choict' nf proJecrinx from exptoitariOIIa/1female
rqlw:cd. More.ovcr. the MSY stock level for MSY (weight) sperm w!1arls
ishJgher than .fCfr.MSY (number). In the presence of A full evaluatton of the loss thai would be expected from
uncertainlyverpopulation levelsand population responses the MSY if females were protected from exploitation will
tile higher population levels involve less risk of ovcr Jcpend in part on the parameter response\ expected
because of exploitauon. An evaluation could be made
uploitation.
AflllexJ. Table I of the report of the Canberra meeting through runs of the program SPVAP with different para·
(Rtp. mt. What. Commn 28: 88) shows the difference meter values and response functions. Tl1is could not,
between the tnaxunum yield by weight and the level <Jt however, ·reveal any changes in effects on disturbance of
~"hi tcihis attatned uccmding to the 1977 assessment for nursery groups of catching or not catching females from
theSoulhetn Hemisphere. The combined tot als give some them whjch cannot be predtcted a1 the present time. It is
btdicationof the effects mvolved. apparent that the numerical loss would be tiny since
For males,maXllTiisingtotal yreld by weight results in anaccording to the prcwnl model the Southe rn Hemisphere
increas ef 6,964 tonncs (5%). For females, maximising MSY catch of females is 0.7% of the MSY female stock
level (Rep. inr. What. Commn 28: 88). Present quotas
tOUIIyield by weight leads to a decrease o4,59. tonnes
(21%).The combined weight of both sexes is incre3seby pem1it a take of le~ than 0.5% of the IOial stock of
2,.i73toMes (1.3%) if the weight criterion ischosen. Thus females.
itis seen that the gain in weight using the MSY by weight The SPVAP output tabulated in Rep. int. What. Commn
critenonis quite small and at tht present time much less 27: 247-8 permits an approximate evaluation of changes
lhanthe vanability of the estimates. On the other hand the m product weight from protecling femalesand taking males
mimated effect on the MSY level is larger. For all Divi in the appropriate numbers. The loss in number wouldbe
sions combined in the Southern Hemisphere, the male 9- 10% with respect to the MSY (number) but under such
MSYlevel is increased fro:n 77,400 (33.1\% of tniti.al a regime there wouldbe a gain in catch by weight of 3-4 %
Dllmbers)to 84,000 (36.5% o! intllaJ numbers). a 79% because the increase in the number of males that :ould be
illcrease.For females rt is tncreased from 274,200 (76.0% caught more than offsets the reduced numbcf of females.
ofinittal) to 299,500 (83.0% of Initial), an in~ra~se. If a tcgime of maximising catch by wetght was being
This represents a decrease of mk of overexploitation pursued. the percentage loss in number by not catclung
through incorrect assessment, but one wh1ch tS difficult females would be of the order of 4%, and in tlt.iscase the
1718 Annex 77
77. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30, 1980, pp. 48-49
48 REPORT OF TI-lESCIENTIFIC COMMmEE
the estimates of current population sizes became pro advantages and some di sadvantages, from the scientific
gressively lessreHablein the absence of data derived from point of view, in the two proposa ls. The Committee was
whaling and associated activities. Some considered that unab le to agree whether the overalleffect of a moratorium
adeq uate estimates could be gained through a carefully on the scientific process would be to increase or decrease
designed sightings programme and/or through catches the flow of relevant information , and whether it would
under research permits . haste n or reta rd the better understanding of whale
The reliability and quality of the results of such a biology.
pco1,rramme would be directly related to the scale of effort The balance of advantages and disadvantages depends
nod skill employed. Experience to date (Australia, South very largely on the research effort which would be made
Africa, Canada and USA ) suggests that observations on
duri ng the moratorium period and the length of that
the stocks related to the operations of particular land per iod.
stations would each cost of the order of $0.1-0. 5 M. per
annum. Sightings data from ocean ic areas would cost 9.2.2 Addendum
substantially more. At the reques t of the Commission the Commit tee con
Japanese scientists stated that pelagic sightings on the sidered a proposal that separate decisions should be made
present scale carried out by Japan would cost an order of rega rding a morato rium on coastal and on factory ship
magnitude more than that requiJ-ed for coastal sightings. operations.
Some members believed that the continuatio n of The Committee was, in the time available, unable to
whaling would provide a better possibility of improving make any generalised stateme nt as to the relative
and developing new approaches to management on a availability and reliability of infonn ation regarding stocks
foundat ion of practice rather than theory. subject to coastal and to factory ship operations or about
Views as to the loss which might be incurred from a the risks arising from such whaling.
cessatio n ofwhaling turned on expectations as to the scale
In the case of both kinds of operations the level of
of investigations which could be expected under a uncerta inty varies greatly from stock to stock.
morator ium. Doubts were expressed as to whether even In respect of the present major factory ship operations
catches under special permits would be practicable if there some members consider ·that for sperm whales the levels
were no commercial operations for a time. Clearly there of risk and uncertainty are higher for factory ship than for
would be a hiatus in returns from marking experiments. coastal operatio ns, but others did not agree. The Com·
While recognising such disadvantages. some members mittce agreed however that this did not apply to southern
thought that a moratorium would also provide opportu
minke whales.
nities for research which was not possible at the present The Committee therefore could not agree whether
time for certain species of stock such as study of the the re were general ly applicable scientific reasons to
behav iour of groups of whales which were not dispersed distinguis h between coastal and factory operations under
by chasing or disrupted by some of their number being an overall moratorium.
killed. Some members believe that the possible Chapman and Hoh expressed the following minority
disturbance by the present scale of whaling is minimal for view:
the species of which only a small fraction of the total
'the risks of whaling from factory ships are genera lly
popu lation is taken and that s.uch behavioural studies greater than of whaling from land stations for several
could best take place in the areas and on stocks now reasons.
protected. One member felt that such studies would not
materia lly assist inimpro ving estimates of population size. (1) for most species, local opera tions from land
Some members expressed the view that a pause in stations are less likelyto cause extinction or serious
whaling, which could eliminate the need for annual assess reduction of stocks since whales have a sanctuary
from such whaling whereas they do not have such a
ments to be made by the Committee for its duration, and sanctuary from factory ship operatio ns;
for the setting of annual quotas, would permit the (2) knowledge of identity of pelagic stocks is even
Committee to give due attention to some of the funda poorer than for coastalsto cks and the possibility of
mental questions of interpretation, estimating and
modelling of which it was now aware but which it had no serious damage to stocks which do not coincide
time to examine under present conditions. An example with management areas is greater for factory
was the critical examination of the basis for present stock operntions than for land based operations.
ln addition, continuation of operations from land
di.visions. stations would meet many objections that were
The Committee noted that an importan t short-coming raised in IWC/3114(sections9 .2.2 and 9.2.3) on the
of the US proposal was its om ission of how to treat difficulty of obtaining samples, sightings etc in the
aborigina l subsistence whaling in the event of a mora
torium. Most members conside red some of the stocks case of a total moratorium' .
subject to such aboriginal subsistence whaling, e.g. Bering
Sea bowheads, western North Atlantic humpbacks and 9.3 Whale Sanctuaries
CUmberland Sound white whales, to be in greater risk of The proposal by Watson (IWC/3116) for the establishment
extinction than those subject to commercial exploitation of a sanctuary in the Indian Cftean was presented to the
at the present time. Committee. The proposa l was considered in two steps;
It was recognised that the Seychelles proposa l, unlike first on the general concep t o[ sanctuary, and second on
the US proposal, dealt only with commercial sperm the establishment of a sanctuary in the Indian Ocean.
whaling and recommended a specific period of pause.
Furth er discussion of the Seychelles proposal may be (a) General Concept of Sanctuary
found in section 10.2.2 of this Report. Art icle 5 of the Schedule allows for the. provision of
In conclusion, members of the Committe e see some sanctuaries. A part of Areas I and VI combined was a
19Annex 77
REP INT WHAL. COM~N 30. t980 49
sanctuary from 1938 to 1954. ln addition, other areas have affected. They expressed tbe view that the:closure of tbe
for vanous reasons been closed to pelagic whaling. area north of 40" South would result in the: loss of oppo r
Some members considered sanctuaries would provide tunitiesto collect scientific information on !both sperm and
opportun ities for studyi ng whales in ecosystems in which Brydes whales necessary for population assessment . Some
they are not currently being affected by whaling, and to members believed that it is not possible 110monitor and
examine the effect on biological processes after long trace the effects of sanctuaries without the continuous
periods without whaling . They also noted that the Com flow of knowledge of such vital infonnation as age
mittee has frequently expressed concern over the effects structure. sex ratio, pregnancy rate. age of maturity,
of whaling activities on breeding and calving of sperm natural mortality rate and so on. Some members
whales. A sanctuary. if properly located, would reduce expressed doubts whether further whaling will provide
much of this disturbance, which must also affect similar uch information in view of the limited knowledge
activitiesf baleen whales . They further considered that acquired from past whaling .
there are no mtnnsic scientific diSadvantages involved in Some members suggested that many of these criticisms
the crea!Jon of a sanctuary. could be overcome if the southern bou1ndary was set
Other members considered that information on VItal instead in the vicinity of the Antarctic convergence (see
population parameters required for assessment were S031 /6 suppl.) .
obtainable only through comme rcial whaling and associ
ated activities(e.g. sightings) and that should the (c) Other Possible Areas
sanctuary be established, the means to monitor the change The Committee noted that othe r areas might . from a
in the population would be lost. which is a clear scientific scientificoint of view. also be possible sanctuary areas.
disadvantage. Some members considered that such but it did not have time to exam ine the matter more fully.
information would be available if catchel. under a scientific Further exammation should however be preceded by a
permit were allowed m the sanctuary . more thorough study of the scientific aspe(:ts of the estab
A distinctiOn.however, was drawn m the discussion lishment of sanctuaries than had been possib le at this
between sanctuaries designed to include a \\hole meeting.
ecosystem and those dedicated to conservati on and
reproduction of particular species or groups of animals as 9.4 Adjustment of quotas to reflect takeby~ non-members
provided in the Convention. The same sanctuary might The Committee draws the Commission's a.ttention to the
serve both functions . fact that its recommendations on catch limits being based
Some members felt that the location of a sanctuarv as far as possible on MSY refer to the total prudent catch,
area. 1fit is tro\~ useul scientific information. should including that of non-member nations.
take into account the feasibility of adequate monitoring of The Committee noted that data om non-member
the populations. opemtions are often inadequate or non-existent and
Some members considered that the proposal of a therefore asks the Commission to urgt: non-member
sanctuary should have been supported by reliable scien nations to provide data to the Bureau of lnternational
tificinformation . They felt that economic and other Whaling Statistics .
factors may also be relevant to the CornrntSsion·s
consideration of this matter. They also felt that the 9.5 Implications for whales of management regimes for
Committee did not have adequate scientific information to other marine resources
evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of establishing The report of the IWC observer at the BIOMASS Tech
the sanctuary in any area. or to recommend a sanctuary in nical Group (see Agenda Item 7.2), the: IUCN paper
some particular area. entit led 'Management of multi-species fisheries' (see
Agenda Item 7.3) and SCJ3l/Docs 32 and 33 were relevant
(b) Indian Ocean Proposal to this item.
Watson suggested that the selection of an area should not The Committee recognised the broad nature of this
discriminate again 1 part icular member nations. should problem which includes the management of krill in
have the co-operation of nations coastal to that area and relation to baleen whales in the Antru·ctic, squid in
should cover an area that was ecologically coherent. He relationto sperm whales off Chile, and sevc:ral fisheries in
identified the IndianOcea~nort hf the Equator . from relation to small cetaceans (see Report of the sub
the African Continental Coast to 100" East; and in the committee on small cetaceans, Annex 1). R.AIIen
Southern Hemisphere between 20" East and 130" East. reported that the Inter American Tropical Tuna Com
However, after a discussion of the Report of the minke mission was investigating the tuna porpoise: problem with
whale sub-committee. it was suggested that the proposal regard to developing a multi-species management
be amended to exclude the minke whaling area and this approach. IUCN have established a working group on this
-.·ould be achieved by setting the boundary at 40" South. prob lem and intend to solicit the co-operation of the IWC.
Some members considered this new area to be a The Committee stressed the need to i[nvestigate the
coherent ecosystem. suggesting that the migratory baleen structure and dynamics of ecosystems and to obtain basic
whales only have a minor impact north of 40" South. data for management. With respect to the Antarctic in
Other members felt that whaling in high latitudes of the particular. 11 recognised the important contribution the
Antarctic could affect the composition of breeding groups BIOMASS programme could make. Doi provided a
of both minke and sperm whales due to an tmbalance m summary of Japanese research into the a.bundance and
the sex ratio of the catches. While for minke whales distribution of krill in the Antarctic.
management measures might be introduced as recom The Committee recommends that the: Commission
urges member nations and those nations negotiating the
mended by the Scientific Committee to correct th1s
imbalance, if the present pattern of catches continues, Antarctic Marine Resources Convention to take whales
breeding behaVJour in the proposed sanctuary may be fully into account when considering a krill fishery. It also
20 Annex 78
78. Bowett D, “Legal Opinion on Schedule Provision for Prior Review of Scientific
Permits and Prohibition of Whaling by Operations Failing to Supply All Data
Stipulated”, IWC/31/9, pp. 1-6
IWC/31/9
- 1 -
~
L~GAL OPINION ON SCHEDULE ?ROV~SIO~ FOR
t>RIOR RE'\ii.t:.\o;OF SCIE::VTIFTC PEIDITTS Al.'JD
PROH~BTTIO~ OF WHALING 3Y OPERATIO~S FAILI~G
TO SUPPLY ALL DA~A STIPULATED
I am asked to advise on two separate quescions . Both
questions involve the interpretation of the 1946 Co~ventio~
and it rnay be useful if I say something of the approach
to treaty in~erpretation, as a general issue , be=ore
deal~ng with ~~e specific ques~ions .
The cardinal rule is that treaties should be interoreted
"in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be giv~n to
the terms of t~e treatv Ln t~eir context and L, the liaht
o:: its objec~ a11d purpase." · The last phrase, "in the
light of its object and ouroose" is importa:lt ::or it
leads to the orcoosition that one seeks G~e interoretation
which leads to the effectiveness, rather than the·
~neffectiveness, of the treatv. Put in another way, it
a r gues fer a liberal rather than a literal approach ,
subject always tc the proviso that the res·.1lt must be
consistent •..:i tLl-)e object and purpose of the treaty ~•d
not contrary to other express provisions of the treaty.
There is a further, al:ied consideration which sho~ld be
noted . wnere, as :..n -::he 1946 Convention, a trea-r::·
es-r:ablis~e s cont:..nu:..nq r~gi~e Nit~ ~nternat:..cnal crqans,
such as the Commission, per::orrning continuing func~~cns
under that r~gime, there is a marked tendency to regard
such a -::.reaty as a "dyna::tic" instrurr:ent, akin to a
cor.s~i~ucion :..n a S~a-::.e ,apable of ada?ta~~on tc
cr.anging c~rcurr.star:ce bs a orocess cf inter;?reta~~c::
rather t~an as a s~a-::.isctate~ent o:: r~or.ts and d~~ies
~~e con t ent of which is fixed and uncha~geable Tr.e
reason for t~is is obvious .
Al~houg"h maJor rev:..sions oovicusly req:J~re forma:. amend
ment of t~e treatv, some adao-::.aticns of a ~esser decree
are cfte:l ac~ieveb y ~~e process of :..nterpre-::.ation: Ko~
every eventuality can be foreseen or expressly provided
for , so that th e process of inter:;:>retat~on nust allow
for encompass~ng situa-::.ions not ex;?ressly prov~ded for .
Thus, in rela~~on ~o i~ter~atio~al i~stitu~~or.s, ~he=e
is a ·.-e- llstab~isr.ec doc~r~ne cf "J.rrpl~e powers" ,
conferring on organs such po•.-ers as rr.ay be imp!.i.ec from
their general powers and a~ are consis~enc ·,r:._th~he ob]ec-:.
and ourpose of the treacy.- The relevance of -::his
doctrine to the Ir:~ernac.N Jh.aingnalCorn.rnissior:: -...:illbe
obvious .
Ar~icle 31 , Vienna Convention en the Law cf ~reaties
2 ~he classic illustration is the Adv~sory Op~nion on
Repa.ra~i.o or s:::J'.Jr.:fetc . ,I . e . :.::teports, 1949 , ·,1l:ere
the =n-::.ernat~on aolurt held thac, whi:.s~ no suet:
express power was contained in t~e U .~ . Cl:arter , ~l:e
U. N. must be deemed to have t"he :;>ewer to present ar.
internac.ional claim against a State ~n respec~ of
injuries caused to a U .~. of::icial.
21Annex 78
- 2 -
F~nally , ~ere is a cor.sidera~ion peculiar to treaties
which establish international bodies , organs or com
missions . Where , as in the 1946 Convention, such a
trea~y contains no provision conferring on some
indeper:dent tribunal ~:he pO\·;er to adjudicate en
problems of treaty lOterpretation with b~ndlng effect ,
then ~wo presumpt~ocs arise . The first ~s that ~t is
for ~he orga~s thenselves, co~posed as they are of tee
contracting Gcvernnents, to interpret t.ite treaty and
cons~YUe the powers o£ those organs . And the second is
~:hat , >.;here such an organ establis~es a ~n::act~c ,e the
presumption ~s that ~his p::::-ac-::iis im::=a v..:res.3
~ly purpose i::t making d1ese poi:1ts is to emphasize ~hat,
in a treaty like ~e l9~6 Convention, a too ~~tera:
ir:xerpretation is ou~ c£ 9lace and -::he treaty shou.:d
no~ ~e approached as if it were a statute in ~~n~c~oal
la·: . \\:th. these ger:e=al co::siderations ..:.n m..!..nd i::. :..s
now pcssib.:e to turn to the two specific quest:..ons c"
which I am asked ~o advise .
Is it lawful, i . e . consl.stenc: •..;iththe 19-l6 Conven::.~or:,
fo:- the Comnu_ssion ~o a:nend t::e Sc::ed:.1::.eso as to :.....pose
on ::tationac ~over~uen_s an oclloat~on -o subnit to the
Scientific Con~i~~ee nrocosed scle~~i:::.p .ecrn~ts, ~or
revie•11 and connen~ ov the Ccmmi t ~ee. or 2..or _o :.ssuance?
'I:1ere .::..s scarcely an:· daub~ about .;he~he=rev~e· .;. o::
scie~~iflc pe~i~s , as such , is a proper fu~c~:..o n:
t3e Scie~tific Co~~cee . ~h:.s f~~ct:.on is ~~p::.ici~i~
b.rtic :..e v:r=.:: 3 and (.;l o= the l9~ 6 Cor:ver:tion (\·:hid:
o!:::liges Goverr~er:~s to t:::-a.<sr.ltsc:Len~ific:Lnforwa~:on
to 's ue!: bo~y as :nay ze des:.g:1a~e bdy the Con:n'ss:ton" )
and is ~acieexp!ici~ in Rule ~ .3 o= the Rules of
Procedure a~d ir: Rule F o= the rtu~es of Proce~ure of
~he Sc.::..entific Co~~i~:tee . It :.s now establis~ed
:;>ractice ar:d muse: ne deerr.ec r.o be L!lCra v.i:::-es .
There ~s ec;ually no doubt chat , under Ar~icle \"I=I ( 3),
Contracting Gove~~ents have an ex~s~~ng legal cb:iga~io~
to crans~t scientific inforrr.atlon . Tha~ ob!iga~io~ is
pnrased in ter:"ls of "scientific ::..nforpat: .oalab::.e
to that Government r,;ith respect -co w!:la~esa.~d -;.;halinq,
i::tcludlnq ~he resul-cs of research conduc~ed pursuar.~~o
:;>aragraph 1 o:: this Artlcle and Artlcle D' . " =r. t::e
past, the prac~ice has bee~ to d~s~inquish be~ween ~~e
results o£ ~he research and prior ~otifica~io~ of
proposed permi -.:.s for research . The guest: ion no·..•. posec
is whether the ob:igation to transmit "scien~ific
in::crmat:ion" can pr ·:::perly be construed as e:::1..0.=-a:::ing
prier not::..fica~io ::):proposed perr.tits . =::. ·r7ould see...,
to be perfectly proper to do sc, since ~r.epe=mi~s c~~
only be issued "fo::::pur~oses o::: sci.enti=ic c:::-esea=ch" and
.$ For ill-.lstration c:: these presUI:lp=ions see ~he Advisory
Opin~on on Cerr::a.:.Ex penses ecc . ,=.c.J . Report:.s , 1962 .
22 Annex 78
3 IKC/3!/9
~~ay mcs~ s~a~e w~at the cc;ac~ of ~hct =esea~ch is a~d
~~e r.~Lbe~, sex, s~ze a~d stock o= ~he an~r~:s ~o be
~akac (Rule ? . 2) and, i~ so dci~g, ~~ey cons~i~u~e
"s::::ier:-;:ifir.fornacio~". ':'!:.:vie·..is co:l::~=:n byd
t:!:.Re?Or~ o:: ~::eSc:.e::~:.f C(;::r.:ni -.:.r~e.::ia;.·ec
t~ac propos~:s =or ?e~~ts ~c ~e sun~~~~ed -::c~e
Cc;-unit:tee shot:lc con~ain "all ~ecessar-y :.:1for-:nat1.or:.
C:l
allow scl.er:ti=.ic rev1e· ..: an-:i ccrr.:-:le(231:h Report of
the =~c {19~8, , p. ~! 1 e~ph~sis added, ~here ==~!d
scarcely ce a clearer cescrip<:ion o= sc~entif~::::
in::or~atlon. The ::ac~ ~~a~ pr~or :lo~:.::ica~l ~.as:l
ncth.:.ng ~o do ~l~h ~::eresu:~s of =~e research is ::o=
cc~c-·.J ·el. =c~ -;:::e -=e!::sc.:...e!"l ::..:c=::-c~a~'.i.c:;
~o= co~=l~ed~o res~l~~: ~~e ~es~lcs a~e s~s~~=~~d as
r..:'1e o:-:.~· :::ie:-1:~=:-~a- ·:.h:::-snlo'..:lne :.:t::l;;de:i,
:lU-=~,Jl=:,. o:..;a,.l-e cc!"".=:...r::::e~e._:" :s:--e~ti.=ic
:.no:r:-!: 1~~-~.' ::_,us, : ·.·l<Ju:c.n.::::l..-:..::c.::.:..c~n-
~- - - 3, t:o ex =e:-.·:! =:-.e t:.er-:::
"s::ie:-~.:..= i.:".L.=cr:l~ci1 .~=-:.a~.-:a;!:'ag.~:.a=.-~!'l=l..:de
?r:.or no;:.:.~icaL~o o~ p~O?Osa:s ;:.1ss~e sc~enti::ic
per-: t::1unde:- .::!..=~ ·ic=le.
~:;a"'~-o .-:.::e~ess~ :.:c:: ==e<:!:.:.e::=:;=::-.::--e·::.E.:..c:: c:
-=-~Cec~ ·.·:-:..:. ~.:-.t:=:e-sa::- :S.e.ce a _s_:-;:-.:_:.~
ad~?~atic~ ~c ~e ~ade ~ ~~ncu~ ~avi~~ -- :-e_. ~~
i~~e~~~e~a~~~~s~~ce~~ec i~ ~~= ?r~c~~~~ ~= =~e :o~~~ss::~.
a~~ ~-:.~:iza~~c ~~= N~a~e resc~ces " ~~~5 ~eq~~r2~e~~
·,:c~lC s-e~;r~:> oe sa~:.::;-ed. ?:::~ ~c!.e.::~:.. :::.-.!~t.c:•~
23Annex 78
- 4 I'h"C/31/9
in order ~o assure maximum co - ordination among
natio~s conduc~ing resea=ch , to allow =or che
possibility of collabo=a~io~ amo~g sc~ent~sts , to
recog"ise a~d assure validity a~d ~t~lity of the
proposed research, and ~o assure that proposed
permits will no~ adversely a=fect the conserva~ion
of whale stocks " (28th Report of the IWC (1978) ,
p . 41.)
However, any amenQ~en~ o= the Schedule ~ust not only
sa~is:v the ouroose that i~ relates to the conservation
and util~zatlon- woale resources , it mus~a~so be of
a type which fa~:s wi~hin one not all) of the categories
(a) co (!1) lis"t..ed in Artic~V (1). Th~s, too, seems -:.o
=a~se no dif=~cu~-:.y, =o=, g~ve~ the 1nforma-:.ion required
under R~le ?.2, i"t..ca.Tt easily be rela::.ed to (e} (;:..i..ne,
met!'lods and in::.ensi-:.y o= whaling) or to (h) (catc~
returns and ocher s-:.atistical and b~ological records) .
Tne amendr.len-:. -...uld also ;:,e requ.:...red ::.o be consis~en::.
•.-~i~ F!.rlt~c:.e V (2) , t."lat is to say conform with ::.he
require~en-:.s (a) to ld) : in
part~cu:.ar, it should be
so :rarned -:.!'l :~. hould not c=fend (c) by introducing
"restr~c~.:... onns t:he nurr.ber or nationa:.i::.y of fac~ory
shi?s or :ana staticns, nor al:.oca-:.e specif1c ~co~as
any :actory o= shi? or la~d scat.:...o:: "
~~ere appears ::.o be so~e appre~ens.:... ::n.ha~such an
arr:end.~enr t:igh~ be 1ncorr.pat:.ble 'N'ith ~he so,·erei~nty
c£ the cc~~=act:i::g Governrre::::.s . = doub::. "t..Da::. ::.his
appret.er:s.:...on is ·..;el:.. - :o'.l.."'!dAs. I have ir:d.l.cated,
the cor.~:!:'"ac-= G.i:.:ngrr.e!'"ltshav·e a.:.ready accep-=ed ~
obl~ga~ior: ::.o t:~ans~it sc~er:tif.:.i ..:cfo=ma~ion: all
t~a~ .1.s in issue is ~he extent o= that obliga~ior:.
Moreover, if done by an ar1endrnen~ of ;:-_he Schedule, ::.n~s
has the advant".age of allow~ng any concracc1ng Govern~ent
~o cbjec~ wi::.hin 90 days and so no~ ~o be bound by th1s
arr.endr:-e::::. .
It is also impo~ta~t to emphasize ~hat -:.ne a~endme~~
co~ld no::. do . The amendmen~ must be so ciraf::.ea as no-:.
to de~oga-:.e =::-om t:1e r2.gn::s of con::::-ac~ingGove~-:l, .::r:.s
u~der ~he Co::ven~1o:. : Ar~Lc_e VI=I maxes clea= ::~a::
the decis~o:: t".Ogrant: a special pe:r::ti:: =ests xith the
cor:~rac~ing Governments . ~he func::.ion cf the Scientific
Corrcr:ti.::.te:nust cherefore be recainec as one o::' "re•Tie· ..-..
and coruner:t" fR'-lle F). :'he!:e can be no quescio:1 o£ t..'le
Scientific CoT1:"0t:i:::.eeassu!n.:.ng a po'-':er to auchorise or
disa.:..:.o-va pe::::nit: . Even d:e fixir.g o: t:.."l~umber of
whales ::.o be ~a~en, and any other conditions , ::-ests in
the discreti::::-1 c:: !::he con~rac~ing Goverru.-ne::ts ("as the
Contrac -:.ing Governrr.ent chinks fi-:.") , so that the rr..ost
the Sc1entific Corr~i~tee can do is co comment: on these
conc~tions, a~d this by ~ay of =epor~s and recommendat1on
co ~he Con:nission as au~e J . 3 recognizes .
24 Annex 78
n.;c/31/9
- 5 -
II . Can the followina amendment be made to the Schedule as
an additional paragraph in Sectio~ VI (Information
Required)?
"It is forbidden to use a factory shLp, whale catcher,
or land station for the ?UI~ose of taking, killing,
or treating any whale unless all of the informa~ioc
required under Section VI has been submitted wiLh
respect to the previous season in vl.hich sud:
factory ship, wnale catcher, or land s-.:at:ionHas
engaged in the taking, killing, or ~reating of
'.Yhales covered by the Convention."
The purpose o~ this amendmen-c is obviously to p~ov1c.e
a sanction cr punishrr.e ~or failure ~~ provide the
i~=ormation reouired under Sec~ion v: of the Schedule.
As the represe~ta of ctiev e SA explained in the
Technical Committee, its purpose is ''to pronibit
whalLng by operations faL:1ng to supply all data
stipula-ced" (Technical Commi-ctee Report, IWC/SP£C78/5,
? · 4) . It was also made c:ear in the Stateme~t on
behalf of the CSA that the sanc~ion ·...rould be aoolied
against the particular factory ship, whale catcher or
land station :ailing to prov1de the data required and
no1:. against ~11 vessels or stations o= che contracting
Government (IWC/S?EC78/9 . 2) .
The Co:n.""I!ission's ?QWer t.o adopt. regulations in Article \'
must necessarily imp:y a power to re~~late in the forffi
of prohibitions . This is evident =rom the past practice
of -.he Comrr.ission, for che Schedule no•.y abcu!lds w: :h
such prohibic~ons addressed directly to vessels and
land stations. Indeed, tbe ::ormula "It is =orb~dden
et.c . " can be seer. in Sections 2 (a; , (b), 3 (a), 4,
5, ll(c), 12, 13!al, (b) , 16 , 17(a), (b), (c) and 13(a).
Ir. this part.1cular case the obligations ~c provide
ir.forw~-c2o as, specified in Section VI of this Schedule,
are not ~ovel and have so ::ar been ~nchal:enged in
terms o:: their legality. Indeed ch1s 1s not surprising,
for the acquisition o= such data has beer. recognized by
the Commission as an essent2al cre -reau~sJ.: ~:oeche
e::::ective exercise o:: its funct: .~o~ns
Per~aps the only novelty i:t this ne·"' pror.!.bi cion ·..:ould
~e that, whereas the exist1ng prob.ib1tior.s in tne Schedule
ap:flY to aL _ vessels or land s1:.at.1ons, -::.n.1s ne•...,proni::ion
would be speci=ic to the vesse: or :and s-::.at.ion failing
to provJ..:ie the ir.format:.on . That does no-.:, in itsel=,
seem ~c me to ir:validate the proposed r.ew orchi!::licio:1.
Indeed, iL seems ~ight tha~ a-sanc~i soould be ccniined
tc the vessel or land stac~on in breach of the pronibitLon .
~cr would the fact that the protib1::ion is spe~1=Lc
involve a aerogat:icn ::rom Ar~.lc:e v (2) :c)I .;hi~; derr.a.:d.s
that ail'.endo-nencs tc the Schedule "shall not involve
restr.:ctions on the n:.unber or na:.ionali~ y:: ::actcry
ships or land sta~ions, nor alloca-.:.especi=ic quo~as to
any £accory snip cr land s-.:a::ion. .. " For the prohi!::liticn
25Annex 78
- 6 - r.vC/31/9
would not, in ~e~s, concern itsel= wi~ ~e numbe~ or
nationali~y o= che sh~ps or lane s~ations. I~deed t~e
contrac~ir.g Gover~.ent would be =~ee to substitu~e some
other vessel or lar.d s~ation not subJeCt to any
prohibi~ion. Nor would it be right to regard the
pron1=i~icn as, ir. e=fect, f1x1~g a nil q~ota for the
vessel . Khat would be required wc~ld be that the
prchibit1or. should be appl1ed by the Co~~iss~on
genuinely as a means of securing ~nfo~ation and not
as a."l"-Dd-".rectmea.'"ls o::i:nposing quo~as. ::f the
Co~z~ss-".o enve~ soug~t co ~npose quo~as by using ~his
power of prohinitio~ th1s ~ould cer~ainly be an ab~se
of the po·.·1er and illega~ .
The record o= the Co~~ssion 's discussio~s does ~ct
d"-sclose ~he grou::1d upon ·,;::ichthe legali cy of the
p~oposed a~e::1d~en cas questioned, Dut I may perhaps
anti~ipate pcssib:e gro~nds o= challe::1ge by mak1ng
three poi:1ts.
1 . G1ver. t~a~ ~he prohibitic:l ~s a sanc~~on, there is
a :1eed ~o c:ari=y L~at the prohib~t~cn shou:d opera~e
c:1ly agains~ ~~e particular factory ship, whale catcher
or land sta~ion which has fa1led ~o provide ~he
1:1forT.1ation required frorr.~t: •.1nder Sect~on v: . This
can easily be acn1eved by a ~1r.ora.~endne~~ of ~~e
proposal.
2 . There is a need to an~icipace 1::1e proole:n o:: ,,:ho
ce-ce~ines ~~en the ~nforma~ion ~as ~ot bee:1 SJCm~c~ed.
?~es~11ab- •bit 1.s :.n--::er:detha-: t:le Co::-.r:ussic:s~c:...lc
nake ~his-det -~e~~a~~, o~ and i~wo~ld =€ ?re=erable -
-cne proposal sa~d so exp~essly.
3 . t·;hilst the Cor.:nission' s power to regu:ate "-S
~,questioned,t~e actual ?Ower to 9~~sh !or ~n£~ac~~o~s
a= che orov~sions o= che Cc:1ve~~icn rand .:he Schedule
1s ~•der Ar~-". :ca:ne1n-cegral part of the ~or.ver. )~ion
nelongs ~o eac~ co::1t:racting Go·;er:::ment ire respect: o::
persons or ··essels under :.ts jur1sdic-.::ion . This is
ex:;ress:·· pro\rided ::or i:l Art~cle :x a:: ~=-- eonver: ~~::.:r
and if cnere was a !'leed ~0safe~ua~ rc~s posi~ic i~~
cou:d be do::1e by ~::1sert~ arg exp~ess~la~se in c~e
proposec a~er:dmen. c
D.K. Bo~e~t, Q. C . LL .~.
3 =:ssex (;ou=t, Quee::1's College,
':e:-a;:le Cambridge
:;:.c:.-dor"
26 Annex 79
79. Lockyer C, “Age Determination by Means of the Earplug in Baleen Whales”,
Annex F, Report of the Minke WhaleAgeing Workshop, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34,
1984, p. 696
696 REPORT OF THE MINKE WHALE AGEING WORKSHOP. ANNEX F
Table 2
Approx. Age at Maturity1m
(from transiton phase)
'Initial' 'Recent'
Species Area or stock (combined sexes) Reference
pre-1920 post-1950
Fin Antarctic
Areal 11.5 8.0
Areal! 10.5 6.5
South Africa+ } 10.5 . 8.0 Lockyer, 1979
Area III
Area IV 11.75 8.5
Area V 12.0 8.5
Area VI 11.5 10.0 I
pre-1950 post-1970
Iceland 11.0 8.0 Lockyer, 1981b
Sei Antarctic
Areal 12.0 9.5
Areal! 11.0 8.5
South Africa+ }
Area III 11.0 8.0 Lockyer, 1979
Area IV 11.0 10.0
AreaV 11.0 9.5
Area VI 10.0 8.0
pre-1940 post-1950
Iceland 11.75 9.75 Lockyer and Martin, 1983
pre-1930 post-1960
N.Pacific 10.0 6.5 Masaki, 1976
pre-1945 post-1960
Minke Antarctic
Areal 13.0
Area II 12.5 6.G-7.0 Masaki, 1979
AreaIll 13.0
Area IV 15.0
AreaV 13.25
Area VI 13.75
pre-1945 post-1965
South Africa 13.8 6.2 Best, 1982
7.5 Problems in relating tmvalues derived from transition Clearly , whilst any trend in values of tm observed for
phase to those from other sources several species and stocks is likely to be a real
The main problem in obtaining values of tmby yearclass is phenomenon, certain biases inherent in the· method of
that this information does not relate directly to the values using the transition phase are likely to intensify the trend,
of tm in the catch in any one year. A similar but Jesser and real values of mean tmmay differ from observed ones.
problem also exists for values of tmby year of maturation .
The usual method of obtaining mean tmand for the catch is
to plot the proportion mature at each age by year, and the 8. CONCLUSIONS ON THE USE OF EARPLUGS FOR
AGE DETERMINATION
value oft.,; at 50% mature is taken as an approximation to
the mean. DeMaster (1978) details an analysis for The earplug has proved to be both a valid and useful tool
obtaining a mean estimate based on this approach with for age determination in fin and sei whales. The weight of
confidence limits. The difficulty here is that this approach existing evidence for minke whales suggests that for this
is also liable to bias, depending on the age structure of the species too, the earplug is almost certainly a valid means of
catch, and because of this and additional factors such as age determination, although some further research as that
geographical segregation by maturity, gunner selection, outlined for fin and sei whales in Section 4 would be
invaluable.
etc. , this estimate may bear no real relation to the true
mean for the population. · Whilst the transition phase appears to be a valid and
Kato (1983), Lockyer and Martin (1983) and Cooke and useful phenomenon, particularly in interpolating tm for
de Ia Mare (SC/A83/A W2) found such discrepancies individual whales of fin, sei and·minke species, its use in
between values of tm derived from different sources for population analysis is beset by numerous bias·esinherent in
minke, sei and fin whale stocks. However, this has not the methods of presentation of the data. Further research
always been observed, and sometimes the agreement has is necessary to identify these biases and to compensate for
been good for fin whales (Lockyer, 1984). them.
2728 Annex 80
80. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37, 1987, p. 41
REP. INT. WI! AL. CO:I-1MN :17, 1987 41
describe the distr ibution of perp endic ular sightin gs Th e Committee noted that there was no clear indication
distances. and the effec ts of this on estimat es of f(O). g(O) of the likely effects of the revised analys is described in
and g(O)if(O). Buckland, Butt erwo rth and Kish ino agreed 9.2 .3 on these estimates of abundance.
to carr y out this ana lysis.
Me an school size was estimat ed from observations made
9.2.5 Unbatancl'd catches by .~ex
within 1.0 n.mile of the track line in closin g mode . The The Commi ttee noted tha t in the past it has been
mean perce ntage of tak eab le animals obser ved on the conce rned abo ut the effect of unb ala nced sex rat ios in the
cruise was used to calculate the rec ruited populat ion. Two catc h. It had take n this into account by reco mmending
stratification s were used. In one case. the convention al catch limits which ensured that the replace ment yield for
appro ach of assuming that every part of eac h stratum has femal es was not exceed ed (e .g. Rep. int. Wh at. Commn 34:
an equa l chance of being surveyed was used. In the other 84). Th e overa ll percentage of females in the catch in each
case. a technique desc ribed in SCi38iMi21 was used to Area since I970i71. and the percenta ge reco rded in the
calculate the proha hility that eac h part was surveyed . 1985!86 seaso n arc given in Table 2.
There was no >ignificant difference betwe en the estimat es
obtained with each strati fication. T he best estimates of the Tab le 2
number of takeab le animals in Area IVW in 1984/85 based
Lnbalanced catc hes by sex. IY70:7 1-19H5/H6 and 1985:80.
on the num ber of defi nite minkc whales seen so uth of 59°5
are (a) for an effective strip half-width of 0.5: 23.622.
~.rca: II Il l rv ';1
CV=0 .221 and (b) for the haza rd rat e + g(O) of 1.0:
19,923, C\'=0.231. Tota~cat c h 11,482 4 ,802 2.>-,20631, 67U IJ ,I 63 4,'ii9
47,0
The Com mittee recomm ends that the validation of data Perc en t ferr:elc 72.8 68. 1 57.fl 66.3 40.6
C·uch in :98/~6 b70 256 l ,ll'J9:~407 1,013 414
from all oth er cruises shoul d be completed and the results l'erc euferral c "J9.1 )H.6 :n .6 67.9 &6.1 24.5
analysed in the way described above to provide new
estimates of abundan ce for all Areas .
Trends in the percentage of fema les by Area have bee n
(iii) Additi onal estim"tes obse rved since catch es hega n and had bee n ascribed to
The effort data from the Bra zilian fishery had bee n used to ope rati onal factors and seg regat ion in the pop ulation. but
the Committ ee noted that the value for Ar ea Illin 1985/86
construct a ser ies of catc hes/hour wor ~dk for each of the
three catcher boats which had bee n used. Attempts were was extremely high .
made to fit the basic demog raph ic mode l described in An y future recommendations with respect to the effect
Annex L to these series in order to est imate the degree of of catches mus t continu e to take into account the quest ion
depletion of the stock and the relat ive efficiency of the of unb alanced sex ratios.
vessels. However , becau se all the ser ies showed an
increasing trend , this proved impo55ihle and no estima te of
degree of depletion cou ld be made. Some member s of the 9.2.6 Classification
The Com mittee noted that a variet y of views had been
Committee conclud ed that this analvsis indicated that
catches were hav ing very little effect o~ this stock . Other s expressed abou t the ; tatu s of the South ern Hemisphere
stocks before exploitation (Rep.inr. Wha/ . Commn 36:71).
believed that it mere ly indicated that these parti cular series
did not provide a useful index of abun dance. Some members had concluded that they were increa sing,
Quintella made a comm ent for the reco rd. notin g he.r others believed they may have been but were not
convinced by the available eviden ce. an d yet ot hers saw no
'concern and reservat ion over Item 10.3 and Appe ndices 2
and 9 of Ann ex E. because , be; ides the official data part icular reaso n why the stock s should have been
icreas ing. In add ition. there. was no agreeme nt on recent
provided as requ ested. they elabora te over data coming
from unofficial sources and for that rea son not reliable.' tre nds in the se stocks. The Committ ee was ther efore
unab le to recom mend a classification for these stoc ks.
9.2.4Population estimmes
Until the anal yses recommend ed under Item 9.2.3 are 9.2.7 Effe ct of zero catches
completed, the best availabk est.imates for the size of the
The sub -comm ittee hat.! not discussed this qu estion
recruited popul ation of mink e whales in the Southern
Hemisphere are tho se given in Rep. in/. What. Commn 38: becaus e it had been unab le to reac h a consensus about
recruitm ent rates. Ther e was some discussion within the
41 and repeated in Table I.
Committee as to whether the Commis sion requ ired exp licit
advice on this matte r. As indicated und er Item 9.2.2 , some
Tub!< I
member s consider ed that no advice could be provided on
recruit ment rates and therefore there was no basis for
Population estimates for SoutherHemi~phnc minkc whales. As the
1984/HSsurvey of Area IV provickd estimates only for Area IVW, estimatin g rep lacement yields. Oth er members believed
thc!<lCha\'C not heen in cluded . that current recruitm ent rat es wer e 2-4% . and that
rep lacement yields could be calcu lat ed if the y were
l{ecrui.t r.d Rcr ru ia -d requi red . They also believed that there was no evidence
Area Year J..OfJUl.<1ticm Ar~H ~e·ar ]:.t.~~]mnr C\'
that swcks had declin ed under rece nt ca tch regimes.
For e.h., 1.0
I ~~~283 :!5,hl 7 1~18] IV J97S/ li.j )',·~:n U.l :l7
tl 19:/E62 zz,Hn 0. 1G7 198C/B! (-/),f'Ki.0.!~:.!
lii 1979/80 IIJ.UI6 o.:~' VI l'lA.l;&\ JI.J.i>46o.~7~ 9.2.8 Descriplion of differences from recom mendations of
• 0 .5 last year
rorg(O)"f The estimates of stock 'izc given und er Item 9.2 .4. and the
I 198l/BJ J6 ,C64 0.1 8: .. 197~/7<1 'J7,t-J:l!•. 127
II !~I/~2 25,1fiJ 0. 16:1 :9i<0/91 71,t;l! (J.~60 recomm enda tion regarding class ification do not differ
ttl 1979/&j '3, l15 ~lli(l I'I !981/.~ :lb ,t i:n.1~~ fro m tho se given in Rep. int. What. Commn 36: 42.
2930 Annex 81
81. “Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on Planning for a
ComprehensiveAssessment of Whale Stocks”, SC/38/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
37, 1987, pp. 147, 150
REP LNT. WHAL COM~!~ 37.t9Si 147
SC/38/Repl
Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on
Planning for a Comprehensive Assessment of Whale Stocks
The meeting was held from Monda y 7 April - Fnday II 6. DEFINITIO N OF A COMPREHE:"iSIVE
April 1986 at the Royal Cambridge Hotel , Cambridge ASSESSMENT
under the Chairmansh ip of Dr G.P . Kirkwood . A hst of
parlicipantsis given iAnn ex A. The Commi !lee noted that its terms of reference given
under It em I were much wider in scope than the
'comprehensive assessmen t' of the effects of the decision
I. CHAIRMA~' S WELCm •IE AND OPENING by the Commission to set catch limits at zero. which was to
REMARKS be ·undertaken by 1990 at the latest' (Schedule Paragraph
The Chairman welcomed the Comm iuee members and IO(e)) and t.he ·comprehensive assessment' referred to in
invited participants to the meeting and drew aue ntion to Schedule Paragraph 13(a)(3 ).
the terms of reference propose d by the Comm iuee at its In addition it noted the terms of reference of the Joint
last meeting and agree d by the Comm ission that: Working Group on Comprehen sive Assessment of Stocks
which met in 1984 (IWC/36114):
the Scientific Com mmee hold a special meeting to
identif)' specific tasks. assign priorit ies and establish a(a) to consider , in the light of the current information on
timetable for undertaking a comprehensive assessme nt whale stocks and the degree s of uncertainty that exist
concerning some of the data and methods used. what
of whale stocks. Mo re specific objectives "ill need to be conceptual approaches might be used to provide t.he
developed. but would include: Commission with more effective scientific ad,·ice and
- establishment of priorities for providing advice to the recommendations for management:
(b) to determ ine the studies requir ed to implement these
Commission:
- identtficationof specific reviews and other studies of approa ches; and
existing information or assessment techniques required: (c) to establish a time-table for the in-depth assessmen t of
- es tablishment of requi rements for new information for whale stocks which should be comple ted for major stocks
assessme nt, and identifi cation of surveys or other work curren tly exploited as soon as practicable .
to be undertak en to provide that information;
- estab lishment of a timeta ble that wiU allow timely 6.1 Defto.ition ofcomprebensivr assessment
Given t.he abo,•e, the Committee agreed t.hat
advice tothe Commission :
-exa mination of the likely costs of the proposed comprehens ive assessme nt can be considered as an
programme: in-dep th evaluation of the stat us of stocks in the light of
- exploration of new management regimes. management objectives and proced ures. This could
include examination of current stock size. recent
population trends, carryi ng capaclly and productivi ty.
2. APPOL"TME:\T OF RAPPORTEU RS In orde rto achieve this the Commil!ee agreed that it
would need to:
Itwas agreed that Donovan would act as rapporteur with
assistance frm various members of the Com miuee where (a) review and revise assessment methods and stock
appropriate. identity: review data quality. availability requireme nts and
stock identitv:
3. ADOPTION OF AGE~A (b) plan and conduc t the collection of new information to
facilitate and improve assessments ;
The Agenda adopted is given in Annex B. {c) exam ine alternative management regimes .
As discussed later in the report, the Committee sees the
4. ARRASGEME:"'TS FOR MEETING carrying out of the Comprehensive Assessmen t as an
The Commi!lee agreed to a work schedule outlined by the iterative process. with considerab le interact ion between
results from (a). {b) and (c).
Chairman . Ivashin believed that a fuller definition should
5. REVlEW OF AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS AND eventual ly be formulated and that this might best be
REPOR TS achieved at the1986 Scientific Committee meeting.
A listof documents isgiven in Annex C. Reports of earlier 6.2 Relationship between management policies and advice
discussions ofthe Com minee on th1s top1c(e.g. in Rep. int. required
Whal. Commn 35 and 36) and the Report of the The Committee has already noted the relationship
Commission's Working Group on the Comprehensive between managemen t policies and advice required - and
Assessmen t of Whale Stocks (IW03 6116) were also hence assessment techniques which must be used(Rep. int.
available. Whal. Commn 35: 36). This has been brought out in
31Annex 81
REPORT OF SPECIAL MEETING OF Til E SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
150
A. OutlineWork Plan of Scientific Work to be Carried Out
stages in its exploration of revised manag ement
procedures , oonsultatio n with and guidance from the asPart or a ComprebensiYe Assessment
Commission would be essential . This might take the form I. Develop an inventory of our current knowledge on the
of a joint Scientific and Technical Comminee Working
stalus of stoclcThis involves giving general answers to the
Group (see Item 10. outl.ine B). It also recognise d, of following groups of question s for each stock/regional
co=, that adop tion or rejectio n of any proposed groupi ng.
management procedure was ultimately the decision of the
Commission. (a) Are there estim ates of(i)current (within the last 10
years) stock size. (ii) initial stock size. (iii) replacement or
sustainab le yields. (iv) recent trends in stock size (over the
last 10 year.;)?
(b) For each quantity (i) by what method were the
9. l'iEW ll\TORMATION ~'EEOE DOR A estimates obtained . (ii) are there associated estimates of
C OMPREHENSIVE ASS£SSI\1E."'T relib ility?
(c) What data are available (as specified in Annex E)?
9.1 Newdata
The Cornminee noted that some of the requirements for 2. (a) Identify methodological problmu in•·olved in the
deli!rmination of stock identity and the estimation of
new data could be Usted almost immediat ely. However. a population siu, trends. productivity and carrymg capacity.
more comprehe nsive list, with associate d priorities for
collection ofhese data , could only be developed after the It is expected that this will require the considerati on of
compilation of an inventory and an initial review of some or all of the following topics: age determ ination and
analysis: preg nancy. maturi ty and other biological
method ologies. Further requireme nts would be ident ified para meters: use of marking and natural marks ; analysis of
as the Comprehensive Assessment process progressed.
Such data requireme nts may thus arise : catch per unit effort data: use of sightings and direct
censuse s.
(1) out of a need to examine particu lar methodologie s; (b) Determine. in the light of current manage=nt
(2) in order to provide data necessary for a satisfactory require=nt.r , those aspects of assessment methodolog) for
assessment of a particular stock.
..,hich improvements are moJI needed; and identih· the
The Co mmittee agreed, howev er. that ifcun ent trends actionsr~quir odachieve improvements.
in populati ons were to be examin ed as a high priority, it The determination of critical improvement s might
was important to recognise the need for instigating or require carry ing ou t simulation studies. as well as the
continuing monitor ing studie s (e .g. sightin gs surveys) as exam ination of past experie nce of developing assessment
soon as practicable . advice.
Several member.; referre d to the fact that if catches were
to continue. for examp le under objection. it might be
Prepatc.at.a)ogof data
helpfu l for the Commin ee to offe r advice to national . ~t e•-l!ft.S
groups concerni ng data requirements. althou gh other.; . 'od\1s acU'Sb$1
noted that the Committee would not be in a posino n to do
this untilspecific questi ons to be answered had been
formulate d during tbe Comprehensive Assessment t
process.
The pote ntial contribution of data obtaine d from new
technique ssuch as satellite-tracking and acoust iccensusing
was also discussed.
9.2 Alternative assessment techniques
Similarlyto Item 9.1above, the Committ ee concl uded that
the need for alte rnative assessment techn iques would arise (l it:IIJlatlon)
out of the review of methodol ogy and data .
---
-
10. PLA!'oo'NlGN FOR A COMPREHESS IVE
ASSESSMENT
In its discussions of a compre hensive assessmen t the
Committe e identified two major areas of intere st. 'data
and meth odology' and ·manage ment procedures'. It also
noted that the Comprehensive Assessment was an iterative
process with considerable interaction betwe en these broa d
areas . Figs I - 3show how the Com prehen sive Assessment
may be structured . illustrating the relationships between
the various activities. They supplement the outline work
plan given below. It should be noted that Fig. I doe s not
distinguish between steps which app ly to all species (e.g.
review and revision of methodology) and those which
rsult in an accepted assessment of a single stock. Fig.2.Data.
32 Annex 82
82. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38, 1988, pp. 56, 58
REPO R I Ofn IE :> IE:-rf lFIC Lll\1\11 ITE [
planne d samplsize. andth~l ag.~·>p. :atrilc what~ dur ing the >ampling pcn,•Funhcrmnrc
moriah!} ·would det~ct fomdth e J:ll.t ubtll~d SC'.1'0 1 noted that combin ing>trataelj if~
th~ repeatedresea rch sampl ing\ . In ah thenn estimatc' of thl.! numbe r of "nhin 'tra ta. a
e~tiatc~ot natura! m1>nality. iabu 11\tcmklu le3St irdati·tterm ,an d th" "'>uld inc rca.-.c lh
ro lle<'t informa tiostockide n1it1. n :ar·t••-vear 'ari ab ioftthe rcconst ructla~e data . Tb L-s
\'aria lion>oht~ briolog icpara· msctuc~i dS In'lOdr~to kJ tolh'~nodu., tht unlelitmate
pregnan cy r.ttc . age dtmatur ity. e fed~ing ~rage-specii11ge nerateh~the pro~mmm. :oul,
ecolog} and ~n~rgetl .<~tud, size,..ond the no r omprm.c111the rdi!lh~ of the utformati oo
disrribu tion and he ba\'whael~on In\latotude~ ·" ailabh: icx~tin gatchdata .
wolf be mo notob~dsoghtin~uf\csy. (.l ) SC .N tMoiO noted that the mdn dgemen t pro cedu re
{3)Random 'a mpling wo uld be:hoc•~d h~ dH><•osng hein deve lope '~ p.trt0f the C'ompreh.:nSI\'o
mndom p1>intstneac h strat.11d1 sampluog fir~t ,\- s.;-'>!<meluwere lksogrohtLtttimprecis io1
whd le en counte red n~ghbourhJ onftha t ploint or ha~111 e~omate ;f fX'pulallp;ormntc'rant
lnoti:olthestrat\\ Ould b~icht\lnh ldificd from therefornew c<timates1>f1\1were unnec e,>iory
th0.\~se indtbe )\'1'-C IDC R Mi"nkc. \\'h.ole ightihc<ierronJun:.~
Cruise> ansampls~tz~w~11hm each 't ra tu m ""ul d he
determ ined b1 the den, \\h.to:1ditt•rmi> Ill'
sighting>. A ·number uf .immed ia te rc'iulr< iro m th;, members nf thc C'ummotlcc1\<:nut atho~
uf the pc~rei erre d to ah..we . rn''' the th•l~
programme 110uld be a1ailable for the Cump rehen>l\ 'e
A.ssessmc nt lll 1wbik the lo ng-term re>ult 11ouldhu!>t' pad.id not cmer:ttl uf the pOmb de cribed
aho\'1:. supp<lrtcJ these co nd u'"'"' · In "'astit•n. 11
con tn butto informatione'«:n toafor rational
m.tnage me nt ui monke "h ale st<ICI.'. pomtc d l1Ut tha t tb.; pmfJO'Cd n.:a re>~mplinghbc•ur
...:h:em e woluld result in tial 'amp lin!?nf<o litJry
SC31J.O 4also <k scn b<::dta1~rathameple:, <'i whaks .
413 3nomals per year in cAn~a os~ th;onth~Ol(l>! Buttef\\ tonco n>idere that. under rea.,ona hle
conM!r\ at·i\'c e:;limatio n uf Ihe r~icd~cfrum•nt a»ump llon >of tempoinnna m:\!'on'e n .un pa rame ters.
thel'e stocks presented at the Scl<'lltific c, ,nomappru.,c hc' alnngloe~advoac~db~Tan: ~a onAnne~
on 191)5Am· scientiSts onteretnthe re,e ,trl-h <l'UR7 c-ouldyield mlponn <t~onformauon rek' an to
pa nocipdi~thi• prog ramm e. T he progrh~mmJeen management of th~S••uthe rn Hcmi,phcminke whale
drawn up to take full acco unt of Ihe •ix guidd in.:' agreedhu1 tha t adequa te a'>u..:oated ;,tati,llc·al ft:d>lhllity
hy the Scientifi c Com ontnt19!\5(R~p im W/wl. >tudk < ha~ct the prvY!ded .
Conr1111316IJJ anJ the fvur .:ritint~ l~{o.u,:in A nwnl'er uf point< abu ut these •o mmcnh 1byr.: made
ado pted at the 3xth Ann~lclcigof the Comm i;, ion Ikeda . ·n...:lihd in full onAnn ex R'ummari~d
(R€-pinrW!Ja!.C~~ltn .37: 25) . he k)\\ .
A numl'<!rof paper.pro•id.:dcomm .:~> on tho<
pro po,alSC::W':>ilU bu mmari.\edin Anne~ R..ll. tl ) The .::stomat!Iand ot' ag<-">p<:Cihc .:nmpo nen t. IS
1 .t kc' is, uc in ohe , tudy of po pula1C<e ofna omc,
SC 390 2. SC/390 l-1 (>um marisc J m Annex RJ 1 and
Ann cxe' R5- R7. The .:omme nt• arc 'ummans cd belo\\ .he ,·ohurt m,•th<Kl propn,e d fnt tht• "'tu natto n of M
and rc,T uorment rate had. in the pm~de.moreen
11)The authorsof SC.W \.l iIll. 0C'2J. andAnne~ dofficulhv the dfecr ,, catch \t:kl' tivit' . This
R6 d.id not ag ree w~9·0-!th at th.: main rcJ<;<>nwtfoutf~ \~fdube over com f~,th~ d.ota Obt:un<'(!
for the sde"ntifoc Com mitlinal i~tI> ormidc fro m tb.: random -;amp hng proce dur.:. L 'mg the n.:w
""'fu l ad1oce to th e C'ommis, io n un rcpl.t.:em,·n t yodd'from the eHect'uf catch,~ktcoI\IL'S,
and the effects of co ntinui ng cath,·.,,o.:>r ~par ate e>tima ll''><>fM .tnd r.:cru itrnt'nt r.oto?t R) can
1\'3> becausit did mn ha1 e a rc loahk c,;tomdt.: ,he e"aluat ed on princ iple
natur al morta lity The~ ~ h~1cJ the pnndpal (21 Tho: "' pdra te c>tum ote>uf M .tnJ R fr,>rn tho: rc. ults of
prob lem 1\;os in th e cs<>ne t recru itrt~t the Japa n,·-..·pwgra110 uld he u>cJ for improv ed
the es11ma11on of M w•>nlya par,,f"n c po" ibk: dnaly<" of the age .-o mpn"t oun of the pd't .:t•onrnercial
app roac h to thi;. c;tfe."h
(2) Th erewa~ concern atx,ul h~ aboi t~ uf the 1J ) \.l ,ork-rcc<tpturc J::ota iro ondoc~tclh31J
mcthodolo~gdcscrib ndAnnex R~ h> dOt>in!!ui'>h mo~t mo•em.:nt,ni monkc"hale ~nt' fromn nrth ID
ber\~\I he effe cts of va riatll\ 11'in lcCfUitmc n'o uth.hn~ed " '~ifb in !he pac-~o:"H'o\\ever,
fi, hinmor talitand natural mort aloto n the -a mpk <.\\Ou ld he taken on time5d:oy'in ea.:h
pop ulat i•.•rl's a!!e ;trJ'1\lf(l dcmon,ucd :;• kmgitudinal intt:rv\ ong 1rom .:.t't to "'"'' i11
th atthos wa'imp<N·ihk in pnn ciplcAnn ex R: un h:r tP minnntsc an~ cff~ci (1{lu~ntudin~
demons u .uedthat.e\l.!of 'epard tc e•tnnat c' "' mo-.·menl:the '""' " '..:hcdult~adnptt:d hy the
rec ruit men t a~;a~htl.:.e rc.iho~lnol the 1\\'C IDCR crui'c >Cho:J uRcp.:at.:d 'amp ling in
morta le'lrl~es wouldI'<p<"lr .:al·h, ll,otum-.o uldprm idt·infllrn tati1.111
(3) The co nce rn" abieasiob~dc"<Crit-111(I" ere 'cgrcg.JtianJ he hn.t:oafi ccttlnlt:rncm:.-
icrca~d by doub t> abo ut the ,.;tmphng pmg ran(4) The program me " ''uld ,·omrihut et<' the
deS(·nbedn SC~O(J-1. In panicuSC 3'11\li~nd Cnmprchcn>l\ '0:r\ IIltt't>r~odong ag~truure
Annex Rt- pnonted >tthat ot wou ld 1-e d11ficu lr "'ta Ut:l' truIh.:>cfCC II~'ul the ,·,unme rciru
co mbi ne the samp les fro m the differen tJ'trat; cat ,·Tho: ~l<mld he u-wdimprmc the~nal~"cr(
reprc>enta tl\'e age sthecau.-e ot tcmr<~l ra hi,tC'r Jal.tIl\\ ould "''" C''tnth~pru•ding~
and geog raphoca l segregatio n uf differen t rcp .tddoth>ndl ddta o n r hanges in age at ''"I.Ual m.olunty 1
cl<l!>>.:a'>nd the p•r.->~t tbtltiry 1\IJuld he ami on fn.>:11ailaholil\ .ompH,.·cmc non the
~1guican longi tu dinal dnd latimo~•cmtlcnl ohJccllv~·otag,· det ern lin au., nonlnrm,tllon
33Annex 82
5 REPORT OF THE SCI.E..-.:TIFJCCO\IM rrrt:E
Follo\\ing !he guidelmes m Anne>. L a~t year. th~ discussion paper (Rep. mt. Wltal. Comm11 37: 37)
S '3910 20 was produced in respon10 this request and
Comminec noted !hat !he propo al had adequately
specifiedthe informati on requtred under Paragraph 30of addressed proble ms undItm~ 12. I and 12.3.
the Schedule.
The Commiuee agreed that the role of whales11!he I2.1Selection. runding and role of in•·ited partki pants
ecosystem ~an important scientificquestion but notetl thatnex S detail the current produres "tlh respectII•
at present it was not a subject of 1mmediate imponance tounding and 'election of rn\ited participan ts. In summa!\
!he Comminee·s deliberations. althougrnat~ecome so tber<! are rwo mechani<m by which a sctentist can l'<
mvired
at a later stage in the Compre hensive Assessmorne.
members beheved that some of the secondalobjec e~h ( I) b)betng nominated by Con ,enors.Co mmiuct
could. however. pro,i de the Comminee with 'a luable
informal!n inthe future. members ;
(2) by reesting an in,it auon .
The mo~• recent assessments were au empted m 1979
(Rep tnt.\VItal. Conum1 30. 50-1). The relevant . l\\ith standing financial eo"'rdcrari on•. t.tll~ore.
recommendan ons of the sperm whale sub-eommincc for competent and inrercq ed scientis t who wrshes to auend
males were as follows Di,·iSJon 4 - replacement yteld of\\ill recctH' an invnar ion . Ho" e'e r ISrequrred
7-13: Division 5 - protectsatt~u.D1v1sions6and 7 - then !he limited funds avdilable are aiiOCdted 10 tbo..t
u nable to recommend. No conscnsw, bad been reached bv scientiSts whoe mosl likely to enable the Comminec "'
!he cient1fic Comminee on whethe r these sho ulbC fulfil role in pro,i ding the bc>t possible advice to the
recommend ed to the Commission. Membc!rs noted that Commtss1on The Comm iuce noted that the lener llf
these assessments had been attempted eight years ago andrnv1tauon sent to potennal m,·ited parucipants urged tho-.<
that there was no new mforrnation. The Comminee w;c, SCientists to seeI. funds from nosourC~'(i>cluding.
unable to ad,ise on the effect opr~ee d taJ..con the by implic-.lllon.theirrnmcn .On)l"h en altemamc
conservationof the stock. Some members noted. however. funding has prmed not to be available ts the possibilit) "'
that sperm whals found in high ldtitudes Wlllbe solitaryIWC fund ing considcrcd .
large.SOC1a latur e bulls. TI1eir role in the reproduc liThe Comm illec endorsed this procedure and notbt
procc 15not clearl) known but thetr rcmo' al ~aof \·ital role iO\•ited panicipants. pani cularl} those rn•ud
greater btological sigmticance than the removal of an under mechaniSm 1. pl3) in the work of the Commill(C
·average·sperm "h ale. Some membe rs stated rhJt the\believed rhat if the
M embers noted that they were not compc1en1 to potential panicipa ol \\as a ctuzen.of a membe r state then
evaluate all aspec1sthe melhodo logy and the likelihood there was a need for some mechanism for the atte ntion of
that11\\Ould ach1eve the stated Ottves. HO\\C\Cr. the th: rcle,an t go, crnment be dra"1110 the Sc1cnuf1C
Commlllce r~ mr:nen tdas lh~ sampling scheme be Commmee ·s"i sh for that sctentiSt to au end tis meenng1
carefully considered aproper)designed. and thai mpul Inrbis rard n noted !hat the ne" procedure agreed at tho:
from cephalopod researchers be solictM cmbe~ noted last Commt s1on meen ng. 1.e that a pro\ls iont of15
thar only one of the eight research needs. that of '"' ued parucrpant5 will be ctrculated 60 days before lit
information on stock tdcntil) . might require the takingrelevant meetingpro~e idan appropriate mechanismto
whales. In ligbrf nc" genetic techniques us1nb10p'~ inform member states that expens from thetr counm"'
sampling (SC'39 0 7). even that rcsrech need could have been invited to partic1pate in the Commn tee"s...o-rt
possibly be met wtlhour take. Howeve r. the Commmcc There had also been some tlbcll5SIOn during ~Wl
recommends that samp les be collected from all "ha les iCommission mee ting concernjng broademng rhe
any research catch for possiu~etn generic s1ud1es. geographic dJsrribuuon of the iO\ued pan tcipanl<..
The Commiuee agreed that the arrangements for parucula inrlrer to pro\lde ad,1ce ane~pcnen 10ce
participationof scientbts of orher nation> "ere setentim from countries "h ere ceracean \IUd1cs are JU>I,
satisfactory. beginning The Commillce agreed !hat wider particir:m''"
Concerning the four points ltstetl m Append~x(the ofsc1entists from amembe r counrries would be beneftda\
Com missl<m's resolution last yeaCommm~e agreed hut gh en the ltmd funding it has 3\'31lablc for in,ttl.'d
that the objective could nor l>cachie'ed b) non-lethal parttcipants su~ests that the CommNIOn se.b
means with the impon ant e~ceptin of slo~etdentit~ altema tl\wa~sof factliraung rhe attendance:of scienH-'t
studies usmg kinbiop~samp les It noted that prima~ from ,uch countries.
ObJCCll\"CSf the research program arc not intend10 Inthis regard11" as nored thaorgan~iauo nush.S
facilitate the conduct of Comp r>ehen~ Aisec,me nt U EP may ha'e funds available for <uch purpos 11:1~
nor ISthe research structure10contribute mfom1ation "htch member government could appl~ Anorhc
essential fr rauonal manae ~ment of the srocks The poss1biliry IS rhat rbe Comm1sston itself c~a01~dd
Commi uee further noted that-the whale, " ould b10killedrnsugatrng apectal fund10 "htch member nauon' cu,
accordance with Section Ill of the chc-dulc. coorribute. 1l \\C\Cr. rhe Comm mee 1r011P.
The Commiuce also noted rhat. according to the recommends Ihal the currcnr funds for inparlicip~n
ObJecttve ofhe research progmmm e. maximum <CI<n"titic
'"' itetl under the exi.>tmg proced ures are nor reduced
informa tion would be obtained from the "h alo t:tken. Wirb respc:crl<the role of ln\1ted participan1
Commt llee noretl that rbe current rules do not preclu
'"ne d paruc1panr< acung a' 'uh-commlllcc chrunnat
12. CJ:E:-'.TlFIC COMMITIEE PROCEDURE "here this 1>deemed appropriate
Although notdtrt ecrcl,netl to the qucsrio n of in,tl
Last yearthe Commille.: had a prelimindry dl'<:th,Jon ofantctpan (t~9,0 20 dre" ,mention10the problem
~cunni the financialha"~ lt>r rbeatlcntl ofnlf -c
procedural problems it had raced in rem~ring anti
had recommended that the Secreranat devdt>p a Chairrn"anat ctenllfic Comm1t1eo:mmg..ThiShad 1>.-c
34 Annex 83
83. “Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee to Consider the Japanese
Research Permit (Feasibility Study)”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39, 1989, pp. 161-162
REP. INT. WHAL C0\1\1 ~9, t989 161
population's age structure. In SC/087139. de Ia Mare Nakamu ra responde d that he considered the criticism
above by Chapman and others that information on trend in
demonstra ted that it is not possible to obtain unique
esuma tes of recruitment and age-dependent mortality population size was stillrequiied for this method wasbased
from catch-a t-age data alone. He also showed that on a misunderstanding of Nakamura's model. He further
specifying trends in population size or recruitme nt could stated that the model does not need actual values oftrends
lad to estimates of age-depen dent morta lityrates a~ice in recruitment asrior information. Ikeda and Magnlllsson
versa. However, it was al.so shown that the solution believed the simulation study in SC/D87136had indicated
that reliable estimates of age-specific mortality and trends
obtain ed was sensitive to bias in the specification of the
external parame ters. Bunerw orth in SC/D87132confirmed in recruitment can be obtained from catch-at-age data if it
that estimation was only possible ifadditional information is correctly assumed that successtve differences of effect
was available. parameters are small and change graduaUy. Ikeda further
akamura in SC/D87136 described a method for pointed out that. in view of the results of 'akamura's
"'ork, there had been no need to modify the original
separati ng the effects of age, year and cohort using the
prior information on the successive differences in these progTamme (SC/3910 4).
effect parameters. Alcaike"s Bayesian information
criterion.ABIC, is used to select the optimal model. Itis
intended that thismethod, as it is or when refined. is used 6. REVIEW OF JAPANESE PROPOSAL UNDERTHE
to analyse the age-structure data collected during the CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN RESOUITlONS ON
SPECIAL PERMITS FOR SCJENTlFI C RESEARCH
feasibility study and fromthe originally planned research. ADOPTED IN 1986 Al'IID1987 BYTHE COMMISSION,
Some members (Chapman , Amborn, Cooke, Deimer, AND THE SClENTIFIC COMMJTIEE'S GUIDELINES
Holt. Horwood, Lankester. Lyrholm, de Ia Mare, Payne FOR REVIEW OF SCIENTffiC PERMITS
and Tillman) noted that the doubts about the estimation of
M from age composition d ata had not been reduced by the The Committee agreed that its primary task was to r·eview
introduction of the procedure descnbed in SC/087136. the feasibility study in the light of its own guidelines (Item
particularly in light of de Ia Mare's results in SC/D87f39. 6.1) and the resolutions passed by the Commission at its
Catch-at-age data do not uniquely determine the 38th (Item 6.2) and its 39th (Item 6.3) meetings. It noted
parameters of interest and no statistical procedUie can that in commenting on the feasibility study. i 1 was
overcome this fundamental aspect of the problem. They inevitable that reference would also be madtothe original
further noted that any estimates obtained from the proposal. The Committee was informed that there had
been no changes to the original programme (SC/3910 4).
procedure outlined inSC/D87136byNakamuia are entire ly
determi nd by the choice of the prior assumed S. Holt. Lankester. Lyrholm. de Ia Mare and Payne
distributions of the parameters. ln effect. this means that observed that paragraph 30 of the Schedule requims that
the procedure could obtain any arbitrarily given value for special permit proposals be provided 'insufficient time ..:
thenatural mortalityor recruitment rate from any datset. and that the relatively few comments received from
Since there is no valid basis for selecting any particular scientists. other than those from the proposing country.
estimate. the procedUie proposed by Nakamura and the late arrival of others. showed that in thiscase
contributs no new information. While information on insufficient time had been provided.
trends in population size or recruitment could provide In response. Ohsumi stated that this feasibility research
estimates of age-specific mortality, this additional plan was ciiculated to the members of the Scientific
informationcould be used toestimate net recruitment rates Committee fr om the Secretariat on 20 October and be
directly without any necessity to analyse age structure. considers this to be sufficient timln addition. he noted
Further they noted it was lack of reliable estimates of net that many responses from other than the proposingcountry
recruitment rates that had made it impossible for the were received.
Scientific Committee to provide useful advice to the
Commissionen replacement yie!dsand ttteeffw...sof 6.1 Annex L- Prop!!5!!(g1u.i<lelinflf!or fl''iewof scientific
continuing catches for these stocks. perinits(Rep. int. Wkal. Commn 36: 133)
They further stated that there are liinits on the feasible
6.1.1 A sUllement as co whtcher tht permit proposal
range for levels of and trends in mortality and recruitment adequaJelyspecifies chefour stcs of mformation requind
and that some indicationof the laner might be obtained by under Paragraph30 of cheSclu:dule
assuming ranges in pregnancy rates and age at first The Committee noted that: (a) the objectives of the
pregnancy. The implications of sampling error in
catch-at-age and in population estimates for the estimates research are stated: (b) the number and stock of the
ammals to be taken is stated- their size and sex cannot be
of natural mortality rates so obtained indicate that deter mined in advance; (c) foreign scientist; can
confidence intervals would be wide. participate; and (d) the proposal does take some account of
Magnusson, Obsunti and Horwood stated that the the possible effect of the proposed catches onconservation
method described in SC/D87/36 showed considerable of the stock. but see section 6.1.3 for a more dmailed
promise.
Gunnlaugsso n noted that limits on the feasible range for discussion.
levels and trends might be narrowed by new unbiased 6.1.2 Comments on the obJeCII of~the research to be
biological material and thathere was no reason to believe carried out under the proposed scimrific permil, including
that age data could not be used in thicase, as in most of in panicular how they might relart to research needs
fisheries science, to enhance the precision in estimates of idtntrfred by the Sctennfic Committee
recruitment. Furthermor e, he noted that the suggested In SC/D8711 it was stated that the general pUip<>seof the
new management procedur es could not alone locate the feasibility study will be to determine whether coUection of
MSY level unless the stock was frrst reduced significantly samples fuUy reflecting the Southern Hemisphere minke
below that leveland then allowed to Ouctuate around it. whale population is possible.
35Annex 83
162 REPORT OF SPECIAL MEETING TO CONSrDER JAPANESE RESEARCH PERMIT
Some members (Horwood. Amborn, Chapman. It was agreed that this item had been covered by the
Scientific Committee in its comments of the original
Deimer, de LaMare, S. Holt, Lankester, Lyrholm, Payne.
Tillman} noted that as the feasibilitystudy is a precursor to proposal lastJune (Rep. int. What. Comm1138: 55--7).
the original programme, then unresolved problems with
the original programme cast doubts on the necessityof the 6.1.4 Comments on the methodology of the proposed
feasibility study. In this connection. they believed that research and an e••aluation of the likelihood that me
since the main objective of the original programme to methodology will lead ro achievement of the sc.ienrific
objecrives. These comments may also include evaluation of
determine age-specific natu ral mortality could not be
achieved with the proposed methods. even if random the metlrndology in terms of cuffent scientifzcknowledge
samples could be collected, the objectivesn the feasibility Some members (Tillman, Amborn. Chapman. Cooke.
study to investigate whether representative samples can be Deimer , de Ia Mare. R. Holt. S. Holt. Lankester ,
collected are not relevant. Lyrholm. Newman. Payne) commented thai there: were
In response, other members (Ikeda, Ohsumi. Kasuya, many unresolved methodological problems i:n the
proposal, in particular they were not convinced that a
Nagasaki. Yamamura) noted that the original proposal had
been prepared toprovide necessary information for the representative sample of the population would in Ifact be
assessment and management of stocks and that the obtained. In any case, tbe representativeness of the sample
feasibility study was an essential pre-requisit e of this. could not be verified. Although biasesue tothe selectivity
Magnusson and Gunnlaugsson concurred with this view. of the whalers would probably be reduced therewen ~ther
Fivedetailed objectives were givennSOD87/1 of which sources of bias which had not been addressed: no whales
would be taken north of 550S; changes in the shaJpeand
the first four require a specialpermit. These are listed
below. distribution of 1be ice edge might lead to non-uniform
(1) The feasibility study of the newly refined sampling coverage of this area; taking all schools sighted within
3 n.miles of the trackline could lead to large schools being
scheme design ed for stochastic sampling in the original over-represented in the sample; taking a maximum of two
programme (e.g. whether the required number of whales from each school could lead to unrepresentative
samples can be collected by the designated method sampling of large schools; and problems in the readability
within the given period).
(2) The feasibility study on the technical problems of earplugs from younger animals could bias the observed
encountered in the survey by the sampling vessels age distribution.
Magnusson noled that the representat iveness of a
which collect sighting data and whale samples sample could. in general, neverbe verified. so this was not
concurrently . a problem specific to the Japanese study. The aim should
(3) Investigation on the extent of segregation by age, sex,
reproductivecondition. etc. in the distribution of the be to try to identify, and eliminate or minimiseany possible
Southern Hemisph ere minke whale, from samples causes for bias and the study attempts to do just that.
collected from an area extending widely north and Other members (Ikeda, Mae, Nagasaki, Ohsumi.
Yamamura) responded that if the sampling pro-cedure
south. described in SOD87135 proved practicable. a random
(4) Investigation on the uniformityor non-uniformity of sample of the population would be obtained. In addition,
the biological characteristics according to school size.
Some members (Amborn. Chapman. Cooke, Deimer. they pointed out that the research vessels would only
approach the ice edge on four occasions so that changes in
de IaMare. S. Holt. Lankester. Lyrholm, Newman. Payne. its distribution would have little effect. Although it would
Tillman) commented that the first objective could be be preferable to take all individuals from every school
investigated by an examination of existing data from encountered there were logisticconstraints on the numbers
sightings surveys and operational records (seeem 6.2.1); that could actually be taken. Ikeda believed that if the
the problems to be resolved under objective 2 were not
specified in the proposal (these were brought out in the sampling technique described in SC/087135 (which bad
been designed to remove the question of human se·lection
discussionof Item 6.2.1); and that objectives 3 and 4 did and account, as far as possible, for our current knowledge
not fulfill priority needs of the Scientific Committee of whale distribution and behaviour ) prove pracdcal. it
although they might be of biological interest. would be possible, in conjunction with an exarnina.tion of
Other members (Gunnlaugsson, Magnusson, 0ritsland, data from the commercial catch, to ascertain whether the
Sigurj6nsson, Ikeda. Kasuya, Mae, Nagasaki, Ohsumi,
Yamamura) noted that the Scientific Committee had sample was representative.
There was considerable discussion of improvements
frequently commented on the non-random nature of which had been made in age--determination techniques for
samples taken from the commercial catch. Therefore, the minke whales. For approximately 20% of the whales an
study's objective of collecting a representative sample age determination was not made, but this was usually
would be of value to the Committee. While agreeing that because the plug was not collected or wasdamaged. A high
research addressing this objective might be of value,
Tillman expressed hisview that it wasnot ohighpriority to proportion of the unreadable plugscame from animals less
than 15 years old. In an attempt to avoid these problems
the Committee . both earplugs would be collected from each animal, and
6.1.3 A review of the most recent information on the stock tympanic bullae would be collected from younger animals
or stocks concerned, including irzformation on any to aid in their ageing. The image-analysis system described
exploitation, stocka/UI/ysisand recommendarions by the by Kato eta/. (Rep. inr. Whal. Commn 38: 269-n) would
Scientific Committee10date (including, whereappropriate, be used to improve the objoctivity of layer counts.
allemarive aiUI/yses and conclusions and points of Some members (Tillman. Amborn, Chapman. Cooke.
cotllroversy) Deimer. de Ia Mare, R. Holt, S. Holt, Lan.kester.
No new information was available since the review Lyrholm, Newman, Payne) indicatedthat, although these
conducted by the Scientific Committee at its last meeting. developments were commendable, they were not
36 Annex 84
84. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40, 1990, p. 66
66 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COM'.ilTTEE
used successfully to solve similar problems in human 3. 'Oppon unities for participalion in the resenrch by scientists of
demography (Nakamura, 1982, Proc. Inst. Statist. Math., other nations; and' (Sched. Para. 30)
29:77-97; 1986,Ann. /nst.Statist. Math., B 38:353-70). He 4. 'Possible effect on conseofthe stock'. (Sched. Para. 30)
noted that at present the ABIC was used to select not just Horwood, Holt , Lankester and Tillman noted that the
the optimal model itself but also the associated objectivesof the·programme for which catches will be
hyperparameter values. Variance estimation procedures taken in 1989190are given in S039/0 4, S041/S HMi13
which failed to take this into account will underestimate and two working papers presented to the meeting (Annex
the variance (probably considerably, as·he bad found to
01) . They believed that these working papers gave
be tbe case in analyses for the bowhead whale). A substantial additional aims tohe previous documents and
refined approach should incorporate variability in were more explicit in some respects. However, since the
hyperparameters in any associated variance estimation objectives are spread over several documents and are
procedure. different in all those documents, they considered that the
S041/0 15 presents a further proposed method for objectives of the research were inadequate ly specified.
estimating age,specific natural mortality apd estimating its Following this comment, Ohsumi responded that the
precision using absolute abundance data and catch-at-age documentation presen ted explicitly stated the objectives.
data. The age-specific natural mortality is considered to
Sigurj6nsson commented that he believed it was
comprise two parts: the average level and deviation from perfectly natural forbe objectives of a research proposal
that average (i.e. the pattern ,of age-specific mortality) . which bad been develop ed over three years to appear in
Estimat ion of the former requires absolute abundance more than one document. In particular he noted that the
data; estimationof the latter does not. The precision of the objectives as presented in the documents complemented
average lever is largely determined by the variance of the rather than contradicted each other. Therefore he
abundance estimate. Estimation of the deviation for each concluded that the objectives of the research had been
age requjres a large sample size: However the author adequately specified.
believed that fitting a cuJVe relating age-dependent
De Ia Mare, Holt, Tillman, Chapman and Lankeste r
mortality and age (i.e. assuming that this changes noted that the programme implied that the estimates of
smoothly), should allow a ~sef eu~ltim ta teeobtai~e diological parameters could be u~ed to estimate
given a reasonable sample s1zeand time between samphng. parameters of direCt management intclest such as MSY,
The paper explored the technique in the context of the MSYL and RY. They suggested that it is not sufficient to
·proposed Japanese research take. The author concluded say that the research is directed towards the rational
that, whilst not sufficient for providing verf precise management of a stock, but that the proposal needs to
estimates ,a sample size of 400 could produce useful show how the research willanswer quest!ons which need to
information on natural mortality. He stressed that be answered, and that the other components of the
particular effort should be placed on improving the problem can besolved. Accordingly, regardless of whether
variance of sightings abundance estimates. He also age depende nt mortalitycould be reliably estimated or not,
commented that he would be exploring the possibility of the proposal did not show that the whole problem of
incorporating a VPA or cohon analysis approach in his estimating the relevant management parameters
procedure as used in S041/SHMil7. constituted a feasible objective.
Butterworth noted that it would be interesting to see The Committee agreed that the proposal specified the
how the method performed if applied to data generated number , sex,size and stock of animals to be taken in so far
according to the protocol in Rep. int. Whal. Comnul as was possible given the random sampling strategy
39:137 ~e.also commented that the estimated average specified. The Committee also agreed that the
mortalityrate would be time dependent because it included opportunities for participation by scientists of other
the effects of past fishing mortality to some extent. nations had been adequately specified and that the possible
Evaluation of the method using the protocol would help to effect on the conseJVationof the stock had been addressed.
determine if this effect is-quantitative consequen ce.
(B) Objectives
Detailed discussion of th1989/90 proposal The relevant guidelines are as follows:
Ikeda introduced the 1989/90 research permit proposal
(S041/SHMil3). He noted that the proposal should be I. 'Com~on nlheSobjectives of the research to be carried out
under tbe proposed scientificpermit, includina in particular bow
viewed in conjunction with the original proposal submitted · they~rng rblte to researeh needs identified by the Scientific
by Japan in 1987(S039/0 4). S04l/SHMi13 outlines the Committee:' (Rtp. Int. What. Comm36:133)
modifications made to the origjnal proposal and the 2. 'The proposed researchis intended, and structured a<:cordill8ly
research plan for 1989190. As clarified .earlier in the to contribute information essential for rational mana&ement of
thestock;' (Rep. int. Who/. Ccmmn 37:25)
meeting the proposed 1989190catch to be taken in Area lV 3. 'ThertSearehaddresseaquestion or questions !hat should be
is considered to be 400 ininke whales for the purposes of answered in order to conduct lhe comprehensive assessment or
this review. Other matters covered in his presentation are to meetother critically imporunt research needs;'
dealt with under the relevant guidelines below. (Rtp. int. Wlral. Commn 38:27-8)
In his opening presentation, Ikeda had drawn attention to
the two general objectives of the original proposal: the
(A) The Proposal estima:tion of biological parameters required for
The relevant guideline is as follows.
management and the elucidation ofwhales in the Antarct ic
'A Stalementas10whelher 1he permit proposal adequately specifimarine ecosystem. Detailed objectives are !!ISO given in
!he fourSCI$Of information required under paragr30hOf the S039/0 4, and in particular a major component was the
Schedule/ · (Rep. int. Wlral. Ccm36:133) determination of the age distribution of the population and
1. 'Objecti11eSof the research:' Para.30)
2. 'Number, sex, size and.stockofthe animals to be taken;'(Sched.stimation of age-specific natural mortality rates.
Para.0) Annex 1 of S04l/SHMi 13 elaborates furthe r on the
3738 Annex 85
85. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991, p. 59
REP 11\1. WBAl. CO MMN ~1. 19'11 59
Tabk I
Ba testimatesoCSoulhem Hemisphere mink:e wh•le population 111.es Bold numbers•how Lbascva1uesusedin as.scssmncls(*Pseudo~ .
pa»ing ' popula oion estim•~eCM populaoion divided bIhe <losing mode /pass ing mode c:alibratioo fae1oc 0.751 (CV 0.152) oaken !rom
S04 21SHMIS). • • Thervw (70"·100'E) •wvey •• 198415 Ius been omiued because PMSUIVC)didDOlindude the 10, and tbcrdois not
comparableto subsequentPM resu lts. Note(i)P is an in..,varianaweigb tC'davengeor PM population~tim;o ale 'pseudo·passi nf
population estimate; (ii) No adJIWIMftl tw ba:n made for lhe differing nonber1y oftlhe Area> in d•lryean.
Totalpopulation siu Towc:atcb t19'10
Area Yc:ar CM cv PM cv Pseudo cv p cv Male Female
l911JB3 SS.050 0.203 73.30: 0.254 6,499 5,6()6
II 1981/82 37,301> 0.213 49,67S 0.262 6,435 13,2B6 18
L?S6(37 92, 114 0.'206 12U~9 0.285 122.65S 0.256 112,5<1 0.190
m 1979Al0 61,2n 0. 188 8 1,587 0.242 9,016 18,512 13
19117/81 51,820 0.521 102,984 0.309 69.001 0.543 118,735 0.273
.
IV 1978179 72Jll,7 0.156 97.027 0.218 14,774 19,8()S
19Wtl9 ~.403 0.343 68,570 0.349 85,756 0.37S 74,69l 0.257
v 1980/81 133,382 0.16 177.606 0.264 5.009 IO,IS6
198S{U 211.150 0.174 303.284 0.172 281.158 0.231 294,610 0.138
VI 1983184 80.283 0.232 106,901 0.277 2,848 2.150
aa:o unr of heteroge neitic> caused by weather coniliuons Comm11 (specia l is,uc II): 121-4-1) and reviewed at the
wbich could pro•id~ an additional downward hi;c;. Some 19811meeting of the Committee (R~p. inr. Who/. Commn
upward bias might be caused by Lhc method u~d to 3\1: 75). Di!.cussion had concer att~d on problem o~
estimate schoo l size in the analysis of PM su re~s (,cc heterogenei ty in the probability of marking and recapture .
SC/421SifMi 29). Judgment on the likely magnitude of thi' and the potent ial biases caused by shon-tcnn mark
bias mav be made £rom con.i dcratio n of Lhe discuS£ion of shetldi ng and marking -rela ted monality . The estimatio nof
thisiss inA~nnex E. abundance from mar k-recovery data require s a large
The results of SCJ.l21SHMi18 indicated that there wu e number of assumpli ons to be made. Many of these arc
probabl y also sustant ial numl>ers of " hales in Lheregion likely to he violated by the Dtscovery marking
between the n ort hern strata of some IOCR cruises and expcnmc nts. Although correc tions can allo"' for this it is
60'S. Rather than atte mpt 10 correct the abunda nce not pos."ble to estimate eac h correction reliably (see Table
estimate s from these sur• c)'bfor the "hale s in Lhis region. 17 of Buckland and Duff. 19 9 for a comple te
the Comminee chose to usc only the rcsuiL' of Iuter documentation of as.m ~putios and correct ions).
SUIVC)'.Smost of which came within 1- 2'of (J(I. for ib The Commi ttee noted that there had heen an insufficient
furhetc~sments .hese values are shov. n inbold type in number of Discover) mark recoveries to yield meaningful
Table I. esumale<O of abundanc-e in Areas I. 11and VI (Buckland
and Duff. 1989) but estimates were obtained for the
USE OF CATCH A.JIODE..FFORIDATA rcmaimng Lhree Area' both separa tely and com bined. The
'The interpretation of catch and effon data from the authors had cau110ned about the number of assumptions
Antarcti c was discussed at kngthb~ th<>Comprehe n>ive that had been made in calculating these estimates but
Assessment Workshop on Catch Per Umt Effon (R.,p. im. noted that the estimates of total stsizefor Areas Ill. IV
WluJ.ICommn (special issue ll ):1~20) \\hich idenufied and V were in the region of 300-350.fl00. Pooled estimates
the problems with existing o;criesuf data . fmm the s1ghtings surveys were 458.()( (all whales , Lhe
The Commi u ce haLldiscussed CPUE -;cries from the sum of the bold type values from Table l) and 301.000
Antan: tic and from the Brazilian laot.l stntio n at (taka ble only. the value for ·aJJ"hal es· multiplied by the
considerable length in the past. The most recent ·percen t takab le' correction of 0.658). Mark-!l!<::overy data
hy thctr nature only allow estimation of takab le whale
discussions forhe Antarctic data " ere in 191\5.when it " as
cooduded that there were no Significant trends in the data numbers . Since whales smaller than the size specified as
wben account was taken of a variety of weather and 'Ulkahle· were ofte n tal:en. mark-recov.:ry estimates might
operati onal factors (Rep. im Wltal. Commn 3ti: 70). The he e.1pectedto fall between the sighting:sestimaoes g.i\•en
Braziliandata were last examined in L98H, when 1he above.
Commin ee agreed thai the existe nce. or otherwise. of a The Commiuee concluded that it was not >Cnsible to
U'elldin CPUE for this fiShery could not he determmet.l take these anal~s any funh er without additio nal data.
(R~. inr.\Vha/. Cummn 39: 751. Should such data eve r hecome available Lherc would still
The Commut ee concluded that eXIsting CPUE ">eries be problems of analysis because of Lhe large number of
could not be used a' an index of abu ndance for any of the assumpt ions, some of wbicb arc untcstabk. "hich are
$lOCks under considera tion. invohcd .
!Jiolugh·ul paramerrrs
1fAitlt- R£C()VE~SlhltrE.S
'lbe most recent reanalysis of Lhe results [rom Di!'Covery AG£ t\1 kF CRI.JfiMF.f'-'T
1118ltingexperiments with Southern Hemi~< erph minkc No new docu m en~t on age at recruitment (t,) \OCorc
whales had been carried out as pan of LheComprehen si\·c avatlable . Howc!ver,I .as DOledthat the \'alueor I,used
Assessment (Buckland and Duff. 1989. Rep 1111 \VItal by the Com mm ee m its must r.:ccnt calculations (eRep.
3940 Annex 86
86. “Report of the Sub-Committee on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales”,Annex E,
Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41, 1991
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 113
Annex E
Report of the Sub-Committee on
Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales
Members: Amason, Best, Buckland, Butterworth, Cooke, counts, testes weight and age in growth layers from
de Ia Mare, Fujise, Gunnlaugsson, Harwood (Convener), commercially caught animals examined by biologists) was
Hester, Hiby, Holt, Joyce, Kasamatsu, Kasuya, Kato, available for use during the.meeting.
Koya, Lankester, Lyrholm, Morimoto, Nakamura,
·Ohsumi, Punt, Reilly, Sakuramoto, ·Sandoval, 4.5 Discoverymarks
Sigurj6nsson, Stokes, Taga, Tanaka, (S.), Tanaka, (E.), All Discovery mark data available to the Secretariat had
Ulltang,Wall!'le,Yamamura, Zeh. been coded and validated. However, there was still some
outstanding data on 51 Japanese marks, and on 152marks
placed during the 1979/80oviet marking expedition.
1.ELECTION OF CHAIRMANANDAPPOINTMENT
OF RAPPORTEURS
5. REVIEW OF COMPUTING FACILITIES
Harwood was elected Chairman, Reilly acted as
rapporteur. 5.1 Hardware
This is described in the ScientificCommittee's report.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 5.2 Analysis programs
After some discussion, the Agenda shown in Appendix 1 Allison reported that validated versions of the
was adopted. liTTER/FITTER program written by de Ia Mare and by
Butterworth were available. The routines for estimating
3. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS confidence limits in these programs had not, however,
been validated.
The following documents were considered to be of
relevance to the sub-committee: SC/42/SHMil-29; SC/42/
NHMi13,15,31; SC/42/0 10,13,15,16,28; SC/42/ProgRep 6.STOCK IDENTITY
Brazil, Japan; SC/42/Rep1; SC/J90/Mg3,16.
The sub-committee recognised ·the existence of two
different morphological forms of southern minke whales:
4. REVIEW OF AVAILABLEDATA the larger bonaerensisform, whichwasthe basisof the past
commercial catch; and a smaller so-called diminutive
4.1 Catches dwarf form (Best, 1985,Sci. Rep. WhalesRes. lnst., Tokyo
Allison indicated that all reported catchesof minke whales 36:1-33; Arnold eta/., 1987, Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst.,
in theSouthern Hemisphere had been coded and were Tokyo 38:1-46) that has been recorded as far south as 62°S
available to the meeting, they could be aggregated in any (Kato et al., Rep. inc. Whal. Commn 40:289-300). Wada
chosen combination. These data were summarised in and Numachi (SC/S89/Gen22) have suggested that the
SC/42/SHMi7.
genetic difference between recognisedsubspeciesof minke
4.2 Effort whales is sufficient for them to be classifiedas full species,
and the sub-committee agreed that the two forms in the
No new effort data were available at the meeting. Southern Hemisphere should definitely be considered
separately for management purposes. Due to a lack of
4.3Sightings information on the biologyr status of the diminutive form
4.3.1 Dedicated surveys the rest of the sub-committee's report only concerns the
Haw reported that alldata from the IWC/IDCR cruisesup bonaerensis form.
to and including 1988189had been coded, verified and SC/42/SHMi8 provided a review of information which
analysed. Data from the 1989/90cruise had been coded but was available on the stock identity of Southern
not validated. · Hemisphere minke whales. It noted that the term 'stock'
had been used in at least three different ways by the
4.3.2 Other Scientific Committee; these have been termed 'dynamic',
It was reported that data from the Japanese scouting boat 'management' and 'genetic'stocks by Hoelzel andover
surveys could be made available, for the Scientific (Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue 11):81-120). The
Committee meeting only, if required. sub-committee chose to use the same ad hoc definition as
thatused bythe Management sub-committee: those whales
4.4 Biologicalinformation which are the subject of a separate management regime. It
Allison reported that data from the Japanese biological aimed to formulate a range of feasible hypotheses about
master: tape (which contained information on stomach the organisation of minke whale populations in the
contents, foetus, blubber thickness, ovulation/corpora Southern Hemisphere in response to the requests received
41Annex 86
114 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
from the Management .sub-committee (Appendix 2). 6.4 Patterns of distribution from sightings
These were to be used as the basis for simulation trials SC/42/SHMi20 analysed sightings of minke whales
carried out by that sub-committee. · collected by Japanese scouting boats and research vessels
operating in tbeSouthern Hemisphere since 1976.Areas of
higher density, which were believed to be breeding
6.1 Genetic analysis grounds, were found north of 35°Sin October-November
The analysis of isozyme variation in 12,000minke whales between 100and 120°W,and 130and 180°Win the South
(summarised inSC/S89/Gen22)had revealed nosignificant
differences between any of the currently recognised stocks Pacific, and between 40 and 50oEand 90 and llOoEin tile
in the Southern Hemisphere, but highly significant ll!dian Ocean. Observations of whales between 35-50°S
suggested that the major proportion o f animals from the
differences between Southern and Northern Hemisphere breeding grounds migrated south from October onwards to
minke whales. Analysis of variation in the D-Ioop of the feeding areas in the Antarctic to arrive by January. It was
mitochondrial genome (SC/S89/Gen15), of repeated suggested that animals from the western Pacific migrate to
sequences from .minke whale satellite DNA
(SC/S89/Gen1), and Restriction Fragment Length waters between 130-140°E and 120°-130°W, and those
Polymorphism (RFLP) patterns generated with multilocus from the eastern Pacific to Antarctic waters between
l20°-l30°W and 60-70°W. Animals from the eastern
minisatellite probes (SC/S89/Gen4) had demonstrated Indian Ocean may migrate to an area between 600...:SOoE
similar differences between North Atlantic, NorthPa~ific and 130-140°E,whereas those from the western breeding
and Antarctic minke whales. However, none of these grounds may migrate to an area west of 60-80°E. These
powerful molecular genetic techniques (which are
described in more detail in Hoelzel and Dover (foe. cit.) proposed breeding grounds and feeding areas are shownin
Fig. 1.
and SC/42/Rep1) provided any evidence of unambiguous In SC/42/0 15 data from the IWC/IDCR Southern
genetic differences between minke whales in Areas IV and Hemisphere minke whale cruises made since 1978179were
V. The sub-committee therefore concluded that while summarised. These indicated the density of minke whale·
Antarctic minke whale stocks were certainly separate from sightings in the Antarctic Ocean. There were noteworthy
those in theNorthern Hemisphere, there mustbe sufficient
interchange between the currently recognised stocksin the regions of high and low density, but some of these
appeared to have shifted in the interval between the
Southern Hemisphere to counteract the effects of genetic surveys. However, there were consistent high
drift (which builds up genetic differences between concentrations in the South Atlantic sector between 30°W
populations through the random loss of variation). and 30°E, and in the Indian Ocean sector between
However, this could be achieved by the movement of one 70°-1000£.There was consistent discontinuity at 30°-70°E
reproductively successful individual per generation
between neighbouring stocks. and around 100°E.
The sub-committee welcomed these useful summaries
and used them asthe basisfor hypothesison stockstructure ·
which it developed in response to a request from the
6.2 Discoverymark analysis sub-committee on management (see Item 6.6).
SC/42/SHMi8reviewed information on the recovery of 94
Discovery marks from minke whales in the Southern
Hemisphere. Two marks had been recovered from whales 6.5 Other evidence
on the wintr breeding grounds off Brazil(Area II). These SC/42/SHMiS had reviewed information on the
distributionf minke whale catches in the Antarctic (these
whales had been marked at locations54°oflongitude apart are summarised in van Beek, Rep. int. What. Commn
inthe Antarctic. The other 92 recoveries indicated that
90% of marked whales were recovered within ±20° of 33:315-321). Although there was also discontinuity in this
longitude of their marking position from two years after distribution it wasnot clear to what extent this reflected the
marking onwards, with no significant increase in this range distributionof whales rather than the distribution of
with time from marking. catching effort.
The sub-committee noted that movements indicated by
mark recoveries will be influenced by the distribution of 6.6 Implicationsfor assessment
marking and catching effort. This, and the relativelysmall The sub-committee structured its discussion of this item
number of recoveries, made·it difficult to interpret the around the request fr advice on stockidentity hypotheses
implicationsof such movements for stock identity. from the sub-committee on management (Appendix 2).
The sub-committee concluded that it could formulate a set
of alternative hypotheses and established a working group
6.3 Morphological analyses and the use of ecological to do this. Their report can be found in Appendix 3. The
markers sub-committee agreed to forward the set of four basic
SC/42/SHMi8 also reviewed the results of analyses of hypotheses proposed by this working group. It noted that
variation using 34 non-meristic characteristics of minke there were no obvious demographic consequences
whales, and 12meristic or linear features. These had failed associated with the different hypotheses. The historical
to identify any isolated populatio ns on the Antarctic distribution of catches across the area used by the
feeding grounds (Bushuev, Rep. int. What. Commn hypothesised stocks was well-documented, and the
40:317-24). available information on these was summarised in
However, a study of the incidence of a warm-water SC/42/SHMi7.
parasite (Xenobalaenus) and of freshly-healed whitescars, The sub-committee noted that there had been logistic
probably caused by the bites of a small pelagicsharklow and operational constraintson Antarctic operations and
latitudes, suggested that whales in Antarctic Areas I,I these had been described conciselyin a presentation to the
and IV come from different wintering grounds (Bushuev, 1987Workshop on Catchper Unit Effort conducted aspart
k>c.cit.). of a Comprehensi ve Assessment (Rep. int. What. Commn
42 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41. 1991
115
CURRENT MANAGEMENT AREAS
AREA Ill AREAV
AREA II
ooow 60°E 1200E 1800 120°W 60°W
S. ATLANTIC ? W. INDIAN E. INDIAN W. SOUTH PACIFIC E. S. PACIFIC
PROPOSED BOUNDARIES
Fig. I. Possible location of breeding groundsand Antarctic feeding areas as proposed inSC/421SHMi20; the location of known breeding grounds off
Brazil is shown. The hypothetical feeding areas used by the animals from these breeding grounds are also shown.
(special issue 11):18-19). In order to obtain the required less biassed than those from CM. This was because in the
average catch of 26whales per day most catching had been latte.r mode a loftime is spent closingon schools in high
conducted along the ice edge. As a_consequence of the density areas.he secondary sightings made during these·
segregation of mature females, described in Item 8.3, this periods are not used for estimation.e possible result is
had led to the catch being biassed towards females. Large that sightings made in high density areas may be under
numbers of whales had been caught close to the boundary represented, leading to a downward bias (Kishino and
between Areas, partly as a consequence of efforts to Kasamatsu, 1987, Rep. int. What. Commn 37:253-8).
minimise the travelling costs of the whaling fleet. The However, comparison of density estimatesin CM and PM
minke whale populations in the Southern Hemisphere had made in the same Area had revealed larger differences
also been subject to exploitation by two land stations (in than expected (Rep. int. What. Commn 40:133). The
South Africa and Brazil) both ofwhichhad operated on, or Scientific Committee ·therefore recommended further
close to, believed breeding.grounds. The sub-committee analysis to evaluate the importance of a number of
expressed no opinion about the likelihood of the operational factors which could have contributed to this
constraints described above continuing into the future. difference.
SC/42/SHMiS reported the results of analysis of the
7. ESTIMATES OF ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS IDCR data which tried to account for the effect of these
operational differences. In surveys in recent years an
7.1 Methodology additional, independent observer (IO) had been used,
7.1.1 Sightingsurveys located on a separate observation platform to the barrel
DIFFERENCES BETwEEN SURVEY MODES and upper bridge. When sightings made by this observer
The most detailed information on minke whale abundance . were removed the ratio of PM densities to CM densities
south of 60°S came from th'e series of sighting surveys was no longer significantlydifferent from i.O, but PM was
conducted since 1978/79 on the IWCIIDCR Southern still consistently higher than CM. In an attempt to explain
Hemisphere cruises. Data had been collected in twosurvey this residual difference,PM density estimates were
modes: Closing Mode (CM), where the survey vessel converted to 'simulated-CM'values by deleting sightings
closed on a school immediately it was sighted to confirm and effort made in the interval between first sighting a
speciesidentity and estimate schoolsize; and PassingMode school and coming abeam of it. These 'simulated-CM'
(PM), where the vesseldid not deviate from the track line. density estimates were still consistently higher than CM
Until 1983/84 surveys had only been conducted in CM; valuesbut the ratio wasnot significantlydifferent from
after this surveys had been carried out in both modes. At Other modificationsto the dataset (such as the use of only
previous meetings the sub-committee had concluded that those.sightings made from the barrel and using only those
abundance estimates from PM surveys were likely to be CM sightings made on the trackline) led to a decrease-in
43Annex 86
116 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
CM density estimates. The author therefore concluded sightingsfrom the barrel only.f available estimatesof g(O)
that the differences between the density estimates in the were used in this way, the calculated estimates of density
two modes could be explained by the different number of were not substantiallydifferent from those madeusingg(O)
observers involved and the different search = 1 and all sightings. The sub-committee agreed to
methodologies. continue to use a value of 1.0 for(O)in its calculations.
Another potential difference between the two modes The sub-committee took note of the experiments being
was that school density estimates made in PM were conducted during surveys for-minke whales in the North
converted to estimates of whale density usingestimates of AtlantiC (SC/42/NHMi13)..It recognised the potential of
schoolsizemade in CM. Thiswasbecauseexperiments had the methods of analysiswhichhad been used. However, it
indicated that estimates of school size made from the concluded, in thdight of the extensive discussion of the
trackline were about 113rdlower than the estimates made resultsof these experiments in the North Atlantic minke
when the vessel closed with the school (Rep. int. Whal. whale sub-committee, that they appeared to require
Commn 37:70). It was possible that observers· used further development.
effectively different operational definitions schools in SC/42/SHMi27 described t he theory, and SHMi2 the
the two modes. Observers operating inPM might be more results, of surveys conducted as part of the. current
likely than those operating in CM to assume that animals Japanese research programme. Three vessels, two
from a single school with different surfacing patterns operating 0.3 n.miles apart andone 12n.miles away, were
belonged to different schools. SC/42/SHMi29examined used. All vesselsoperated in CM with two topmen in the
the distribution of nearest-neighbour distances between barrel. Three topmen.would be stationed in the barrel
consecutiveschoolssighted in PM, taking accountoferrors during future cruises to increase sightingseffort:In the
in distance estimation. It concluded that approximately double trackline survey only one vessel closed with each
one quarter of these distances were less than 0..5n.miles school that was sighted, the two vessels were treateas a
and suggested that thiscould make asubstantial difference single platform in the analysis of the results. Separate
to estimatesof pod size in PM. However, observers with search halfwidthswere calculated for solitary animals and
experience of the IWC/IDCR cruises indicated that most schoolsoftwo or more animals. Densityestimatesfrom the
whales included within the definition of a school were double trackline were substantially higher than those for
much closer together than this and that additional criteria, the singlevessel. ·
such as directioof swimmingand synchronyof surfacing, The sub-committee welcomed this n ew approach to the
were usedby observersto assign whalesto the sameschool. problem of estimating g(O). It noted that the use of a ·
Best alsosuggested that there wasa greater likelihoodof double trackline survey method offered considerable
duplicate sightingsiPM than in CM,but it wasconsidered opportunity for the further investigation of some of the
that this was only a potential problem with 'like minke' problems identified in the previous section. It suggested
sightingsat larger distances from the ship. that those responsible for designing future surveys using
The sub-committee concluded that these analyses did this method might usefully discuss the possibilities with
explain much of the difference between density estimates other experts in thifield.
in thetwo modes. It decided that a comparable series of
PM and CM abundance estimates could be produced by 7.1.2 Useof catchand effort data
dividing the CM estimates by 0.751 (the mean of the The interpretation of catch and effort data from the
CM/PMdensity estimates in SC/42,1SHMi5a )nd adjusting
the variance accordingly to provide a 'pseudo-passing' Antarctic was discussed at length by the Comprehensive
Assessment Workshop on Catch Per Unit Effort (Rep. int.
mode estimate. Where both CM and PM estimates were Whal. Commn (special issue 11):15-20) which identified
available the PM and 'pseudo-passing' mode estimates the problems with existing series of data. The
could be pooled using inverse variance weighting to sub-committee had discussed CPUE series from the
provide a single value. However, it recommendedthat the Antarctic and from the Brazilian land station at
individual CMand PM estimates should also be tabulated. considerable length in the past.
The sub-committee noted that although the hazard rate
The most re cent discussions were in 1986 for the
and 'smearing' routines used in the analysis of the Antarctic data, when it was concluded that there were no
IWCIIDCR cruise results had been independently significant trends in the data when account was taken of a
checked, this was not true of the entire program suite. It variety of weather and operational factors (Rep. int. Whal.
therefore recommended that these programs should be Commn 36:70), and 1989for the Brazilian data, when the
subject to the Secretariat's normal validation procedure.
sub-committee agreed that the existence, or otherwise, ofa
It also iepeaied!fie "recommendation.that a validated trend in CPUE for this fishery could not be determined
program for the implementation of the variable coverage (Rep. int.Wha/. Commn 39:75).
probability analysis should be developed by the IWC The sub-committee concluded that existingCPUE series
Secretariat computing staff with advice from Cooke. could not be used as an index of abundance for any of the
stocks under consideration.
g(O)
The sub-committee had considered many timesin the past 7.1.3 Mark-recovery methods
the problem of estimating the probability that a school on The most recent reanalysis of the resultsfrom Discovery
the trackline was seen (g(O)). Despite recommending a marking experiments with Southern Hemisphere minke
number of different experiments to try to estimate ·the whales had been carried out as part of the comprehensive
value of this parameter, the sub-committee had always assessment (Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue
chosen to use a·valuef 1.0in itsestimation of abundance. 11):121--44)and reviewed at the 1988 meeting of the
Appendix4reviewed the resultsofexperiments aimed at sub-committ ee (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:75).
estimating g(O).It noted that estimates of this parameter Discussion had concentrated on'problemsof heterogeneity
should be applied to estimates of density derived from in the probability of marking and recapture, and the
44 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 117
potential biases caused by short-term mark shedding and noted that the identified biases in these estimates were
marking-related mo rtality. The estimation of abundance mostlydownward ones. The nature and sizeof these biases
from mark-recovery data requires a large numb er of is discussed in more detail inItem 13.
assumptions to be made. Many of these are likely to be
violated by the Discovery marking experiments. Although 7.2.2 Japanese scouting vesselresults
corrections can allow for thisit is not possible to estimate
SC/42/SHMi18 provided estimates of minke whale
each correction reliably (see Table 17, Rep. int. Whal. abundance between the northern boundary of thenorthern
Commn (special issue 11):140 for a complete stratum surveyed by IDCR cruises and 60"S, and for the
documentation of assumptions and corrections).
The sub-committee concluded that it was not sensible to latitudinal bands of60•-so"s So,•-40" sn,d 40"-30"Sbased
on Japanese scouting boat data. The number of minke
take these analyses any further without additional data. whales seen by the scouting boats per hour steamed in 2•
Should such data ever become available there would still latitude by s• longitude rectangles during January and
be problems of analysis because of the large number of
February was used as an index of abundance. It was
assumptions, some of which are untestable, which are calibrated against the estimates of density from IDCR CM
involved. surveys from 1978179to 1983/84where these were carried
out in the same rectangles. This resulting calibration factor
7.2 Abundance estimates
was then used to convert the indices for rectangles not
7.2.1 IDCR results surveyed in IDCR cruises to estimates of abundance. The
The results of the 1988/89IWC/IDCR cruise in Area IV scouting boat survey data was grouped into two periods
had been analysed inSC/42/SHMi3 + Addendum using the (pre- and post-1978) because the method used to record
'standard methodology' adopted by the Scientific
effort data changed after 1977178. Both primary and
Committee in 1988(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:71-4). As secondary sightings were included in the analysis, time
in previous analyses, it had been necessary to pool data spent steaming includ ed chasing, closing and top-man
from some strata to obtain satisfactory fits to the down steaming prior to 1978179.
hazard-rate model. It was possible to table estimates of
SC/42/SHMi26presented an analysisofthe same data set
total population size in each Area ~outh of 60"Sbased on· from the scouting boats, but in thiscase information about
the results of the IWC/IDCR cruises, and to make the d istance of sightings from the track line had been
corrections for the differences between PM and CM available. As a result it had been possible to estimate
surveys in the waydescribed in Item 7.1.1. These estimates effective search half widths using a hazard rate function
are shown in Table 1. In compiling the table the and thus to estimate abundance in the strata 60--SO"Sand
opportunity was taken to correct the CM estimate for Area 50--40•sfor each Area directly.
II in 1986/87to take account of an error in calculating the The sub-committee noted that these papers provided a
area of one stratum . A slightrror in the 1978179estimate usefulindication ofthe relative abundanceofminke whales
for Area IV, which had been adjusted twice for the whale in the unsurveyed latitudes. However, it noted that there is
motion fact or (m), was also corrected. a fundamental assumption to the method used in SHMi18:
The sub-committee noted t hat where two abundance that the characteristics of the scouting boat operation
estimates .are available for particular Areas these values remained constant across latitudes. In addition, it noted
are not strictly comparable because of differences in the that the scouting boat cruises had not been designed to
northerly extent of the surveys in the two years. The estimate abundance but to locate concentrations ofwhales.
cumulative catch in each Area is also included in this Although the stratification of the results into relatively
Table. This is discussed in Item 9.3. The sub-committee small geographical areas might overcome the worst of the
Table1
Best estimates of Southern Hemisphere minke whale population sizes. Bold numbers show those values
used in assessment(see text). P is an inverse varia nce weight ed average of PM (passing mode )
populati estimate and 'pseudo-pas sing'populatio n estimate. 'Pseudo-passing' population estimates are
CM (closing mode) population divided by the closing mode/passing mode calibration factor 0.751 (CV
0.152) taken from SC/42/SHMi5 . No adjustment has been made for the differing norther lyextents of
surveys of the Areas in different =sex not known.
Tota lpopulation size Total catch to 1990
Area Year CM cv PM cv Pseudo cv p cv Male Female
1982/33 55,050 0.203 73,302 0.254 6,499 5,606 3
n 1981/82 37,306 0.213 49,675 0.262 6,43513,286 18
1986/87 92,114 0.206 121,549 0.285 122,655 0.256 122,156 0.190
III 1979/80 61,272 0.188 81,587 0.242 9,016 18,512 13
1987/38 51,820 0.521 102,984 0.309 69,001 0.543 88,7350.273
IV• 1978n9 72,867 0.156 97,027 0.218 14,774 19,805 7
1988/89 64,403 0.343 68,570 0.349 85,756 0.375 74,692 0.257
v 133,382 0.216 177,606 0.264. 5,009 10,156
1980/81 303,284 0.172 281,158 0.231 294,610 0.138
1985/86 211,150 0.174
VI - 1983/84 80,283 0.232 106,901 0.77 2,848 2,150
•The IVW (70"-lOOOE)survey in 1984/5 has been omitted because PM in that survey did not include t he
10, and there fore is not comparable to subseque nt PM results.
45Annex 86
118 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
potential bias generated by this, there was still a danger the valuesoft, used bythesub-committeeinitsmostrecent
that the cruisesmight havebeen concentrated on migration
calculations (e.g. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:76)had been
routes, for example. developed at the 1981 Special meeting on Southern
Hemisphere minke whales using the CPOP computer
7.2.3 Mark-recovery estimates program and catch at age data for each management Area.
The sub-committee noted that there had been an The resulting valuesfort, had been very variable, and the
insufficient number of Discovery mark recoveries to yield
meaningful estimates of abundance in Areas I, II and VI sub-committee noted that it should now be possible to
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue 11):121-44) but calculate t, directly for AreaIV by comparing the age
structure of the catch with that of the Japanese research
estimates were obtained for the remaining three Areas take. Age-specific selectivities based on these data were
both separately and combined. The authors had cautioned calculated in Appendix 5. They indicated full recruitment
about the number of assumptions that had been made in at age 11.The sub-committee agreed on values of 7 years
calculating these estimates but noted that the estimates of
total stock sizefor Areas III, IV and Vwerein the regionof for t, and 10 years for age at 95% recruitment after
300-350,000.Pooled estimates from the sightingssurveys inspection·of Fig. 1 of Appendix 5.
were 301,000 (takable only) and 458,000 (all whales). 8.2Ageat maturity
Mark-recovery data by their nature only allow estimation
of takable whale numbers. Since whales smaller than the SC/42/SHMill provided a review of data on age at sexual
sizespecified as 'takable'were often taken, mark-recovery maturity (tm) in Antarctic minke whales. tm for an
estimates might be expected to fall between the sightings individual whale has been estimated by subtracting the
number of corpora in the ovaries from its age, or by
estimates given above. determine the position of the transition phase in thear
7.3 Unsurveyedareas plug. Mean age at maturity has been estimated from the
Thi sub-committee had consistently had problems in the averageof individualestimates, from the proportionofthe
past in taking accountf the whalesin areas which had not catch ovulating for the first time a particular age, from
been surveyed. These unsurveyed areas included the pack the plots between·sexual maturity rates and ages, and from
ice south of the southernmost stratum on the IDCR a regression of mean number of corpora on age. The
estimationtmfor fullyrecruited year-classesip.the current
cruises, the area between the northernmost stratum and
6o•s for some of the earlier IDCR cruises, and the area catch from corpora examination is relatively
north of 6o•s. uncontroversial. Trends in tmwith time can be examined
The results of SHMi18 indicated that there were by comparison of estimates made in this way over the
probably substantial numbers of whales in the region course of commercial whaling. However, for Southern
between the northern strata of some IDCR cruises and Hemisphere minke whalesthisprovides a r ather short time
series.
·60·s. Rather than attempt to correcf the abundance
estimates from these surveysfor the whalesin this region, A much larger time series and larger samplesize can be
the sub-committee chose to use only the results of later obtained if estimates of tmfrom the transition phase are
surveys, most of which came within 1-2° of 60°N, for its used. However, the interpretation of such time series has
assessments (see Item 9.2). been controversial. The problems were discussed at
The results of SHMi18and SHMi26indicated that there considerablelengthat aMinke WhaleAgeingWorkshop in
·were also substantial numbers of whales north of 6o•s in 1983(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:676-681). Thisidentified
the austral summer, although the abundance in these a number of problems whic could generate an apparent
latitudes in January and February was Jess than further changein tmestimated fromthe transition phase withtime.
south. However, the sub-committee noted that if these These were: problems in recognition of the transition
animals remained north of 6o•s throughout the austral phase; variations in readability with the total number of
summer they would not be vulnerable to commercial growth layers; improvements and learning effects if the
exploitation with the operating pattern of recent Antarctic same readers examined earplugs over a number of years;
whaling. methods of plotting the data; and truncation effects
Concerning the question of whaleswithin the pack ice, (caused primarilyby under-representation of animalswith
Kato indicated that a Japanese scientist; who was a large tm's in the most recently sampled cohorts). The
member of the South Pole expedition, made independent authors of SC/42/SHMill had attempted to overcome
sightingsurveysfrom anice-breakerwhilethe IDCR cruise some of these problems by plotting tm against
was undertaken in Area III in 1979/80. He found numbers age-at-capture for cohort groups using only earplug data
ofminke whaleswithinthe pack iceand inopen leadsinthe from older animals, and by plotting tmagainst cohort for
fast icearea south of the area covered bythe IDCR vessels samplescollectedindifferent periods. Theyconcludedthat _
(Naito, 1982, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 32:929-33). The tmfor Southern Hemisphere minke whales had declined
sub-committee noted that satellite imageryof the extent of from 12-13years in the mid-1940'sto 10years in 1955,imd
the pack ice in each Area was available throughout the ·thathere may have been a further decline to7--Syears in
period of the IDCR cruises. It recommended that these the early 1970's.They interpreted this as a result of an
images should be analysed to determine the extent of the increase in the carryingcapacityof the Antarctic for minke
pack ice, byconcentration, in each Area when the surveys whalesfollowingthe major depletion inlarge baleenwhale
were conducted. numbers during the first halof the twentieth century. The
sub-committee could not reach a unanimous view on the
conclusions of this review.
8. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Some menibers agreed completely with the conclusions
8.1 Ageat recruitment of the authors of SC/42/SHMill. Others believed that the
No new do cuments on age at recruitment (t,) were carrying capacity for minke whales may have changed
available to the sub-committee. However, itwasnoted that followingthe depletion of large whales, but this was not a
46 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 119
necessary consequence of that depletion. They considered
1986/87, and found that females which had conceived
that because of the unresolved methodological problems earlier tended to arrive earlier tothe Antarctic feeding
involved in interpreting time series of estimates of tmfrom ground, although the overall peak of conception extended
the transition phase, the data in SC/42/SHMill could not into early September. The authors considered that the
be interpreted as evidence of a decline in tm. Yet others majority of females conceived after givingbirth while still
considered that the demonstration of the existence or lactating and migrated to the Antarctic after weaning their
otherwise of an historic change in tmwasof importance for calves.The authors further noted such migration pattern
management. They considered that the resultspresented in appears to be one strategy to maintain a high reproductive
SC/42/SHMi11, though suggestive of such a change, were rate.
not yet conclusive. They argued that the problems of
interpreting the data were a consequence of the shortness 8.5 Natural mortality rate
In the past (e.g. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:93; 34:78;
of the time series, and would be resolved by the provision 39:77) the sub-committee had used a value of 0.086 for
of future data. natural mortality (M). This was based on an inter-species
SC/42/SHMi19examined trends in tmestimated from the
transition phase in earplugs collectedfrom the Sovietcatch comparison of estimates of M carried out by Chapman
between 1971n2 and 1981/82. The series were not (1983, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:311-14). However, a
corrected for any of the effects described above. Although Working Group on Methods for Estimating Natural
Mortality established in 1984 (Rep. int. Whal. Commn
apparently significant decreases with time were observed, 35:142-3)had noted that most ofthe estimates ofM usedin
the author concluded that the position of the transition
phase could not be used to estimate tm because of its this comparison had come from the analysis of catch
subjective character. curves.The shape of these couldbe affected byage-specific
Estimates of mean tmand the age at which 95% of the mortality, age-specific selectivity, and cohort-specific
recruitment, all of which could cause problems in the
population reached maturity were required for the runs of estimation of a single mortality rate for all exploited
the HITTER/FITTER routine described in Item 9.1. age-classes. When an interspecificcomparison was used to
These were estimated as7.5 yearsand 14years respectively
for the current Antarctic population from histograms of estimate M for a species or stock from whichno other data
percent mature at age in Kato (1987,Sci. Rep. WhalesRes. were available, the resulting estimate would be subject to
Inst. 38:47-73). allof the problems associate.d with the individualestimates
plus an additional error component resulting from the use
of the regression equation. As a result the sub-committee
8.3 Sex ratio had agreed that mortality rates estimated from an
Details of the aggregation of animals by sex south of 60"S
derived from the Japanese research take were provided in interspecific relationship with maximum lengths could not
SC/42/SHMi1, 10 and 25. The authors found that the be used (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 35:76).
A value for M was required for the HITTER/FITTER
mature females tended to be found close to the ice edge. routine (see Item 9.1). The sub-committee chose to use a
They concluded that this wouldaccount for the fact that the value of 0.10 derived from the mark-recovery analysis of
Japanese commercial catch, which was primarily taken
along the ice edge, was strongly biased towards females. Buckland and Duff (1990,Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special
SC/42/SHMi4provided an account of Soviet whaling in issue 11):132). The sub-committee noted itsearlier caution
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:75)that thisestimate had been
Area I between 1982/83and 1985/86.In three of the·four calculated on the assumption that mortality was exactly
years males predominated in the catch, although the fleet balanced by recruitment, and was therefore subject to the
had operated close to the ice edge. The author concluded same problem of confounding between trends in
that in these years the bulk of the feeding population was
further south, within pack ice. recruitment and in mortality ·which makes the analysis of
catch-at-age data so difficult. However, it wasassured that
the HITTER/FITTER routine was relatively insensitive to
8.4 Pregnancy rates the value chosen for M.
SC/42/SHMi10provide information on the pregnancy rate
of mature females taken in Areas IV and V as part of the 8.6 Catch-at-age dataand recruitment rates
Japanese research catch. Observed .values of 0.946 and During the last decade a number of procedures had been
0.906 were obtained. These were substantially higher than developed to estimate age-specific mortality rates and
the value of 0.78 which had been used by the cohort-specific recruitment rates from catch-at-age data.
sub-committee in the past (e.g. Rep. int. Whal. Commn SC/42/SHMi16provided a review of the current status of
37:69). This value was based on the proportion of the cohort analysisof Sakaramoto and Tanaka (1985, Rep.
non-lactating animals amongst a S!lmpleof mature females in't.Whal. Commn 36:207-12). The authors indicated that
examined at the South African land station (Best, 1982, some of the problems identified with this method were still
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 32:779). unresolved and further work on it was planned. This might
SC/42/SHMi13 reported on the measurement of serum include testing using the draft protocol developed at the
progesterone levels in, blood samples from 244 female 1988ScientificCommittee meeting.
minke whales collected as part of the Japanese research SC/42/SHMi17 described progress on the Bayesian
catch. Ovulating and pregnant animals had high cohort model of Nakamura et al. (1989, Rep. int. Whal.
progesterone levels, and these levels did not appear to Commn 39:375-382). This had now been developed to
change during the early and middle stages of pregnancy. estimate age-specificnatural mortality rates and trends in
Yoshioka indicated that he was trying to develop ;tssay· recruitment from estimated population size by age and
methods which could be used on muscle samples. period from the age-structure of a small catch. It was
SC/42/SHMi24 examined the migration pattern in planned to use this method to analyse the results of the
Japanese ·scientific catch; testing using the agreed draft
relation to reproductive cycles using 11,953 foetal length
collected from commercial operations in 1971n2 to protocol was also being considered.
47Annex 86
120 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
SC/42/SHMi23described an 'integrated analysis'which (3) There is no agreement on whether or not there was a
had been developed from the 'crude VPA' estimator of trend in abundance before exploitation began in the
Butterworth and Punt (1990, Rep. int. What. Commn 1970sand whether or not any related trends in carrying
40:301-316). The procedure had been successfullytested capacity continued during the period of exploitation.
usinga modification of the draft protocol. The method was
These matters are fully documented in Rep. int. What.
capable of estimating changes in historical recruitment Commn 40:119-26. Furthermore, it was impracticable to
trend and mean net recruitment rate with standard errors undertake any runs other than by the area breakdown of
of <1%, provided asufficientlylongtimeseriesofdata was the old six 'management areas' and perhaps by some
available. combinations of these. Such a process implicitly assumes
No estimates of recruitment rate using real data had
been made using the last two procedures. they are largely representativeof a breeding population
with little or slow mixing._
SC/42/SHMil2 examined ageing bias and magnitude of Thus the only such run that would be indicative of the
error in minke whale earplug reading and found no effectsof whaling on thisgroup of stocks would be one for
systematic biases with errorof about 6% of age at capture the entire .Southern Hemisphere, with MSYR=O. But,
between experienced readers. The authors believed this
magnitude of ageingerror is applicable to studies ofthe use given the insensitivity of the runs to the value of M, the
same indication is·givensimply by comparing the 'current'
of age data. It was noted that an inexperienced reader stock estimate with.the total cumulative catch.
tended to read fewer layers than an experienced one. Other members believed that ~soe f HITIER with an
SHMi12 also reported the temporal increases in age appropriate range of MSY rate values would provide
readability of earplugs from the Japanese catch from an information whichwould allow an assessment of the status
average of 46% in 1971-77to 73% in 1979-86and alength
related increase up to 65% at around 28ft. ofthe stocks. First, they were of the opinion that attempts
to estimate upper bounds for the extent to which stocks
SC/42/SHMi1 considered the age structure and might have been reduced by exploitation was of value in
reproductive data from minke whales collected in the this respect. They noted that the IOCR sighting survey
Japanese research take in · Area V. The Akaike abundance estimates were negatively biassed measures of
Information Criteria was used to examine heterogeneities
on sex ratio, sexual maturity and mean ageamong different the 1+ population sizes which they suggested be used for
school sizes and localities. the HITTER calculations. Further, in the lightof the large
reduction of the populations of other Southern
Hemisphere l:!aleenwhales they judged that only some
9. ASSESSMENT increase (but not a decrease) in the carrying capacity for .
For some Areas the sub-committee had estimates of minke whales was a likely possibility. They therefore
abundance from surveys in two separate seasons.
However, the northward extent of such surveys differed. reasoned that HITTER runs with MSYR=O% would
provide estimates of upper bounds on the extent to which
Some correction for this difference had been made in the minke stocks had been reduced below their initial levels,
past, but the sub-committee recognised that the large CV andfurther that suchestimates wouldbepositivelybiassed.
associated with the resulting estimates and the relatively In addition, they considered that focussing upon MSY
short time interval between the surveys made such rates approaching 4% for these stocks was perfectly
corrected estimates unsuitable for direct comparison or for
use as a time series to assess the status of stocks. appropriate. They drew attention to the 3.2% increaserate
for the Californian gray whale as estimated from censuses
during aperiod of annual catchesof about 1%, noting that
9.1 Use of HITTER/FITTER model this populationis agreed to be sufficientlylarge to warrant
The IDTIERIFITIER program provides a procedure for either an SMSor an IMSclassification(IWC/42/4A). They
estimating the effectof a history of catches or a stock further commented that the method advanced in Rep. int.
provided there is an estimate of absolute abundance, or a
seriesof relative abundance data, or both, along with What. Commn 40:433-47, taken together with tabulated
increase rates for depleted populations (Rep. int. What.
estimates of a number of demographic parameters, and Commn 40:129), provided estimated lower bounds for
MSYL. It can fit a population model to the absolute and/or baleen whale MSY rates in the range 2.4% to 6.9%.
relative abundance data to provide estimates of current
and past abundance as well as estimating MSY rate 9.2 Choice of parameter values
(MSYR). If no series of relative abundance data are
The values for t., tM , and M used for fiTTER and the
available it is only possible to use the IDTIER part of the .·reasons for their choice are described in Items 8.1, 8.2 and
program which gives a population trajectory whicq passes 8.5.
through a point estimate of absolute abundance. In these The target populations for the modelling exercises for
circumstances values of MSYR have to be specified. No Areas II, Ill, IV and Vwere the inverse variance weighted
suitable series of relative abundance data was availablefor
Southern Hemisphere minke whales. averages (P - see Table 1) of the passing and pseudo
passing mode abundance estimates from the most recent
Some members of the sub-committee considered that surveys in those Areas which extended almost as far as
appropriate information for the use of IDTIERIFITIER 6()os.For Areas I and VI, ineach of whichonlyone survey
was not available for Southern Hemisphere minke whales, had been conducted, the pseudo-passing estimates were
and concluded that the use of the program was not chosen. ·
worthwhile, for the following main reasons: The sub-committee had considered the possibility that
(1) There are no estimates of MSYR for the southern the populations in Areas V and VI constituted a single
minke whale, and no agreement on a likely range. stock (Appendix 3). Accordingly it was decided to apply
(2) There was no agreement in the committee on the the population model to these two Areas combined, aswell
validity of applying increase rates from speciessuch as as separately. This would also provide an indication of the
gray and right whales to minke whales. sensitivity of model results to pooling over Areas. The
48 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991. 121
1985/86 P estimate for Area V and the 1983/84 Those-memberswho thought the runs worthwhile noted
pseudo-passing estimate for Area VI were added for this that the effectof an increasing K up to 1972was to reduce
purpose, and.consideredto apply to the 1984/85season. As the extent towhichthe stockshad been reduced compared
an additional test of sensitivity a run was performed to the case with a constant K. Increasing MSYL also
combining estimates.for all six Areas. resulted in smaller reductions· but also smaller MSYs.
To investigate the implications for assessment of the PoolingAreas produced an effectwhichwasalinostexactly
precision of these various abundance estimates, it was the average of that seen in the individual Areas.
decided to repeat all model calculations for target In terms of the overallstatus of thestock, thesemembers
populations of the abundance estimates less two standard concluded that, if the carryingcapacity had been constant
errors, corresponding approximately to lower 95% before 1972, for most of the stocks the exploited female
confidence intervals. component of the stock was at the high end of the range
MSYR values of 1, 2, 3 and 4% were used to cover the 50-90% of K. They also noted that the proportion of
range being used bythe Management sub-committee in its exploitable animals in the model results wasless than that
modellingexercises.In addition, avalue ofO%wasused to observed on the IDCR cruises.Thisimpliedanegativebias
set a lowerbound on the response of the modelpopulation in the estimate of the total population, perhaps for the
to exploitation. reasons suggested in Item 13: They noted that if the
MSYL was generally set at 60% to coincide with the abundance estimates for the earlier IDCR cruisesin Areas
value used most recently in applications of the New III and IV had been taken into account in calculating
Management Procedure. However, runs were carried out standard errors, these would have been reduced by about
for Areas II and IV using an MSYLof 80% to indicate the one third. As a result the calculated lower5% confidence
sensitivityof the results to this parameter. limits and the associated entries in Table 3 would have
In order to investigate the implications of an increase in been substantially higher. This is despite the negative bias
carrying capacity (K) before the start of serious inherent in such a pooling process, because of the'
exploitation in 1972,a run wascarried out forArea IVwith incomplete coverage of the areas south of 60"Sin these
K increasingto three times the value in1929/30(the season earlier cruises.
when the catch of blue whales in the Antarctic was at its
maximum, leading to a massivedepletion in these stocks)
by 1972. The change in K was based on an estimate by
Sakuramoto and Tanaka (Rep. int. Whal. Commn · Table3
36:207-12, 261-71) that recruitment had increased by
Results of applying HITTER with the inputs shown in Table 2.
2-4% per annum from 1945to 1965.It was assumed that Results are givenas exploitable femalestock/femalestock in1972.
recruitment had changed in parallel to changes in K.
The input values are summarised in Table 2. I+ II+ III+
MSYR JI III IV v VI IV+V+VI
Table2 'Best eslimok'
Parameter values for HITlER proposed by those who considered its 0% 0.85 0.80 0.67 0.62 0.93- 0.96 0.94
use toe a worthwhile process. 4% 0.92 0.87 0.74 0.70 0.95 0.97 0.95
Lower95%CL
Demographic parameters t,=7 95%1,=10 0% 0.73 0.71 0.46 0.43 0.90 0.91 0.90
I =7.5 4% 0.83 0.79 0.51 0.48 0.93 0.94 0.93
95%1..=14
~=0.105
Target populations I73,302(1982183)1!122,156 (1986!87)
Ill88,735 (1987!88) IV74,692(1988!89)
V 294,610(1985!86)VI 106,901(1983!84) Those members who considered that the only useful
+ lower 95%confidence limit
indication of the status of the stocks came from a
MSYlevel 60%or80% comparison of the 'current' stock estimate with the total
MSYrate 0,1,2,3and4% cumulative catch (as shown in Table 1), concluded that
Area combinations I, II, lll, IV,V, VI Areas V and VI (i.e. the major part of the Pacificsector)
V+Vl,I+Il+lii+IV+V+VI
have been subject to relatively light exploitation. Thus the
Changes incarrying capacity K,9723 xK,93() abundance ofminke whalesin thisregionhaslittlechanged
by those catches. Area I (the eastern sectorof the Pacific)
and Area II (in the·South Atlantic) have had only
9.3 Status of stocks moderate hivels of exploitation. The abundance in these
The full set of outputs from the runs of HITTER can be regions will not have l;>eenaffected to the extent which
found in Appendix 6. Those members of the sub would raise questions whether the historic rates of
committee who thought these runs had been worthwhile exploitation have been too high. Areas III and IV
agreed that the most useful summary value for assessing (covering the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean sectors)
the status of the stocks was the ratio of the exploitable have experienced catches high both in relation to other
female stock in 1990 to that at the start of exploitation, Areas and to the abundance estimates. This raises the
because of the predominance of females in the catch. question whether lower rates of exploitation would have
These values for the 'best'population estimates and their been desirable.They added that there had been atendency
lower 95% confidence limit are shown in Table 3. The for· catching to concentrate on the Area III/Area IV
sub-committee noted that an equally useful exercisein the boundary. Suchcatchescouldhaveled togreater depletion
cases where K increases would be to compare the current in the boundary region if it did not in factdividetwostocks
stock size with that which would have been found if there which mixfully and rapidly within the greater areas of the
had been no exploitation, putative stock divisions.
49Annex 86
122 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
10. ECOSYSTEM CONSIDERATIONS reportof the Scientific Committee in 1982. The merit ol
Two papers (SC/42/SHMi4 and SC/42/SHMi14) provided zero catch limits may be that by carefully designed
scientific catches the information which could not be
information on the diet of minke whales in Antarctic obtained from the commercial whalingcan be provided. A
waters. They concluded that the preferred prey of minke prolonged period of zero catch without research effort
whales was 3-4 year old krill Euphasia superba, and that
much smaller quantities of Thysanoessa macrura were would not merit the increase of scientific knowledge, as
consumed. SHMi14indicated that minke whalespreferred evidenced in the case of the Antarctic blue whales, which
have been protected since 1964/65,-the stock size of which
krill rather than T. macrura which is known to be more is still uncertain. ·
abundant than krill from net samplingin someareas. Daily
consumption by minke whales in the ice edge and offshore Some members believed that the o,utput of the HITTER
zones south of 55°S between 105°E and 115oE was runs described in Item 9.3 could be used to indicate the
likely changes in minke whale abundance in the Antarctic
calculated to be 1,170t of krill and 597tof Thysanoessa in since 198511986 . The changes in the ratio of numbers of
SC/42/SHMi14.High concentrations of krill were found in exploitable females in each year to the numbers in 1972
offshore areas where coldsurface water extended out from
the ice edge. Kato indicated that work was in progress to (the year in whichlarge scale exploitation of minke whales
began) are shown in summary in Table 4, and in more
assess variations in condition, as measured by blubber detail in Appendix 7.
thickness and fatty acid composition, of whales during
migration and on the feeding grounds. The sub-committee
considered that it was desirable to take ecosystem Table4
considerations into account in developing management Changes in the numbers of exploitablefemale minke whale!
advice on Southern Hemisphere minke whales, because of (expressed as a proportion of their number in 1972) 1985/8~
the major changes in the abundance of krill predators and 1990/91 as predicted by the HITTER routine using the parametet
which had occurred this century. It noted that CCAMLR values shown inTable 3.
had developed an ecosystem monitoring programme using
populations of land-based krillpredators, notably at South Area
Georgia and Prydz Bay. This was primarily directed
towards detecting any ecosystem effects caused by MSYR Year II Ill IV v VI
· commercial krill harvesting.
1% 1985)86 O.U1 0.857 0.701 0.682 0.936 0.959
The sub-committee concluded that in developing an 1990/91 O.U9 O.U3 0.697 0.681 0.937 0.961
ecosystem approach to the management of whales it could 4% 1985186 0.882 0.884 0.709 0.703 0.939 0.960
be important to take account of the abundance and 1990/91 0.920 0.919 0.745 0.749 0.950 0.972
distribution of other krill predators, and the quality of the
data available on these. Recognising the need for more
information on these predators and the fact that the
evaluation of suchinformation should properly involve the Other members noted that althoughit wouldcertainly be
scientific committees of both the IWC and CCAMLR, the useful if population models could be used td provide
sub-committee recommended that the terms of reference information on an expected direction and rate of change, a
model for which the driving parameters have been
and participants for the joint workshop on the Feeding
Ecology of Southern Baleen Whales, now planned for estimated does not exist for the Southern Hemisphere
mid-1991, should be expanded to cover studies of other minke whale. They noted the output from a model with
major predators of krill, especially those pertinent" to notional point values or ranges for most parameters gives
estimates of abundance and trends in abundance. results dependent on the selected values and this yields
very little useful information with respect to this question.
Thus these members concluded that noquantitative advice
11. MANAGEMENTADVICE can be offered at this timeconcerning the effect ofthe 1982
decision on stocks of minke whales in the Southern
11.1 Effect of zero catches for commercial whaling Hemisphere ..
The sub-committee noted that its ability to provide advice
on, the effects of the zero catch limit for Southern 11.2 Classification ofstocks
Hemisphere minke whales, which came into effect in the Somemembers qf the sub-committee concluded that it was
1985/1986pelagic season, was influenced by: the length of not appropriate to classify the stocks of Southern
Hemisphere minke whales. Others members noted that it
time for which the decision of 1982had been in effect, the
general population biology of large whales, the precision waspossible to classifythese stocksusing the results of the
and frequencyof abundance surveys, and the reliability of HITTER runs showninTable 3,subject to the assumptions
the population models used for prediction. on which the runs had been based, on the basis of the
It noted that the slow growth rate of whale populations definitions givenin paragraphs 10(a)-(c)ofthe Schedule.lf
meant that there was no possibility that there had been a the carrying capacity (K) was constant at the start of
substantial change in minke whale numbers since the exploitation in 1972, the following classifications were
1985/1986 whaling season. In addition, attempts to obtained for an MSYL of 60%: I - IMS, II - IMS, III -
compare the results of IDCR sighting cruises in the same SMS, IV- SMS, V- IMS, VI- IMS.
management Area had indicated that only major changes The runs made with the lower 95% confidence limits of
in abundance could be detected because of the size of the the target population estimates indicated that there was
coefficient of variation associated with the individual only a small probability that new abundance estimates
estimates. could lead to the stocks being reclassifiedIf K had been
Ohsumi stated that the moratorium for all commercial increasing before exploitation then the extent to whichthe
whaling had no scientific justification as is clear inthe · stockshad been reduced by exploitation would be less.
50 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 123
The sub-committee noted that the nature of the Reilly, Stokes and Zeh considered that, in the light of
classification process might be quite different under the the estimates of abundance and associated variance given ·
revised management procedures being developed by the in Table 1, and the catches which these stocks had
Management sub-committee. experienced, it should be possible to advise on catches
which would not have an adverse effect on the stocks. The
11.3 Other management advice use of the HITTER routine, with a suitably wide range of
input parameters, was a crude but useful method for
SC/42/SHMi15 argued that, on the basis of estimates of evaluating the effect of past catches. The application of
current population size, observed changes in CPUE and
age at sexual maturity and indirect evidence on the Schedule paragraphs lO(a)-(c) to these results, as
relationship between krill as·prey (the main food of minke described above, gave a broad indicationof the magnitude
whales) and its predator in the Antarctic there was no of catches which might be sustained in future . However,
they cautioned that this methodology was, as yet, not
longer any reason to protect the Southern Hemisphere sufficiently rigorous for such calculations to be used as an
stocks of minke whales from exploitation. The author, as
an interim management measure, believed a catch limit of appropriate basis for interim management.
1% of the exploitable population in sub-areas of the six
management Areas was appropriate even in the most
12. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
conservative case. The sub-committee recommended that the following
It had been noted during discussions in the Scientific
Committee that, in the absence of an agreed revised research activities should be carried out: ·
management procedu it would not be out of order to 1. Further analysis to improve the comparability of ·
attempt to formulate advice on catch limits in accordance · population estimates from the results of IWC/IDCR
cruises in the same Area. In particular this should take
with the provisions of the Schedule paragraphs lO(a), (b)
and (c). Some members considered that such catch limits account of the differences in the northerly extent of the
could be calculated from the results of the HITTER runs surveys and also extend the analyses of SC/39/Mi18 to later
given in Appendix 6 and the classifications described in surveys to investigate further possibilities of estimating the
Item 11.2, if an appropriate value of MSYR could be number of minke whales in areas south of 60"Sthat had not
been surveyed on the earlier IDCR cruises.
chosen. Some of these members believed that a value of
2% for MSYR would provide a conservative estimate for 2. A study of the extent of the pack ice, by concentration,
interim catch limits. Others considered that there was no in each Area during the years when there were IWC/IDCR
objective basis for such a choice but agreed that a value of
2% co.uld be used in such calculations for illustrative surveys using satellite imagery. The aim would be to
provide some qualitative indication of the extent of habitat
purposes. The calculated catch limits are: I-456; II-792; suitable for minke whales.
III-650; IV-583; V-1,746; VI-626.
Those members who considered 2% as a conservative 3. Soviet data on the distribution of ecological markers
interim measure were of the opinion that until such a time should be analysed in more detail to provide some
as the schedule was revised, management advice still was statistical measure of the reliability of the conclusions
discussed inItem 6.3.
based on the existing paragraphs lO(a)-(c) ofthe Schedule.
Further, regardless of uncertainties about the dynamics of 4. A computer program to implement the variable
minke whale 'stocks' a catch limit at an MSYR of 2% coverage probability analysis should be developed and
would not result in appreciable reduction in stock validated. The program suite used for estimating
abundance in the short term (5 years) no matter what
abundance for the results of the IWCIIDCR cruises should
assumptions are made, nor would itaffect the development also be validated.
of revised management procedures.
Other members stated that it isnow generally recognised 5. Further work on the mitochondrial DNA genome of
that the management procedure incorporated in minke whales from stock Areas other than IV and V should
paragraphs lO(a)-(c) of the Schedule is inadequate . be conducted to examine stock identity,_if suitable samples
are available.
Accordingly they believed that offering advice on catch
limits under this procedure was no longer appropriate. For The sub-committee welcomed the offer from the Japanese
the specific case of minke whales in the Southern government to provide two vessels for a further
Hemisphere they drew attention to the reasons given for IWC/IDCR cruise in 1990/91. It endorsed the
believing that the application of the HITTER routine to recommendation from the Working Group established to
these stocks was inappropriate (see·Item 9.1)and pointed plan this cruise that it should be in Area VI.
out tha,tthere is great uncertainty about stock identity and Ohsumi suggested that there was a need for research in
boundaries, most importantly on the more heavily low latitudes to establish whether the animals on the
exploited Indian Ocean sector (present Areas III and IV). hypothesised breeding grounds shown in Fig. 1 constitute
Thus the problems which made impossible the application separate stocks, this would involve a researchake. Some
of paragraphs lO(a)-(c) remain unresolved. They believed members of the sub-committee noted that appropriate
that the sub-committee does not at this time have samples for such analysis could be collected by biopsy
instructionsfrom the Commission, or any other basis, for darting, and pointed out that the Workshop on Genetic
providing advice on catch limits. They anticipated that the Analysis (SC/42/Repl) had concluded that fixed genetic
revised management procedures now being developed by differences between populations could be detected with
the Management sub-committee would beable to avoid the samples of 20 animals from each population. The
problems described above. However, they noted that sub-committee recommended that a detailed analysis of the
SC/42/Rep2 had indicated that the success of these requirements for a study of stock structure on the breeding
procedures was likely to depend largely on their ability to grounds should be prepared to allow it to evaluate the need
cope with uncertainty about stock identity. for such a research programme.
51Annex 86
124 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE. ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
13. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY REVISED Workshop had suggested ways of disaggregating the data
MANAGEMENT REG~ which might improve the relation ship (Rep. int. Whal.
Commn (special issue 11):18).
The sub-committee reviewed the questions it had received
from the management sub-committee (Appendix 2). It had 14. SPECIAL PERMITS
already provided its response to question 1 on stock The sub-committee reviewed the reports of information
identity in Item 6.6. In response to question 2 (Absolute obtained from catches taken under Special Permits issued
abundance estimates) it noted that Table 1 provided the by the Government of Japan since 1987. SC/42/SHMi28
required information on the frequen cy of surveys and the provided a summary of the purpos e of and results from
sampling properties of the resulting estimates. However, it these catches. SC/42/SHMi21 described the design and use
noted that there was no summarised information available of a device for collecting biopsy samples from whales in the
on the statistical distribution of the error compon ents Antarctic . SC/42/SHMi25 gave a preliminary report on the
which contributed to the variance estimates contained in cruise undertaken in AreaIV between longitude s70•E and
that Table. It identified the major sources of downward 130•E and south of 55•s during 1989/90 as part of this
bias in these estimates: (i) animals north of 60"S; (ii) research programme . A total of 767 primary sightings of
animals within the pack ice; (iii) problems in the estimation minke whale schools and 478 secondary sightings had been
of g(O). made during a total searching distance of 17,094 n.miles.
The magnitude of the biascaused by (i) and (ii) could not 330 individual s (184 males and 142 females) had been
be quantified because it was not known how many of the
sampled, including three diminutive form whales. The
animals north of 6Q•s were likely to be vulnerable to length composition of the whales sampled was different
exploitation (see Item 7.3), and there was no information from that of the commercial catch, with ~ higher
on the number of animals within the pack ice. Problems in proportion of small animals. Mature males dominated the
estimated g(O)could only lead to a downward bias, because catch throughout the research area . Pregnant females were
the sub-committee had assumed g(O) = 1. The analysis in concentrated along the ice edge and in Prydz Bay.
Appendix 4 indicated that the magnitude of the bias caused Immature animals tended to be solitary and distribut ed in
by this assumption was likely to be small. However, the offshore areas. The following papers, which are discussed
sub-committee note that this did not take account of elsewhere in the report, also made use of mater ialcollected
heterog eneities caused by weather conditions which could as part of the Japanese research programme:
provide an additional downward bias. Some upward bias SC/42/SHMi1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 24.
might be caused by the method used to estimate school size Proposals for research in 1990/91 were contained in
in the analysis of PM surveys (see SC/42/SHMi29). SC/42/SHMi9. It was intended to take 300whales ± 10% in
Judgment on the likely magnitude of this bias may be made Area V. It would not have any adverse effects on the
from consideration of the discussion of this issue in Item conservation of the stocks. The expedition would consist of
7.1.1). one factory ship (acting as a research base), three sighting
The sighting surveys estimates could be disaggregated and sampling vessels, and two additional sightings vessels.
into sub-areas, although flexibility was limited by the The sampling scheme would be similar to that used in
survey design. However, it would be possible to provide 1989/90. The proposal described the account which had
estimates which corresponded with the hypothesised been taken of comments made by the Scientific Committee
feeding grounds proposed in Appendix 3. in 1989 (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40:64--{i). Foreign
In answer to question 3 (catch-related abundance scientists were welcome to participate in the cruise.
indices) the sub-committee noted that the Workshop on The sub-committee had commented extensively on
Catch per Unit Effort had reviewed the Antarctic minke previous proposals relating to this programme (Rep. int.
whale CPUE data. It had concluded that the current series Whal. Commn 38:56--57; 39:76). No additional comments
provided little or no information on abundance, but the were made on the current proposal.
Appendix 1
AGENDA
1. Opening remarks, election of Chairman, 5. Review of computing facilities
appointment of Rapporteur(s) 5.1 Hardw are
2. Review and adoption of agenda 5.2 Analysis programs
3. Review of available documentation
4. Review of available data
4.1 .Catches 6. Stock identity
4.2 · Effort 6.1 Genetic analyses
4.3 Sightings 6.2 Discovery mark analyses
4.3.1 Dedicated surveys 6.3 Morphological analyses
4.3.2 Other 6.4 Patt erns of distribution from sightings
4.4 . Biological information 6.5 Other evidence
4.5 Discovery marks 6.6 Implications ·for assessme nt
52 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991
125
7. Estimates of abundance and trends 9. Assessment
7.1 Methodology 9.1 Use of HITIER/FITIER model
7.1.1 Sightingssurveys 9.2 Choice of parameter values for assessment
7.1.2 Use of catch and effort data 9.3 Status of stocks
7.1.3 Mark-recapture
7.2 Abundance estimates 10. Ecosystem considerations
7.2.1 IDCR results 11. Management advice
7.2.2 Japanese scouting vessel results 11.1 Effect of zero catch limits for commercial
7.2.3 Mark-recapture results whaling
7.3 Unsurveyed areas/incomplete estimates 11.2 Classificationof stocks
8. Biologicalparameters 11.3 Other management advice
8.1 Age at recruitment 12. Recommendations for future research
8.2 Age at maturity
8.3 Sex ratios 13. Information required by revised management
8.4 Pregnancy rates regime(s)
8.5 Natural mortality rates
8.6 Catch at age/length data 14. Publicationof documents
8.7 Recruitment rates 15. Adoption of report
Appendix2
QUESTIONS FROM MANAGEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE
1. Stock identity the past, what has been their frequency, what is the
Canyou formulate a set ofplausiblealternative hypotheses maximum range of possible bias, what are the sampling
on stock identity of minke whales in the North properties of the estimates, and to what extent can the
Atlantic/Southern Hemisphere? If so what are they? Do estimates be disaggregated into subareas corresponding to
these hypotheses have any particular demographic the alternative hypotheses on stock identity?
implications?
What has been the historical distribution of catches
across the North AtlanticfSouthern Hemisphere? 3. Catch-related relative abundance indices
To what extent have there been logisticand operational To there evidence that existing catch-related relative
limitations on the exploitation .pattern in this region and abundance indices are monotonically related to ·stock
are they likelyto continue into the future? abundance? If there does existsuchevidence, what are the
sampling variabilityof these indices?
2. Absoluteabundance estimates
For sightingsestimates ofabsolute abundance obtained for If no such series of relative abundance indices exists at
the North AtlanticfSouthern Hemisphere minke whales in present, is it possible to generate one in the future?
Appendix3
REPORT OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALE WORKING GROUP
ON STOCK IDENTITY HYPOTHESES
Members: Harwood .(Convenor), Best, Butterworth, (1)The 'overlap'hypothesis
Cooke, de Ia Mare, Joyce, Kasamatsu, Kato, Lankester, In this hypothesis, 60% of a particular 'stock'feeds within
Punt, Ulltang. its 'home' Area and 20% feeds in part of the Areas
The working group wasconvened to formulate a set of immediately adjacent to the 'home' Area, in each and
alternative hypotheses on stock identity ofminke whales in every year. '
the Southern Hemisphere. The working group has based
its hypotheses on the assumptions that there are five (2)The 'shift-in-unison'hypothesis
breeding grounds for Southern Hemisphere minke whales In this hypothesis, 'stocks'are distributedr half oftheir
as postulated in SC/421SHMi20.It was assumed that the 'home' Areas and half of one of the Areas immediately
feeding areas for the whales of each of these grounds adjacent to theseAreas. All 'stocks'are assumeto shiftto
corresponded, at least roughly, to the Areas defined bythe the right or leftin unison and soeach stillcover 1/6thof the
existing stock boundaries (but with Areas V and VI total area. As a result, each existing Area encompasses
combined). Noting the occasional recapture of animalsfar partof two 'stocks'.
from where they were marked (SCI42/SHMi6), as well as
the substantial shiftsin distribution noted during the IDCR (3)The 'shift-at-random'hypothesis
cruises, the following four basic hypotheses were In this case, there is a probability of 1/3rdthat a 'stock'is
formulated. The word 'stock' is used to describe the distributed over (and can thus be caught in) 50% of the
animals associated with a particular breeding ground. Area to the leftof its 'home'Area, in addition to being
53Annex 86
126 REPORT OF TilE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX E (SOUTIIERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
distributed over its 'home' Area. Ther e is a similar (a) No leakage between breeding grounds
probability of it being distributed over 50% of the Area to
the right of the 'home' Area. There is thus a probability of (b)A limited amount of leakage
1/3rd that a 'stock' feeds only in its 'home' ar~a. The After consideration of the effects of various leakage rates
decision for a particular stock on whethe r to 'shift' to the on an unexploited population , it was suggested that a rate
of 1% per year should be sufficient to permit reasonab ly
left or right istaken independently of the other stocks.The
implementation of this hypothesis may lead to areas of very large scale interchange over 100 years (>50% of a
high density (as a result of concentration of stocks) as well popu lation will change during a 100 year period) but not
too much (less then 2% of a 'stock' will leak to the 'stock'
as areas of relatively low densities.
furthest from the 'home' area).
(4) The 'concentration' hypothesis
A more extreme hypothesis than the 'shift-at random' (c) 'Density dependent' leakage
hypothesis is that whales always attempt to concentra te in a This hypothesis involves making the rate of leakage
small number of geographic regions. Hypothesis (3) is thus between 'stocks'a monotonically increasing function of the
modified so that the 'decision' to feed in the Area to the left degree ·to which the 'stocks'mix on the feeding grounds. In
or right of the 'home' area is taken so as to maximise the order to avoid the possibility that all the whales migrate
degree of concentration (i.e. overlap) of stocks. into one breeding stock , some diffusion-like migration
These four basic hypotheses can be implemented with process(such as that suggested under ·(b)) may also be
various rates of leakage between breeding grounds . Three required when designing a trial with 'density-dependent '
alternative leakage models were suggested. mixing.
Appendix 4
THE USE OF g(O)= 1 FOR SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALE SIGHTING SURVEYS
D.S. Butterworth
Two methods ('PGHR' and 'DNE' - see Rep. itlt. What. The Table indicates that the PGHR g (0)8estimates are
Commn 38:301-13) have been used in the past to attempt
positively biased. This was perhaps to be expected, as
to estimate g(O)for barrel observers only [g (8)] and for inconsistencies in the results of the application of this
the lOP only [g1(0)] from data collected in 10 mode survey. method have already been indicated (e.g. Rep. int. What.
We re an estimate of g (0) to be used in assessing total Commn 38:301-13).
8
abundance, it would have to be applied to density However, the Table also indicates that using the DNE
estimates calculated from sightings from the barrel only g8(0) estimates to calculate abundances wouldnot result in
(Ds (barrel only)], and not to density estimates based on substantia l differences (on average) to the current
sightings from all platforms (Ds (all)].
approach of using sightings from all platforms and
Table 1 can be used to compare the ratios of assuming that g(O) = 1.
The current approach therefore does not ignoreexisting
estimates of g(O), but appears to be reaso nably consistent
[Ds (barrel only)/g8(0)] : Ds (all)
with one of the g (8) estimation methods proposed. The
DNE g (08 estimate could, of course, be positively biased
which is the inverse of the ratio [g8(0)/g8(0)EMP]given in for reasons outlined in, for example, Rep. int. Whal.
the Table for various strata for the 1985/6and 1986n IDC R Commn 40:349-55. The possible magnitude of such a bias
cruises . cannot, however, be assessed for existing data .
Tablet
Compari son of 'empirical 'g(O) estimates with those from 'standard' methods. An 'empirical' positively biased
el?timate of g(O) for the bar9el (g (0)awl on the !CDR cruises is provided by the ratio of the density estimate for
sightings from all platforms to that for the barrel-only sigh10nmode data. The 1985/6 and 1986n cruises
provide the following results. (Standard errors have not been shown because of co-variance complications.)
• - vessel averages taken. + = excludesSources: D = SC/421SHMi5and M. Haw; g(O)-Rep. inL WhaLCommn
38:301-13. Implications:g(O)PGHRis substantially positfvelybiased; g(O)oNBis not substantially negatively biased.
gs(O)PGHR gs(O)DNB
fi,
Vessel Stratum (barrel only) D,(all) gs(O)EMP &s(O)PGHR &s(O)DNB &s(O)EMP gs(O)BMP
1985186
K27 ws 0.0265 0.0476 0.56 0.7 0.33 0.84 0.66
K27 EN 0.0371 0.0543 0.68 0.47 0.33 0.69 0.49
SM1 WI 0.0361 0.0801 0.45 0.73 042 1.62 0.93
SMl EI 0.0461 0.1047 0.44 0.73 0.42 1.66 0.95
SM2 WN 0.0126 0.0521 0.24 0.92 0.50 3.83 2.08
SM2 ES 0.0984 0.1644 0.60 0.92 0.0 1.53 0.83
1936/87
K27+SM1+SM2 WICE 0.0487 0.1216 0.40 0.85• 0.7' 2 13 1.43
SM1 WN 0 0.0100 0.00 0.79 0.48 ..
SM1+K27 ElCE 0.0395 0.0622 0.64 0.81' 0.51' 1.27 0.89
SM2+K27 EN 0.0405 0.0890 0.46 0.89• 0.61' 1.93 133
Average+: 1.72 1.07
54 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 127
Appendix 5
AGE AT RECRUITMENT IN SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES
J. Harwood and H. Kato
The estimate of age at recruitment used most recently by age-class. These age-specific selectivitiesare presented as
the Southern Hemisphere Minke whale su~ommittee .S-age class running means in the figure below.
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:76)isbased ona rather ancient It can be seen that both sexes are fully recruited by age
application of the CPOP program. The sub-committee 11. .
decided to examine data which had become available in
recent years to see if a more appropriate value could be
derived.
We compared the age structure of the commercialcatch
in Area IV E with the age structure of the Japanese ,'-.___
researchcatch taken between105°Eand llSoE (Kato etal., , /' ...
-'
1990Rep. int. What. Commn 40:249-56). The combined, .~----
corrected agestructuref the maleand the female research
catch (tl\ken from Table of Kato eta/.) was assumed to
reflect the age structureof the population. Separate
selectivities were calculated for male and females by - males - - - females
15 20 25 30
·dividingthe proportion of the catch inaparticular age-class 5 10
by the propo~t io nhe research catch in the same Age in years
Appendix 6
REVISED RESULTS FROM IDTTER TRIALS
Note: for the reasons explained in Annex F, Appendix 12, Abbreviations: K' = initial total+)1population size;
these results differ slightly from those presented at the K• = exploitableinitialpopulation size1990= total +)
meeting. As the differences are sosmallonly the corrected population size at the start of the 1990/91season; =•
1990
values are presented here. exploitable population size at the start of the 1990/91
season; MSY = MSYR x MSYL x K•; fe 199/K• =
Notesto the Tables exploitable female depletion level in 1990.
Parameters used are .as _follows: female age at first
parturition, at% MSYR = 8.5 yrs, at 95% MSYR = 15
yrs; age at recruitment, at 50% MSYR = 7 yrs, at 95% Notesto the Figures
MSYR = 10yrs; and mortality rat= 0.1. In the figures, (i) year shown is earlier of years used to
Runs for MSYR = 0% were carried out with MSYR = denote season, e.g. 86/87 season is denoted 1986; (ii)
0.001% for computational reasons, and are accordingly depletion iWgiK. expressed as a percentage; (iii) the units
denoted 0*. for total population sWgeare thousands.
55Annex 86
128 REPO RT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE , ANN EX E (SOUTHERN HEMIS PHERE MINKE WHALES )
Table!
Hitting'best'population estimates
MS YR%= o• 2 3 4 M SYR%= o• 1 2 3 4
Area I Abundan ce estimate = 73302 in 1982/83 Area VAbundance estimate = 294610 in 1985/86
K•
K' 43865 43222 42586 41956 41334 164517 163360 162288 161288 160343
81422 80223 79037 77865 K' 309918 307738 305719
K' 82632 303835 302056
N\ggJK' 0.846 0.877 0.907 0.934 0.960 N\ ggJK' 0.935 0.947 0.958 0.968 0.977
N\ ggJK' 0.843 0.859 0.876 0.893 0.910 N\ wfK• 0.943 0.948 0.953 0.958 0.963
RY I990 84 194 294 384 462 RYI990 -86 88 249 400 543
M SY 03 2593 511.0 755.2 992.0 MSY 1.0 980.2 1947.5 2903.2 3848.2
1 0.869 0.886 0.903 0.920 1 0.929 0.934 0.944
F'twfK 0.852 F"twfK 0.939 0.949
Area II Abundance estimate • 122156 in 1986/87 AreaVI Abundance estimate = 106901 in 1983/84
K" 78467 76352 74398 72601 70954 K' 58337 58183 58029 57878 57728
K' 147816 143833 140152 136766 133663 K' 109897 109605 109316 109031 108748
N \wfK' 0.815 0.846 0.876 0.904 0.929 N\wfK' 0.954 0.964 0.973 0.982 0.991
0.828 0.846 0.864 0.882 0.899 0.953 0.957 0.960 0.964 0.967
N'twfK' N'twfK '
-160 25 185 319 428 69 131 192 251 309
RYI990 RYI990
MSY 0.5 458.1 892 8 1306.8 1702 9 MSY 0.4 349.1 696.4 1041.8 1385.5
1 1
F'twfK 0.804 0.821 0.839 0.856 0.873 F'twfK 0.958 0.961 0.965 0.968 0.972
Area Ill Abundance estimate • 88735 in 1987/88 Areas V + VI Abundance estimate = 401511 in 1984/85
K• 65682 63446 61336 59349 57480 K' 222323 221119 219994 218934 217924
K' 123733 119519 115545 111802 108281 K' 418813 416546 414426 412428 410527
N\ wfK' 0.701 0.734 0.767 0.800 0.831 N\ wfK' 0.940 0.951 0.962 0.971 0.980
0
N'twfK 0.729 0.746 0.763 0.781 0.799 N'twfK' 0.945 0.950 0.955 0.960 0.964
RYI990 -209 -10 170 333 480 RY~1 -18 219 441 651 852
MSY 0.4 380.7 736.0 1068.3 1379 .5 MSY 1.3 1326.7 2639.9 3940,8 5230.2
F"mJK[ 0.674 0.688 0.704 0.720 0.736 F"twfK 1 0.936 0.941 0.946 0.951 0.955
Area IV Abundance estimate= 74692 in 1988/89 Key:
K' 61040 58115 55414 52926 50635 MSYIR = maximumsustainable yield/rate;
109478 104390 99702 95387 K - unexploited population size;
K' 114988
0.639 0.678 0.717 0.756 0.794 superscript e = exploitable population;
N\ wfK'
N\ wfK ' 0.654 0.673 0.693 0.714 0.736 superscript ttotalpopulation;
RYI990 42 251 436 599 741 F or g females;
MSY 0.4 348.7 665.0 952.7 1215.2 N ~ males+Cemales;
1 0.659 0.678 0.698 RY = replacement yield.
F"twfK 0.623 0.640
56 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991
129
Table2
Hitting lower 95% confidence limit (MSYL=60%)
MSYR%= o• 2 3 4 MSYR%=. o• 2 3 4
Area I Abundance estimate= 36065 in 1982/83 Area V Abundance estimate = 213298 in 1985186
Ke 24092 23539 22994 22460 21936 Ke 121351 120219 119171 118192 117268
K' 45385 44342 43317 42310 41323 K' 228602 226470 224495 222651 220911
N\wJK' 0.719 0.763 0.806 0.848 0.889 N\wfK' 0.912 0.928 0.942 0.954 0.966
~~wfK· 0.714 0.737 0.760 0.784 0.808 N"twfK" 0.922 0:929 0.936 0.943 0.949
394 -86
RYt990 85 172 252 326 RY1990 81 237 383 521
MSY 0.1 141.2 275.9 404.3 526.5 MSY 0.7 721.3 1430.1 2127.5 2814.4
F"twfKr 0.731 0.754 0.778 0.802 0.827 F"twfKr 0.903 0.910 0.917 0.923 0.929
Area n Abundance estimate = 75737 in 1986/87 Area V1 Abundance estimate = 47678 in 1983/84
K" 53807 51935 50198 48592 47109 . K" 26899 26749 26601 26455 26310
K' 101362 97835 94564 91538 88745 K' 50673 50391 50112 49836 49563
N\wJK' 0.730 0.768 0.804 0.839 0.872 N'twfK' 0.901 0.920 0.939 0.957 0.974
N"twfK" 0.749 0.770 0.791 0.813 0.834 N"twfK" 0.898 0.905 0.912 0.919 0.926
RY1990 -158 -2 135 254 355 RY 1990 69 126 182 236 290
MSY 0.3 311.6 602.4 874.7 1130.6 MSY 0.2 160.5 319.2 476.2 631.4
F"twfKr 0.714 0.734 0.754 0.774 0.794 F"twfKr 0.909 0.916 0.923 0.930 0.937
Area III Abundance estimate= 40286 in 1987/88 Areas V +V1 Abundance estimate = 260976 in 1984/85
K" 39876 38276 36784 35395 34101 K" 147719 146546 145448 144413 143429
K' 75119 72104 69294 66677 64240 K' 278274 276063 273995 272046 270192
N\wJK' . 0.510 . 0.539 0.569 0.598 0.628 N\wfK' 0.910 0.926 0.941 0.955 0.968
N"twfK' 0.555 0.569 0.584 0.599 0.614 N\wfK " 0.918 0.925 0.932 0.938 0.945
RYI990 -199 -77 32 131 220 RY1990 -17 208 420 621 812
MSY 0.2 229.7 441.4 637.1 818.4 MSY 0.9 879.3 1745.4 2599.4
3442.3
F'\wfKr 0.464 0.474 0.485 0.497 0.508 F"twfKr 0.904 0.911 0.918 0.924 0.931
Area lV Abundance estimate = 36300 in 1988/89
K" 40589 38479 36550 34787 33176
K' 76462 72487 68853 65533 .62497
N\wfK' 0.459 0.490 0.521 0.553 0.585
N\ wfK" 0.481 0.495 0.510 0.525 0.541
RYt990 48 178 292 394 485
MSY 0.2 230.9 438.6 626.2 796.2
F"twfKr 0.433 0.445 0.457 0.470 0.483
57Annex 86
130 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE , ANNEX E (SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES)
Table3 TableS
Results of HITTER runs wiMS'q-~80 u%ing R~sul tsing variable K: constant before 1930, increasing
best available abundance estimates linearly to 1972w~th =3~ and constant after 1972.
972930
MSYR%= o• 2 3 4 MSYR%= 2 3 4
AreaII Abundance estimate = 122156 in 1986 80% MSYL Area IV Abundance estimate = 74692 in 1988189
K" 78464 73742 69752 66491. 64011 K" 61020 42168 31652 24777 20498
K' 147810 138916 131399 125257 120585 K' 114950 80566 59627 46676 38614
N\~' 0.815 0.884 0.946 0.995 1.021 N\~' 0.639 0.925 1.265 1.630 1.981
N'"l~· 0.828 0.871 0.914 0.954 0.991 w~· 0.654 0.907 1.195 1.498 1.787
-160 .183 441 592 601 42 356 608 796 927
RY1990 RYI990
MSY 0.6 589.9 1116.0 1595.8 2048.4 MSY 0.4 256.6 379.8 446.0 491.9
F"t~r 0.804 0.846 0.887 0.926 0.962 F"t~r 0.623 0.862 1.135 1.421 1.693
Area IV Abundance estimate= 74692 in 1988 80% MSYL 750000 .........................
K• 49158 46101
61039 56562 52625 700000
K' 114985 106552 99135 92605 86845
N\~' 0.639 0.698 0.758 0.819 0.881 650000
0.654 0.689 0.725 0.761 0.797 fags<.%.--;;C:; '-"1;-9.;A".,;b;:und=an=c=-•-:•:;•t;:tm::ao::to~e;;;;2;;c817=e
N"l~· eooooo·· O% - .% - " - 3" --4%
RY1990 42 293 516 715 892 1941 1958 1G68 1978 1988
N(tot•I)IK
MSY o.s 452.5 842.0 1179.8 1475.2
F"t~r 0.623 0;656 0.689 0.722 0.755
1001----------
ss
90
..'' .......
IS ._ ...
• •o% - -1·~-ln2% -a3%m-•% 82In1985
80
1o.ta 1058 19ee 1975 19aa
Fig. 1Population size and depletion. All Areas,1985 population size=
628,176
Table4
SOOOOrON(.,to"'ta,tl'---------------,
Results of HITTER runs for Areas I-VIcombined ..........................
osoooo -----------------··
..:.:....-:: :.:.-:.-.::-_- ~~~ --.
MSYR%= 2 3 4 1-----------..:':- ~. :_:...·.
&00000 -- .... ;::; •••
A Using best abundance estimate of 760,396in 1985186
75000G
K• 468530 458908 449813 441234 433149
K' 882619 864493 847361 831199 815968 700000
N\~' 0.837 0.865 0.892 0.917 0.940
N·t~· 0.847 0.863 0.878 0.893 0.908 ISOOOGI--=:Abtol,-d"-'ta""=7"'ao"'s"'ee~.,..,,.,l~5~
-267 805 1757 2590 3306
RYtm 600000•• 0% - •1% -2V. - 3% -·"14
MSY 2.8 2753.4 5397.8 7942.2 10395.6 ,... 19!1 1981 1978 1900
N(lolal)tK
F"t~r 0.828 0.843 0.858 0.872 0.887
~or---------------._~
B. Using lower 95% confidence limit of 628,176 in 1985/86
85
K" 398318 389026 380237 371937 364106
K' 750353 732849 716292 700657 685905
N\~' 0.808 0.840 0.870 0.898 0.924 90
....
N\~• 0.820 0.837 0.854 0.871 0.887 -....--
RY -264 . 752 1660 2459 3153 IS
1990
MSY 2.4 2334.2 4562.8 6694.9 8738.5 Abundance tiUmate 760In 1185
F"~r 0.798 0.814 0.830 0.847 0.863 OQ •• 0% - •1% - 2% - 3% -·%
1941 1151 1esa 1978 me
Fig. 2Population size and depletion .AllAreas, 1985population size=
760,396.
58 Annex 86
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 41, 1991 131
150000 r10~~TA~L~----------------------------------------.
120000
90000 ---
..~-- ---
----
-
60000 -· -
-·-·
increasing
30000 0% - ·1% -2% - 3% -4%
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Fig. 3. Population size for Area IV. 198=p74,692 increasing carrying capacity (see Table 5).
Appendix 7
CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF EXPLOITABLE FEMALE MINKE WHALES SINCE 1984
Changes in the number of exploitable female minke wha1984 as predicted by the HITIER routine using the
(expressed as a proportion of their number in 1972) sparameter values shown in Table 2 of the report .
MSYR% 84/85 85186 86/8787/88 88189 89/9090/91 MSYR% 84185 85186 86/8787188 .88/8989/90
90/91
Area I Abundance = 73302 in1982/83 Area IV Abundan=74692in 1988/89
o• 0.8636 0.8554 0.8488 0.8442 o.8479 o.8506 oo•522 0.6966 0.6762 0.6585 0.6411 0.64950.66037
1 0.8680 0.8617 0.8570 0.8544 0.8603 0.8652 1 0.6998 0.6815 0.6660 0.6508 0.6629 0.6760 0.6810
4 0.8821 0.8816 0.8828 0.8863 0.8986 0.9098 0.9200 0.7143 017029 1.694520.6862 00.2340 0.7492
Female catch 3012621 2071 Female catch 102956 949 119 144
Area II Abundance = 122156in 1986/87 Area V Abundan=e294610in 1985186
o• o.8536 o.8484 o.8394 o.8375 o.8405 o.8424 o.8435 0.9369 0.9348 0.9312 0.9255 0.9291 0.9298 0.9315
1 0.8602 0.8569 0.8497 0.8500 0.8552 0.8594 018628 0.9379 0.9362 0.9332 0.0.9324 0.9340 0.9366
4 0.8818 018840 1.8822 0.8883 0.8998 0.9100 0.9192 0.9397 019393 1.9378 0.9344 0.9408 0.9447 0.9498
Female catch 406532 227 Female catch 573670 851 155
Area III Abundance = 88735in 1987188 Area VI Abundan=106901in 1983/84
o• 0.7191 0.6996 o.6785 o.6624 o.6712 o.6774 0.6816 0.9587 0.9580 0.9578 0.9517 0.9546 0.9568 0.9581
1 0.7189 0.7013 0.6822 0.6683 0.6802 0.6895 016967 0.9590 0.9586 0.9588 0.0.95660.9594 0.9616
4 0.7204 0.7089 0.6960 0.6891 0.7106 0.7291 0.7450 0.9600 0.9604 0.9616 0.0.9624 0.9673 0.9721
Female catch 1085 . 19111 Female catch 124101 2851
1 2
Catches under objecCatches under scientific permit.
5960 Annex 87
87. Kirkwood G P, “Background to the Development of Revised Management
Procedures”, Annex I, Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
42, 1992, p. 236
236 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX I (MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES)
Annex I
Background to the Development of Revised Management
Procedures
G.P. Kirkwood
1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROBLEMS WITH APPLICATION OF THE
In 1982, the International Whaling Commission adopted a EXISTING MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
Schedule provision to implement a pause in commercial The.procedures currently in force for the management of
whaling to take effect from the 1985/86pelagic and 1986 whale stocks bythe Commission are set out in paragraph 10
coastal seasons. In taking this decision, it also agreed that the Schedule for commercial whaling, and in paragraph
this provision wouldbe kept under review, based on the 13for aboriginal subsistence whaling. In its examination of
best scientific advice,d that by 1990 at the latest the management procedures as part of the Comprehensive
Commission would undertake acomprehensive assessment Assessment, the Scientific Committee has concentrated
of the effe.cts of this decision on whale stocks and considerlely on the provisions for commercial whaling in
modification of this provision and the establishment of paragraphs 10 (a)-(c), which together havebeen termed
other catch limits. the 'New Management Procedure' (NMP). Only
Subsequently, at a special meeting in 1986the Scientific management of baleen whales has been considered.
Committee met to consider what should constitute a Problems in full implementat ionf the NMP have been
Comprehensive Assessment. As detailed in Rep. int. Whal. noted by .the Scientific Committee since the late 1970s.
Commn (special issue 11): 3, the Scientific Committee Many of these have arisen because of difficulties in
agreed that, from its viewpoint, a Comprehensive esiimating the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), the
Assessment can be considered as 'anin-depth evaluation of stock level at which MSY can be taken (MSYL) and the
the status of all whale stocks in the light of management initial stock level prior to exploitation.Even when
objectives and procedures'.he major areas of work that estimates of these quantities have been made for a
must be carried out to achieve this were agreed to be: particular stock, the changes in estimates as they are
updated annually has often led to widely fluctuating catch
limits, especially for stocks are estimated to be close to
(1) to review and revise assessment methods, data quality MSYL. This was perhaps most evident with Western North
and availability, and stock identity; Pacific sperm whales in the late 1970s.
(2) to plan and conduct the collection of new information The net effect of these problems was that by the early
to facilitate and improve assessments; 1980s, the Scientific Committee found almost impossible
to reach consensus on recommendations for classifications
(3) to examine revised management procedures. and catch limitsf stocks subject to commercial whaling,
other than those for protected stocks. This was a factor in
the Commission's decision to implement a pause in
In identifying these three areas, the Scientific Committee commercial whaling.
Jaid particularemphasis on the interaction betwe.en
management procedures and the scientific information
needed to implement them. On these grounds, it agreed 3. OBJECTIVES FOR MANAGEMENT
that research aimed at developing improved management
procedures that could replace the existing Commission . An essential element in the search for an improved
management procedure was a vital element of the management procedure is a specification of the objectives
that must be met by the management procedure. This
Comprehensive Assessment . The !lim of thisresearch is for specificationust be sufficiently precise that it can be
the Committee to be able to recommend a revised determined objectively whether or not a proposed revised
management procedure for adoption and use by the
Commission in future whal e management. management procedur e satisfies thobjecti l:ettsrthan
Sincethe 1986special meeting ,progress in development the NMP or other proposed procedures.
of revised management procedures has been monitored The primary source for specification of objectives must
· be the Convention. However, the wording in that
and directed at each subsequent annual meeting of the document is very ge neral. A first step towards clearer
Scientific Committee, and at annual intersessional specificationf management objectives that must be met
workshops. In accordance with a workplan adopted by the by any future management policy was taken by a Joint
Scientific Committee and agreed by the Commission at the
1990Annual Meeting, the Scientific Committee underto ok Working Group of the Scientific and Technical
to complete the development process and make fina( Committees in 1981 (IW033 /13). Drawing on the three
recommendation s on revised management procedures at aims identifid by that group, the Scientific Committee
its 1991 Annual Meeting. This report outlines the process subsequently proposed and the Commission accepted the
following objectives (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38:36):
adopted for development of potential revised management
procedures, leading up to and including recommendations (i) stability catch limits, which would be desirable for
to the Commission. the orderly development of the whaling industry;
6162 Annex 88
88. Resignation Letter from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Philip
Hammond, to the IWC Secretary, Ray Gambell (26 May 1993)
Sea Mammal
@ Research
Unit
clo British Antarctic Surve y
High Cross. Madin gley Road
Camb ridge CBJ OET
United Kingd om
RECEIVED Telephone (0223) 311354
Telex 817725 BASCAM G
Dr R. Gambell 3 1 MAY1993 racsllnil e (0223) 328927
Secretary IWC I.·;·.\ . Your ref
The Red House
Station Road, Histon Our ref IWC/2.1
CAMBRIDGE CB4 4NP
26 May 1993
Dear Ray
As you know I have been an active member of the Scientific Committee since 1981,
chairing various working groupsub-committees and being elected vice-chainnan
in 1988.hen I was elected Chairman in 1991, the highest priority for the
Committee was to complete the Revised Management Procedure . By that time it had
long been recognised that the NMP was unworkable so that, although the-e was a
managementprocedure defined in the Schedule, the Commission effect_ivelyhad no
mechanism in place for the management of commercial whaling; an unacceptable
situation forinternational organisation wia mandate . It was my job to
guide the Scientific Committee to finalise the RMP as soon as possible.
In 1992, the Committee unanimously recommended the adoption of the draft
specification for the RMP, whilst recognising that work remained to be done on
documentation of the computer programs, on specifying minimum standards for data
required for the RMP, and on outlining guidelines for conducting surveys and
analysing data from them. In a resolution, the Commission accepted the draft
specification, thus recognisinglhe...RMJ>J,repac.~hcJ~J' nd hig,lighted ·
these other aspects whneed~e~gr.e!< ]:e<oethe umbrella Revised
Man~ge .s.Jn;!ch eoued!1-~ompleted.
Thls year, the Scientific Committee completed its,part of that work and unanimously
recommended itto thCommi:g;i9.Jno.r.arl.opttendor.se.ro.ent. Although a
minority viewad been expressed stating that the RMS required further monitoring
thanthat implicn the RMP itself, the Scientific Committee even agreed
unanimously on other data which should be required under the RMS. The question
ofwhether or not monitoring of the RMP's performance should be a minimum
requirement of theS was, therefore, elevat.ed.J.o__9<:jnqfor the
Commission to make; the practical scientific implications had already been dealt with.
Thus, one of the most interesting and potentially far·reaching chapters in the science
of naturalesource management came to a conclusion. The Commission could now
put in pla a mechanism for the safe management of commercial whaling, regardless
of whether or not the 'mora torium' was lifted.
Natural E.irrirollCo a.ncU•earcb
63Annex 88
The reality was somewhat different. At the Commission meeting, the work of the
Scientific Committee '"as praised and acknowledged hy severa l delegations to be
complete, but it remained unadapted. The future of this unique piece of work, for
which the Commission had bee n waiting for many years, was left in the air. This has
left the Commission in the incongruous position of having accepted the draft
specification of the RMP but having neither accepted nor adopted the final version.
Of course, the reasons for this were nothing to do with science. Although, despite the
unanimity of the Scientific Committee's recommendation, some Commissioners used
selective quotations out of context from the Committee's report to justify not adopting
the RMP on 'scientific' grounds.
But the matter of substance is, what is the point of having aScientific Committee if its
unanimous recommendations on a matter of primary importance are treated with such
contempt? And in what position does this leave the Chairman?
I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer justify to myself being the
organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by
the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the
Committee to spend their valuable time working hard during the year and even
harder at annual meetings knowing how the results of this work may be treated. And
I cannot justify to my employer spending a significant amount of my own time to such
an unproductive end.
I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific
Committee.
The morale of the Scientific Committee is lower than at any other time in my ·
experience and I think many members will understand my position. Ihope that some
Commissioners will, too.
I am, of course, prepared to continue as Chairman for a short time until the new
Chairman is able to take over and to help, if needed, in the development of the work
plan for the coming year.
I plan to maintain my scientific participation in the work of the Committee and .Iam
willing to continue as Convenor of the Steering Group on management procedures if
the new Chairman so desires..
Yours sincerely
Philip Hammond
2
64 Annex 88
~
\@' Or. L. A. rlcrs cher (Mexico) The Red House,
Station Road , Histon,
International Vice-Chairman Cambridg e CB4 4NP
Dr. P. Bridgewa ter (Australia) Uni ted Kingdom
Whaling
Secreta!)' lel epho ne: (0223) 23397 1
Commission Dr. H Gambell Fax:0223) 232876
Your Ref. Our Ref.
RGN IH /19814 IJune 1993
CIRCULAR COMMUNICATION TO COMMISSIONERS, CONTRACTING GO VER NMENTS
AND MEMBER S OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITfEE
Resignation of the Chairman of the Scientific Committee
The Secretary has received the enclosed letter from Dr Philip Hammond notifying his resignation from the
position Chairman of the Scientific Committee.
Rule C.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the SCientific Committee states that: "The Vice-Chairmal) shall act
forhe Chairman in his absence." Dr Steve Reilly, the Vice-Chairman, has indicated that he is willing to
'act'as Chairmantil the Scientific Committee has the opportunity to meet and conduc t an electio n.
DrR. Gambe ll
Secretz.rytoe Commissio n
Enc
6566 Annex 89
89. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp. 57-62
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 43, 1993
basis for the culling of marine mammals to protect fish developed for choosing the precise form of implementation
stocks. A workshop to examine and develop suitable
should be recorded, normally in the appropriate
models and determine data requirements to investigate this annotations to the specification.
problem will take place in the coming year.
6.1.2 Possible need for additional simulation trials
T!J.eCommittee discussed the potential need for further
6. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT- REVISED single or multi-stock simulation trials tobe carried out
MANAGEMENTPROCEDUREFORCOMMERC~ prior to finalising the draft specification and undertaking
WHALING (alsosee Annex D) the task of implementation for particular stocks and
6.1 Further development of Revised Management regions. With ·respect to completion of the draft
specification,it agreed that further single stock trials
Procedure (RMP) examining the effects of different inter-survey intervals
At the 1992 Special Meeting in Copenhagen, the were needed in relation to the proposed phaseout rule.
Committee had developed a draft specification for the
RMP (IWC/44/4A, Annex D). In that draft, there were a Specificationand resultsof these are discussed tinder Item
6.1.3.
number of items that remained to be finalised. As It also agreed that additional single stock trials were
recommended by the Special Meeting, the management needed to examine further the robustness of the procedure
procedures steering group presented a revised draft for
consideration at this meeting. to potential degradation of the environment in the future.
Previous robustness trials had considered cases where
either the carrying capacity, K, or stock productivity
6.1.1 Scope and presentation (measured by the MSY rate, MSYR) varied with time, but
In discussing the scope of the draft specification, the not when both varied together.It was suggested that if the
Committee agreed that it was designed solely for
application to baleen whales. It also noted that most environment was to deteriorate in the future, it is likely
simulation trials used in the development of multi-stock that this would be reflected in a simultaneous decline in
both carrying capacity and stock productivity.
management rules have been based on potential Accordingly, trials were set up in whichboth K andSYR
management of baleen whale species that undertake decline linearly to half their initial values over ther
migrations between breeding grounds in lower latitudes
and feeding grounds in higher latitudes, with previous management period.
whaling operations primarily only in higher latitudes. The results of these trials are discussedunder Item 4.1.2
of Annex D, and in Appendix 4 to that Annex. The
While recognising that not all baleen whales on which Committee agreed that the RMP demonstrated robust
whaling operations might in the future be contemplated performance in the circumstances modelled. Given these
would necessarily follow this pattern (e.g. Bryde's,
humpback and right whales), the Committee agreed that results, the Committee agreed that the extensive trials
carried out prior to and during this meeting were now
the framework outlined in the draft specification was sufficient,and that no more trials would be needed for it to
designed to be suitable for calculationofcatch limitsfor all complete its development of the draft specification.
baleen whale species. .
It was also noted that, while the title of the draft With respect to implementation for particular species
specification developed at the 1992Special Meeting refers and regions, however, the Committee recognised that the
rules for calculating catch limits contained in the draft
to a revised management procedure, in reality the draft specification, especially those involving possible useof
specification is primarily restricted to procedures for the catch-capping and/or catch-cascading, require(j detailed
calculation of catch limits. A change in name of the draft
specification to reflect these points was agreed. consideration on a case-by-case basis. Almost inevitably,
When discussing the appropriate mode of presentation this would require reviewingthe results of implementation
simulation trials specificallytailored for that species and
of the draft specification, the Committee noted that it was region. These trials should encompass, as far as possible,
difficult to be fully prescriptive in definitions that are to the full range of plausible hypotheses consistent with the
apply to allbaleen whales. 1n addition, in a number of
places, there are provisions for alternative actions to be biological data available for that species and region. In
addition, they shmild incorporate the known catch
taken, based on a reviewof relevant biologicalinformation historiesfor the speciesand region, and available estimates
and possiblyon the results ofcase-specificsimulation trials. of absolute abundance with associated variance related
The Committee therefore agreed that the text of the draft
specificationshould be annotated at those placeswhere the statistics.
need for interpretations arose, or where further The Committee therefore recommends that suitable
case-specific simulation trials carried out prior to the
consideration· possibly involving extra simulation trials initial implementation for each species and region.Such
may be necessary before implementation. These trials for Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke
annotations should be of an explanatory nature, including
examples where possible, and indications of the types of whales are discussed under Item 7.
criteriao be applied when choosing between alternative
actions. 6.1.3 Specification of rules for setting catch limits
It was pointedout that it is often difficult to determine The Committee then proceeded to review the draft
the basis on which decisions of the kind required when specification.The completed draft is given in Annex H.
implementing the procedure for a particular species and Explanations of text, includingexamples and criteria to be
region have been made by the Committee in the past, used when choosing between alternative actions, are ·
because ·of inadequate or widelydispersed documentation. contained in the annotations that are also given in Annex
The Committee recommends that particular care be taken H.
to provide fulldocumentation ofall implementations ofthe In one aspect relating to the phaseout and associated
RMP to a species and region. In particular, criteria used orrules (Items 2.3 and 2.4), Annex H is incomplete. In the
67Annex 89
58 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
draft specification adopted at the 1992 Special Meeting amendment of the procedure is not something that should
(IWC/44/4A}, it was tentatively envisaged that phasing out be undertaken without careful consideration.
of catches would not begin until ten years had elapsed after The Committee has undertaken a very lengthy and
theyear pertaining to the last acceptable (i.e. that met the comprehensive process to develop the procedure described
requirements of Item 2.2 of the draft specification) in Annex H. It was believed essential that any proposed
estimate of absolute abundance. However, it was noted future changes should be subject to a similarly
that this required further consideration. comprehensive review before they could be approved by
The tentative identification of a period of ten years was the Committee for recommendation to the Commission.
based on the results of robustness trials which showed little For substantive changes, this would involve repeating
deterioration in performance with an inter-survey interval many ·of the computer trials previously undertaken to
of ten years over those with an interval of five years. The ensure that the performance of any proposed amended
Committee agreed that it wished to see results of further, procedure was in fact better than the current procedure. In
more exhaustive, simulation trials of the effect of consequence, evaluation of proposed amendments or
increasing the inter-survey interval from five to ten years improvements should be undert.aken only after careful
before attempting to reach conclusions. These trials, which consideration in lightof the Commission's priorities .
involved inter alia looking at combinations of factors The Committee briefly discussed possible ways in which
previously only examined individually in single stock evaluation of such proposals might most efficiently be
robustness trials, are describedn Item 4.1.2 of Annex D. carried out . The following suggestions were made.
In none of the single factor trials carried out was there (i) It is essential that adequate notice be given to the
.any notable increase in risk to the stock as the survey . Commission and Scientific Committee of any
interval was increased up to ten years. Similar conclusions proposal for amendment of the RMP, either in its
were reached in trials involving combinations of these general specificationor case-specific implementation.
factors .he only notable risk-related effect wasfound for a (ii) Given the time it would take for the Committee to
combination of episodic events and a positive bias in the . evaluate such proposals, it would be necessary that
abundance estimates. For this combination, the scaled suitable evidence be presented to indicate that the
lowest population size statistic was somewhat lower when proposed amendment would indeed represent an
the inter-survey interval was increased to ten years .(see improvement. In this context, an amended procedure
Item 4.1.2, Annex D) . However, while the trials showed that allowed higher catches or lower catch li,mit
little effecton risk to the stock if the survey interval is variability would only be considered an improvement
increased, total catcheswere reduced by up to 20% when by the Committee if it could be shown that it
the MSYR was relatively high. performed at least as well on risk-related statistics.
These trials served only to confirm that the primary This evidence should take the form of appropriate,
effecton single stock trials of an inter-survey interval of ten fully specified and programmed simulation trials
years was a reduction in catch, rather than an increase in (including at least the robustness trials used to
risk. At least over this range of survey intervals, the RMP evaluate the currently proposed RMP}, the results of
compensates for the reduced information in the survey which would need to be available to the Committee
data by reducing catches. The ability of the procedure to do before the proposal could be considered. These
this is related to the restricted amount of information should have been carried out by the proposer .
provided by time series of absolute abundance estimates (iii) Further simulation trials and/or modification of trials
collected at inter-survey intervals within this range. The already carried out should be specified by the
additional information provided by surveys with the Committee, along with criteria for the evaluation of
assumed levels of variability conducted at five-year the results. Advice to the Commission could then be
intervals is, in fact, not that much greater than that given at its next annual meeting, subject to completion
provided by teo yearly surveys. The reduction in catches of the work specified.
also results from the fact that the procedure was tuned The Committee agreed that these suggestions seemed
during development to meet agreed performance criteria, reasonable, but noted that there had been insufficient time
of which mainten ance of acceptably low levels of risk is available to allow thorough deliberation. It recommends
given highest priority. Schweder pointed out that relative that this issue be considered further.
weighting given to data in the statistical estimation
procedures embodied in the catch limit algorithm (see Item 6.1.5 Documentation and availability of programs
3, Annex H) may also be a contributing factor. Calculation of catch limits according to the draft
Despite these findings, some members expressed specification is accomplished using a computer program
concerns about the prospect of teo years elapsing before ·heldand verified by the Secretariat. In addition, the large
phaseout of catches commenced , citing other issues that set of simulation .trials used by the Committee in
could not be addressed in simulation trials alone. In viewof developing the RMP was carried out using a computer
this, the selection of an appropriate period to elapse before program developed by the Secretariat. The Committee
phaseout s were invoked was referred to the Commission discussed whether additional documentation to that
for advice. This is discussed furtherunder Item 6.2.1. already existing in the Secretariat was necessary for either
of these programs, and the extent to which these programs
6.1.4 Future changes to the RMP should be publicly available. The extent of existing
The Committee agreed that a revised management documentation for the two programs was reviewed by the
procedure recommended by the Committee and adopted sub-committee on management procedures (see Item 4.3,
by the Commission should be able to be amended and Annex D). ·
improved in the future, in the light of advances in For the program implementing the calculation of catch
knowledge and methodology . Indeed; it recognised that limits, Allison reported that the existing documentation
protocols for future revision should in principle be an had been sufficient for her to validate the program.
integral part of a full specification of the RMP. However, .However, ne ither a fully comprehensive algebraic and
68 Annex 89
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 43, 1993 59
computational description of the program nor a user's that would favour a lower inter-survey interval than ten
guide has been written. Program documentation and a years that would not and could not be examined in
form of user's guide exists for the control program for simulation trials alone. These included the desirability of
carrying out the simulation trials, but both may need continuity and maintenance of skills by those conducting
further development if the program is to be used by
surveys, and the increased likelihood that unexpected
inexperienced users. events may be detected, directly or indirectly, by more
The Committee agreed that full documentation of the frequent surveys. S,eme of these points were raised in
program implementing the calcuhition of catch limits was S044/0 25.
essential, and that furtherdo~umentat ofiohn control It was pointed out that there was a wide variety of
program was alsohighlydesirable. It recognised, however, possible types of survey. In relativelysmall regions, it was
that this would be a lengthy task. While Allison was best feasibleto surveythe entire arean asingleyear, or at least
able to undertake most of this work, it would also require most areas occupied by whales during the time of the
input from other members of the Comm.ittee. survey. However, in the Southern Hemisphere, for
The Committee also suggested that now the stage of example, coverage of the entire area south of 6o•s in a
conducting detailed case-specificimplementation trials has singleyear is infeasible using the current methods and the
been reached, the opportunity might be taken to revise the current levels of effort and resources. Instead, it has been
control program, incorporating as flexible a structure as the practice to survey segments of the region annually. In
possibleto minimisethe need for programming changes in past IDCR surveys, the fullarea iscovered everysixyears.
future implementation trials. However, this should be Another case cited covered situations in which only parts
treated as a separate task from documentation of the of areas for which catch limits are to be set are surveyed
version currently used. annually, withfullcoverageonlybeingachievedafter some
Implicationsof the above for prioritiesand staffingofthe years. In this instance, the year to which the estimate of
computing section of the Secretariat are considered under abundance for the whole area is taken to refer, may be
Items 17and 18. important.
The Committee agreed that the programs and associated Most members felt that allowances needed to be made
documentation must be available to accredited scientists, for cases in which pre-planned surveys carried out at
as defined in the Rules of Procedure of the Committee. appropriate intervals could occasionally nbe completed
Many Committee members believed that, as a matter of due to unexpected events, such as bad weather or
principle, the programs should be accorded as wide an breakdowns. They also noted that the requirement in the
availability as possible. However, at the moment several phaseout rule was for completion of assessments by the
issuesrelating to ownershipof the programs and copyright ScientificCommittee within the time period, rather than
remain unresolved (see Item 4.3, Annex D). Until these just completion of surveys. It wouldnot be appropriate for
are resolved, the Committee recommends that access to phaseouts to be invoked because of extended delays in
these programs be restricted to accredited scientists. completion of an assessment by the Committee. They
therefore favoured a longer, rather than shorter, phaseout
6.2 Adviceto the Commission period within the range five to ten years.
6.2.1 Draft specification and annotations Given these differingfactors, the Committee was unable
The Committee recommends that the Commission adopts to reach a conclusion on what would be an appropriate
period between fiveand ten years to allowbefore invoking
the draft specificationfor the 'calculation of catch limits in
a Revised Management Procedure for baleen whales' a phaseoutof catches. Accordingly, it refers this matter to
contained in Annex H, and that the Commissionendorses the Commission.
the appended annotations.
6.2.2 Other matters relating to draft specification
Phaseout rule Additional points inappropriate for inclusion in the
As noted under Item 6.1, the Committee had been unable annotationsto Annex H weremade duringdiscussionsthat
to determine a·suitable period that should elapse before theCommittee believedshouldbedrawn totheattention of
phaseout ofcatchesshouldoccur, inthe absenceofsuitable the Commission. These are reported below.
estimates of absolute abundance. The matter is referred to
the Commissionfor advice. The followingpoints highlight Historical catch data prior to initial implementation of the
the issues involved. RMP
The Committee agreed that inclusion of a ten year The draft specification requires that all known removals
period in the phaseout rule might be interpreted to mean from each area should be included in the historical catch
that surveys only need to be carried out every ten years, data used in an assessment. The intentsthat this should
rather than more frequently as the Committee had include both direct catches (including lost whales) from
envisaged. Most robustness and multi-stock trials whaling operations, and known indirect catches, such as
considered by the Committee had assumed an inter-survey those resulting from entanglement in fishing gear. While
intervalof fiveyears. It wasagreed that, wereit possibleto accepting this requirement, several members queried the
separate the issue of appropriate inter-survey intervals implicationsofthe word 'known',particularlyinrelation to
from that of the time limit before phaseout of catches the extent to which information on such indirect catches
began, this latter time limit may be lesscritical. However, may be actively sought, either from members or non
sofar theCo~itte e as been unable to devisea wayto do members of the Commission.
this. Another query raised waswhether it was appropriate to
Despite the findingsof the simulation·trials with a ten include estimates of indirect catches in the catch history,
year inter-survey period described in Item 6.1.3 above, a rather than just knownones. Somemembers expressed the
number of members reiterated their concerns about not opinion that it was important that this be done. Others,
invoking phaseouts until the most recent abundance while not disagreeing, stated that this a difficultissue
estimates were ten yearsold.Theypointed to other factors that needs further research. ·
69Annex 89
60 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITIEE
In relation to both these points, attention was drawn to than formal adoption by the Commission, the Committee
the robustness demonstrated in single stock trials in which had in mind the more dy11amicnature of the annotations.
the hist!)rical catch record was underestimated by up to These contain, for example, criteria used by the
50% (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42:272). Committee to select amongst the several options for
The Committee noted that the.effects of possible errors calculating catch limitThe Committee wished to avoid a
in the recording of catches after implementation of the situation in which, during an implementation,it wished to
RMP have not been addressed in simulation trials. vary or add to relevant criteria but might not be able to do
sowithout prior approval from the Commission. Naturally,
Block quotas subsequent endorsement by the Commission would be
Catch limits set in accordance with Item 2.3 of Annex H sought for any resulting amendments to the annotations.
remain in force for a periodf fiveyears unlesssuperseded The Committee was unable to advisefurther on how the
by a subsequent assessment. These five catch limits are draft specificationshoulde handled in terms of a Schedule
equal, unless subject to the application of the phaseout amendment necessary for the Commission to adopt the
rule.The setting of fixed annual catch limits to operate RMP. It noted, however, that development of Annex H
over a five year period has similarities the block quota has been a long and difficulttask, involvinga wide range of
schemes that the Commission has sometimes used for. scientific and technical issues. The Committee therefore
setting catch limits. The main difference is that the recommends that the Collll1lissionexercises great caution
formulation in Annex H does not allow any carryover of before considering any changes to Annex H when
catches between seasons whereas this had been allowed in developing possible Schedule amendments. It noted that
previous block quotas, subject to a fixed total catch over the Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman of the
the period of the application of the block quota. sub-committee on management procedures willbe present
The Committee recognised the operational advantages during the Commission meetings and will be available for
of these previous forms of block quotas. However, it also consultation in this regard.
noted that unless the extent of carryover be\Weenseasons
was small, this could constitute a substantial change to the 6.2.4 Minimum standards for data
procedure that may require additional simulation trials to This topic had been discussedat the 1992Special Meeting
be evaluated, possiblyinvolvingmodellingof the strategies (IWC/44/4A), in response to the request for advice from
of whaling operations. the Commission. The Committee noted that there
The Committee therefore recommends that the remained matters relating to minimum standards for data
attention of the Commission be drawn to the possibility and revision of Section VI (Information Required) of the
that had been raised about incorporationof a block quota Schedule requiring further consideration. These are
in the RMP. It further recommends that, subject to the discussed below.
Commission'sapproval and specificationof the form of the
proposed block quota, it should consider this possibility Data required for implementation of the RMP
further. (a) CATCH DATA
Paragraph 24 of the Schedule currently deals with catch
C~tc takeein excess of catch limits data. The Committee reiterated the recommendation in
The question wasraised ofwhat account should be taken of IWC/44/4A that this should be amended to require the
any cases within the five year currency of an assessment in positionofwhale capture to the nearest degree and minute
which the seasonal catch limit in a Small Area was of latitude and longitude. Other information detailed in
exceeded. With respect to future catch limits duringthe paragraph 24 should continue to be collected.
currency of the assessment, one suggestion was that these
might be adjusted downwards so that the total of the catch (b) ABUNDAN CE ESTIMATES
limits was not exceeded over the fiveyears. The Committee agreed tha p~lans for survey design and
proposed methods of analysis of the resulting data for the
Adjustments for unbalanced sex ratios purposes of calculating estimates of absolute abundance
The Committee adopted the procedure for setting separate should be reviewed by the Committee in advance of their
catch limits for female whales given in Annex H, rather being carried out, but that prior approval by the
than an alternative formulation in which total combined Committee should not be a requirement. An advantage of
sex catch limits were adjusted in the light of estimated sex prior review is that this would facilitate subsequent
ratios in the historic catches (which had been the method endorsement of the estimates by the Committee.
used previously for Southern Hemisphere minke whales). Additionally, it was considered desirable that those
This choice was made primarily because of anticipated intending to conduct a survey should inform the
difficultiesin predicting future sex ratios. Commission. This would allow the work of the Committee
Some members suggested that the approach adopted by to be better planned, and ensure that the results of surveys
the Committee might not be sufficiently flexible from an are reported, regardless of the outcome.
operational point ofview, and that therefore thisshouldbe The Committee recommends that a set of guidelines for
drawn to the attention of the Commission. conducting surveys and analysing the results ·should be
developed. Ideally, this should include standardised
6.2.3 Advice on incorporation of theRMP into theSchedule methods of survey design, field procedures and data
The Committee has developed a draft specification for collection. Similarly, at of approved methods of analysis
calculation of catch limits in a revised management should be developed for use by the Committee. Programs
procedure, along with a set of annotations (Annex H). It for conducting such ana lyses should be validated by and
has recommended that the draft specification itself be held at the Secretariat and should be available to
formally adopted by the Commission, and that the accredited scientists.As new methodologies are
annotations be endorsed by the Commission (see Item developed, tested and approved thesewould then be added
6.2.1).In seeking endorsement of the annotations, rather to the set of available options.
70 Annex 89
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 43, 1993 61
The questions of data availability and validation were addition, other important types of biological data are used
considered. The Committee recommends that data for any indirectly,the most obvious example being data clarifying
sightings survey to be used to calculate abundance the identityof stocks in different regions.
estimates for the purposes of applying the RMP should be Various requirements for biological samples are already
documented and provided to the Secretariat in computer specified inParagraph 29 of the Schedule (e.g. earplugs,
readable data filesbefore a specified time in advanceof the ovaries). At the 1992Special Meeting (IWC/44/4A) and in
Committee meeting in which the data are to be used. All SC/4410 25, suggestions were made for other biological
such data should be archived by the Secretariat in an samples to be provided (e.g. tissue samples for genetic
appropriate database such that abundance estimates can be work). The Committee considered that it would be most
calculated for any specified Small Areas. Data should be in helpful to replace Paragraph 29 with an 'enabling clause'
a fully disaggregated form so that estimates can be whichstated th at in response to advice or requests from the
recalculated correctly if the boundaries of Management Committee, the ·Commission could require certain
Areas are altered. Once lodged with the Secretariat, these samples/data to be collected from whaling operations. The
data should be.available to accredited scientists as defined advantage of such an approach is that any requirements
in the Committee's Rules of Procedure. could then be made via a Commission 'resolutionrather
A detailed specification forthe required data should be than needing a Schedule amendment . A possible form of
developed by a sub-committee consisting of members wording might be:
involved in conducting sighting surveys and in analysing
survey data to produce abundance estimates. The data that 29. Contracting Governments shall arrange for the collection and
would be required fall into two basic categories: firstly, analysis of such biological samples, tissue samples, specimens and
data asthe Commissionmayfromtimeto timedecideon theadvice
data necessary for standard analyses (e.g. sightings effort of the ScientificCommittee. The results of the analyses of these
data and sightings records) and secondly, ancillary data (as collections shall be reported to the Commission.
appropriate according to the analyses to be carried out,
e.g. dive-time records). A more detailed example The types of samples that were considered likely to be of
specificationof such data is given in Appendix 1 of Annex importance were, for example, those related to
reproductive capacity, condition of the animal (e.g.
H. blubber thiGkness)and various tissue samples to facilitate
If the Secretariat is to archive all data in a common ·work on stock identity, growth or contaminant burdens. It
database, and validate and hold standard programs, there
are implications for the Secretariat computing section was noted that data from suchsamples could form the basis
staffingand costs. These are considered under Items 17and for a periodic review of evidence for changes in carrying
18. capacity.
(c) MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SURVEY DESIGN, DATA AND Other data referred to in the Schedule, Section VI
Section VI of the Schedule deals with 'Information
ESTIMATES
Two possible minimum standards were considered by the Required'. The Committee agreed that , although effort
Committee. These were that there should be a maximum data are not presently required for the RMP, it is highly
CV of (say) 40% for estimates of absolute abundance for desirable that such data continue to be collected on a
the Medium Areas defined for a species and region, or that routine basis.It was also suggested that the provision for
collectionof product data should be retained. Such data
a minimum distance steamed on primary shipboard survey have proved useful in the past for detecting changes in the
effort per unit area of a Medium Area should be specified.
In the latter case, this minimum would be calculated for condition of whales.
each species and Medium Area, based on the relationship While offering the·above advice, the Committee noted
between survey effort and variance for previous surveys in that ih the time available, it had been unable to complete a
full review of Section VI. Lack of comment on the
that Medium Area. The Committee agreed that both of remaining aspects should not be taken to imply that the
these approaches should be investigated further,
particularlythe latter approach. Committee endorses discontinuing collection of those
The Committee noted that the robustness trials of the types of data.
effect of uncertainties in estimates of absolute abundance
implicitly defined minimum standards ·tor data. If,
Additional discussion on minimum data standards
however, conditions changed such that, for example, the As noted above, the Committee has not completed
estimates resulting from survey analyses had CVs very development of guidelines and minimum standards for
different from those tested in the trials, the question of absolute abundance data and corresponding estimates.
whether or not the new estimates were acceptable could be
addressed by further trials. There was considerable . debate over the possible
implications of this, both in terms of potential delays in the
The Committee noted that, in relation to the estimates Commission adopting a revised management procedure,
of absolute abundance for northeastern Atlantic minke and the consequent status of estimates of absolute
whales described in SC/44/NAB12, both the new abundance developed at this meeting for minke whales in
methodology described therein and the resulting estimates
had been considered in detail inAnnex F and subsequently the -North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere.
used.in implementatio n trials (seeItem 7.2.3). Some members stated their view that, as reflected in part
in SC/44/0 25, from the point of view of the Commission,
a complete revised management procedure for
Data not directly required for implementation of the RMP incorporation in the Schedule would include more than a
The Committee has repeat edly recognised that data specificationof the method for calculating catch limits.
currently not used directly· by the RMP can play lm They believed that the Commission would also wish to·
important role in providing an independent check on the have in place specifications of standards for data and
status of populations managed under the RMP. In practical means for verification that these are met . While
71Annex 89
62 REPORT OF Tiffi SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
some of these matters Jayoutside the terms of reference of 7.COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
the Scientific Committee, particularly the last of these, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED
~AGEMENTPROCEDURE
there were aspects for which scientific input may be
needed. Before starting the process of attempting to implement the
These members believed it important that the RMP for Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke
Commission receive this additional advice from the
Committee as soon as possible, and reiterated the whales, the Committee discussed howfar it should attempt
recommendation in Annex D that completion of a set of to go along this route, and what formsof advice should be
given to the Commission. The Chairman reiterated his
minimum standards for data and the review of Section VI desire that sufficient work should be completed that would
of the Schedule be accorded high priority. allow the Commission to ·implement the procedure for
Other members stated their view that many of the issues
referredto were technical rather than scientific, and were these species and regions at its forthcoming meeting,
more properly discussed by the Commission. While should it wish to do so.
Allisn informed the Committee that once it had
acknowledging that there remained some work to be done completed and reviewed implementation simulation trials
on data standards and Schedule Section VI, the fact that for the two regions and reached conclusions on the input
this had not been completed wasno reason for any delay in
adoption by the Commission ofthe RMP developed by the catch data, the absolute abundance estimates and related
Committee and implementation for the two regions variance statistics and the precise methods.obe used for
calculating catch limits, she would able to produce these
considered by the Committee at this meeting. very quickly. ·
In relation to possible implementation, they noted that There was considerable debate on whether or not
the multi-stock robustness trials developed over the years calculated catch limits that would apply in.the first years
by the Committee were based largely on the types of
abundance data available for North Atlantic and Southern following implementation (which are routinely calculated
Hemisphere minke whales. Furthermore, estimates of during implementation simulation trials) should begivenn
the report of the Committee. Although some members
abundance for these regions have been discussed and believed that Commissionersmaywant such information in
agreed by the Committee. Thus, in their view these data order to reach conclusions in relation to adoption and
were suitable for use in implementation regardless of
whether or not minimum standards havebeen determined. implementation of the RMP, the Committee agreed that it
Yet other members stated that, while not passing would be inappropriate to include it in the report. The
judgment on the specific issue of implementation on Secretariat was instructednot to include these catch limits
in the printouts from the various implementation
particular species and regions, as a matterof principle it simulation trials.
was possible to proceed to implementation even if some The Committee was aware that there has been
aspectsof data standards remained unfinished.
widespread speculation as to the possible size of initial
catch limitson implementation of the RMP. It authorised
the Chairman to state that initial catch limits have not
6.2.5 Furtheradvice on the Commission's 1991Resolution calculated by the Committee, and that any such numbers
In its 1991resolution, the Comll)issionsought advice from thatmay be cited are entirely speculative.
the Scientific Committee on the probability of whaling
being inadvertently allowed under the proposed RMP The Committee agreed that, should the Commission
when stock levels are significantly below the protection wish to set catch limits according tothe RMP during its
levelof54%. The Committee investigated this matter at its forthcoming meeting, these should be calculated by the
Secretariat, checked by the Chairman, and then
1992 Special Meeting and provided quantitative advice in transmitted by him to the Commission.
respect of application of the RMP to single known During discussions of Annex I, the question of whether
biological stocks (IWC/44/4A, Item 4).
For cases where the RMP is applied to regions initial catch limits shoulde included in the Report was
containing multiple stocks, there isinformation relevanto raised again. The Chairman ruled that the Committee
the question in the results of multi-stock trials discussed atwould abide by its earlier decision. A minority statement is
given in Annex 0.
· the 1992 Special Meeting (IWC/44/4A) and Workshop
(IWC/44/48). However, it isunclear how to interpret these
results in terms of quantitative advice on probabilities, 7.1 Southern Hemisphere minke whales (seeAnnex E)
because in these cases the boundaries and sizes of the 7.1.1 Stock identity
stocks themselves are uncertain. The Committee is unable 'Small'Areas
to provide advicefurther to that contained in the Report of The Committee agreed that for Small Areas, as defined in
the Special Meeting (IWC/44/4A). the Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits
in a Revised Management Procedure for Baleen Whales
(Annex H), 10°sectors represented the besprese onton
Appreciation although this might require revision as more information is
obtained.
The Committee expressed its deep appreciation to
Kirkwood for his guidance, wisdom and dedication, well The decision was based on the results of management
beyond the calr of duty, over the years of development of trials, assuming that biological stocks each a core area
the Revised Management Procedure. Without his (equivalent to 'home area' or 'preferred feeding area' as
leadership the Committee would neither have been in a used previously, Rep. int. What. Commn 41:109) of either
position to recommend that the Commission adopt the 60°or 120"longitude and total ranges of up to 120"or 180°
Draft Specification given in Annex H, nor have almost when overlaps are included. That was itself based on the
completed its work on the initial implementation of the most recent view ofthe Committee in 1990(Rep. int. What.
RMP for North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke Commn 41:125) that there were fivestocks. Of the sizesof
whales. Small Areas investigated (10"or 60"),only those trials with
72 Annex 90
90. “Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a Revised Management
Procedure (RMP) for BaleenWhales”,Annex H, Report of the Scientific Committee,
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43, 1993, pp. 146-152
146 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE. ANNEX H
Annex H
Draft Specification for the Calculation of Catch Limits in a
Revised Management Procedure ( RMP) for Baleen Wbales 1
(Superscript numbers refer to1he appended annotations)
I. DEFINITIONS appropriate form of weighted average of the available
abundance indices for that Small Area, with the
R~gion are non-overlapping major ocean areas . For statisticallyappropriate weighting, except that each
species found in or migrating to higher latiiUdes. 1hese willestimate shall also be further weighted by the factOr 0.9n,
normally be the Arctic and adjacent waters, the orth
Atlantic and adjacenl waters. the orth Pacific and ..·.here n is the number of years that have elapsed between
adjacenl waters, and the Southern Hemisphere. For the season to which the estimate refers anthe year of the
assessment.
species confined to lower latitudes, the regions will Catch-capping? is the process by which catch limits
normally be the Atlantic , Pacific and Indian Oceans. calculated for Small Areas are adjusted by reference to
Regions can be combined for species where the those calculated for eithe r Medium or Large Areas
interchange is not negligible. containing those Small Areas. Itconsists of tl1e following
SrruJIIAreas are areas small enough to contain whales rules. If the sum of the catch limits ca.lculated for those
from onl) one biological stock , or be such that if v.hales
from different biological stocks are present in the Small Small Areas that make up a Medium (or Large) Area
Area , catching operations v.ould not be able to harvest exceeds the catch limit calculated for the Medium (or
Large) Area, then both the Small and Medium (or Large)
them in proportions substantially 2 differentto their Area catch limits shall apply in such a way that the
proportions in the Small Area. maximum catch allowed in each Small Area is the
Mt'tilum AreasJ correspond to known or suspected appropriate Small Area catch limit and the maximum catch
ranges of distinct biological stocks. allowed in the Medium (or Large) Area is the Medium (or
Large Aua.r' coincide with regions, unless e\~dence
exists to support the selection of one or more areas smaller Large)Area catch limitThis definition does not preclude
than a region which fully covers the range of some the possibility of applying catch-capping to overlapping
Medium Area~.
biological stocks of a species and defimtely excludes whales
from allother biological stocks oft bat species in the region.
Residual Auas3 are geographical areas which are not 2. ASSESSMENTS
classified as Small or Medium Areas. Medium Areas
comprise unions of Small and, where identified , Residual 2.1 Scope and vaJidjty
Areas . Large Areas comprise unions of Medium and. Assessmen ts are conducted by theScientific Committee on
where identified, Residual Areas. a regional basis by species or other suitable taxonomic unit
below specific levelS. Such taxonomic units should be
Combmlllion Areas are unions of Small Areas to which assessed separately where the extent of geographical
the catch limit algorithm isapplied when catch-cascading is
used. separation is sufficient to make this feasible. In the
MaJUJgementArea is a generic term denoting a Small, following ten. 'species' should be taken to refer to
Medium. Lnrge. Residual or Combination Area . taxonomic units below specific le,.el where appropriate.
An assessment is the process by which catch limits for a Seasons for each region and species for which an
species are calculated for all Sm(and where appropriate assessment iscarried out shall be consecutive twelve month
periods as set by the Commission . An assessment becomes
Medium or Large) Areas v.ithm a region as specified in current at the start of the first seasoo that commences after
Sections 2.3. 2.4 and 2.5. by repeated application of the
catch limit algorithm as described in Section 3. This adop tion of the catch limits by the Commission. Annual
algorithm uses historic catch data and estimates of absolute catch limits calculated in an assessment shall apply from
abundance for each Management Area that meet the that first season. An assessment ceases to be current after
requirements of Section 2.2. five years have elapsed since it was conducted. or when a
Calch /imu algonrhm is the process (describe10 Section subsequent assessment for the same region and species
3) thatisused to calculate a catch limit for a Management becomes current , whichever is the sooner. A new
asses ment for a species and region willnorrnally be carried
Area . out towards the end of the five year period of currency of
Catch-cascading'>is the process by which a catch limit
calculated for a Combination Area is distributed among the present assessment, but an assessment may be carried
the Small Areas that make up the Combination Area in out earlier in that period, where appropriate9 .
proportion to the calculated relati•e abundances in those
Small Areas . When catch-cascading occurs. the relative 2.2 Data reqllinments••
abundances for Small Areas within the CombinatiOn Area 2.2.1 Catch hisrory
shall normally be calculated from the same estimates of lime series of catches by sex shall be compiled for each of
absolute abundance as were used for the application of the the Management Areas specified within the region, using
catch limit algorithm to the Combination Area. The the best available information. These catch histories shall
calculated relative abundance in a Small Area shall be ao cover a period beginning not later than the season of the
73Annex 90
REP INT. WHAL. COMMN 43. 1993 147
first recorded or estimated" catch and ending with the last abundance estimate if adequate precautions are taken to
complete season prior to the time of the assessment. avoid substantial double counting of whales due to
lf there are catches known to have occurred in the migration or other factors. In the calculation of an absolute
region. but the Small Area in which they were taken is not abundance estimate for a Management Area in a given
known. they shall be assigned to the Small Area in which season , pans of the Area for which there are no absolute
they are considered most likely to have been taken . Pro abundance estimates available at any t.ime meeting the
rata allocations are allowed. Where the sex ratio of catches above specifications shall be treated as ha,ing an absolute
is not accuratelyknown, the best available estimate of the abundance of zero.
sex ratio shall be used to divide the catches; in the absence The absolute abundance estimates should pertain to the
of any information. a 50:50 sex ratio shall be assumed . total number of whales aged one year and above in the
Unspecified catches of whales shall be allocated to species area, regardless of any size limits that may be in force or
using the best available information on the species the selectivity or otherwise of any past or pr•esent
composition of the catch12. Known or estimated numbers exploitation lB.Animals aged less than one year shall be
of whales struck and lost shall be added to the catches . If excluded where possible.
the timing of catches is uncenain. they shall be assigned to
seasons according to the best available information. No 2.3 Calculation orcatch Limits
catches known to have occurred in the region shall be Catch limits shall always be set at the Small Area level and
omitted from the assessment on grounds of uncenainty they shall be set for each Small Area in a regiom. In
over their location , timing, sex ratio or other details . AU
1 addition. where catch-capping is invoked at the Medium or
known removaJs 3 from a region shall be included in the Large Area level. corresponding catch limits will be s.:t for
catch series. those Medium or Large Areas. Catch limits for all Residual
Areas within a region shall be set at zero.
2.2.2 Absolutt: obundanu atimott:S Catch 1\mits for the total number of whales that m.ly be
Absolute abundance data to be used in the calculation of taken in a season in each Small Area will be calculated by:
catch limits shall have been obtained by direct methods 14,
(a) application of the catch limit a.lgorithm to the Small
such as sightiogs surveys. and collected and anal)'-sedusing Areas or. where appropriate, to Combination Aieas.
methods approved by the Scientific Committee. The in which case catch<ascading occurs ; and
methods shall be such as to provide estimates of whale (b) where appropriate, by adjustment of the Small Area
abundance that have acceptable levels of bias and
precision. They shall also permit estimation of the variance catch limits calculated under (a) by either
of each estimate and of their variance-covariance matrix. (1) application of the catch limit algorithm to the
Medium Areas. followed by catch-capping of the
or alternative variance-re lated statistics where Small Area catch limits; or
appropriate .
Data for any sightings survey's to be used to calculate (2) application of the catch limit algorithm to the
abundance estimates for the purposes of conducting an Large Areas. followed by catch-capping of the
assessment shall be documented and provided to the Small Area catch limits.
Secretariat in computer readable data files before a Catch limits for the total number of whales that may be
specified time in advance of the Scientific Committee taken in a season in Medium or Large Areas , as required
meeting during which the data are to be used. All such data when catch-capping is invoiced, will be calculated by
should be archived by the Secretariat in an appropriate application of the catch limit algorithm to those Medium or
database such that abundance estimates can be calculat ed Large Areas.
for any specified Small Area. Data should be in a fully The decision for any panicular species or region oo
disaggregated form so that estimates can be recalculated whether or not catch-capping is to be applied, and if so
appropriately if the boundaries of Management Areas are whether it should be applied at the Medium or Large Area
altered . Once lodged with the Secretariat. these data shall level. and whether or not Small Areas are 10 be combined
be available to accredited scientists as defined in the for the purposes of catch-cascading. willbe made oo the
Scientific Committee 's Rules of Procedure . basis of biological evidence available to the Scie-ntific
Estimates of absolute abundance are required for each Committee. and, w1ere necessary, the results of computer
Management Area to which the catch limit algorithm is to simulation triaJs 9conducted by the Scientific Committee.
be applied under the procedures described in Section 2.3•6. Where computer simulation trials are carried out, they
For each such Management Area. a time series of absolute shall , as far as possible, encompass the full range of
abundance estimates shall be calculated, along with an plausible hypotheses consistent with existing biological
estimate of their variance-covariance matrix ,or alternative data .
variance-related stattStJCS where appropriate . The In catch-cascading, the estimates of absolute abundance
approximate distributional properties of the abundance used to calculate relative abundances for the Small ,!\reas
estimates shall also be determined. that make up the Combination Area to which c:atch
The absolute abundance estimate for a given season cascading is to be applied shou ld penain to seasons not
should ideally be calcu lated from data collected in that more than [number of yean ro bt dtcwd]20 prior to the
season. Data collected in different seasons may be used, season to which the catch limit would pertain. If the
for example to account for pans of the area that were not abundance data for aSmall Area do not meet thiscriu:rion.
covered in that season, to pool results from surveys then for the purposes of catch-cascading , that Small Area
conducted over consecutive or nearly consecutive seasons shall be treated as if it bad a relative abundance ofzero21.
in order to reduce variance , or to provide estimates of The catch limits for the total number of whales that may
calibration factors. provided that appropriate statistical be taken in a season. as calculated in the manner desc-ribed
7
methods are used' . above, shall pertain to the first season of currency of the
Data from surveys conducted in different seasons or at assessment. and additionally 10 each of the four seasons
different times of year may only contribute to a single after that. The five catch limits for the total number of
74 Annex 90
148 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE. ANNEX H
whales that may be tak.en in a season in a Management 3.2 Population model
Area shall be equal22. except in cases where adjustments The following population dynamics model 26shall be used:
are made under the phaseout rule described in Section 2.4
Po= Pr !Dr
belowlJ. Pt+t= P, - C,+ 1.4184 1!P,(l- (P,/Po)2) (0S t< D
whe re:
2.4 Phaseout rule P, is the population size in numbers at the beginning of
The catch limits for a Small Area calculated under Section season t;
2.3 shallbe adjusted downwards when the time series of
C,is the catch in numbers in season1:
absolute abundance estimates used for the application of Dr is the ratio of the population size at the beginning of
the catch limit algorithm to the Small Area (or. if catch season T to the population size at the beginning of season
cascading has been applied. lo the Combination Area zero. known as the stock depletjon;
containing it) under the current assessment does not season zero is the first season of the catch series used in the
include an absolute abundance estimate pertaining to a assessment (as specified in Section 2.2.1) ;
season not more than [rwmber ofy~a1r 0betkcilhd)20 prior season Tis the season following the last season of the catch
to the season to which the catch limit pertains . Under theseseries used in the assessment (as specified in Section
circumstances, the catch limit for the Smal.l Area shall be
reduced by 20% of the unadjusted catch limit for that Small 2.2.L.);
Iis the productivity parameter determining the MSY rate.
Area and season for each year in excess of [number of years Provided there ha,•e been at least some catches, the
to be decilhd]2fl that bas or will have elapsed since the population dynamjcs model is fully determined w~en the
season of the most recent such abundance estimate24• catch series and the values of Dr and I!are speafied . lf
there have been no catches, a nominal catch of one whale
2.5 Catch limits for female whales in seasonzero is assumed.
For each of the seasonal catch limjts for total number of 3.3 Fitting of the model
whales that may be taken in Small Areas (and in Medium The annual absolute abundance estimate (if there is one)
or Large Areas if catch-capping was invoked) resulting for each season r. isassumed to have expectation bP,where
from appHcation ofthe procedures specified inSections 2.3
b is the bias parameter .The joint likelihood function of the
and 2.4, corresponding season25 catch limits for female parameters b, Dr and I!isdet~rmi unignthe a~lute
whales shall also be calculated. abundance estimates . the vanance-covanance matnx of
The catch limits for female whales in each of the five the abso lute abundance estimates (or alternative variance
seasons shall be equal lo 55% of the catch limits for the
total number of whales that may be taken, with the related statistics where appropriate) and information on
their distributional form.
additional requirement that the sum of the number of Unless there are specific inrucations to the contrary , the
females taken over the five year period of currency of the absolute abundance estimates shall be assumed to be
assessmenl shall not exceed 50% of the sum of the catch
timits forhe total number of whales that may be taken. lognormally distributed with a.variance-covariance mat_rix
of the log estimates to be estimated from the data usmg
Should a new assessment be undertaken during the method s judged appropriate by the Scientific Committee.
period of currency of the present assessment , then the In this case, the formula for the likelihood is:
same procedure as in the previous paragraph shall ~e
for setting catch limits for female whales to apply dunng Likelihood (Dr. ~•b) aexp[-i(a- p-Il l)' H (a- P -Il l))
where:
the currency of the new assessment , except that the total
number of female whales taken over the five year period of a is the vector of logarithms of estimates of absolute
currency of the new assessment shall then not exceed 50% abundance by season:
of the sum of the catch timtts for the total number of whalep is the vector of logarithms of the modelled annual
thatmay be taken each season less the total excess over
population sizes: p, = log(P,};
50% of female whales taken during the currency of the flis the logarithm of the bias parameterII= log(b);
present assessment. 1 is a vector of ones ;
H is the information matrix of the a vector. lf H is non
singular, H = V·t where V is the variance-covariance
3. CA TCB LIMIT ALGORITHM matrix of the components of a.
The stock depletion parameter Dr is assigned a prior
The nominal catch limit for a Management Area shall be probability rustribution27 that is uniform from zero to one ,
calculated using the algorithm defined below if at least oneand zero outside this range.
estimate of absolute abunda nce as defined in Section 2.2 is
The productivity parameter 14 is assigned a prior
available for the Area in question. Otherwise. the nominal probability distributionn that is uniform from zero to 0.05,
catch limit forhe Management Area shall be zero. and zero outside tbjs range.
The bias parameter b is assigned a prior probability
3.1 Input data distribution27hat is uniform from zero to 5/3, and zero
The input data for apptication of the catch limit algorithm outside this range.
The above three prior rustributions are treated as
for any Management Area shall include the time seri o~ independent and combined accordingly to determine the
annual catches as detailed in Section 2.2.1 and the ume
series of absolute abundance estimates , along v.ith their joint prior distribution of the parameters DI!and b.
variance~va ritainor other appropriate variance The JOint·posterior' distribution of the parameters I!.
and b is defined as follows:
related statistics and a specification of the distributional
form of the absolute abundance estima tes, as specified in Postenor (Dr. ll· b)
Section 2.2.2. a Prior (Dr, ~•b) . Likelihood (Dr. ~'b)'
75Annex 90
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 43. 1993 149
where s. the scale parameter. is set equal to Ul6. The This requires that, for each value of Lr, the joint posterio r
presence of the scale parameter represents an intended distributionof (Dr. fi,b) ito be integra ted over the subse t
deviation from a strictly Bayesian app roach. of param eter space that corresponds to that value of Lr.
3.4 The catch control law The no minal catch limit is equa l to the lower 41.02% ile of
the marginal posterior distribution of Lr.
The internal catch limit, Lr. is the following function of
Dr. J.llnld Pr: 3.5 Computation
All steps in the above algorithm for the calculation of the
Lr = { 311(Dr- 0.54) PT if Dr> 0.54 nominal catch limit shall be performed using a compute r
0 ifDr~ 0.54 program validated by the IWC Secretariat and with
The marginal posterior distnl>ution of Lr is obtained by sufficien t numerical accuracythat the calculated nominal
integration of the joint posterior distribut ion of (Ji,b). catch limit is numerically acu:rate to within one whaJe28.
ANNOTATIONS TO DRAFT SPECJFICATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF CATCH LIMITS lN A REVISED
MANAGEME:-IT PROCEDURE FOR BALEEN WHALES
(I) The trials carried out to date have largely been based will normally also be unsurveyed, and so will be
on simulated management of baleen whales with assigned an absolute abundance of zero. As indi1:ated
breeding grounds in lower latitudes and feeding in Section 2.3 of the draft specification, catch limi11sare
grounds in higher latitudes, and with whaling set at zero for Residual Areas .
operations and abundance surveys restricted to higher (6) Where Small Areas identified in a region are also quite
latitud esThus , while the overall range of these species small in size, it is likely that the absolute abundance
is an entire region as defined here. most data will estimates for these Small Areas will have large
pertain only to a restricted part of the region . While it variance s associated with them . On the othe r hand,
is believed that the framework for calcu lation of catch estimates of absolute abun dance for some
limits specified here will be sufficiently flexible for combi nations of these Small Areas may have
managemen t of species not directly matching the cons iderab ly greater precision. Provided sufti~ teien
conditions simulated so far, this needs to be affirmed evidence exists to warrant combining some Small
by the additional simulation trials required before Areas . the process of catch-ascad ing can be used to
implementation of the RMP for such species. This take advantage of this greate r precision. In calculating
-..ould be especia lly important in the caseof humpback the relative abundances in the Small Areas making up
or right whales, for which there is a possibil.ity of a Combination Area, a weighted average of past
whaling in the breeding grounds, on feeding grounds abundance indices for those Small Areas is used. The
and on migrations between these in the one year. additional factor of 0.9" isincluded to downweight
abundance data from seaso ns separate d far in time
L Definitions from the year of the assessment. Crite ria for dec:iding
(2) The judgemen t on whether or not differences in whether or not catch-cascad ing should be applied are
proportio ns may be substantial will, in thefirstplace, given in Section 2.3.
be based on estimates of movements and rates of An example of the calculation involved isas follows.
mixing, and on relevant operationa l factors. Where the lf the absolute abundance estimates are treat1:d as
size of a proposed Small Area is such that pote ntial being lognotrnaUy distributed, then the relative
differences in the proportions might be substa ntial, its abundance for a Small Area would norma lly be
acceptability will be judged on the basis of the risk of calculated using the following form ula.
inad•·ertent depletion of the stocks in the region . as Let:
estima ted from suitable simulat ion trials. Conducting a = vector of log abundance estimates in the Small
such simulation trials willbe a normal part of the initial Area ;
implementation of the RMP to a region and species. r,= differe nce between the current season and the
Additional trials may also be necessary where it is season of the itb estimate;
proposed to in crease the size of existing Small Areas.
F = information matrix of a.
(3) Medium Areas play a secondary role in tbe RMP , in If F is non-singular. F=V-t where V is the variance
that they are used only when catch-apping is applied; covariance matrix of a. G is the matrix such that
it is not necessary for application of the RMP for any
Medium Areas to be defined. In caseswhere Medium G.;= Fq(0.9) - h,+t)'2
Areas can be identified with some confidence. so that The relative abundance in the Small Area isgiven by:
exp[(:n:a , G )/(:n:G, ) ]
Medium Areas approx imate to ranges of act ual stocks , 11 1
catch-a pping is most appropriately carrie d ou t at the (7) Catch-capping is a 'pfocess de5ihte d to ensun: that
Medium Area level, rather than at a Large Area level. catch limits calculated individually for some Small
See also note 7. Areas are not inappropriately large. as is possi'ble in
(4) As indicated, normally Large Areas will coincide with some cases of uncertain stock identity As indicated in
regions. An example of when a Large Area may be Sectio n 2.3, whether or not catch-apping isinvoked in
smaller than a region is the case in which there is a the assessment of a species in a partic ular region will
geographicall)' isolated stock of whales -..ithin the depend on examination of available data and ~bly
region which does not mix with other whale stocks simulation trials for that species and region. Catch
within the region. capp ing, if it is invoked, will be carried out 111the
(5) Normally, in cases where the whales migra te to higher Medium or Large Area level depen ding on the dlegree
latitudes, these Residual Areas will be confined to of certa inty existing about the identification of
lower latitude areas within areg~o.nln such cases. they Medium Areas . Where that degree of certainty is
76 Annex 90
150 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFI C COMMIJTEE. ANNEX H
relatively high. catch-<:apping should be carried out at (13) The population model used in the catch limit
the Medium Area level. Where no Medium Areas are algorithm (see Section 3) effectively assumes that all
identified for a species and region, catcb-<:apping whales that die from causes othe r than those resulting
should be carried out at the Large Area level, if from natural monality are included in the catch
invoked. Where Medium Areas are identified, but only history . Thus, known "indirect' catches, e.g. whales
tentatively, the decision as to whether any catch killed through entanglement in fishing gear, should
capping should be carried out at the Medium or Large also be included in the catch history, in addition to
Area l.evel should be determined from results of whales caught or struck and lost in direct whaling
appropriate simulation trials. operations . On the other band, stranding is assumed
to be pan of the process of natural monality, and
numbers of whales stranded should not be included in
2. Assessments
the catch history .
2.1 Scope and validity
(8) Normally, assessments will be carried out at the species 2.2.2 Absolute abundance esritTUltes
level. However, if sub-species, varieties or different (14) In the early stages of development of the RMP, it was
morphological forms of baleen whales exist in a region envisaged that absolute abundance estimates, relative
such that they canbe identified in catches and separate abundance indices. or both could be used. The
absolute abundance estimates can be obtained for difficulty "'ilh use of relative abundance indi<:esthat
them, then they should be assessed separately, are collected as pan of or associated with catc:hing
provided the degree of geogra phical separati on is operations of the type carried out prior to the
sufficiet to allow this. development of the RMP, is that the pn!cise
(9) Normally assessments will be carried out every five relationship bet.,..eenhe index and the true absolute
years. However, it may be appropriate to carry out an abundance is rarely known. These issues were
assessment eariier in the ilve year period of currency of discussed at the CPUE workshop, at which the types
an assessment. This would be warranted. for example, of information necessary to clarify this relationship
if major new estimates of absolute abundance become were also identified (Rep . inr. Who/. Commn 38:157-
available, or if significant advances are made in 62). As this relationship has remained unresolved,
methodology of calculating absolute abundance the possible use of such data was dropped for the
estimates, or if other evidence is available to the present. Possible use of relative abundance indices
Scientific Committee suggesting that the status of the other than those associated Withcatching operations
stock is different from that which the present was not investigated during development of the
assessment suggests. Given the amount of time IU.1P.
assessments may take to complete, assessments should Note that the above does not preclude the w.e of
not normall y be carried out in consecutive years. estimates of relative abundance during c<ttch·
cascading (see note 6) or in analysing abundance data
2.2 Dow requirt>ment.s collected in different seasons (see Section 2.2 and
note 17).
2.2.1 Catch history For some stocks , the best available estimates of
(10) In addition to the requ irements outlined in Section abundance may come from mark-recapture anal)'seS.
2.2, data and methods for analysing them that are e.g. those resulting from photo-identification studies .
used in the application of the RMP shou ld meet the The properties of suchestimates, and the implicatio ns
minimum standards described in Section 4.2 of of these with respect to possible uncenain Sltock
Annex D to the 1992 Scientific Committee Repon identity and migration panems need to be evaluated
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:97-9) . before estimates of abundance based on them rnay be
(11) For stocks for which exploitation staned relatively used when implementing the RMP for a panicular
recently, the catch history over the entire period of species and region. Until this is done, sightings
exploitati on will be well !mown. For other stocks, surveys or other direct methods of estimation with
however. where exploitation h as extended over many similar statistical properties remainhe primary t-ools
years and possibly intermittently over centuries, for obtaining suitab le estimates of absolute
records for early catches may be incomplete. or gaps abundance for assessments .
may exist. The intent here is that the catch histories (15) The types of data that are required fall into two
for use with the RMP shou ld extend as far back as categor ies:data necessary for standard analyses (e.g.
possible. Where there are no gaps in a long historical sigbtings effon data and sightings records) and
record of catches, the catch series used in assessments ancillary data (as appropriate according to the
shall stan in the first season for which the catch has analyses to be carried out. e.g. dive-time records). A
been recorded or estimated sufficiently reliably. detailed specification is yeto be developed (see 1992
Where there are gaps. or there is major uncenainty Repon of the Scientific Committee. ltem 6.2.4- Rep.
about the early catch history, selection of the first int.Who/. Commn 43:60-2) , but an examp le of such a
season wiUbe made on a case by case basis. specification for vessel-based line transect survo!ys,
The RMP bas been demonstrated to be robust to de>~elo oerdillustrative purposes. is given in
considerab le uncenainties in catch histories in single Appendix l.
stock robustness trials (Rep. inr. Who/. Commn (16) In the simulation trials of the RMP carried out so far,
42:272). it has been assumed that absolute abundance
(12) Where the information is insufficient to allocate estimates are available for effectively all the
catches to species sufficiently reliably, the potentiaJ Management Areas within the region being assessed.
consequences of incorrect allocations may need to be As indicated later in Section 2.2. Management Areas
examined by simulation trials. for which no suitab le estimates of absolute abundance
77Annex 90
REP . INT. \\<1-lAL. COMMN 43. 1993 151
are available are treated as having an absolute the catch-capping options is used, catch-capping at
abundance of zero. This. along with the possible the relevant level shall be invoked.
applicat in of catch-capping described in Section 2.3, Catch-cascadi .ng normally leads to higher catch
makes adequate provision for cases where surveys limits thn the base case option . Accordingly, catch
have not been conducted for some parts of the range cascading may only be invoked when simulation trials
of stocks in the region being assessed, provided tlue show that it does not lead to unsatisfactory
unsurveyed ar ea does not form too large a proportion performance on depletion statistics related to lowest
of that range. and final depletions.
(17) Statisticalmethods to be used in the calculation of Examples of examinatio n of these issues in the
absolute abundance estimates from data collected iin context of potential implementa tion of the Rll>iPto
different years shall enure, inter alia, that (i) no pie<:e Southern Hemisphere and Nort h Atlantic minke
whales are given in Annexes E and F of the 1992
of data receives undue weight; (ii) the absoluue
abu ndance estimate is referre d to the most Report of the Scientific Committee (Rep. int.What.
appropriate year; (iii) the data contributing to atn Ccmmn 43:104-6 and 115-19).
absolute abundance estimate for any area in a give·n (20) Discussion of issues relating to selection <>f an
year shall normally all have been collected within a appropriate time period is recorded in Item 6.2.1 and
Annex D of the 1992 Report of the Sci·entific
ten year period, and where possible not more than
five years earlier or later than the year to which the Comm itt ee (Rep. int. IVhal. Commn 59 and 96-7).
abundance estimate refers: and (iv) in the case of a (21) This provision is more restrictive than its equi·valent
Small Area or a Combina tion Area, except for in the phaseout rule. ]f the abundance data for an
contributions to calibration factors , data collected in area with very few whales become out of cuJTency,
then this will have little effect. On the othe r hand, if
years other than that to which the estimate refers shall
not contribu te disproportionately to the abundance the abundance data for a Management Area with high
estimate . A contrib ution to the abundance estimale absolute abundance become ou t of currency, then the
of more than 50% would normally be consider('d effect of this provision on the catch limit becomes
disproport ionate. For some stocks of whales significant.If this provides an incentive to ca.rry out
curren tly at low levels of abundance, it may be an app ropria te survey in that Management Area, this
necessary to pool data over a period longer than ten is desirable.
years in order to obtain reliable estimates of some (22) The setting oi equal catch limits to apply over a five
calibration factors. lt is possible that in the future . year period (subject to reductions due to the phaseo ut
appropriate alternative statistical methods may be rule) is one example of a block quota. Block quotas
developed for calculating time series of absolute have been used previously by the Commiss·ion in
abundance estimates in which data from all years a1re setting catch limits for commercia l whaling, although
analysed together, e.g. methods based on gene ralisc:d the rules defining those were different to those in the
linear models (SCIF92/Mg8). For such methods , the RMP. Discussion of the possible use of alterna tive
above requirements may need revision. forms of block quota in the RMP isgiven in Item4. 1.2
(18) In the simulation trials conducted so far. it has bec:n of Annex D of the 1992 Report of the Scient ific
assumed that estimates of absolu te abundance Committee (Rep. int.What. Commn 43:94-6).
correspond to whales of all ages from one year (23) All five catch limits, including phaseou t adjustments ,
upwards. are to be calculated and set at the time of the
assessment. This allows prior warning to the
2.3 CalculaliOn of caLchlimils Commission and membe r governments that future
(19) The Committee has recommended that suitable case phaseouts wi ll occur during the curre ncy of the
specific simulatio n trials be carried out prior to the present assessment unless new abundance estimates
initial implementation of the RMP for each species meeting the requirements of Section 2.2 become
and region. These have been termed 'impleme ntation availab le and a new assessment is conducted .
simulation trials', to distinguish them from the more
2.4 Phaseout rule
generic robustness trialsused during the development (24) This provision will ensure that the catch limit •.viiibe
of the RMP.
Where simulation trials are used during reduced linearly to zero in five years.
implementation to determine whether or not catch
cascading or catch-capping isnecessary, and in the 2.5 Ccrch limits for female whales
(25) This rule is rather complica ted. The first pan of the
latter case whether at Medium or Large Area !eve:!, rule works as follows. Suppose the first y.ear of
jdgements will be based on comparisons of currency of the present assessme nt is year I, and that
performance of the different options against a base the catch limit algorithm indicates that the total catch
case where catch limits are calculated and set by Sm11ll
Area only. By its nature, catch-capping leads to tine limit for each season should be 1,000. Then w·ehave
the following illustrat ion of tfirstparagraph. If 520
setting of catch limits lower than or equa l to those set females were taken during the each of the first 4
using Small Areas only. Where the performance of years. then the maximum number of females a1lowed
suitable simula tion trials of the bascase option for in year 5 would be 420[=(50%x5xl ,000)-(4x520)]
setting catch limits is satisfactory in terms of statistics
related to lowest and final deplet ion levels, it would
not normally be judged necessary to invoke catc h Year: 2 3 4 S Sum(LS)
capping ('depletion' is defined in Section 3.2).
H owever , where the performance of the base case Tolal CL t,OOO 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000
optio n is judged unsatisfactory in terms of the Max. female 550 550 550 550 420 2,500
depletion statistics, and this is rectified when one of Femalecatch 520 520 520 520
78 Annex 90
152 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE. ANNEX H
Year: 2 3 4 s 6 7 Sum (3..7)
TocaiO. 1,000 1,000 500 500 500 500 500 2,500
Max. female 550 550 Z7S 275 215 215 <215 1,210
Female catch 520 520
To illustrate the second part of the rule, suppose in selected paramet ers reflecting prior beliefs about the
!he previous example 1hat a new assessment becomes likely distribution of the corresponding biological
curren t inyear 3, now with an annual total catch limit parame1ers. The procedure adopted here is Bayes
of 500, rather than 1,000; 520 females are taken in like, rather than strictly Bayes. The distributions and
years 1 and 2. Then the total number of females 10 be ranges were selected to provide 'optimum'
laken over years 3 to 7 would be 1,21.0 performance in relation to a set of agreed
[=(50%x5x500)-(2x20)] and the maximum in any performance statistics in simulation trials. U likely
year would be 275 (=55%x500) . ranges and distributions of the correspo nding
biological parameters change from current
3. Catch Umlt algorithm
perceptions, the appropriate way to take account of
3.2 Populalion model these changed perceptions is torev1se the simulation
(26) The pop ulation dynamics mode l used here has the trials,and if appropria te change the runing(Rep. inr.
form of a discrete time version of the Pella Whal. Commn 42:55) of the procedure , rather !han
Tomlinson model. Neither the form of model used , altering the 'priors'.
n or its parameter values, are meant to give an
accurate repr~sent afttieoncp ul~ot nidynamics
of baleen whales. Rather, it is a model which, when
used as an integral part of the catch limit algorithm .
has been demonstrated to allow robust calculation aof 3.5 Compuuuion
(28) The process of performing lhese computations will
catch limits. also determine the appropriate percentile of the
3.3 Firring rhe model marginal posterior distribution of Lr designated at
(27) Despite their appearance , the prior distribution s the end of Section 3.4. Protocols for these
assumed here are not s~anda r dyesian priors on th•: compulat ions are held by the Secretariat.
EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION
This specificatio nispresented as an example . lt has not 2.2.1 For each transect or portion of a transect as
been agreed by the Scientific Commiltee. determi ned by events and sighting conditions,
Data archiving: For any sighting survey to be used im 2.2. 1.1 beginning and ending
estimation ofabundance for the purposes ofan assessment. 2.2.1.1.1 date and time
the following documentation must be provided to the 2.2.1.1.2 geograp hic position (deg,
Secretariat within the specified time in advance of the min)
meeting at which the dala are to be used by the Scientific 2.2.1.2 geograp hic stratum identifier
Committee. 2.2.1.3 vessel speed
(I) Cruise planning document; cruise summary documen t. 2.2.1.4 Beaufort sea state or other measure
of sighting conditions
field instructions and example data sheets; editing 2.2.1.5 number of observers on watch
specifications used in verifying accuracy of data
recorded; identification for any observations made 2.2.1.6
which have been excluded or are judged unreliable 2.3 Sighting record:
2.3.1 time of sighting
(2) Compu ler dala files in fully documented formats with, 2.3.2 sighting platform (barrel. wheelhouse. e tc.)
at minimum, the following data types and fields clearly 2.3.3 identifier for observe r making sighting
identified
2.3.4 cue for sighting
2 .1 Cruise information 2.3.5 >pecies (inciuding ali species ol cetaceans seen)
2.1.1 vesselname. characteristics 2.3.6 numbe r of animals in group
2.1.2 dates of survey 2.3.7 range and bearing to group
2.1.3 location of srvey 2.3.8
2.1.4 description of sighting platforms 2.4 Ancillary data of potential use in estimating
2. 1.5 descrip tion of sighting teams , observi ng abundance
periods 2.4.1 as appropriate according to the analysis
2.1.6 method used
2.2 Searclling effort record 2.4.2 for example, dive time observations
7980 Annex 91
91. “Report of the Working Group on MSY Rates”, Annex M, Report of the Scientific
Committee, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44, 1994, p. 183
REP. I"T . WHAL COMMN 44. 1994 183
represe:::n.eti\:1mplerifthe ~ti assclf-seJeeJnsgample generaiion of such estimates is usuaiiy practically
and therefore biassed towards stocks lhat have shown impossible .
relatively large rates of increase. The paper recognised that SC/4510 24and SC/4510 25 presented examples inwhich
thre are a totalof 44 baleen whale slacks which are known estimates of annual rates of population increase or bounds
to ha,•e been severely depleted . Of these, 18 are for thisrate are made from empirically derived estimates of
considered to be unmonitorable because of practical demographic parameters . ln SC/45/0 24, a rate of 7.1%
logistic constraints (e.g. their spatial distribution appears(SE=0.6%) was estimated for right whales observed off
to be widely dispersed and/or highly pelagic). or the Peninsula Valdes, Argentina based on resightingdata from
remaining 26 slacks. l2 have been or are being monitored individually identified anunals. In SC/45/0 25. an upper
and significant rates of increase have been demonscrated bound for the net recruitment rate of 1.6% was estimated
for 10 of them. Eight of these 10 stocks have rates of for minke whales in Antarctic Area IV. The laner bound
was obtained byconstraining the mortality rates to be non·
increase that exceed 5% per year. Altogether. at least lOaf
the 16 stocks for which a significant rate of change has not negative. The rates estimated for right whales in SC/45/0
been demonstrated are believed to be increasing and n% 24 were similar to rates observed for right whales in South
of the monitOrable stocks are either believed or Africa. The survival rate estimates for these animals were
demonstrated to be increasing . The reason for lack of high (approaching the biological limits). Some members of
monitoring in most of the 16potentially monitorable stocks the Working Group suggested that this may be an
appears not to be related to population size and its possible indication that sun-ivai rates could possibly be density
rate of increase . Lack of monitoring in these cases may be dependent for these stocks. However. the high adult
related to temporal/spatial segregation of the animals in sun~v ale could also be explained by the relative lack of
relationto potential areas of study and lack of research o lder animals in a population increasing so rapidly.
resources. As such. SCJF9?.1Mg3(revised) concluded that With respect to the analyses in SC/45/0 25, it was
the set of depleted stocks for which rates of increases are pointed out that the results are dependent upon the age
available does not appear to be highly self-selecting . structured data obtained from the Japanese catches under
It was questioned whether the set of monitorable stocks the spectal permit programme and that the analyses requrre
can be considered as a representative sample of all the assumption that the age structure estimates are
depleted baleen whale stocks. In particular. concern was unbiassed estimates for the population. It was suggested
expressed that monitorable stocks include primarily that while the data from the catches under the special
permit programme are likely to be less biassed than those
coastal species and do not include highly pelagic species
(such as the minke whale). oblained from commercial whaling, concerns still exist
Some members also believed that the question of self about whether the samples are unbiassed given the
selection among the monitorable stocks has not been fully apparent latitudinal segregation of animals by age and the
addressed and that some of the severely depleted stocks fact that sampling did not occur north of 55"S.The authors
which are nnt being monitored appear to have very small of SC/45/0 25 noted that sightings data (SC/451SHBa4)
population sizes. 1t was pointed out that because a indicate that the number of minke whales north of 55"S in
depleted stock is still at a low level does not indicate that Area IV was small and thus that the lack of sampling in
bas not increased . However. the example of the continued lower latitudes could not be a large factor. Lack of time
rarity of the Southern Hemisphere blue "hales and prevented a more detailed discussion on the
humpback whales along the coast of New Zealand were representativeness of the age structured estimates
given as indication of how the sample of monitorable obtained from the catches under the special permit.
whales might be self-selecting . There was a brief discussion on the implications, in terms
of MSYR, of the estimated upper bound of 1.6% for the
4.2.2 Produwon parameter esrima roms changes in net recruitment rate for minke whales. The Working
biological parameters Group did not have time to discuss further the estimation
ln SCJ45/SHBa6, fin whale data from the Southern procedures used inSCJ45/0 25.
Hemisphere ~'r>e analysed within the framework of a Ohsumi noted the work contained in earlier documents
length-structured population model including growth (Obsumi. 1972; 1973)in which be used a model to estimate
dynamics. The author noted that the rates of increase , and the net recruitment rate for Antarctic fin whales. In this
in panicular, MSYR would be influenced by the extent of model. the net recruitment rate as a function of density was
changes in the values of biological parameters. A set of convex. MSYL was greater than 0.5K. and the MSYR was
graphic information indicated the range of feasible equal to about 4%. In addition be noted that the data
possibilitiesbased on previous analyses but neither analysed in these papers should be reanalysed using
additional nor new estimates of MSYR or bounds on such techniques developed in the last few years.
estimates could be obtained. In answer to related
questions, Sampson indicated that his results were 4.2.3 Production parameter e.mmares from population
consistent with ustainable yield rates in the range of valuesdyMmic models
from below zero 10 5% per year. The Working Group also Estimates of MSYR were presented in SC/44/0 23 and
noted previous discussions onthistopic (IWC, 1990). SC/45/NA7 for four whale stocks from time series of catch
Discussion of this paper. and the question of estimates data and abundance estimates (and also CPUE trends in
based on biological parameters in general, reinforced the the case of East Greenland- Jceland fin whales and NE
conclusions of de Ia Mare (1986; 1990) and Barlow {1991). Atlantic minke whales) based on the HIITER-FITIER
ln teir work, it ispointed out that estimates of population estimation procedure. These esumates are contained in
growth rates {and hence yield rates) based on demographic Table 1 (see Item 5). The Working Group did not have
information are subject to large error, when information time to discuss these estimates. except for discussions
on allof the parameters in the model i based on data with concerning bo"head "hales, as presented under this Item
associated variance, unless the sample sizes for the below.
informa tion are very large. Given logistical constraints. the A new estimation procedure using the same underlying
8182 Annex 92
92. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46, 1996, p. 83
RE.P I'IT \\ IIAL COMMI\ J6. 1'196 83
rqm:sen ted. mcludin g lieldwurkbiology. g:enellc> and :.tanug:emem Procedu re and the Compreh ensi"c Assess ment
populalion d)namtcs. of \\hale stocks. mclutlin g genet iidenltficalioand
The financ iJI imphcauon< arc co n>idt:red unde:whem abundance of stod,, <nota bly.in the laner category.
Discussionoft~ ne" a'pe"'"of the proposal focU>o;edon co minuau on of the se nes of crrcumpo lar Aman :tic mirlke
thequestion of >.ample "~·Smt ih bdt ew d 1ha1 lhc 'a mp l"ha le 'tgh ting' auisc>t.
sizefor lhe Slocl..tdentll\ ' <wdie< 'hould be esu mated morThe Secretary co ncluded that the origmal co ncept of the
rigorously,based Oil e•i dcnceof the level of !!CnciiC IOCR - inrenstfteresearc h on ceracearu.- has neve r been
variabilityin 1hc 'amp le> collec1ed thu> far <tnd achiC\'Cd<Wer the tdeacde~ .his "asdue 10 the failure to
incorpo raling an e'aluatio f the lil..ely dbcnmma10ry aura,· t swli cient funds from !he IWC. member governme nts
power of any reMtlling anal) "sHatanaka reucrnt<:d 1he or UN -reL1tcd l><'o c:trr) ou1more 1h•UJlhc rno't urgent
basisof the sam p\tzcof I!K) an un aI' and cummcmed 1ha1 or .tl!racuve prognunme, .
6llCa:n:mai)'>LS"'ould be unlikelprovu uelu~ re>uhs The Co mminee spen1a cons• derab le ume discus,mthe
umiJ mfonna uon became 3\':Uiablc trom lilt• fen'>lbthl) need or olheN ise tor • 1hrrd IOCR. parrirularl111hc
study.However . he agreed the Jpproach wa' valuable Jlld ilnn1ex1of the ·grand des tgn· ong mally cnvt>11!975 .
It t1ecarne clear thai an\' dtscus !<oi n of lhe need for • new
would beco n~tder enuture \'ear>. In tre~r arnoted
thatthe propo!>lllwa' for a range ol lcl·hniques-lo be uo;broa tl re'>Carrhprogram me req01rcd a re\'ieu. of 1he prescm
examine the Slocl. qucs110n.mere! g~net ic an:tly'e.'. rc-earchpnori lie' uf lhe Committee . Th " had ah o been
The Chairman noted thai it "'a.<clear from the dt<eu<sion'commended by the tnte> f~"Cna.grou p e'labli>he d to
llw consensu s co uld not be reache d a.' to "'hethcr JJ\Icens ider the re•icw of re..earch proposal>SandnItem
couldbe pro•tded at this meclinJ!. Some membe rs be!Jeved 1-1..21
thatthere wa, in•ufficientl10 pro' ide adequa le Jdvtce at A numbe r nf pomt-. were rai..ed during the di'CUs<>ino. It
ibismee1i11g Ot~r members believed thatth~ prop<1-a! "a'clear that lacl. of fundin!! hadamajor factotn the
adequa te!) futiill ed the Comm illcc ·s gutddme,. his1ory of LDCR and thai tht> was a factorbe~on he
Commi nee ·, co ntrolSome member;, commented thai
1JJ.2 ) Uf'(lll - tPudfttlh -c•emJ of the ne" pnoriuc' of the Commmcc requrred
SC/47 PI de><:n bed the conu nuation of the fedStbilit) colla.lxm uron u.ith other organisanonas for exampi<
uudy presemed l•'t~ea. r C<~t oc UO mmJ..e "h•k> -..as d"cu>-e d underltm 6. 'Efte.:L<uf &wi ronme maChan~e
proposed. on Ce1acean>·. ;md 1h.i1 thwou ld fom1 Jllincn:.t.>ingt~
The Comminee noted thai the program me wa. unchanged •mpo na.m pan oi the Comnu nee's worl..
AndreferstheCommi ~>on 10 II< prevtous discu<,tOn {IWC. Other memllc" noled thai almosallof the pnoritte> for
1.995h.pp.82-:'l re>ean:h re4uired the ConHn•nee to provide adv tce on the
'latu' of .:ctacean stoc l.>. y,hetpro~imdgnadvice on
d~rlec "' mdtrect remova l< (ahoriginal.commercial.
14. SECOND I TER ATIONAL DECADE OF
>etenllltcperrrut.inctdemal capture ). oras inpu lto
CETACE A:-; RESEARCH eollaboratwc <tud1es. for example on the role nf cell Cea.nsin
l4.1Revie " of pr og ress al end of Seco nd Deca de the ceo'~hm:.
'TheSe\",Tetary revte,.ed the '"'o Jecades ofre~ahcrcn The Commi ttee rewgn ised that lhe lcrm 'IOCR ' had
whi~ htane d m 197.1.- ~re>ponto~he call for a t~era beco melarge~'ynon m~ous"'11h its major ongo ing pI.JCC
moratorium on commerc ial " 'halh~gthe l..:'-1Conference lhe Southem Hem isphere mml.c whale"'"'~'m cuist'>.
011tbe Human Environment ~ld m Stockholm m 1\112 <~n"d< r-.trel) corutdere d in tbc con text of the m:tn) smaller
(IWC/47fl01 The Sl'ientill c Commlltce had recommended" proJeCtth< h~dtbeen funded under its umhrcii.L
decade of imen>tlled re>earch ·.taear .pa nicularly on Some member; of 1he Commiltee believed it "as
problems relevan l to !herr conser-a tion. and had drown upppropndle. gi• en the ret•hang~in priorit ie<. to d:velop
ambi tious plans lor world-u.·tde researc h. In the a!N!nca ne" programme of re>eart·h "'uh a ne\\ name.
thesubstamial fundi ng called lor from lhe Commi "i un or A Wo rl.mg Gro up under Smi thwa~ a>kcd 10 draft a
DUtside <nurce> (the four year cosl> were eSUmdtcd at stalc mentoi Sc iemifitCom mitt ee responsibilitiand
US$2 ,401}.()()(1). • numl><·rol pnon ty program"'ere nhj<·cuvc\tal.ng tntoaccoun l the rccem ch<n~~es in
supponed and rarried through m Ihe folio" ~ear... prionlie>It> repon •s gi•en as Annex R. The Working
The IOCR programme wa< <ubmined to the Gruup tdcm ified two respon<tbi lit1~sCommlllee. and
PAO/A CMRR B~rgen Con,.ul lallonm 1'171\:md lour uhJCCil\ 11mtght adopt lo mee t them. in its role ol
consolidat ed toto a broader progr:unme of marine nwmmal asst, ung thCommts>~ o meet its own re>pons tbihue s.
tesel!Kh. l><uthe IDCR concept .1'>urigm ally put fuN ard wa.' Worl.mg Grou p provided as example < <evcral spt:ciiic
oever fuUy realbed hecau<e of lhe failure to obtain lhe maacuv1llc<and ta.,k,under the two ~:tagori>c it had
6mdin g required. The singlerno\1 effccti, ·e progm mme tdemili ed.
lllldenak ewa, undou btable, , th...-ne-- ofSouthern In di><:u»ioof the Workin g Group' ' repo n. i1wa> nmed
Hemisphere mmke "'hale as-.e;>mcnt crutses. thatan~ new programme shuuld be devel oped wtthm the
Howe•c r. -.e\eralindi•idualre'¢an:h acuvtlleson framewo rl. of the ~XIt~ig Rules of Prncedure .1be
ceta anewere al'o undenaJ..en. a.:llbornt 1lnn~ing Comm111ee reached no finnconc ulons bul agreed thai the
llld re>eart·h "estimu lated. maHer 'hould he placed on the Age ndu of nc• l year'>
A secan t! decade. initiated m 19R5. became cloo;el\ lx•mee ling
up .,.;,th the FAOfU\IEPG!,tt'tal Plan of Aclion. fnr the
Conservatio n.Manageme nt and Uuhsa uon of Marine 14..2Re• ie" proct"<<urefo r pr oposa ls -report of
Mamm al\. The IWC endor-.ed the plan and was e'pccte d to intersess ional co rr espo nd ence group
lakethe lead role m implementin g II>cetacean <·ornp<mcm. i\s a re'uh of dtiiicu hte ' thai arm..: la.t )ea r. 1hc Com minee
billthe money origt llaanuc tpated dtd not malenah<;e . had agreed that il should re\'IC"' ll5 potic) nn constderali on
W'tlhthe changmg focu s pnon ue~ m the (ViC. 1he 'ecood of re,carchpropo,aJ> and hacslabli>~d an imerse>sional
decade mcluded \\urJ.as<;OCattcdw1th the ReH>ed corre>pondcn ce group I<•e•a mme thi> mancr lunhe1be
8384 Annex 93
93. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47, 1997, p. 96
96 REPORT OF ntE SCIENTIFIC COMMITT'EE
SC/4S!O 22 compared conce nua tions of five CO~Ot~ TS AND D l CUss ro.-.;
organochloride compounds in I0 spcc;iesof ceLaCeanSm In discussion, Smith noted that wl\ilst it was scientifically
many regions of lhe world. Residual levels of four of valid to modify objecuves of exisung long-term research
these compounds were lower in the Antarctic than in the proposa ls to rake into account results obtained. nude iL
orth Pnctfic .Funhermone. higher concentrations of more difficult to review the objCClives in the manner
PCBs and lower ratios of DDFJPCBs were observed in required by the Commission.
<amples collected in the North Pacific in 1987 m coastAl Lankester ooted that the ltkelihood that objectives I
waters than m samp les collectedm 1994 in more offshore (elucidation of the ~'lo stkucture to improve stock
waters. managemen t) and 2 (est imation of biolog ical parameters to
In discus. ion the authon. sugges ted LhU.J after taking improv e stock manageme nt) of the proposal wou.ld be met
account the corre lation bet"'eaccumul:u ion ofPCBs with would be small. After the estab lishme nt of the Southern
body lengt.h. the levels of PCB concenuations in minke Ocean Sancmary any alteration in IJWlagemem in this areais
whales from sub-area 7 (1987) and sub-area 9 (1994) were
not expec ted in the foreseeab le future. He further noted that
the same. They concluded that this implies continuous the Com mission h:u dcfem:d the implementation of the
environmen tal inputs of PCBs in theNorthern Hemisphere. R.MP in sanctuaries .
However. u was :tlso noted thnt the animals s:unpled m Yagi stated tat. since Japan had objected to the
sub-area 7 were smaller than those from sub-area 9. whiCh Sanctuary, the reasoning behind Lankester 's poiots is
make this companson difficu lt. Some suggested that erron u~oand the points themse t"es are irrelevant He
improved samp ling in sub-area 7 would be helpfu l in funher commented that sctentific information from JARPA
mteq>reting these differences. is expected tn contribute significantly taspe;:rsregarding
SC/4S/NP7 provtded an estimate of minke whale RMP implemen tation. includi ng the determinauon of
abundance in the southern pan of sub-area 9 from ightings appropria te Small Area.s. Ftnally the Cormmssion is
over the 5 Ju ly~ August period in 1994 of 3. 102 commined to review ing (and possibly abolishing) the
(CV=0 .44). Sanctuary in 2004 and JARPA data will contribute to that
The CommJUce·s views on the imp lications for stock review .his :tlso providi ng valuab le monitoring information
structure of this inform ation may be found under Item 7.3 on species within t.he Sanctuary.
of Annex J. Smith commented thai the informat ionob tained Slooten commented that without further specifica tion of
from this research had been helpful m the process of objecli\'es 3 (elucidation of the role of wb:tles in the
revising the onh P:lcific minke lmpit'mt'ntationSimulatiOII ecosystem) and 4 (elUCidation of the effect of environmental
Trials. change on cetacean ) of the proposal 11 was difficult 10
evaluate the ltkelibood of the proposal meeting its
objectJves.
Inre~pon i.s u.noted that the programme had already
14.4 Re,•iew or new or ruised ScientifiC Permit pcoduced interesting results including papers presented to
proposa ls
thi• meeting (e.g. SC/4810 22) and the workshop on
f.I..J.Japa11- Southern Hemisphere pollution tc.g.SC/M95/Pl3) relau ng to objecuves (3) and
The Governme nt of Japan (1995) presen ted the 1996/97 (4).
JARPA Researc h Plan. Although thLS is largely a Simmonds commented on the pollmion studies of JARPA.
cominualton of the programme discussed previously by the noting thatthe Bergen worbhop bad recommended that the
Comm inee. the extensio n of the research Area to the west studies should be conducted on species which are found over
last year (i.e. tnto Area Ill ) will be repeated for the seconda wide pollution gndie nt. The works hop had spectfical ly
Area (i.e. into Area VI). for the samreason!(>i.e.touy to identified the harbour porpoise . the bottlenose dolphand
clarify problems in stock •trcut~ that had come to light the white wb:tle. Re also noted that age and sex related
panerns of accumulation were well estabhshed for
during pre"iou s years).
The intenuon is to use information from a number of cewceans.
approaches (genetics. morphometries. pollut:ant burdens. In response Fujise comme nted that the Commm ce had
parasite loads) toJUIJiIu1e stock struCture. si.nceinforma tionnoted lal.year th111the Worlcshop repon was not sugge.stiog
from genetic studies alone has not proved suffic ient for stockthat other species. such as minke whales. should not be
differe ntiation.The sam psize of100 110imab \\'8basedon studied in the context of pollutants.Italso referred to the
" comb ination of general advtce for gene tic studies (see \'alue of direct studies. panicularly in the Southern
SC/41!/SH13). an estima te of possible cateleve equired Hemisphere ([WC . 1996b. p.57). He noted that the
for pollutant analyses 110theneed to obtam mfonna tion on environmental and pollutant srudies were well incorpora .ted
age distrib ution(as prev;ou s JAR PA work •ugges ts that imo the progJamme and some results had been already
migration panems are related to age). The proposal noted provided to the Commi llee.
that exis ting AreVI dataare limited to the area close to the 1l1eCommi trec agreed that the infom1auon provtded on
p:J.CIi:ce a.nd thus do not represent those components the the number. se~.s iud stock of thnnirnaJsto be taken had
population that do not mtgrate so far south. [norder to been specified to the e.tten t possible . Smith eltjlfCSsed his
maintain sighting effo n despue the mcreasedareacoverage. apprectation for the considera tion of samplesize given in
an addiuo n:tl sighting vessel wilused. With ~tto the SC/48/S H 13. The Commi uec also noted thnt the
effect of catches on the stock, the proposal refem:d to the opponu int~ifor parndpation in the research programme
analysis in SC/48/0 I which exam ined population were adequa te.as in prevtousyears.
rmjectoriesassummg the catches planned. Itconcluded that In response to aquery. Komatsu reponed that tbete were
even under pessimis tic assum pnons. the •took would no plans to change the original timframe of 16 years for the
continue 10increase.Addiuona l data on the sam pled ammals programm e.
will be collected with respec t to the new objecuve (to relate SC/48/S HJ hod referred to analyses presented m
pollutan t. pathology and reproductive studies)a..well as SC/48/0 I tbaJ suggested that the proposed catches Will have
additional oceanographic information. no ad,·erse effects on stocks.
8586 Annex 94
94. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, pp. 95-105
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 95
the estimates of abundance, the Committee also Commission has in the past noted the information on
recommends thatfurther surveys be carried out, designed to abundance provided by the Committee on this stock and
address the issue. · established a catch limit of 12 animals (e.g. IWC, 1995c).
11.7 Humpba ck whales off St Vincent and The
11.5 West Greenland minke whales Grenadines
SC/49/NA7 d~crib are-analysis of the 1993cue-counting The Committee not ed that new abundance estimates for
aerial survey for minke whales off West Greenland using humpbacks in the North Atlantic had been considerednd er
recently revalidated and corrected data. SC/49/NA7 Item 10.4. However, the relationship between whales taken
provides two separate analyses: (1) a standard stratified in the Bequia breeding/calving area and other humpback
analysis; and (2) one based on recently developed spatial whales in the western North Atlantic is unknown (IWC,
modelling approaches. The two analyses resulted in 1994a, p.59). A large number of humpbacks have been
abundance estimates that differed by about 20%, while the photographed and biopsied in the central Caribbea'n and on
CV from spatial modelling was 5% lower. The abundance the feeding grounds to the nort(Palsb ~tla., 1997b) in
estimates from both analyses may be negatively biased recent years. As noted previously (e.g. IWC, 1997e, p.92),
because the mean surfacing rate used in the analyses was fluke photographs and tissue samples from any whales
higher than the rate found in recent radio-tracking studies offrvested off Bequia would be extremely valuable for
coastal Norway. It was also noted that the estimates of determining stock affinity. As no whales have been
variance did not include any uncertainty for the estimated successfully taken in this fishery since 1993, the Committee
mean dive time which would make them negatively biased. recommends thatefforts be made to find recentphotographs
The stratified analysis estimate (6,385 minke whales, of whales taken off Bequia and to collect tissue samples and
CV= 41%) was anupdate of an estimate previously accepted fluke photographs from any future catch. Without such
by the Committee and not significantly different from it information, management advice will·continue to be based
(Larsen, 1995). on assumptions about stock structure.
Concerns were expressed over the reliability of the spatial The Committee agreed to repeat its advice from previous
modelling approach,especially with respecttoextrapolation. years i.e. that a caof up to three whales annually will be
In such situations, the estimates could not be considered unlikely to harm the stock. If whales are caught, every effort
reliable, but thesults can provide useful hypotheses about should be made to collect as much informationas possible,
distribution for consideration in future surThe authors especially fluke photographs and tissue samples (see above)
had made some suggestions for the design of future surveys, and the sex, length and approximate catch position (see Item
including extension of the survey area around the southern 11.1).
tip of Greenland. It was also suggested that the division of
the East and West Greenland Small Area at Cape Farewell
may need tobe reconsidered. This is in accord with the view
of several authors that this is an artificial boundary (e.g. see 12. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS
review in Donovan, 1991). 12.1 Advice on the effect on stock(s) of scientific permit
The Committee noted new genetic analyses presented in catches
SC/49/NA4. They were discussed by a Working Group Last year, the Committee had had extensive discussions of
whose report is given in Annex T..The Committee agreed this Item (IWC, l997e, p.93). It had agreed that the matter
that the new analyses did not contradict the belief it should be considered further this year and had encouraged
expressed at the last assessment of this stock (IWC, 1995c) members to submit documentation presenting further
i.e. that as for fm whales, minke whales off West Greenland proposals. In the absence of such proposals the Committee
do not comprise a separate stock. did notconsider thisItem butagreed tokeep iton the Agenda
Given the above, and the fact that the revised abundance for nextyear's meeting, noting that it willonly beconsidered
estimate was not significantly different from the one if documentation is available.
considered in 1995, the Committee agreed to reiterate the
advice it had given when it last assessed this stock (IWC, 12.2 Review of results from existing permits
1995c) i.e. that although there is no information upon which 12.2.1 Japan-Southern Hemisphere
to determine the statusf the stock in relation to MSYL, it 12.2.1.1 REPORT OF THE JARPA RE VIEW MEETING -
believes such a stock is above the minimum level below CHAIRMAN'S SUMMARY OF SC/49/REP 1
which aboriginal catches should not be taken. However, it The Working Group met at the Mariners' Court Hotel,
can offer no advice on the sizof catches which will allow Tokyo, on 12- 16 May 1997. The review meeting was
the stock to move towards MSYL. convened by Schweder. Reilly was elected chairman.
The Committee recommends that studies of stock Bannister participated in the opening, where he outlined
identity, such as those in SC/49/NA4, continue and are some of the considerations thathad led to the structure of the
intensified. It also recommends that further surveys be draft agenda, in particular the need to reflect in the
carried out, taking into ·account the issues addressed in discussions two separate components arising from the
SC/49/NA7. review meeting's termsof reference:
(1) the specific research carried out, and its results;
(2) the contribution made by those results to the stated
·11.6 East Greenland minke whales objectives of theresearch programme, and to the aims of
According tothe current stock boundaries, the minke whales
taken byEast Greenlanders areconsidered part ofthe Central the IWC as expressed in its Resolutions.
Stock.The abundance of minke whales in this stock area is The review meeting completed all but the final task, i.e.
discussed under Item 8.2.2. The Committee has not judging the merits of the results in terms of the
previously given specific advice on this stock in·relation toCommission's resolutions. That more general task was
aboriginal hunts conducted off East Greenland. The forwarded to the full Committee.
87Annex 94
96 REPORTOF THESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
1,546 (Area V), 110 (Area IIIE) and I10 (Area VIW)
Five components of JARPA were reviewed: sighting
surveys and abundance estimation; stock structure; ordinary and 16dwarfform minke whales had been sampled
biological parameter studies; marine ecosystem studies; and by the end of the.l996/97 season.
those addressing environmental change. For each
component the Group considered the following: its
OVERVIEW OF PAST DISCUSSIONS OF THE JARPA PROGRAMME
background, including original and additional research AND ITS RESULTS
objectives; methodology of data collection; data analysis; The review meeting noted that while both the quantity and
results; and potential of results in the context of the qualityof the scientific work had been commended by the
objectives ofIARPA and of stock management.
Committee, differing views had been expressed about its
relevance to management considerations. A list of specific
issues in contention was compiled from past Committee
THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROPOSAL AND LATER ADDITIONS reports and is given in annex F ofC/49/Rep I.
Ohsumi reported that Japan's original objectives for the
research had been:
A. SIGHTING SURVEYS AND ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION
(1) estimation of biologiCalparametersto improvethe stock BACKGROUND: ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
management of the Southern Hemisphere minke OBJECTIV ES
whale; Noting that theobjectives for the researchdidnot includethe
(2) elucidationof the role of whales in the Antarctic marine provision of abundance estimates (for input, perhaps, to the
.ecosystem. RMP) per se, clarification was sought on the intentof this
component oftheprogramme. Ohsumistatedthat though the
Subsequently, as part of the natural evolution of the primary reason for the sighting surveys was their
programme and inresponse to developing requirements, two contribution to Objective 1 (the estimation of biological
further objectives had been added: parameters), their pertinence to theP and the associated
implementation process for Southern Hemisphere minke
(3) elucidation of the effect of environmental changes on whales should be seen as a derivative objective.
cetaceans;
(4) elucidation of the stock structure of the Southern METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock The closing procedures (e.g. to detern1ineschool size) were
management.
identicalto thoseused inclosing modefor theIDCR surveys,
excepting for the additional time spent on sampling, and
closing being limited to minke whales. The sighting and
OUTLINE OF THE JARPA RESEARCH sampling vessels engaged in such sampling ('SSVs')
Fujise presented a brief summary. Two feasibility studies surveyed along parallel tracklines, but from the 1991/92
had taken place in 1987/88 and 1988/89, with the full scale season one vessel at any one time was devoted to sighting .
16-year research commencing the following season and
alternating each season between Areas IV and V. In 1995/96 only, inorderto investigatehe effector'sampling activityon
and 1996/97, coverage was extended to Areas IIIE and vrw abundance estimates.
Certain changes in JARPA survey procedures over time
respectively, for a limited period feasibility study of stock were noted but the review meeting considered that adequate
structure. He stated that the full programme has two comparability over time in data collection had been
components: a sighting survey whoseprimary purpose is the
estimation of trends in abundance; and a sampling achieved.
component to allow biological parameter values to be One important difference in survey methodology from
that used on the IDCR cruises was noted.On IDCR cruises,
estimated given also the abundance information provided by survey on one day commences from the position reached at
the sighting survey. · the end of the previous day. However, for the JARPA
In the programme as originally proposed, it was planned programme, a target distance per day was established;f this
to take 825 animals in any one season from either Area or
Area V. For two years of feasibility studies, 300 animals distance has not been achieved by the end of the day, the
(with an allowance of ±10%) were planned to be sampled in remainder of the planned trackline for that day is not
covered, and survey the next day starts from the 'targeted'
parts of Areas IV and V. Following the results of'the (not the actual) positionfor theendf the previous day. This
feasibility studies, considerationsf the balance between procedure can lead to under-surveying of higher density
the expected precision of estimates of the mortality rate
and the availableresearch capabilityled to thedecision to set areas, because more time is required for closing on and
the number of animals to besampled each season at300 with sampling whales, so that less survey distan is covered on
the day in question. This has implications for abundance
an allowance of ±10%. In 1995/96, additional samples of estimates that are discussed immediately below, and for
100 animals with an allowance of ±10% were planned for sampling representativeness.
Area IIIE, and subsequently 100 ± 10% in Area vrw in
1996/97, for studying stock structure (see Item 3,
SC/49/Repl) . METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Initially, three vessels (plus the mother ship) had been Two papers provided analyses of the sighting data to
employed, but a fourth had been added in 1995/96 to allow estimate abundance. The key differences between the
foran increase insearchingeffortin thesighting survey.This metho ds of analysis in SC/M97/l and SC/M97/23 are that
and some other changes during the progress of the the former stratifies by school size in estimating effective
programme had been made in response to comments from search half-width (w),whereas the latter estimatew for all
the Committee. Initially, both dwarf and ordinary formsof schoolscombined and then multiplies anestimate of the total
the minke whales had been sampled, but sampling of the number of schools by another of mean school size.
former had ceased in 1993/94. A total of 1,546 (Area IV), Furthermore, SC/M97/23 stratifies data to alesser extent,
88 Annex 94
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998
97
based on the AIC statistic, to avoid the high variances B. STOCK STRUCTURE
associated with models that over-fit data. Both analyses BACKGROUND: ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
assumed g(O) = l. OBJECTIVES
In addition, SC/M97/23 attempted an approach to adjust One of the original objectives ofJARPA was to elucidate the
for theunder-surveying of higher density areasin theJARPA stock structure of minke whales to improve stock
surveys arising from the difference in survey methodology management. The stock identification objectives were being
described in the fmal paragraph of the preceding section. addressed by both genetic and non-genetic techniques.
This involvedscaling the number of sightings madeeach day
upward by the ratio of the target distance for that day to the METHODOLOGY OFDATA COLLECTION
searching distance actually achieved. Concern had been Information on stoc,k structure presented at the 1990
expressed previously in the Committee that estimates of Comprehensive Assessment was based on biological
minke whale abundance from JARPA reported at that time samples·collected during commercial whaling operations.
had been considerably lower than IDCR estimates. One of Because of the nature of this fishery, thesesamples tended to
the motivations for this part of the analysis given in be from animals distributed along the pack-ice edge and
SC/M97{23 was to investigate whether that factor was a were not evenly distributed within Areas IV and V. In
primary cause of the difference.
contrast, during JARPA 2,887 minke whales were
systematically collectedfrombetween 1987/88 and 1995~6,
where survey effort was evenly distributed within the study
ESTIMATES OF ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS area. A variety of tissue samples and body measurements
The authors of SC/M97/23 suggested that: was taken from each whale.
A simulation exercise had been conducted which
(I) their unadjusted estimates are in broad agreement with indicated that a samplef at least 150-200 individuals using
those of SC/M97/I; and mtDNA was needed to detect significant differences
(2) their adjusted estimates (with one exception) are not between putative stocks (SC/M97/3).
systematically lower than comparable IDCR closing
mode abundance estimates, although confidence in this DATA ANALYSIS
conclusion wou ld beenhanced if analysis of theJARPA Genetic studies, based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
surveys in seasons other than the two analysed had were conducted to investigate the phylogeneticelationships ·
yielded similar results. of ordinary and dwarf forms of minke whale and stock
structure in theordinaryform. Two methods (using mtDNA)
In respect of (!), the review meeting felt that no strong indicated a clear genetic differentiation between dwarf and
inferences could be drawn given the limited number of ordinary forms. The sequencing analysis also indicated that
comparisons. . the southern dwarf, southern ordinary, North Pacific and
In discussions arising from(2),a numberf concerns were North Atlantic forms represent independent genetic
raised as to whether the 'adjusted' approach applied to the populations. Further, based on genetic data, the dwarf form
JARPAanalysis isan appropriate means ofcorrecting for the was found to be more closely related to minke whales in the
higher-density-under-surveying effect to. yield comparable North Atlantic and North Pacific than to 1]te ordinary
estimates of absolute (or even relative) abundance. These form.
concerns arose primarily from considerations of the Four studies ·fstock identity of the ordinary form were
mechanisms that lead to clustering of whales, and hence reported. In the first study, stock structure was evaluated
areas of higher and lower density. The review meeting using chi-square statistics for heterogeneity on the observed
considered that further research to develop an approach to haplotype frequencies. .The resulting chi-square was
correct for the effectsf clustering was required. A specific significant and supported the alternate hypothesis that
suggestion was that thise based on modelling the extent of sub-structure was evident in Areas IV and V (i.e., the
the clustering each year by a Neyman-Scott process. western and eastern strata probably contained minke whales
that were genetically distinct, but mixing occurred in the
central stratum).
POTENTIAL OF THE RESULTS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF A second and third study considered both geographical
JARPA AND OF STOCK MANAGEMENT and temporal factors. The results of both were consistent
In relation to annex D of SC/49/Repl, the review 'meeting with the hypothesis that different stocks occurred in Areas
agreed that this topic was pertinento items B 2.1, 2.4, 3.1 IV and V, where the composition of animals from the two
and 3.2. Relevance to item 2.4 related to the agreed research putative stocks changed both longitudinally and temporally
requirement of consolidating the Southern Hemisphere during the feeding season.
minke whale abundance estimates provided by different A fourth study reported the results of an analysis of
programmes for differe nt areas of coverage and using molecular variance (AMOVA). A priori strata were
different methodologies (e.g.)DCR, IARPA, JSV). established using four longitudinal sectorsand two time
The fact thatJARPAprovides more frequent repetitions of periods. Of 137 haplotypes identified, none were unique to
surveys of the same localities than the IDCR programme any single geographic stratum. The AMOVA test results
would facilitate estimation of the extent of inter-year were significant between Area IVW-early and all other
variability in local abundance, which would in tum lead to strata. Excluding stratum IVW-ear1y, none of the other
improved results from the consolidation exercise. contrasts between strata were statistically significant.
The review meeting agreed that more research was It was reported thatacomparative study of both dwarf and
required to develop a reliable method for adjusting for the ordinary forms, involving body colouration, and
higher-density-under-surveying feature of the JARPA morphometric and skeletal measurements, is underway.
survey design. Once this had been achieved, the resultant With regard to the study ' stock identity in the ordinary
abundance estimates should be useful both as absolute and form, a single morphometric analysis grouped 326 animals
relative indices. into three strata (Area IVW-early, Area IVW-lat, and Area •
89Annex 94
98 REPORTOF THESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
lYE-early). A multivariate analysis revealed that the three information for estimating mixing rates between putative
strata were not separated exactly; nonetheless, whales from stocks. Second, participants supported an earlier
Area IVWcearly stratum were found to be significantly recommendation of the Committee that efforts should be
different from whales found in the other strata. undertaken to collect tissue samples from minke whales on
Southern Hemisphere breeding grounds toallow contrasts of
SYNTHESIS
distribution and frequency of specific haplotypes from the
The authors noted that they were not proposing new stock breeding and feeding grounds.
boundaries at this time, but that their results were consistent Regarding the RMP, the new genetic information
with the hypothesis that minke whales collected in the indicated that there was a temporal component to the stock
western part of Area IV, early in the feeding season form a structureof the ordinary form of the Antarctic minke whale
stock distinct from whales taken in strata further east or laterin Area IV, which had not been recognised at the timeof the
in the feeding season. Comprehensive Assesstueni. In the long term, genetic
There was discussion among review meeting participants information could be used in implementing an improved
as to what level of genetic distinctness was significant at the version of the RMP.
stock and species level.It was noted that general standards It was also agreed thata protocol should be developed that
for species-level differences have been established based!l specifies how such data (i.e., on ·genetic relatedness of
a comparative approach (i.e., the genetic distance between putative stocks from the breeding or feeding areas) would be
'good'species ina taxon is typically used as the standard for used in either developing specific , Implementation
putative species). Regarding stock structure, the answer is Simulation Trialsor the general management of commercial
less clear. harvests.
Taylor (annex G of SC/49/Repl) commented that the In addition, it was noted that the information discussed
number of individuals exchanged between populationsexists duringthis sectionofthe review meeting did not exclude the
on a continuum in nature. Instatistical terms, the amount of possibility that there are more than two genetically distinct
difference required before a particular grouping of stocks of the ordinary form of minke whale in Areas IV and
individuals can be designated as one stock or two is referred V. Additional analyses, including for example the use of
to as effect size. It is important that effect size is explicitlnuclear DNA, could reveal additional stock structure.
stated prior to undertaking research on stock structure, as it To avoid a repetitionofpast debates within the Committee
is not possible to determine the sample size necessary to regarding methods alternative to lethal removals, the
reliably detect a specific effect size without specifying it. proponents of the two different viewpoints summarised their
Taylor recommended that the Committee should develop views.These summariesare presented inSC/49/RepI, annex
criteria regarding the effect size required to designate two H.
putative stocks as separate management units.
Several members noted that for the Implementation
Simulation Trialsfor the RMP the key issue regarding stock C. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETER STUDIES
identity was the number of breeding groups and not the BACKGROUND : ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES
number of, or distribution on, feeding areas. However, the Estimation of biological parameters, especially natural
distribution and number of breeding groups for the ordinary
form of minke whale is poorly understood. mortalityrates, was originally the main research objective
It was noted that only information on mtDNA had been the JARPA, since knowledge of some of these parameters
used so far to investigate stock structure of the ordinary was at the time considered to be necessary for a rational
management of whale stocks by many scientists.
form, but that efforts were underway to use existing tissue
samples to look for stock structure using nuclear markers.
was also recognised that statistical analysis of the genetic METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION
data should consider the inclusion of school size as a
covariate because: (I) schools of different sizes are not From 1987/88 to 1991/92, sampling involved taking up to
two whales from the targeted school, but from 1992 /93 the
detected with equal probability; and (2) of the schools protocol was to take one whale from each school. Sampling
encountered, animals from smaller schools are oversampled success from the targeted school was 0. 52- 0.75 for the
relative to animals from larger schools.
scheme of taking up to two whales from a school, but
POTENTIAL OF THE RESULTS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF increased to 0.8 or more for one whale per school. An
analysis concluded that no substantial differences in the
JARPA AND OF STOCK MANAGEMENT samples taken from schools of size 2 and above hadresulted
Participants agreed that the following points listed in annex from the change in sampling scheme.
D of SC/49/Repl were pertinent to items A (Objectives I It was pointed out that the sampling method resulted in
and 4) and B 1, 2.1, 2.4, 3.2 and 3.3. It was noted that
research on stock structure isclearly related toObjective 4 over-sampling from small schools, and also that another
source of sampling bias results.from aspects of the survey
annexD,but is also important regarding themanner inwhich and sampling methodology. Although the protocol induces
specific biological parameters are both estimated and under-surveying in areasof high whale density, it will result
interpreted.
There was general agreement in the review meeting that in over-sampling where density is high.
the data presented on stock structure, particularly the new
genetic data, were important contributions to theobjectives DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
of JARPA and stock management. It was further noted that Three papers discussed catch-at-age data.
based on the new genetic information, at least soine of the SC/M97/6 presented an extension of methods previously
historic management Areas were inappropriate for stock presented to the Committee (Butterworth and Punt, 1996;
definitions for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Butterworth eta/., 1996) for joint analysis of catch-at-age
Two additional linesof research were also recommended. and abundance data. The extension involved taking account
First, development of more theory on the use of genetic of assumed separability of the fishing mortality matrix for
90 Annex 94
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 99
the ages of 16 and above in the"commercial catch. The POTENTIAL OF THE RESULTS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF
method was applied to catch-at-age (both commercial and JARPA AND OF STOCK MANAGEMENT
JARPA) and sightings survey (both IDCR and JARPA) data With respect to the JARPA objectives, the review meeting
for both Areas Nand V. The Area N analysis provided an agreed that the papers presented gave valuable information
estimate for natural mortality(M) of 0.057 yr- 1,and of the on recruitment, natural mortality, decline in age at sexual
trend in recruitment over the 1947-68 period showing an maturity and reproductive parameters of minke whales in
increase of 5.5% yr- 1 .A number of possible reasons were Areas IV and V. However, there are some unresolved
advanced for the marked drop in recruitment from 1970 to problems in the analyses, and further work is necessary.
the mid-1980s evident in the results. One of the specific objectives of the programme was to
SC/M97/11 presented an interim result for the estimation collect random samples for the estimation of biological
of the natural mortality rate by the method originally parameters.The results haddemonstrated that thiswasa more.
proposed by Tanaka (1990) using the JARPA age data. The difficult task than had been envisaged. Despite the
paper used the estimated age composition of these data considerable attention giventothesampling scheme, ithasnot
taking account of whale abundance, selectivity and ageing beencompletely successfulat obtaining random samples. The
error. Resultant estimates of average natural mortality rate review meeting further noted that the geographical
ranged from 0.0165 (SE=0.13) to 0.167 (SE=0.116). delimitationof the sampling areas has not resulted in either
SC/M97/21 analysed the age data obtained from JARPA distinct biological populations being sampled or the entire
expeditions 1987/ 88 through 1995/96 in two stages. First, ranges of the population being sampled. The implications of
the analyses found that the proportionof young (under 10yr) this for the representativeness of the sample should be given
animals was related to latitude and school size, and further further consideration. However, it was noted that the VPA
that this dependence varied from year to year. An analysis analyses (as, for example, in. SC/M97/6) required
was then conducted of the matrix of samples by age and year representative sampling over onlypart ofthe range of ages in
for age groups 10-30. The authors concluded that it is not the population. There were no indications that this had not
possible to estimate recruitment and mortality separately, been achieved for animals of age 10 and above. The review
because each term in the model involves pairs of aliassed meeting also considered that the results of the genetic studies
parameters: mortality is·aliassed with the ratechange (first should beusedtoredefinethegeographical boundariesforany
derivative)of recruitment, the first derivative of mortality is future analysis. It noted that there was still uncertainty as to
aliassed with the second derivative of recruitment, etc. whether information that fully represents a biological stock
Nevertheless linear combinations can be estimated and some couldbeobtained, butconsideredthat muchprogress hadbeen
example results were shown. made towards that end. Before JARPA was initiated, whales
There was considerable discussion of the implications of occurring in Area IV and Area V were managed as different
the results of papers SC/M97/6 and SC/M97/21. Two stocks,but aclearerpictureaboutthe biological stockinthese
opposing views crystallised.The first held that the VPA-type Areas was now emerging. Although the present state of
analyses of SC/M97/6 did provide valid results for an knowledge still leaves much to be desired, considerable data
extensive list of reasons given in SC/49/Rep1, item 4.3.1. reflecting thestatusf thewhale stocks occurringin Areas IV
The second held that results of the catch-at-age analyses of and Vha ve been collected, and have produced many valuable
both methods were compromised to some extent by the results. ·
aliassing of estimates of mortality and recruitment The review meeting noted that there were non-lethal
parameters. In spite of this difference of opinion, there was methods available that could provide information about
consensus on some aspects of the results, as noted below. population a ge structure (e.g. natural marking) but that
The review meeting felt there was merit in pursuing the logistics·and the abundance of minke whale populations in
approaches of SC/M97/6 and SC/M97/21 further, but that Areas IV and V probably precluded their successful
estimates from the applicationof such methods could not be application.
considered reliable until difficulties associated with the With respect to the relevance of the work for stock
estimates of abundance frc:>mJARPA (see SC/49/Rep1, item management, in 1993, the Committee proposed mechanisms
2.4) had been resolved. for amendment of the RMP (IWC, 1994a). It distinguished
Two papers considered transition phase data, SC!M97n between mechanisms for the amendment of case-specific
and SC/M97/22. They had used different, but overlapping, implementations and mechanisms for amendment of the
datasets. Both analyses were restricted to AreaN, but that in RMP itself.The review meeting discussed'the relevance of a
SC/M97 n was based on data from commercial whaling and better knowledge of biological parameters to management
from the frrst two JARPA expeditions to Area IV. The objectives in this context, i.e. it distinguished between
analysis in SC/M97/22 used only JARPA data, and from all short-term improvements, which would be amendments of
fiveexpeditions to AreaN. Both analyses showed declinein the case specific implementations, and long-term
age at transition phase, but, for tsame period of cohorts, improvements which could imply more fundamental
1950-70, the analysisofSC/M97n indicated adecline in age changes to the RMP itself. ·
at transition phase roughly double that estimated in In the short-term perspective the three key considerations
SC/M97/22. identified were:(1) changes in the defmition of Small Areas;
The review meeting agreed that it was important toresolve (2) changes to the selection between RMP options such as
the differences between the two transition phase studies, but catch-capping and catch-cascading, and (3) changes in the
that the transition phase observations could not be explained range of plausible MSYRs to use in Implementation
as an age related effect alone. A number of participants Simulation Trials.
considered that the overall evidence was sufficient to In the longer time perspective better knowledge of
conclude that there had been a real decline in age at.maturity biologicalparameters could lead to modificationsof the CLA
over the cohorts studied. in the.RMP.
Results were also presented regarding sexual maturity, The review meeting noted that the recruitment data from
apparent pregnancy rate, length and age at sexual maturity, analyses such as those inC/M97 /6 could be fitted by stock
annual ovulation rate and growth. recruitment models to provide estimates of MSYR once
91Annex 94
100 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
reliable input data are available. Trends in recruitment from over-winter in Antarctica and that others arrive on the
SC/M97/6 and SC/M97/21 could be used directly when feeding grounds late in the season. Analyses from earlier
conditioning future Implementation Simulation Trials for commercial catches and from the JARPA samples show a
Southern Hemisphere minke whales, and if the caveats gradual decline in blubber thickness since 1978/79.
expressed concerning abundance estimates from JARPA
could be resolved, together with some further
methodological development in estimating the essential POTENTIAL OFTHE RESULTS TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF
biological parameters, the results from JARPA could be JARPA AND OF STOCK MANAGEM ENT
directly relevant for management, both in the short and long The review meeting agreed that the following points listed in
term. SC/49/Repl, annex D were pertinent to items A2, Bl, B2.3,
B2.5, B3.4. .
The review meeting noted the striking similarity in the
D. MARINE ECOSYSTEM
BACKGROUND: ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH results obtaned from the three methods for estimating daily
food consumption reported inSC/M97/17. It was agreed that
OBJECTIVES these estimates could be used with confidence for the
The second of the two original JARPA objectives was: estimation of total food consumption by Antarctic minke
'Elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine
ecosystem'. whales.
In the 1996/97 research plan this objective was restated as: The review meeting considered that the body condition
index presented inSC/M97/18 required further refinement.
'Elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine It was not convinced that the analyses could be used to infer
ecosystem through whale feeding ecology'. The research
plan concentrateson thefeeding ecology of minke whales by that some whales over-winter in high latitudes and that
the analysis of stomach contents and blubber volume. others arrive late in the feeding season.
The review meeting agreed that the ~tudi eeing
undertaken were contributing to the objective of the
METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION 'elucidationof the role of whales in the marine ecosystem
Data on the feeding ecology of minke whales is obtained through whale feeding ecology'. Howev er, it was suggested
from the weight and species composition of stomach that elucidating the role whales in the marine ecosystem
contents of the sampled whales. Tht; whole body mass of also requires concurrent studies on the distribution and
each whale is measured using a weighing platform. abundance of prey species, and process-oriented studies
integrating information from physical and biological
DATA ANALYSIS oceanography with zooplankton and predator studies would .
An index of body fat condition has been calculated as the be useful.Such studies should be conducted on a smaller
scale, possibly using radio tagging, than that covered by
ratio of mean girth to body length. Data analyses of feeding JARPA, perhaps of the order of ten to one hundred
rates(SC/M97/17) used three different methods. kilometres.Suchstudies should be set upto examine specific .
hypotheses about ecological interactions. The review
RESULTS meeting agreed that the JARPA studies provided useful
Of the six years included in the study of body fat condition, information for both the formulationf such hypotheses and
stomach contents and distribution, two were categorised as for the selection study areas. The marginal sea ice zone is
years of poor body fat condition and three as years of good ·an obvious candidate for process oriented studies. The
condition. Estimated body weig ht gain during the feeding review meeting noted that such studies would be of interest
season in poor years was estimated.to be 25% lower than in toCCAMLR and Southern Ocean GLOBEC.
good years.In Area IV and the northern part of Area V, krill The review meeting noted the reported decrease in
(Euphausia superba) was the dominant prey species, but in blubber thickness since the late 1970s. Such information
the southern part of the Ross Sea (in Area V), Euphausia could contribute to the specification of a range of
crystallorophias was the dominant preyspecies. Distribution krill-surplus hypotheses for use in further implementation
of minke whales showed greater interannual variability in trialsor the RMP.
Area V than in Area IV, reflecting a greater degree of
variability in sea ice extent in AreaIn Area V, in years of
high sea ice extent, the krill-rich slope region of the westernE. ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
partof the area is covered by ice. This leads to poor food BACKGROUND: ORIGINAL AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
availability and results in a very low densitynke whales OBJECTIVES
along the ice edge. The Ross Sea zone was an area of low The 1995/96 research plan added the following objective:
food availability throughout the study period. Paradoxically, Elucidation of the effect of environmental changes on
this zone always contained numerous whales, especially cetaceans.
pregnant females.
Daily foodconsumption estimates ranged from 3 to4% of
body mass. The annual consumption estimates of prey for METHODOLOGY OF DATA COLLECTION
Area IV ranged from 1.42 to 1.78 million tonnes. For Area In addition to data collected for studies on environmental
V, the range was 5.98 to 7.49 million tonnes..The value for change, data have been collected on marine debris and body
Area IV is roughly 25% of the total estimate of krill biomass burdens of pollutants, including organochlorines and heavy
in.the area. Consumption of krill by minke whales in Area V metals.Tissue samples, including liver, muscle, kidney and
was an order of magnitude greater than that estimated for blubber have been collected for these analyses. Marine
Adelie penguins and crabeater seals. debris observations have been based on visual observations,
No difference was found in thefames'sindex between the but recently nets have been introduced to estimate
sexes. From seasonal changes in the index and from its prevalenceof smaller items. Air and sea water samples have
distribution by foetus size it was suggested that some whales been collected to monitor environmental pollutant levels.
92 Annex 94
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 101
RESULTS various hypotheses related to aspects of the 'krill surplus'
The atmospheric and sea-water concentrations of model.
organochlorines such as PCBs in the Southern Hemisphere Third, under the objectiveof 'Elucidation of the effect of
were lower than in the Northern Hemisphere, except for environmental change on cetaceans', there is considerable
HCB. Levels of DDT showed no yearly variation, but an uncertainty in how biological parameters of minke whales
increasing trend in PCB levels was detected in the period may vary in relation to environmental change. This is
1984-1993. This implies the continuing discharge of PCBs exacerbated by lack of knowledge regarding processes
into the Southern Hemisphere. related to environmental change (e.g., interdecadal signals,
Analyses of hepatic mercury concentrations were grouped global warming, etc.).For example, long-term trends related
by sex, geographical position and by time within season. to the armualpositioningof the extent of the pack-ice during
Hepatic mercury concentration in the younger animals the feeding season have implications regarding the
seems tohave decreased in the lastdecade. Thissuggests that interpretationof trends in various biological parameters.
the increased mercury intake had begun to decrease in that Therefore, more effort is needed to develop mesoscale
decade. studies to integrate physical and biological oceanography
and prey distribution with minke whale studies.
RESULTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE Fourth, under the objective of 'Elucidation of the stock
OBJECTIVES OF JARPA AND OF STOCK MANAGEMENT structureof minke whales to improve stock management',
It was noted that organochlorine concentrations in blubber deciding on the amount of genetic data required to meet this
are strongly influenced by seasonal variation. Analyses objective is difficult because the Committee has provided
should therefore include a correction for the effects of only a vague definition as to whatconstitutes a stock.Proper
increasing blubber thickness during the season. delineation of stocks has implications for interpretations of
The review meeting referred to the recommendations of data gathered for all other JARPA objectives.
the Bergen Workshop on Chemical Pollution and Cetaceans Finally, the resultsf the JARPA progrartime, while not
(IWC, 1998). It considered that the pollutant studies under required for management under the RMP, have the potential
JARPA were pertinent to these recommendations. to improve the management of minke whales in theSouthern
One currently contentious issue in Antarctic research is Hemisphere in the following ways: (1) reductions in the
the relative weight to give to the competing hypotheses that current set' of · plausible. scenarios considered in
changesin abundance of Antarcticpredators are due toeither Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of
'krill surplus' or the effectsf environmental change. The new scenarios to which future·Implementation Simulation
reviewmeeting recognised that distinguishing between these Trials will have to be developed.
hypotheses will be difficult. In the meantime, the
observations on changes in blubber thickness and variations 12.2.1.2 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
in recruitment should be used to formulate specific The Chairman thanked Reilly for his hard work in chairing
hypotheses on the possible effects on cetaceans of the review meeting and complimented the participants for
environmental change, for use in constructing scenarios for producing athorough report. He believedthe review meeting
furtherRMP implementation trialsfor Southern Hemisphere had significantly improved the Committee's understanding
baleen whales .' of the issues involved in the JARPA programme. He
reiterated that time constraints had prevented it from
F. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS AND THEIR POTENTIAL IN THE completing item 8 on its Agenda. This would be taken up by
CONTEXT OF THE STATED AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE the Committee under its Item 12.2.1.3.
I ARPA PROGRAMME AND OF STOCK MANAGEMENT Before discussing the report the Committee considered
CONTRIBUTION TO MINKE WHALE MANAGEMENT two new papers relevant to the catch-at-age issue.
Severalmain points were agreed toby workshop participants SC/M97/6(Rev) and SC/49/SH22 reported analyses arising
regarding the contribution of JARPA to minke whale out of the discussions at the Review Meeting. The former
management in the Antarctic. provided results on the qualitative implicationsf possible
First, under the objective of 'Estimating biological biases in theJARPAestimates ofabundance, andof trends in
parameters', the informationproduced byJARPA hasset the natural mortality withtime, forestimatesf the historic trend
stage for answering many questions about long-term in recruitmentof minke whales in Area IV. Although these
factors can change the values estimated, the authors argued
population changes regarding minke whales in Antarctic
Areas IVand V.Not surpnsingly, at thishalfway point inthe that they were hardly able to alter the qualitative conclusion
JARPAprogramme there arefew defmitiveanswers because of the paper of an increasing trend in recruitment until the
of the timescale required to obtain sufficient agedistribution late1960s. SC/49/SH22 fitted theserecruitment estimates by
and abundance data, and because of unanticipated problems a slight variantf the BALEEN II model which allowed for
in designing representative sampling regimes and in an increase in carrying capacity from 1930 to 1960. It
understanding the stock structure of minke whales in the showed that patterns of decreasing recruitment after 1970
Southern Hemisphere. For examp le, JARPA has already indicated by the analyses of SC(M97/6 were as might be
made a major contribution to the understanding of certain expected from the joint consequences of catches ·and
biological parameters (e.g., diret measures of the age at supercompensation. It also demonstrated the pqssibility of
sexual maturity) pertaining to minke whales in AreasIV and estimating MSYR from the results of the SC/M97/6
V, yet such analyses have not fully addressed potential analyses, and hence provided a potential link between the
problems related to stock structure. resultsof that analysis and information pertinent to RMP
Second, under the objective of 'Elucidating the role of Implementation Simulation Trials.
minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem', JARPA has Discussion of SC/49/RepI in the Committee concentrated
collected dataon body conditionthat, ihconjunctionwith the on two topics. Tne first concerned issuesof stock structure
data on biological parameters as noted above, should result arising out of, inter alia, annex G to the report and the
in an improved understanding of the status of minke whales discussions on stock structure summarised under 12.2 .1.1
in these Areas. These data are likely to beseful in testing above. The JARPA review report had commended the work
93Annex 94
102 REPORT OF THE SCJENTffiC COMMITTEE
carried out but noted the need for future work. Questions The Committee i dentified ten main areas to address these
such as what comprises a management stock, how this unresolvedproblems (Table 2). Fujise indicated that workon
relates to a biological stock, what inferences canbe.drawn allof these is either inprogress, has recentlybeeninitiated or
from the inability to detect significant genetic differences is at the planning stage.
and the relationships between temporal and geographical The current JARPA survey design resulted in the
boundaries, have taxed the Committee for several years in under-sampling of high density areas. The method described
many of its sub-committees. The other issue concerned the in SC/M97/23 represented an initial attempt to develop an
problems associated with obtaining representative samples unbiased abundance estimation method with this design. It
and their implications for the programme. was noted that work was planned to test the bias of this
In view of the importance of this, two Working Groups method and to further develop unbiased abundance
were established under Polacheck: (1) to address general estimators as discussed in Annex E.
issues of stock identityand therepresentativeness ofsamples Achieving adequate precision in the abundance estimates
in theJARPA report; and (2) to specifically consider a paper is critical in order to be able to estimate biological
submitted to the present meeting on the issue of stock parameters (e.g. natural mortality rates) with adequate
identity and the useofhistoricalsamples (SC/49/SH28). The precision to meet the JARPA objective. Correcting for the
latter report; modified slightly to incorporate some factual biases may decrease the currently estimated precision.
information (e.g. with respect to gels) is given as Annex. Investigations need to be carried out to determine how this
It was agreed that the report of the former group should be might affect the ability to meet the JARPA objectives.
incorporated into the main report of the Committee. Tanaka stated that if this bias can be accounted for, his
In discussing Annex U1, the Committee agreed that the method (Tanaka et a/., 1992, pp.531-6) can be applied.
computer simulations suggested in SC/49/SH28 to try to However, he noted that since there was no finalised method
address the value of commercial samples to answer stock for correcting the bias, it was not certainf the abundance
identity problems were feasible. Provided the relevant estimates would have sufficient precision over the coursef
information was available, they should be carried out. the experiment, although he was optimistic that this would
However, several issues remain with respect to the be the case.
commercial samples, not the least being their SC/49/Repl had identified that 'the geographical
availability/existence. It was recognised that creating a delimitationof the sampling area has not resulted in either
sample inventory for the commercial catches was a major distinct biological populations being sampled or the entire
task. The Japanese scientists agreed that they would ranges of the population being sampled'. The primary factor
undertake this exercise for at least some of the Areas. The was a lack of sampling from lower latitudes that are known
Committee welcomed this. to contain a higher proportion of juveniles.
Tbe final issue discussed in Annex UI concerned Non-representative sampling of whales by school size and
questions of the need for further catches in the context of areas werealso identified. The major identifiedconsequence
whether genetic studies of commercial samples are found to of the lack of non-representative sampling is that juveniles
be suitable and adequate. This is discussed under Items are under-represented in the samplingto avariable extent, as
12.2.1.3 and 12.3.1. a resultof the lack of sampling in lower latitudes and other
Turning to themo.regeneralissues theCommitteerecalled factors. Analyses conducted to date, indicate that sampling
among the post-juveniles (i.e. ages 10 and above) is
thatthereview meetinghad provided thefollowing overview
of its view on the JARPA objective of estimating biological consistent with repreentative sampling with respect to age.
parameters: If this is the case, it should be emphasised that the JARPA
age compositional data are adequate in this regard for
The information produced by JARPA has set the stage for answeriestimating some important biological parameters (e.g.
many questions about long-tenn population changes regarding
' minke whales in Antarctic Areas IV and V. Not surprisingly. at thisal mortality rates) for these older ages.
halfway point in the JARPA programme there are few definitive Japanese scientists reported that they plan the following
answers because of the time-scale required to obtain sufficientprocess to resolve the problem of sampling biases:
distribution and abundance data, and because of unanticipated
problems in designing representative sampling regimes . and in (i) the quantity of the biases will be evaluated using a
understanding the stock structure of minke whales in the Southern
Hemisphere. For example, JARPA has already made a major resampling simulation model;
contribution to understanding of certain biological parameters (e.g.,ost-modelling methods will be applied to determine
direct measures of the age at sex ual maturity) pertaining to minke whether it is possible to resolver reduce biases;
whales inAreas IV and V, yet suchanalyseshave not fully address(iii)if this is not effective, modification of the sampling
poten~ pioblems related to stock structure. scheme will be considered, and the.effectiveness and
The question was raised as to whether these unanticipated practicability of such a modification will be evaluated;
problems had been resolved and if not how this would effect while simultaneously,
the ability of the JARPA programme to meet its (iv) comparability between the current and any newscheme
willbe carefully evaluated.
objectives. ·
With respect to stock structure - the representativeness
the sampling and bias in the JARPA estimates of abundance With respect to Item (iii), AnnexU2 contains one approach
- unrs eolv~ duestions still remain. There is an interaction fora possiblemodification ofthe current~am plin sghemeto
be considered if post-modelling is found not to be
between these questions as abundance estimates and the effective.
representativeness of sampling need to be evaluated relative
to the stock being sampled. With respect to the catch-at-age analyses, the JARPA
The Committee noted that the problem of stock identity is review meeting concluded
common to almost all cetacean assessments. The data that there was merit in pursuing the approaches of SC/M97/6 and
collected and the research carried out in the JARPA SC!M97/21 funhe r, but that estimates from such methods could not
programme along with historic commercial catch samples be consi dered reliable until difficulties assoc iated with the estimates
are uniquely valuable in attacking this problem. of abundance from JARPA (see Item 2.4) have been resolved.
94 Annex 94
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 103
The difficulties with the abundance eStimates are being estimation of biological parameters. All of the identified
addressed (see above). Another concern raised in the JARPA problems appear to be addressable. Most members were
review with respect to the VPA analyses was the problem of optimistic that the IARPA data, in conjunction with
'aliassing' or the confounding of recruitment trends with additional work planned, would allow estimation of the
trends in time in natural mortality rates. This question was biological parameters with reasonable levels of precision.
addressed further in SC(M97/6(Rev) presented to this year's However, others thought that the problems associated with
Committee meeting. bias and the level of variance in the JARPA abundance
One factor not completely considered with respect to the estimates, and with interactions between, catch-at-age
catch-at-age analyses was the interaction between these analyses anduncertainty instockstructure, meanthatitis not
analyses and the uncertainty about stock stmcture. The yet possible to determine whether reasonable levels ,of
analyses were made by analysing the data by conventional precision will ultimatelybe achieved.
management units. However, the JARPA review indicates In addition, aspects of JARPA relevant to abundance
that the genetics data are not consistent with these units. estimation were considered in Annex E. A brief summary of
There is a need to consider the implication of alternative those discussions is given below.
stock definitions for the catch-at-age analyses and the ability SC/49/SHlO described sighting data collected during the
of these analyses to estimate biological pammeters. 1996/97 JARPA programme. Work was conducted in Area
With respect to the VPA analyses, the uncertainty about V and the western part of Area VI over 103 days. Three
stock structure applies not only to the data collected under vesselswereengaged in both sighting and scientific whaling,
JARPA but also to the historical catch-at-age data. In this and only one vessel conducted a closing mode sighting
regard, it would be extremely valuable to obtain genetic survey. The ships maintained roughly simultaneous parallel
tracklines despite their different tasks by working in
analyses of the stored biological samples from the
commercial catch. target-distance mode, whereby the survey begins each day at
The Committee noted that JARPA is at thehalf-way pGint targeted positionsmther thanwhereeach ship hadcompleted
and has provided substantial improvement in the work the previous day (SC/49/Repl, item 2.2). The ships
understanding of stock structure. It is anticipated that as surveyed 17,755 n.miles of tracklines, with 850 primary
stock structure becomes better clarified, the information will sightings of schools totalling 2,508 animals.
be incorporated to provide analysesof biological parameters A proposal to develop unbiased abundance estimators
by stocks. For some of these analyses, this may not be from the JARPA sightings data was presented in
srraightforward. SC/49/SH30. The JARPA survey design results in an
In conclusion, the JARPA review had identified areas of undersampling of ,high density areas. SC/49/SH30 aims to
additional future work that could contribute to resolving complete the work in two phases. The first phase would be
some of the unresolved and unanticipated problems in completed and presented to the Scientific Committee f or
sampling and stock'structure that could limit the ability comment at its 1998 Annual Meeting. The Committee
JARPA to estimate biological parameters.Effort in response agreed that the proposed framework has the potential, in
to allof these identified areas is being undertaken and this principle, to obtain unbiased abundance estimates using the
additional work may improve the value of the JARPA data JARPA data and would be useful for obtaining an improved
and results. Initial results from the simulation studiesing understanding of those data. It noted that !he·likelihood of
undertaken to examine post-stratification and altemative being able to develop unbiased estimates with reasonable
sampling designs willbe presented to theCommittee assoon levelsof precision dependson thedegree to which the spatial
as possible. Based on these results, consideration should be process can be modelled with the available covariates and to
given as to whether the sighting and biological sampling some extent on the stationarityof the process.
designs should be modified to achieve more representative
sampling. 12.2..1.3DISCUSSION OF ITEM 8 FROM SCI49IREP1
Finally, the Committee agreed that none of the sampling The Committee agreed to address this issue by providing a
and stock identity pr9blems that had beenidentified either in summary of the Commission's resolutions with respect to
the JARPA review or subsequently, would in principle JARPA and relevant comments from the JARPA report and
prevent JARPA from achieving its objectives in terms of its discussions under Item 12.2.1.2.
Table2
Futureworkto addressoutstariissues.
I. Abundanceestimates
Developmentofmethodtocorrectbiasofabundanceestimate
2. Stock strudure
Stockdefinition•
Statisticalanalysisof mtDNAdataconsideringtheinclusionofschoolsizeasacovariate
PilotstudyonnuclearDNAanalysisonJARPAminkesamples
Efforttoobtain biologi<almaterialsforgeneticanalysisfromlare!Iof theSouthernHemisphere••
Externalm01phology/rn01pbometarnyalysis
Examinationofpossiblestockboundaries(geographicalandtemporal)inAreasNand V
3. Blologlcalparameters
Segregationstudy
Recalculationof biologicalparametm by biologicalstocks
4. Marinetcosystem andenvironmentalchange
Meso·scaleurveyplan
·"The lackofa workingdefinitionof stocksnndsub·stocksis a generalproblem,notforJAIU'Aalone,and therefore,needs to
be addtcsscdby theCommittee(SC/49/Repl).
** A preliminarypaperwaspresentedlast year withthe resu1csof a surbiolo Imiateialamoog researchers and
institutionsoftheSouthernHemisphere(IWC,1997h,pp.l32-3).
95Annex 94
104 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
A. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS (IWC, !996C) However, it identified the need for further work particularly
The Commission had recommended that in view of the difficulties in obtaining fully representative
samples. Although there is much still to be done, it was
(1) scientific research intended to discuss the Comprehensive agreed many·valuable results have been obtained. It was
Assessment and the· implementation of the RMP shall be noted that theresults inthe short termcould be valuable with
undenakenby non-lethalmeans respect to several aspects of the RMP, provided certain
(2) that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should
only be pennitted in exceptional circumstances where the identified problems were resolved.
questions address critically importantissues which cannot be Under SC/49/Repl, item 5.5, it was agreed that estimates
answeredby theanalysisofexistingdataand/oruseof non-lethal of daily food consumption could beused with confidence for
researchtechniques estimating totalfood consumption. However, the Committee
and then requested the Committee to had concerns over the use of a body condition index for
inferring information on the migration of minke whales with
(i) undertakea comprehensivereview of existing programmesand respect to timing of arrival on the feeding grounds and
reportits view asto whethertheyremainjustifiableinthelightof over-wintering inhigh latitudes. The review meeting agreed
the above recommendations, especially whether lethal research
substantially contributes to answering critically important that the studies were contributing to Objective 2 (p. 96).
questions thatcannotbe addresseby othermeans. However, additional studies were recommended. It was also
noted that the information obtained would be of interest to
CCAMLR and Southern Ocean GLOBEC.
This is discussed under Items 12.2.1.1 and 12.2.1.2.
The Committee was alsorequested to structure its reviews Under SC/49/Repl, item 6.5, the revi ew meeting had
in ihe manner given in (a)-(c) below. agreed that the work was pertinent toRecommendations I, 4
and 5 of the Pollution Workshop. However in the Plenary
(a) Identify the relationship between programme objectives and some concerns were expressed on the extent to which the
researchneedspreviouslyidentifiedbytheScientificCommittee
(see also SC/49/Repl. annex D; annex F; item 2.5; item 3.5; itemk on minke whales directly addressed Recommendation
4.5; item 4.5 B2; item 5.5; item 6.5; item 7). 1 (see Item 6).
Under SC/49/Repl, item 7, the review meeting had
The relationships are identified in Table 3. recognised that this was a long-term programme that had
only reached its half-way point. In several cases therefore, it
(b) Evaluatethelikelihoodothe programmemeeting itsobjectives could be said to haveset the stage to answer many questions
byproviding reliable answers to the questions·asked (see alsoabout long-term population changes. It also noted that while
SC/49/Rep!, annex D; annex F; item 1.6; item 2.5; item 3.5; iJARPA results were not required for management under the
4.5; item 5.5; item 6.5; item 7).
RMP, they had the potential to improve it in the following
SC/49/Repl, annex F summarises the Committee's earlier ways: (I) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios
discussions on this matter. The Committee had no agreed considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2)
consensus on this in the past. identification of new scenarios to which future
In SC/49/Repl (item 2.5), it was not~ tdat the frequent Implementation Simulation Tl'ialswill have to be developed
sighting surveys in the same localities would facilitate (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results
estimation of interannual variability in local abundance of analyses ofJARPA data could be used inthis way perhaps
which would in tum lead to improved overall results from to increase the allowed catch of minke whales in the
combining them with IDCR/SOWER and/or JSV data, for Southern Hemisphere, without increasing the depletion risk
example. However, improvements in methodology were above the level indicated by the existing Implementation
suggested. Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales.
UnderSC/49/Repl, item 3.5,there wasgeneral agreement In the Committee's discussions (Item 12.2.1.2), it had
that the stock structure data were of value to management. considered the implications of identified problems in stock
However additional research was recommended. It was also structure and sampling in terms of the ability to achieve
agreed that the information was relevant to improved stated objectives. Most members were optimistic that
Implementation Simulation Trials and an improved RMP in JARPA data, in conjunction with the additional work
the longer term. planned, would allow estimation of biological parameters
In SC/49/Repl, under item 4.5, it was agreed that the with reasonable levelsof precision. Others however believed
programme provided valuable information on a number of that the identified uncertainty meantthat it isnot yet possible
biological parameters (recruitment, natural mortality, to determine whether reasonable levels of precision will
decline in age at sexual maturity and reproduction). ultimately be achieved.
Table 3
RelationshipbetweenJARPAresearchobjectivesandScientificCommitteeresearchneeds.
JARPA Research Objectives ScientifCommittee'spriorities
(1) Estimationofbiologicalparameterstoimprovestock RMP:RelevanttoMSYRdiscussions,InrplemelzlationSimulationTrial
management. scenarios.
(2) Elucidationof theroleof whalesintheAntarcticmarine Relevant to work discussed at the Climate Change Workshop, particularly with
ecosystem. respecttofillinginidentifiedgapsinknowledge(Rep.int. Who/.Commn47:
309·10); multi·species issues.
(3) Elucidationof theeffectof envirorunentaclhanges oncetaceans.ed to above and the Po!JutionWorkshop.
(4) Elucidationof thestockstructureofminkewhalestoimprove RMP:RelevanttoImplementationSimulationTrialdiscussionsand
stockmanagement. specificationofSmallAreas.
96 Annex 94
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 105
(c) Identify non-lethal methods and alternative sources of data 12.3 Review of new or revised proposals
might be used in meeting the research objectives (see also
, SC/49/Repl, annexD~annex F; annex H; item 3.5; item 4.5 12.3.1 Japan- Southern Hemisphere
Bl). The Government of Japan (1997) presented the 1997/98
JARPA Research Plan (SC/49/SH3). This is a continuation
SC/49/Rep1, annex H, provides summary statements of the programme discussed previously by the Committee,
supporting/refuting the use of lethal removal pertaining to
the collection of stock structure information. although for the coming season sampling will"not only be
Under SC/49/Repl , item 4.5 B.1, the review meeting conducted in Area IV but also in the eastern half of AreIII.
Samples of 300 minke whales will be taken in Area IV and
noted that there were non-lethal methods available that could 100 in Area IIIE: all will be ordinary form minke whales and
provide information about age-structure (e.g. natural
marking) but that logistics and the abundance of minke both samples will have an allowance of± 10%. Sampling
whales in the relevant Areas probably precluded their strategies and methodologies will be the same as in the
previous research plan.
successful application. The objective of sampling again in Area IIIE is to
In the Committee's discussions (12.2.1.2 and Annex U2),
the question was raised as to whether there were adequate investigate inter-year variability in the occurrence of
suitable samples already available from the commercial stocks W and C in Areas III and IV. When Area IIIE
was sampled previously (in 1995/96) it was announced that
catches for examining the question of stock identity. It is not this would be for 'oneyear only at this stage', but the results
yet clear which of the commercial data can be used for this of that survey had shown a completely different pattern in
process but a procedure to tryto determine this is in place.
stock distribution from that expected from previous
commercial samples. The new samples were required to test
B. ANTARCTIC MARINE ECOSYSTEM (!WC, I993A) for further variability in stock distribution in these two
The aspect most relevant to JARPA appears to be: Areas.
that the Scientific Committee should develop practical means to The Committee refers the Commission to its views
addt;essquestionsraisedbytheseexchangeswhere'theseexchanges' expressed inprevious years on the applicability of non-lethal
refers to contact with other organisations and exchange of methods, the possible effect on the stock and the opportunity
information on the effects of global environmentalchange in the for participation by foreign scientists, which were
Antarctic thatmay be relevant to whale stocks (also see SC/49/Repl,
item 5.5; item 6.5; IWC, 1997d). considered unchanged from last year (e.g. IWC, 1997e,
Under SC/49/Repl, item 5.5, the meeting noted that the p.96).
In discussion, reference was made to Annex Ul with
information obtained would be of interest to CCAMLR and respect to ihe use of commercial catches, and in particular
Southern Ocean GLOBEC.
whether it was possible for samples from these to replace
C. ENVIRONMENT AND WHALE STOCKS (IWC, 19968, those animals to be taken in Area III. Annex U1 had noted
that there was general agreement to use existing samples
RESOLUTION 1995·10AND IWC, 1997C, RESOLUTION 1996·8) where they would provide equivalent information relative to
The aspect of Resolution 1995-10 most relevant to JARPA
is: a particular experimenta l objective and design before
collecting new samples through lethal removals. Itwas noted
providing information on the potential effects, both direct and that the inventory and·computer simulations could not be
indirect,f pollutants on cetaceans as they become known completed before the 1997/98 sampling year. Therefore
The aspects of Resolution 1996-8 most relevant to JARPA Yagi stated that it was Japan's intention to proceed as
are to: proposed with the 1997/98 research plan (SC/49/SH3)
including the Area IIIE component.
Increase collaboration aco~operat witonother organisations ; Donoghue suggested that if no lethal takes were taken this
and
Consider and act on, as appropriate, the recomme ndations· of theear this would allow time for the work suggested in Annex
Climate Changeand Pollution Workshops and othitems identified U1 to be unde rtaken. In response, Fujise noted that JARPA
as requiring additional information, so as to develop non-lethalwas being undertaken for a number of purposes in addition to
means of assessing the impact of environmental change on cetac.estock identity. In particular, the extension into Area III had
(see also SC/49/Rep1, item 6.5; Pollution Workshop
recommendations) . been in response to problems about the representativeness of
the catch. Even with respect to stock identity he noted that a
Under SC/49/Repl, item 6.5, the review meeting had agreed range of techniques, not exclusively genetic, was being used.
that ihe work was pertinent to Recommendations 1, 4·and 5 Another factor being investigated concerned the
of the Pollution Workshop (IWC, 1998). However, the
Committee exp'ressed some concerns over the extent to identificationof 'core' areas and a further elucidation of
stock structure in light of the annual variation identified from
which the work on minke whales directly addressed previous years. Hatanaka pcinted out that existing
Recommendation 1 (see also Item 6). commercial samples from Area III had already been
Under SC/49/Rep1, item 5.5, the review meeting agreed analysed and the results presented to lastyear's Committee
that the studies were contributing to Objective 2. However,
meeting (IWC, 1997g).
additional studieswere recommended. It was also noted that
the information obtained would be of interest to CCAMLR
and Southern Ocean GLOBEC. 12.3.2 Japan - North Pacific
SC/49/NP1 described the continuation of a programme,
12.2.2 Japan -N orth Pacific begun in 1995 after a feasibility study in 1994, to examine:
A number of papers were presented arlSlng out of the (i) whether sub-stocks of minke whales exist in the Okhotsk
Japanese Research Programme in the North Pacific Sea - Western Pacific stock (0 stock); and (ii) whether an
(JARPN). These include SC/49/NP2, NP8, NP9, NPlO, additional minke whale stock (W stock) exists in the central
NPll, NP12, NP13 and NP14. North Pacific, andif it does, the rate of mixing with 0 stock.
These were considered by the relevant sub-committees One hundred animals will be sampled in two to three areas
and are also considered under Item 8.1. (of a total of 13 Sub-Areas to be sampled in due course).The
9798 Annex 95
95. “Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from
Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in theAntarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997”,
SC/49/Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48, 1998, pp. 377, 378, 382, 386
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 48, 1998 377
SC/49/Repl
Report of the Intersessional Working Group
to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on
Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997
1. INTRODUCTION In regard to working arrangements during the meeting, it
was agreed that in line with current Scientific Committee
1.1 Welcome and Introduction practice, automatic consecutive translation from English to
The Working Group met at the Mariners' Court Hotel, Japanese, or vice versa, was not appropriate. Some.
Tokyo, on 12-16 May 1997. The meeting was convened by flexibility would be allowed, however, to permit translation
Schweder. The list of participants is given in Annex A.
Hatanaka welcomed the participants, noting that they of specific points or discussions as they arose, for example in
comprised some '40scientists from more than0 countries. presentation of documents or ensuing debate, but subject to
the Chairman's decision at the time.
He recalled that the meeting resulted from a proposal made
at the 1995 meeting of the Scientific Committee, and 1.2 Election of Chairman and appointment of
thanked Schweder for his effortsas convenor. He stressed rapporteurs
that the meeting was importantboth for Japan and for the Reilly was elected Chairman. Butterworth, De Ia Mare,
Commission, and noted that the numerous papers presented DeMaster and Wall!1leagreed to act as rapporteurs, assisted
demonstrated the considerable information provided by the by Kato.
Special Permit Research, known as the 'JARPA program'
(Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in
the Antarctic). He considered it important that the 1.3 Adoption of Agenda
Commission make the best use of this information, and Schweder, as Convenor, stated that the draft agenda had been
based upon the items listed in IWC (1996d). He explained
hoped that the meeting would see fruitful discussions that the intent was to discuss the scientific issues and results
towards that end. first, and subsequently to place them in the contexthe
As Scientific Committee Chairman, Bannister echoed Commission's requirements for management and related
Hatanaka •s welcome and expressed appreciation to (e.g. environmental change) concerns.
Hatanaka, the Japanese Government and Japanese workers Considerable discussion ensued on whether this was the
for the meeting arrangements. He also expressed, on behalf
of the Scientific Committee as a whole and the meeting best approach to take. A numberf participants felt that for
participants, appreciation to Schweder and his Steering effective progress,the discussion under each of the scientific
research topicheadi!Jgs had to take place in a context -
Committee for their dedicated and detailed preparatory specifically that of the purpose of the meeting 'to review
work. . resultsin the lighof the initial objectives of the research
Bannister referred to theWorking Group's background, (andin the light of hypotheses and questions that have since
particular the difficulty experienced in the past by the emerged) and to attempt at assessing information conte/11
Scientific Committee in doing justice to the considerable and potential of the available data' (IWC, 1996d). Thus,
volume of information arising from the Japanese research they felt, such consideration should be addressed within each
programme on Southern Hemisphere minke whales. He
outlined some of the considerations that had led to the such scientific topic agenda item, rather than await
structureof the draft agenda, in particular thtonreflect completion of all scientific discussions. (See also Section
in the discussions two separate components: 1.5).
Noting, however, that inter-relationships between these
(1) the specific research carried out, and its results; scientific agenda items meant that a concluding overview
(2) the contribution made by those results to the stated discussion was also needed, the meeting decided to retain the
objectives of the research programme, and to the aims ofbroad structure of the draft agenda, but to allow for an initial
discussion of results in the context of the programme
the IWC as expressed in its Resolutions. objectives andf stock management at the end of the agenda
He reminded the Working Group of its formal title: The
Meeting of the lntersessional Working Group to Review item for each scientific topic.
The question was raised as to whether the order of the
Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke aaenda needed to be considered in the light of further
Whales in the Antarctic (IWC, 1996d), and of its status as c~mpu perhapt biinornquested forcompletion during
category (ii) (IWC, 1996c,p.52) i.e. 'considered confidentiathe meeting. It was agreed thateneral, the meeting should
until.....discussed by the Scientific Committee at an Annualnot attempt such work during the limited time available to it;
Meeting'. . if such requests did arise, time should rather be devoted only
He stated that it was not his intention to participate into ensuring specificationsof what was required were
detailed scientific discussions at the meeting, and that he properly set out, with results to be considered at the next
decided that as Scientific Committee Chairman it would not
Scientific Committee meeting.
be appropriate for him to Chair the Working Group himself, The Wo1king Group then adopted the agenda shown in
particularly as the Working Group's Report would be Annex B T•e Chairman stressed that discussion on Item 8
presented to the full Committee,.with himself in the Chair, (referencing recent Commission Resolutions) would take
the Scientific Committee's next Annual Meeting in
Boumemouth. However, he expected to be presentfor much 1During the course of the meeting minor modifications to the agenda
of the discussion of Agenda Item 1. were adopted, as refl in the topic heinthe report.
99Annex 95
378 RBPORT OF THE INTERSESS!ON AL WORKINGGROUP
place only should Lime penni!, noting that the Scientific Are;cs IV and V. Following the results of the feasibility
Committ ee meeting later in the year would in nny case huve studies, considera tions of the balance between the expecte d
to address this topic. precision of estimates of the mortality rate and the researc h
capability availab le led to the decision to set the number of
1.4 Docum ents ava ilable animals tObe sampled each season to 300 with an allowance
111edocumems presented to the Working Group are listed in ±10%. ln the 1995196 season. additional samples of 100
Annex C. animals with an allowance of±IO% were planned for Area
IIIE, and subsequent ly 100 ±10% in Area VIW in the
l.5 Te rm s or refere nce for JARPA re view 1996197 season, for studying stock structure (see llem 3).
The Working Group took note of its tenns of referenoe as lnitially three vessels (plus the mothership) had been
reflectedint~ openl pnrtj,lraphoIWC(l996d) (quoted employed, bui afourthhadbeenndded in 1995196 to allow
in the second paragrnph of Section 1.3 above). To assist the for on increase in searching effort in the sighting survey.'This
Working Group in its considern tion of each sciemifiic topicand some other changes during the progress of the
on this bas is, n subgro up chain:d by Smith compiled u progrumme had been made in response to comments from
'checklist ' which is showasAnnex D. the Scientific Committee. Initially both dwarf nnd ordinnry
The original JARPA proposal (Government of Japan, fonns of the minke whal.es had been sampled, but sampling
1987) and the most recent version (Government of Japan, of theformer had Cel!Sedin 1993/9 4. A total of I,546 (Area
1996) identifiedstudic. ~n toothed whales as well as on IV), 1,546 (Area V), 110 (Area liTE)and I 10(Area V!W)
rninke whales. Noting that its terms of reference specified ordinary and 16 dwarf form minkc whales had been sampled
minke whales only, the Working Group agreed not to by the end of the1996/97 SellS On.
consider those other aspec ts of JARPA. The Working Group noted that more details on the
pro~ramm aee to be found in review documents
1.6The original research pr oposal and later add ition s SC/M97!1 -5 and 8. II also noted that some analyses of
Ohsumi summarised1SC/M97/IO. He stated that Japan's JARPA data presented to this and previous meetings had
original objectivesfor the research had been: used the data collected in the feasibility studies as well as in
the full progranune. (Datfrom theresearch in I996!97are
(I)estimation of the biologica l parameters to improve the not yet available, so have not been incorporated in any of the
stock managemen t of the Southern Hemisphere minke analyses discussed below). '11le Working Group nOied the
whale;
(2)eluci.dationof the role of whales in the Antarctic marine comprehensive nature of the JARPA programme. The lists
ecosyste m. of scientific papers and datascts resulting from the
progrtlmmc arcgiven in Annex E.
Subsequently, as part of the natural evolution of the
programme andin response to developing requirements, two 1.8 Over view of past discussions of lhe J AR PA
furtherobjec tives had been added:
program me and its results
(3) elucidation of the effect of environmen tal changes on The Working Group noted that while both t~ quantity and
cetace ans; quality of the scientific work habeen commended by the
Scientific Committee,differing, views had been expressed in
(4)elucidation of the stock structure of the Southern the Committee about its relevance to management
Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
manage ment. considerations.
A suggestion was mudc thata list of specific issues in
The Working Group agreed to defer discussio n on the contention be compiled from past Scientific Committee
justification or otherwisof the rationale offered (infor reports.he group that had served as the SteeringCommittee
example. SC/M97!10) for these objectives to the pertinent for the Working Group wus reques ted to provide this. Their
subsequent agenda items (including Item 7). list is given as AnneF.
1.7 Outlin e of the .JARP A resea rch 2. SIGHTING SURVEYS AND ABUNDA~CE
Fujise presented a brief summary of thept:egramme to date.
Two feasibi lity stud ies had taken placein 1987/88 and EST IMA TI ON
1988/89, with the full scale 16year research commencing 2.1 Bac.kgro11nd: orit inal and additional resear ch
thefollowing season andalterna ting eacseasonin All:asIV objectives
and V. In 1995196 and 1996.197,coverage was extended to Noting that the objectives for the research listed in1.6em
Areas lllE and VIW respectively. for a limited period did not include the provi$ion of abundance estimates (for
feasibility study of stock structure. input, pemaps, to the RMP) per se, clarifica tion was sought
He stated that the full programme has two components : a
on the intent of this component of the programme. Was it
sighting survey whose primary purpose is the estimatio n of solely a necessary part of. for example, the unbiased
trends in abundance; and a samp ling component to allow estimation of certain biologicul parame ters, or an aim of the
biological parmueter values10 be estimated given also the programme in its own right? Ohsumi stated that though the
abundance information provided by the sigh ting survey. ln primary reason for the sii:hting surveys was their
the programme as originally proposed ,it was planntotake contribmion to objective l (Lhc c.ir~ttion of biological
825 anima ls in any one season from uither AreIV or Area parame ters)their pertinence to tRMP and the associated
V. For two years of feasibility studies, 300 animals (with an implementation process for Southern Hemisphere minke
allowance of ±10%) were planned to be sampled in parts of whales should be seen asuded vative objective.
The following question nrose c::onceming the choice of
'The WorkingG10upootedlh4131thlll>ofthe programme,objec tive
I nbovehad beenworded • btol<>ttctJpIaromdUQiliiYforji<:JCk areal coverage for the sampling and surveys: since the
m{mag.tmem.....·. Hs1anorucdlha'JapanconsideredtherewordinG objective of obtaining unbiased estimates of biological
ofobjective 1 obovmore appropriate :irefocusingtowards the parameters for the population required representative
RMP a.lhc bosisfom•n•ecmen~ sampling, why had coverage beenreduced from south of
100 Annex 95
382 REPORT OP THE LNTERE SSSIONAL WORKINGGROUP
recomme nded Ihat the Scientific Committee should develop should be undertaken to collect tissue sampls from minkc
ctiterin regarding te effect size required to designate two whales on breeding grounds in the Sout hern Hemisphere to
putative stocks as separate managemen t units.Sh~ further allow conlrasts regarding the diribution and frequency of
recommend ed a particuhtr approach to designating effect specific haplotypes from the breeding and feeding
size, which uses the number of individuals dispersing per
grounds.
genc.ration. Becatse the level of genetic distinctness is a Regarding the RMP, the new genetic infonna tion
function of both the dispersal rate and effective popula lion indicated !hat there was a temporal component to the stock
size, it is not possible 10designutspecific level of genetic structure of the ordinary form of the Antarctic minke whale
distinclness !hawou ld~ used in defining stock structure. It in Area IV, which was not recognised at the time of the
was fm1hcr noted in Annex F that if Small Areas (in the
Comprehensive Assessment. Implementation trials n.rc
RMP)are used to manage removal levels and where harvcsls designed to simulate plausible scenarios specific to !he
are carried ollt such that !heir geographical di&tribution species under consideration for harvest. When multiple
match es the distribution of the largeted slock, !hiseless stocks are involved these trials use mixing matrices to
risk that any one stock will be over harvested. The more represent the proportionof each stock p1-esen1in each area
uneven the harvest, the higher the rik that incorrect swck being harvested . This is a factor that needs to be taken into
definitions could lead to over harvest of some stocks. account in the normal process of implementat ion review
Several members responded that for the lmplememation (IWC, 1994b). In the long term,genetic information could be
Simulation Trialsfor the RMP the key issue regarding stock used in implementing an improved versi on of the RMP.
idenlity was the number of breeding groups and not the
It was also suggested, and agreed , that a protocol should
number of or distribution on feediareas. However, il was be developed that specifies how such data (i.e., data on
noted that the diribution and numberof breeding groups for genetic relatedness of putative stocks from the breeding or
the ordinary form of the Anta.rctic minkc whale were poorly feeding areas) would be used in either developing specific
underslood. After some discussion, there was general Implementation Simulation Trials or in the general
agreement that additional sampl es were needed from the
mana gement of commercial harvests. .
various breeding areas. In addition, effort should be directed In addition, it was noted that the information discussed
at better integrating the RMP and currently available data on here did no! exclude the possibility that there are more than
stock stmcture. two genetically distinct stocks of this fonmof minke whale in
One final point was discussed regarding the Bblility of Areas IV and V. Additional analyses, including for example
different generic techniques to resolve questions related to theuse of nuclear DNA, could reveal additional structure.
stock strucrure. It was noted rhat only informalion on To avoid a repetition of past debates within the Scientific
mt.DNA had been used to dale to investigate !he stock Committee regarding alternative methods to lethal removals,
strucwre of the ordinary form of the Anlarctic minkc whale, the Chair askd proponents ofthetwo different viewpoints to
bul that efforts were underwy to use exist ing tissue samp les summarise their views. These summaries are presented in
tolook for stock structure using nuclear markers. ln genera l, Annex H.
the latter lechniques are more efficient, given a specific
sample size, in detecting substruc rure. Taylor also noted !hat
discrepancies from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium could 4. BIOLOG ICAL PAR AMETE R STUDIES
also be used to test for mixing between putative stocks , with 4.1 Backgro und : origin al and additiona l research
data detived from nuclear DNA, but not from data derived objectives
from mt.DNA. Estimation of biological parameters, especia lly natural
It was nlso recognised that the statistical analysis of Ihe mortalityro~t easo,t·iginaJiy the main resea rch objective of
genetic data should consider the inclusion of school size asa theJARPA, sinre knowledge of some of these parameters
covari becaese (I) schools of different sizes are not was at the time considered to be necessary for a rational
detected with equal probabiliry and (2) of the schools management of whale stocks by many scientists.
encountered, anima ls from smaller schools are oversanlpled Ohsumi presented a review of the studies on estimation of
relative to animals from larger schools. biolgical parameters (SC/M97/2) with a focus on natural
mortalily rates and age at sexual maturiry, as these
3.5 Poten tial of the results to achieve the obj ectives of parame1ers has been the subject of many discussions and
JARPA and of stock mana gement much disagreement in the Scientific Committee meetings.
Participants agreed that the following poinls listed in Annex The review stressed the necessity of the biological studies,
D were pertinent lo items A (objectives I and 4) and Bl , and prese111edand discussed interim results.
B2.1, B2.4, B3.2 and B3.3. II was noted that resea rch on
stock structure is clearly related to objective 4 in AnD,x 4.2 Met hodology of data collectio n
but is also important regarding the manner in which specific SC/M97/14 oullined !he random sampling scheme thathas
biological parameters areboth estimated and intcrprelcd. been incorporated in rhe JARPA programme and presented
There was general agreement that the data presented on some analyses relating to whether such random sampling
had been achieved. Tile sampling ha<l targeled primary
stock structure, particularly the new genetic dala, were
impmtan t contributions to the objectives of JARPA and sigbtings only. Prom 1987/88 to 1991/92, sampling involved
stock manageme nt. It was further noted that based on the taking up to two whales from the targeted school, but from
new genetic information, at least some of the historic 1992/93 the protocol was to take one whale from each
Managemen t areas were inappropriat e for stock definiti ons school,subject toatime limit for chasing.Sampling success
for minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere. from the Utrgeted school was 0.52-0.75 for the scheme of
Two additional Jines of research were also recommended. Lakingup tOtwo whales from a school, but increased to 0.8
First, the development of more theory on use of genetic or more afler implementation of the chan.,oeto a maximum of
information for estimating mixing rares among putative one whale. Jn order to compare the ftrst and second sampled
stocks. Second , participants supported an earlier whales in the initial scheme in terms of their biological
recommenda tion of the Scientific Committee that effon s characteristics,he authors examined differences in body
101Annex 95
386
RTP:.ORT OF THE lN'ffiRSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP
given age-ovulmion plots prcsellled, so that some caution B.l Non-lethal metholls
would benecessary in llltcmpting to infer annual ovulation The Working Group noted that there were non-lethal
rates fromsuch plots. Most analyses assumed that corpora methods availuble that could provide illfom1ntion about
albicans persist in ovnries throughout life.It was pointed outpopulation age structure (e.g. natural marking) but that
that.part of the apparent inconsistency could beexplained by
logisics and the abundance of minke populatioos in Areas
the unce11ainry in Liteageing. IV and V probably precluded th eir successful application.
Fukui et a/. (1997) examined factors affecting i111•itro
maturation of minke whale follicular oocytes using materials
collected during the JARPA survey in 1995/96. The 8.2 Rt!let·a,cc to stock management
interesting result i11the context of the JARPA review is that In 1993, the Scientific Committeeproposed mechanisms for
amendmentof the RMP (IWC. 1994a: 47-48). The Scientific
some female minke whales have mature oocytes in their Committee distinguished between mechanisms for the
ovaries in the Antarctic waters.
amendment of case-specific implementations and
mechanisms for amendment of the RMP itself. The Working
4.3.4 Other und 4.3.5 Results incl11ding morraliry and Group discussed Lherelevance of a better knowledge of
biological parameters to management objectives in this
reproductiv e rates context, i.e. it distinguished between short-term
SC/M97/ l3 presented additonal analyses to an earlier paper
by the same authors on the nature of segrega tion (Fujise and improvements, which would be amendments of the case
Kishino. 1994). II was found that the proportion of males specitic implementations, and long-tem1 improvements
was negatively correlated with the latitude of the sighting which could imply more fundamental changes to the RMP
itself.
position, and decrenscd with lutitude especially in Area V. In the shotl term perspective the three key considerations
The maturity rate for both sexes was high throughout all
Areas and months, and increased with school size. Mature identified were:
femalesdou1inated in higher latitudes suas Prydz Bay and
the Ross Sea. Ye:~r vayiation in the mamrity rate was (I) changes in the definition of Small Areas;
(2) changes to the selection between RMP options such as
evident for both sexes in Area V. catch-capping and catch-cascadi ng; and
(3) chQJlges in the range of plausible MSYRs to use in
lmplemclllation Simulation Trials.
4.5 Potential of the results to achieve the objectives of
JARPA and of stoc k mana gement In the looge1 term perspective, better knowledge of
A.JARPAobjecti11es biological parametersould lead to modifications of the CLA
The Working Group agreed that the papers presented have in the RMP.
givenvaluable information onrecruitment, natural mortality, SC/M97f2 states that knowledge of M would improve
decline in age at sexual maturity and reproductive knowl edge of MSYR and MSYL.The ·question was raised as
parameters of minke whales in Areas IV and V. However,
to whether MSYR and MSYL can be estimated from the
therearc some unresolved problems in the analyses, and biological data collected. The meeting noted that the
fU11ehr work is necessary. recruitment data from analyses such as those in SC/M97/6
One of the specific objectives of the programm e was to could be fitted by stock recruitment models to provide
collect random samples for the estima tion of biological estimates of MSYR once reliable input dataarc available.
parameters. The results had demonstrated that this was a Trends in recruitment fromSC/M97/6 andSC/M97f21could
rnore difficut task than had been envisaged. Despite the be used directly when conditioning future !mplemematio 11
considerable attention given to the saunpling scheme, it has Sim11latiollTrials for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. It
not been completely successful at obtaining random wns agreed that if the caveats expressed concerning
samples. The meeting further noted that the geographical abundance estimates from JARPA could be resolved, and
delimitationof the sampling areas has not resulted in either with some further methodological development in
distinct biological populations being sampled or the entire esl"imating the essential biological para meters, d1c results
ranges of the population being sampled. The implications ot" from the JARPA could bedirectly relevant for management,
this for the representativeness of the sample should begiven both in the short term and the long tenn.
further consideration. However it was noted that the VPA
analyses (as, for example, SC!M97/6) required
representative samplingover only part of the range of ages in S. MARINE ECOSYSTEM
the population. There were no indications that this had not
been achieved for animals of age I0 and above.The meeting S.l Background: original and additional research
also considered that d1e results of the genetic studies shouldobjectives
be u~ed to redefine the geographical boundaries for any Th.e second of the two original JARPA objectives was:
future analysis. Elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine
The Working Group noted that the~rw as stiluncer ~nty
whether information that fully represents a biological stock I!COsysrem.
could be obtained, but considered that much progress had
been made towards that end. Before JARPA was initiated, In the 1996/97 research plan this objective was restated as:
whales occurring in Area IV and Area V were managed as ElucidaJion of tile role of whaliiJthe Amarctic marine
different stocks, but a clearer picture about the biological ecosystem through wl!alefeeding ecology.
stocks in these Are.1s was now emerging. Although the
present state of knowledge still leaves much to be desired, The research plan concentra tes on the feeding ecology of
considerable data reflectinghe status of the whale stocks minke whales by the analysis of stornach contents nnd
occurring in Areas IV and V have been collected, and have blubber volume. Changes in prey availability and their
produced many valuable results. possible effects on minke whales are expectetobe detected
102 Annex 96
96. “Summary Statements Supporting the Use of Lethal Removal and Refuting its use,
as it Pertains to the Collection of Information on Stock Structure”,Annex H, SC/49/
Rep1, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 48, 1998, p. 412
412 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP. ANNEX 1i
Annex H
Summary Statements Supporting the Use of Lethal Removal
and Refuting its use, as it Pertains to the Collection of
Information on Stock Structure
I. ASTATEMENT REFU TI NG THE NEED FOR 3ppronches should be used. rnany of which require lethal
LET HAL REMOVALS techniq ues. Genetic analyses usinDNA can be conducted
All of the genetic infom1n1ion required for purposes of stockusing biopsy sampling. However, the number of samples
identityan beobmined by non-lethal methods. First, there is required in studies on stock identifica tion in the case of the
a large arcl1ive of samples from both JARPA and prior southern minke whale is large, and consideration of
sampling collection should be taken into nccounl
commerc ial operations, ond which dese rve furthe r analysis
without the need to co llec t new sumples. Funhe r use of Regardi ng the co llection of biopsy samples for DNA
avai lable samples can be made by: (I) testing varying stock :malyses. it should be noted thnt biopsy samplino
boundaries nndtime periods; (2) applying different molecular techniques have nO( been successfu lly developed for~
with minke whales. Considering the logistics of study ino
techniques and; (3) assess ing potential biases from the
non-random samples from commercial operations. Use of minke whnles in the Southern Ocean, biopsy 1eehniqu~
microsotellitcs, whic~er generally more sensi tive markers thnt cou lbe developed for use in low latitudes will likely
for deteCting population stJ\JCture, will likely greatly reducet prove workable at high latitudes . Further, given the
the number of samp les needed. Second, the Scientific need for cost-effect ive sampling regimes due to the high
Committee recognised rhat sampling the breeding grounds opera ting costs of working in the Southern Ocean and rhe
(in lower latitudes) would gret;l~enhance the power of need for adequate samp le size, it is unlikely that biopsy
sampling woold prove usefu l.Regarding no n-genetic
genetic analyses. ltis importan t to note that non-lethal
sampling is the only option in many of the suggested breedingtechniques for stock identification, it has been recog nised
grounds . Third , biopsy sampling techniqu es can and should that the age of individual wha.lcsansindispensab le piece
beimproved toapply specifically to minke whales. At present of inf01mation in interpreting stock structlorc and that there
nrc currently no non-lethal techniques thor provide
min.kewhales are cosier to kill than ro biopsy because killing
technology has been developed for this specieand for the information on age. For example, many differe nt sets of
weather conditions commonly encountered in the Southern data that have been used to infer stock. struct ure in other
Ocean. A similar effort in developing appropriate biopsy populations of large wholes which require infonna tion on
age (e.g. average age at sexual maturity. average age at
technology needs to take place. Fourth, moleculu rtechniques
arc usuaUy more powetful in identify ing population structurerecruitment,age specific reproductive rates and pollu tant
than othec techniques. The mos t efficient appro ach to level s). Al, some kinds of genet ic analyses for studies on
analysing stock structure would be hierarchica l, where stock structure, such as aUoz.yrne, require tissues other than
skin or blubber, which can only be obtained using lethal
molecular genetic techniques would be used ftrst (both
mitochondrial and nuclear). Only if no struc ture were techniques. Furthermore, studies that are based on
detected would further techniques be initiated. In the case oforpho metries, parnsites,conception da les,pollutant
JARPA non-genetic data, it was noted rhut it was difftcul rtoburdens, etc.are also useful for stock identification, and
they canno t be undertaken using non-lethal techniques . In
evaluate its utilitybecause analyses were incomplete.
There fore, it was not possible toevaluate whether these otherddition, while oon·lethal techniques are the only option
dltulmake a contribution beyond what llM already been for rare or endangered stocks. lethal techniqueswhen
learned using molecular genetic techniques regarding stoc k applied to healthy and relatively large populations typically
produce resellfCb resultsmore quickly than non-lethal
structu t-e. Finally, samp les can also be collectefrom
stnmded whales and whales taken as by-catch. rechmques . Finally, the proceeds from the sale of
post-study by-produclS of lethal srudies, in attOrdance with
Artrcle 8of-the International Whaling Conven tion, cabe
2. ASTATEMENT SUPPO RTIN G TH E NEED FOR
LETHAL REMOVA.LS used to offset some of the extrem e C05ts of conducting
research on minke whales in the Sout hern Ooean. The
Information required for stock identificationcannot be offsett ingof costs is not possible using non-lethal
obtained by non-lethal means alone. Rathe r, a variety of techniques .
103104 Annex 97
97. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004,
p. 22
22 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITIEE
what definition of 'ice-edge' was being used in analyses, data availability procedures will be submitted to the Data
and that a climatological definition may be more Availability Group.
appropriate for some models. An intersessional group It was noted that work undertaken under the auspices of
(Annex U) was established to investigate this, and to try to this group does not ·preclude other analyses being
discover information on other explanatory variables (such submitted.
as shelfbreak, coastlines, southern boundary, the Antarctic SC/55/IA4 concluded that given estimated consumption
circumpolar current) that may influence whale ratesof killer whales and their estimated abundance, it was
distribution. Thisis also discussed under Item 12.2.2.2 not possible for killer whales to have killed enough minke
with respect to standardising 'at-sea'definitions. whales to explain a possible decline of the magnitude
The Committee recommends that further efforts be estimated in Branch and Butterworth (200Ia). After·
made to examine the available data (including past data) discussion, the Committee agreed that whilst multi
such as that collectedn the !DCRISOWER, SO-GLOBEC species analyses may provide consistency checks for
or APIS surveys to try to estimate the order of magnitude examination of trends, they should not be viewed as the
of the numbers ofminke whales in the ice. primarytool for trend estimation.
The Committee noted that the power to detect and
10.2.3.2 TRENDS interpret a trend is implicitly tiedo·factors influencing
The Committee has considered three methods to estimate
additional variance, such as longitudinal movement of
trends in abundance: a simple comparison of the whales. In conclusion, the Committee agreed that any
abundance estimates from the three series of circumpolar trend estimation method should not extrapolate between
(CP) surveys; growth rate parameter value(s) from the Areas, since any changes in biological parameters could be
additional variance analysis (see item 3.3.3of Annex G);
Area-specific.
and use of catch-at-agepopulation dynamic models.
The Committee noted that the types of population 10.2.4 Other
dynamic models useful for examining trends were not 10.2.4.1 RESPONSE TO RESOLUTION 2001-7
limited to traditional Virtual Population Analyses (VPA) The Committee noted that it had made progress in
and noted that a variety of general catch-at-age metl10ds addressing the hypotheses listed in the response to
could be used. The experience of the intersessional Resolution 2001-7 (IWC, 2002a), which requests the
Working Group established last year to further VPA Committee to provide a list of plausible hypotheses that
analyses provided useful background to the Working may explain the apparent population decline. However, the
Group on Data .Availability (Item 22.1). The Committee Committee reiterates its view that the most appropriate
identified seven specific catch-at-age related issues for time to fully address this Resolution will be after
further investigation (see item 3.4.2.1 in Annex G). was completing its work on reviewing .the IDCR/SOWER
noted that part of one issue would be facilitated through abundance estimates and trends.
assistance from the Standing Working Group on
Environmental Concerns, since a priori hypotheses 10.2.4.2 STOCK STRUCTURE
relating recruitment to environmental variables over given SC/55/IA8 presented the results of a restriction fragment
time frames are required. length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) in Antarctic minke whales from Areas
The Committee agreed that investigation of all seven
issues was of high priority for its work in order to IIIE, IV,V and VIW sampled during the 1987/88-200.1/02
completethe Southern Hemisphere minke whale review. JARPA surveys. The pattern of longitudinal and temporal
It was further agreed that the Committee will attempt to mtDNA heterogeneity is consistent with the hypotheses of
· a core stock in Areas VIW, V and IVE. Heterogeneity
ensure that sufficient analyses areeve1opedto address the
above issues in order that the Committee can complete the found in Area IVW can be interpreted as an 'intrusion' of
Antarctic minke whale review. a different stock in some years or the overlap of two stocks
InPlenary, the Committee reviewed a proposal (Annex with a temporal component.
5 The analyses presented in SC/55/IAS have a number of
G, Appendix 10 that specified the principal investigators,
data requirements, and likely analytical techniques to be implications for trend estimation from the catch-at-age
used to investigate the above issues, in accordance with analyses. Since the resultsf the catch-at-age analyses will
the rules under Procedure B of the new Data Availability need to be robust to assumptions "about ·stock structure,
there was discussion about where to draw the stock
Process (Item 22.1 ). The proposal requests JARPA data
from the main study areas, Areas IV and V. It was noted boundary line in Area VI. The Committee recommends
that data from Areas III and VI, although of some use to that the alternative analyses suggested by the authors of
the proposed catch-at-age analyses, are not as high priority SC/55/IA8 be conducted.
as JARPA data within Areas IV and V, as explained in
Annex G, Appendix I0. It was agreed that the request for I0.2.·5 Plansfor completion of Antarcticminke review
data within Areas III and VI should be reviewed next year Annex G, Appendix 9 details the tasks identified by the
in light of progress made into the investigations of the Committee to further the review of Antarctic minke whale
abundance estimates. Noting the need to explain why the
above seven issues. The Committee endorsed this
proposal and thus a formal request for data under the new estimates of abundance using the standard methods for
CPTIIare appreciably lower than estimates for CPII (IWC,
2002a), the Committee strongly recommends that
'Although submitted to Plenary, it was agreed that it was appropriate to
append this to Annex G. substantial progress be made on all tasks given. high
105106 Annex 98
98. Danielsdottir A K et al, “Response to Appendix 2 Regarding Scientific Permits”,
Appendix 3, Annex O, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004, pp. 365-366
J. CETACEAN REs. MANAGE. 6 (SUPPL.), 2004 365
Appendix 3
RESPONSE TO APPENDIX 2 REGARDING SCIENTIFIC PERMITS 1
A.K. Danfelsd6ttir, R. Borodin, S. Diake, E. Diaz, Y. Fujise, D. Goodman, M. Goto, T. Gunnlaugsson, T. Hakamada, H.
Hatanaka, T. Haug, F. Hester, N. Kanda, H. Kato, S. Kawahara, M. Kingsley, T. Kitakado, N. Lawrence, A. Magloire, H.
Matsuda, K. Matsuoka, T. Miyashita, J. Morishita, H. Murase, T. Nagatomo, S. Nakatsuka, S. Nishiwaki, H. Okamura, S.
Oshumi, D. 6lafsd6ttir, J. Rambally, J. Rennie, H. Shimada, J. Sigurj6nsson, G.A. Vfkingsson, L. Wall(l!e,H. Walters and H.
Yoshida.
Appendix 2 wishes to register 'serious concerns' in the of the GADGET model to incorporate cetaceans. The
lightof 'inadequate time for discussion'. However, it is leading conclusionof SC/55/Repl is that 'consideration of
difficult to fmd any 'topic in Appendix 2 not already ecosystem interactions between fish stocks and cetaceans is
discussed by theSC and dealt with in Annex 0. Regardless, a potentially important research topic'. This report
the review process Wl)Shampered by time constraints and acknowledges new methods, l:)utlists the advantages of data
late arrivalf the draft report, and was particularly difficult obtained by 'identifying and measuring items in . . .
for members whose first language is not English. gastrointestinal contents'.
We welcome the proposal and believe that the research The evaluation of the effectof the proposed catches on
detailed in SC/55/02 will. contribute significantly to our the Central North Atlantic stock of minke whales is based on
knowledge of the research fields outlined in the programme. assessment by the NAMMCO ScientificCommittee in 1998,
The research needs for rational management of whale and which concluded that the stock is close torrying capacity
fish resources are certainly present, and the proposal and that the mean annual catch during 1961-1985 (185
addresses several other important research needs identified minke whales) was sustainable under all parameter viuues
by the IWC Scieiltific Committee as well as in other considered appropriate (NAMMCO, 1998). Since this
assessment, a new abundance estimate of 43,633
scientific fora such as the NAMMCO, ICES and NAFO. We
do not agree that the main objectives of the study (feeding (CV= 0.19) has been accepted tiy the IWC Scientific
ecology for minke whales and biological parameters for fin Committee and found to be suitable for use under the
and sei whales) as stated in the propol, can be achieved by RMP.
non-lethal methods at present, but welcome the contribution The basis for evaluation of the effect of the proposed
of the proposal to the development and testing of non-lethal catches of fin whales on the stock is:
methods.
The.scientific permit proposals a demanding study with (1)The results of the IWC Scientific Committee's
a broad scientific scope. · Scientists involved in the
development.of the proposal included specialists in zoology, Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic fm
feeding ecology, population genetics, multi-species whales in 1991 and Central North Atlantic stock of
modelling, 'veterinary science, pollution, parasitology, minke whales in 1990.
(2) Assessments by the NAMMCO Scientific Committee in
chemistry, physiology a nd mathematics. The programme is · 1999 orithe East-Greenland-Iceland stock of fm whales
coordinated by the MRI but will entail cooperation with based on an abundance estimate from NASS-95 of
scientists from other research institutes and universities.
Their extensive professional experience includes 18,932 (CV= 0.16) (NAMMCO, 1998).
participation in national and international coope~ative (3) A new abundance estimate of 24,887 fin whales
research projects funded by the EU and various international (CV~O.l3) from a survey conducted in 2001 (Pike et
research agencies. ' · a/., 2003) that has been accepted by the NAMMCO
Scientific Committee. In addition, a significant
Given the lapse of time since the previous Icelandic
programme and the ecosystem changes including changes in increasing trend in abundanceof fin whales in Icelandic
whale stocks that have since taken place in Icelandic waters, waters over the period 1987-2001 (NAMMCO, 2002).
as well as the simultaneous progress·n research methods, it
is prudent to carry out a pilot study (referred to as a
The statement in Appendix 2 that there has been no recent
feasibility study in SC/55/02) with restricted but assessment of fin and minke whales in Icelandic waters is
representative sample sizes before embarking on a full therefore simply wrong.
research programme. Criticism of the proposal · refers Although there has not been any formal assessmentof sei
frequently to newly developed research methods, but
suggests that old data would suffice to d esign a research whales in Icelandic waters we are confident that the
programme that would employ them. proposed catches of 50 animals in each of the two years will
not have any adverse effect on the Iceland-Denmark Strait
Appendix 2 states that 'Criticism.. demonstrates that the stock which was estimated as 10,200 in 1989 (Cattanach et
proposal is deficient'. This is merely a truism, defining the al., 1993).
word 'criticism'. Few or none of the criticisms raised We cannot concur with the use of the word 'cull' to
co~man universal support.
Sampling of minke whales is stratified according to the describe the pilot study.t will not substantially reduce the
rate of growth of the stocks, nor, since sampling will be
blocks•defined as appropriateby BORMICON analyses. The random, willremoval rates be biased towards individual age
criticismsof sampling design have not suggested preferable or sex classes. A multi-species approach to management, if
designs. The research programme will involve development implemented, would .not necessarily mean that whale
1 populations will be managed to increase fishery yields·. The
This Appendixw~ssubmitted to the Plenary afrerclose of Working
Group discussions. reverse situation could also occur.
107Annex 98
366 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX 0
Stock-structure information is important in designing an governments, with responsibility for managing a spectrum of
implementation of the RMP, and this programme is not marine resources, are entitled to take a broader view of their
designed to answer stock-structure questions, although it requirements for informatio n.
will contribute to identifying th.em; we note that Appendix 2 contends that the review of proposals for
supplementary information such as age of maturity will help scientific whaling . causes conflicts in the SC and
in interpreting genetic stock-structure information. compromises its credibility. We consider, rather, that these
However, other information is not irrelevant to the RMP; in reviews merely reveal differences of belief that in any case
particular, updated estimates of life history variables can be exist, and that restricting discussions in the SC to an
expected to contribute to designing trials and to initiating an uncontroversial agenda would be an unsatisfactory way of
implementation e.g. 'Parameters potentially important for preserving its credibility.
management 0000can be estimated from age data obtained
from thecatch' (IWC, 2000, p.27).Results of theprogramme.
will aid in evaluating cetacean catches in the context of
REFERENCES
managing other species, and will influence the RMP
implementation that Iceland might request. Cattanach,K.L.,Sigurj6nsson,J., Buckland,S.T.andGunnlaugsson,T.
The regrets expressed in Appendix 2 regarding the 1993. Sei whale abundance in the North Atlantic, estimated from
questioning of whether the RMP is indeed rational NASS-87 and NASS-89 data. Rep. int. Whal. Comnm-43:315-21.
International Whaling Commission.000. Report of the Scientific
management are contrary to the rationality of the RMP Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 2:1-65.
addressed in a paper to this meeting by Butterworth and Punt NAMMCO. 1998. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Scientific
(SC/55/RMPIO). Committee, Troms¢, Norway, 10-15 March 1997. NAMMCO
The RMP, asa single-minded, single-species management Annual Report1998:85-202.
NAMMCO. 2002. Report of the Tenth Meeting of the·Scientific
strategy, is appropriate for the IWC, and it may be Committee, Reykjavik, Iceland, 17-19 September 2001. NAMMCO
appropriate for the IWC to focus its evaluation of research Annual Report 2002:173-259.
proposals on their usefulness to the RMP. Whether the Pike, D.O., Gunnlaugsson,· T., Vikingsson, G.A., Desportes, G.,
single-species RMP constitutes 'rational management' is a Mikkelsen,B. and Bloch, D. 2003. Finwhale abundance in the North
Atlantic, from Icelandic and Faroese200I shipboard survys:
semantic argument: it is recognised that multi-species slightly revised estimates.itted to the NAMMCO Scientific
management is complex and difficult. But national Committee as SC/10/AE/8. [Available frwww.nammco.no].
108 Annex 99
99. “Report of the Data Availability Working Group”, Annex T, Report of the Scientific
Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.), 2004, pp. 406-408
406 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX T
Annex T
Report of the Data Availability Working Group
Members: Donovan (Chair), Baker, DeMaster, Hatanaka, work. Requests of a more academic or general scientific
Hammond, Morishita, Perrin, Smith, Walll!!e. nature should be dealt with on a bilateral basis.
The Committee has noted that the question of data Procedur e A is the process for obtaining access to data for
availabilitys a complex and sensitive one. A balance must analyses that are needed to provide the best ipanagement
be struck between the needs of the Scientific Committee and advice on catch limits (e.g. the RMP and AWMP).
the rightsof the scientists who have invested considerable Procedure B is the process for obtaining access to data for
time and effort in collecting the data. A number of issues analyses the Committee believes would be 1aluable in
were raised in the discussions last year with respect to this providing other advice to theCommission •
·issue, particularly in the context of the RMP process. Note that the data themselves may in some cases be the
Although some progress was made, consensus was not same for both Procedure A and B. The difference lies in the
reached. It was agreed that either a consensus objectivesof the analyses. For Procedure A, it is therefore
recommendation or a limited number of options for essential that any requests forda~ are accompanied by a
consideration at this meeting should be attempted (IWC, statement of the objectives of the study and the methods
2003, p.14). likely to be used (different timelines apply for novel methods
rather than standard methods). Any application for data
Experience during the past year und er Procedure A restricts use of the data to producing
The examples involving correspondence between applicants papers for the Scientificmmittee that are directly relevant
and the Institute fortacean Research were examined: one
to providing management advice on catch limits.
involving an individual scientist from the Scientific Use of the word 'meeting' below includes Annual
Committee; and one involving a Working Group established Meetings, Special Meetings and workshops. Applications
by the Scientific Committee. General features of these can only be made by accredited persons in accordance with
applications provided useful background information to the the Committ ee's Rules of Procedure.
Working Group's discussions.
Data Availability Group
Towards a consensus view The Scientific Committee shall be represented by a ·small
All members of the Working Group agreed ·that the group comprising the Chair, the Vice-Chair and the Headof
following threeprinciples must be taken intoaccount if afair Science, hereafter called the Data Availability Group.
data availability solution was to be found, evenf there are
differencesof opinion as to their relative importance: Conditions for data recipients
(I) Data represent a significant temporal and financial Applications deemed suitable under Procedure A or
investment by scientists and research institutes - use of Procedure· B below are granted under the following
their data by others should be accompanied by conditions:
appropriate safeguards.
(I) Data shall not be transmitted to third parties.
(2) The right of first publication is a generally accepted (2) Papers may only be su bmitted to a Committee meeting
· scientific norm. in accordance with the time restrictions given below.
(3) If important management decisions are to be made, they Such papers must not include the raw data or the data in
should be based on a full scientific review of both data a form in moredetail than is necessary to understand the
quality and analysis that can be independently
verified. analysis.
(3) Papers must carry a restriction citation except in the
The approach below has been agreed by all members of the context of IWC meetings.
Working Group. The only remaining issue is whether the (4) Data owners are offered co-authorship.
data are held by the Secretariatr by the data owner. Most (5) Publication rights remain strictly with the data owner.
(6) Data shall be returned, to the Secretariat or the data
members favoured the former but agreed that the most
important issue was that once an applition isapproved, the owner as appropriate, immediately after the meeting at
data are sent promptly to the successful applicant(s) - i.e. which the paper is submitted and any copies destroyed,
normally within two weeks (see Procedure A (2) below). unlessan extension is granted.
(7) Data requesters sign a form agreeing to the above
conditions.Such fo rms will be held by the data owner
THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH
Issues of data availability affect different categories of the and the Secretariat. In the case Procedure B, the Data
Committee's work. What follows concerns data that the 1For example. the request for data for VPA analyses considered last
ScientificCommittee believes is particlarly important to its year.
109Annex 99
1. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 6 (SUPPL.), 2004 407
Availability. Group will sign the agreement on the include sufficient documentation of the analysis for it to
Committee's behalf and ensure that the conditions of befully reviewed and any associated analytical software
any agreement are met by any individual scientists shallbe lodged with the Secretariat.
involved in the analysis. (4) If standard methods are used, ·Scientific Commi.ttee
(8) In the event of a breach of the conditions in (6), serious
papers documenting data analys is and results shall be
sanctions [to be determined] will apply. circulated no less than 2 months before the meeting at
which they are to be used.
(5) Alternative analyses carried out in response to papers
Procedure A submitted under (3)or (4)shall becirculated no less than
The following shall apply with respect to data required for 1 month before the meeting at which they are to be
the process outlined inIWC (2003, pp.ll-12) for the RMP,
the AWMP (see IWC,' 2003, pp.19-27) and other used.
information used to provide advice onaboriginai subsistence
Procedure B
catch limits before the relevantSLAs have been completed. This applies to data required for analyses deemed important
The rules apply to all data owners who wish their analyses to in providing advice to the Committee other than catch limits
be considered as part of the process to provide advice on (e.g.on the status of stocks not subject to whaling). For data
catch limits.
· Data owners may submit data to be treated under this not subject to Procedure A, the data owners shall produce,in
collaboration with the Committee, a published protocol for
procedure, even ·if they do not intend to analyse the data data access that applies to requests generated by the
themselves. Committee, to ensure clarity and a mutual understanding of
When an application for data under this procedure is the process.
submitted, the Data Availability Group shall: (a) decide
whether an application fulfils the criteria with respect to the (1) The Committee shall specify the nature of the work and
the data required during the meeting at which the
objectives of the study; and (b) determine whether the recommendation ismade, tothe fullest extent possible in
methods proposed are considered standard or novel. The the time availableat the meeting and in accordance with
small group may take advice from the data owner, applicant the published protocol. It should also name the
or other relevant scientists in this process.
appropriate scientists to undertake the work and
(1) If they wish analysesto beconsidered by theCommittee, designate an appropriate timeline.
data owners must make data used for the analys is (2) Applications to the data owners following the published
available in an agreed form and specified resolution (if protocol referred to above, should be submitted by the
desired, to the Secretariat) no later than 6 months before Data Availability Group assisted by a nominated
the meeting at which they are to be used. Examples are member of the relevant delegation or institute. The Data
given in Appendix 1. These data shall be made available Availability Group will consult with relevant members
to accredited persons only under the conditions listed of the Committeeiffurther explanation or clarification is
above. Data owners shall be notified of any such required.
requests. including a descriptionof the objectives of the (3) If the above process is followed, then the data owners
study and the methods to be used. will normally approve the applications within a
(2) The Secretariat or data owners shall respond (i.e. send specified time period in accordance with the published
the data) to requests for data approved by the small protocol.
group promptly, normally within 2 weeks of receiving (4) Applications shall only be granted under conditions
the request. given above.
(3) If novel methods are to be used, Scientific Committee
\ papers documenting data analysis and results shall be REFERENCE
circulated no less than 3 months before the meeting at International Whaling Commission. 2003. Report of the Scientific
which they are to beconsidered. Any such papers should Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Ma11age. (Sup5:1-92.
Appendix 1
EXAMPLES OF DATA THAT COULD BE LODGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE A
(I) Ifgenetic analyses are tabled, then by animal one would (2) If movement data analyses are tabled, then by animal
expec t: one would expect:
(a) date sampled; (a) day of flfStmarking;
(b) position sampled; (b) position of first marking;
(c) nuclear DNA microsatellites; (c) day/position of 'recapture(s)' (harvest, photo-id,
(d) mtDNA sequences; telemetry);
(e) leng th, sex. (d) known additional data (e.g. length, sex).
[Appendix1 tableon nextpage]
110 Annex 99
408 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX T
Table 1
A worked hypothetical example of how Procedure A might function.
Years 0-2 CountryAcollects genetic samples from 200animals.
Nov. year2 Thedataarealmostall processedandthecountry'sscientistsdecidethattheywishanmtDNAanalysis of theirdatato beconsidered
by the Scientific Committee at its Annual Meeting beginning l June year 3. They consult with the small group and are informed that
oneof theanalysestheyproposeis consider~stand anrth'other'novel'.
Dec. year 2 The mtDNA·dataaresubmittedto the Secretariatat the resolutiongiven in Appendix1 (sequences byanimal,date position, sex,
length).TheyarenowavailabletoaccreditedpersonsfollowingProcedureA. ThisisnotifiedtotheCommitteebytheSecretariat.
Jan. year 3 An accredited person (Murphy) sends in a brief standard form proposal explaining: (l) the objectives of his research; (2) the methods;
(3) the data required; and (4) agreement to abide by the conditions for data use. This is reviewed by the small group, deemed
acceptable and a copy of the proposal and the agreement is sent to the data owners. They and Murphy are infonned that the proposed
methodis considerednovel andthe implicationsof this areexplained.The dataaresent to theapplicantby the Secretariatwithin2
weeks ofnotification.
Feb. year 3 Another accredited person (Gonzalez) senasbrief standard form proposal explaining: (I) the objectives of her research; (2) the
methods;(3) the datarequired;and(4) agreementto abide by the conditions for datause. This is reviewed by the small group,
deemedacceptableanda copyof theproposal-andtheagreementis sentto thedataowners. They andGonzalezareinfonnedthat the
proposed method is considered standardand the implicationsof this are explTheedata are sent to the applicant by the
Secretariatwithin2 weeksof notification.
1Mar.year3 Papersby both the data owner and Murphyusing-novel methods are submittedto the Committee.The dataowners' paper also
includestheresoltsof thestandardanalysis.
1Apr. year 3 Gonzalez'paperissubmittedtotheCommittee.
I Mayyear3 Papers by the data owner and Murphy are presented.
I Jun. year 3TheScientificCommitteemeeting.
111112 Annex 100
100. Zacharias M A, Gerber L R and Hyrenbach K D, “Incorporating the science
of marine reserves into IWC Sanctuaries: The Southern Ocean Sanctuary”,
SC/56/SOS5 (2004) p. 2
SC/56/SOSS
ABS TR..t.CT
This externa l scientific review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuasy (SOS) was commissioned by the IWC Scientific
Comm ittee and presented to the IWC Steering Comm inee on June 27-28, 2004. This review addresses a number
of quest ions related to the effec tiveness of the SOS and provides recommenda tions on how to incorporate MPA
COnceptS intothe SOS and otheTlWC Sanctu aries. Overall. the SOS - and lWC Sanctuaries in general- are not
ecologicall yjustified.e SOS is based on vague goals and objecti ves that are difficult to me&Sure,lacks a
rigorous approach to its design and operation, and docs not have an effective monitoring framework to determine
whethe r its objectives are being met. The SOS represents a 'shotgun' appro ach to conservation, whereby a large
area is protected with little appare nt rationale for boWldary selection and managemen tP"escriptions within the
sanauary. While a vast array of ecosyste m-JeveJ and precauti onary conservation benefns have been invoked for
theestablist.me nt the SOS, in reality this large-scale sanctuary does linle more than pro\•ide a false sense of
securitybya.~sum tintprotections for wha le populations arc in place . In fact, the SOS does not protect or
mitigate other threa10Southern Ocean whale stocks and the marine ecosystems upon which these populations
depend . inchJdiog: pollution, habitat degradation and loss, introduced species, and global climat e change. We
thus contend that sanctuary establ ishment and evaluation should be guided by a series of measurable and
tangibl eoals, aimed aquant ifying the starus of both the ·protected ' species under considandtthe broader
marine ecosyStem. The SOS could be signi ficantly improved to become an important part of the IWC
manageme nt approach. and the larger conservation ofSouthem Ocean marine ecosystems. if the following steps
are implemented: (a) development of formally stated goals (e.g. biodiversity protection. fisheries enhanoe.mem),
(b)establishme nt of measurabl e objectives "ith wh10assess progress towards anain ing these goals, (c)
creat ion of a formal management plan. including the estab lishment of a monitoring framework, and (d)
development of more appropriate review c:riteria. rcnec ting the ecolog ical objectives in the management plan.
2
113114 Annex 101
101. Johnston S J and Butterworth D S, “Assessment of the West and East Australian
Breeding Populations of Southern Hemisphere Humpback Whales Using a Model
that Allows for Mixing on the Feeding Grounds and Taking Account of the Most
RecentAbundance Estimates from JARPA”, JA/J05/JR19 (2005) pp. 8-9, 20-22
JA/ J05 /JR19
breeding population E (a sotnewhat arbitrary increa se, being the satne
as used to reflect sen siti vity in John ston era!., 200 1) .
A further sensiti vity test was carried out in w hich no targe t abun dance informa tion
was pro vided and the JARPA esti.tnate s of abunda n ce w ere treated as relati ve indice s.
The re sult s thatfollowed w ere clearly unreali stic , sugge sting an extremely small
breeding population W (number s an order of m agnit ude less th an sugge sted by
Batuli. ster atld H edle y . 200 1), so that this approachw as not pm sued further .
C on fide nce Int erva ls
A boot strapping approach is used to calculate confidence intet v al s for the vatiou s
population tn odel estitnates.
Detail s of the approach used to generate replicate data sets ru·e as follow s:
Replace I~_wit h I ·" - qNYe£" . wit h c" :fion'l N(O .a *2) .for the CPUE data,
the relati ve ab m1dance data fi·om the feeding grom1d smv eys and the JARP A
11
estin1a tes. atld w herev * = ~ v . n is the numb er of data point s. at1d v is
n - 2
as estim .ated in the origi na l fit fot·the selie s concern.d
Th e boot strap procedme al so rep laces the "tru·gets" N: ·obs w ith N) .~u N:·A + TJ"
where TJu fi·om N(0, 1000 2 ) (as 0' = 1000 - see 11· ).
4
Estimation is co nducted fi·om one hu ndred bootsu·ap replic ates (u), wi th the re sul ts
ordet·ed to pro vide di sttibuti ons.
1
The 5ih at1d 95 h percentile s (as esti m ated by the 5ih atld 96ib va lue s in the ordered
sequence s) for va rio us 1nodel estimates are rep orted in Table 6.
RES UL TS Al'."D DI SC USS I O N
The re sults of the B as e Case m ode l fit to the data and the associate d sensiti vitie s ru·e
detailed in Table 6. Comparati ve re sult s for tl1e B ase Ca se using in stead th e 2002
JARPA estimate s of abtmdance ar e also rep orte d. The estiina tes of a are generall y
clo se to 1. wherea s th ose of f3ru·e sornewha t lower. Tin s sugge sts tl1at few anim .als
fi·otn breeding population W feed in Are a V, but a rather greate r proportion of
br eed ing population E feed in Area IV .
Figs 1-4 sho w ho w w ell the model re sult s fitthe ava ilable abtmdance -related
information . The breeding ground smv ey tt·end s are reflected clo sely (Fig . 1) . The fit s
to th e JARPA feedi ng gro un d u·end s show gr ea ter valiability - for feeding Area IV.
the model is tmable to rep roduce the two high m ost recent estimate s (F ig. 2) . Tlli s
greater vatiability is, howeve r. not tmexpected. as tmlike for the breeding grotmd s.
nutnber s in feeding gt'Ot.mds front year to year w ould be expec ted to change to a
grea ter extent as food disuibution pattem s change . In qu ali tative tetTilS, the CPUE
8
115Annex 101
JNJ05 /JR19
trends o\·er the 1950's and early 1960's (Fig. 3) are also reasonably reflected .
Agreement is not exact howe\ ·er, ·which is why these data are under -weighted in the
model fit. as they cannot in any case be considered comparati vely as reliable as the
later scientific survey results as indice s of popu lation abundanc e. The IDCR -SOWER
abundance estin1ates. although not used in the model fitting procedure. appear quite
1
consistent with the model estimate s given their large \.·ariances (Fig . 4).
Trend s in the estimated breeding and feeding stocks for the Base Case model fit at·e
shown in Fig. 5. In terms of best estimates. near complete recovetie s to pristine levels
under zero harvest are suggested in some 10 years for stock W. and some 15-20 yem·s
for the currently more depleted (relative to pti stine) stock E.
Comparison with the Base Case results with those prior to the availability of the
updated JARPA estimates of abundance show little change (Table 6c). Breeding
population W is now estimated to be marginall y less product ive (lo\.Y er r) and less
recovered than previously thought.
Treating JARPA abundance estimate s as reflecting abso lute abundances increase s the
extent to which both W and E breeding population s are estimated to ha...-erecovered
(Sensitivities 1 and 2. Table 6b). Similar results follow if the target abundance
estin1ates for the breeding populations m·e increased (Sensitivity 4, Table 6c).
Evidently (Table 6b. Sensitivity 2) the absolute estimate s provided by tl1e JARPA
surveys suggest that the estimate s of absolute abundance for the breeding ground s
given in Table 4 are negati vely biased estimate s of o\·erall abtmdance. more so for
East Australia. Breeding ground population projection s for Sensitivities 2 and 4 are
compa red to the Base Case in Figure 6, again indicating that approaches to pristine
levels will occur eat·lier in the future.
Howeve r. if no account is taken of the JARP A abundance estimates (SensitiYity 3,
Table 6c), the productivity (r) for population W is notable less. as is the extent of
recovety (there is little difference for population E). Bootstrap confidence intetva ls
also generall y show an increa se (though only slight) compared to the Base Case; the
reason the JARP A estimate s have this relatively small impact on the model results is
their greater vatiability. which leads to less weigh t placed upon them in the fitting
procedure (note the a JARPAis typicall y 3-6 time s larger tl1an ta8 for the abundance
estimate s fi:om tl1efeeding gwund sUiveys)_
CO l\" LCUD ~ G RE MARKS
The availab le data continu e to give a self consi stent picture of breeding populati ons to
the west and east of Australia tl1at are recO\-eting well from their minima in the 1960's _
with the recovery of the west ern stock likely the fhtther ad...-anced.
1
CV estimat es are not imm ediately available for the Area -spec ific esti mat es give n in Table 5. However ,
give n that the associated circump olar estimates ha ve CVs of about 0.3 (Branch and Butter wort h 2002),
these Area -specific estimates will have CVs that are somewha t larger than this_
9
116 Annex 101
JAIJ05 /JR19
Figure Sa: Base Case estimated breeding population trends. with projected IJ:ajectoties
assmning a continued zero harvesting strategy . The vertica l line indicates the stan of
the projection. The error bars deno te abootst- based confidence intetYal for
the 2000 population size (time precluded estin1ates of these intervals for other years)_
Bree di n g g rou n d W
20000
15000
Q)
c::
m 10000
"c::
..c:::s00
m
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
yea r
Breed ing grou nd E
40000
30000 - ' ~
u)
m::20000 I
"C "'
:::10000 /
..c
m \ _.A
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
y ea r
20
117Annex 101
JA/J05 fJR19
Figure 5b: Base Case estimated feeding: stock trends. with projected trajectorie s
assuming a continued zero harvesting strategy. The vertical line indicates the start of
the projection .
Feed ing Area IV
30000
uj
c:
1"'120000
:J
..c
"'
"10000
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
year
Feeding Area V
30000
uj
c:
1"' 20000
:J
..c
"'
10000
0
1900 "1920 1940 "1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
year
21
118 Annex 101
JA/J05/JR19
Figure 6a: Compari son between Base Case. Sensitivity 2 (exclude s target abundance
data and treat s JARPA estimate s as absolute ) and Sensiti\ ·ity 4 (target abundance data
value s incre ased) estima ted breeding population trend s.\i·thprojected trajectorie s
assmning a continued zero har vesting strategy. The vettical line indicate s the strut of
the projection .
Breed ing Area W
25000
20000
0)
(lJ15000 - sc
"0
:::10000 - SEN2
.(lJ -- SEN4
5000
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 204 0
year
Br eed in g Ar ea E
40000
35000
- ~ / ,-
G> 30000 ....._.-
c 25000 '--; //I
"C 20000 " ~ "" If / - sc
::::s I - SEN2
.Q "15000
<U "10000 I If -- SEN 4
/ /
5000
0 l ~
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 200 0 2020 2040
yea r
22
119120 Annex 102
102. “Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in theAntarctic (JARPA) called by the Government of Japan, Tokyo,
18-20 January 2005”, SC/57/O6 (2005)
Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA) called by the Government of Japan,
1
Tokyo, 18-20 January 2005
The JARPA Review Meeting called by the Government of Japan was held at the Institute of Cetacean
Research, Tokyo, on 18-20 January 2005. The Terms of Reference of the meeting were to review
available data and research results in light of the objectives of JARPA and to identify future research
needs on the basis of this review. A total of 40 scientists from eight countries participated in the
meeting. The list of participants is given in Annex A.
Masayuki Komatsu, Director for Research and Environmental Protection, Fishery Agency,
Government of Japan and Japan’s Alternate Commissioner to the IWC, welcomed the participants. He
noted that the IWC Scientific Committee will undertake a review of JARPA after the completion of the
16-year program. During the 2004 IWC Scientific Committee meeting Japan proposed to host a
meeting reviewing JARPA results limited to the first 15 years of JARPA ,so that relevant
recommendations and comments from such a meeting could be taken into account in thII
proposal. Komatsu briefly outlined the JARPA research objectives and noted that a large amount of
valuable data and samples had been accumulated and that the Scientific Committee had positively
evaluated JARPA in the Committee’s mid-term review conducted in 1997. He hoped that the meeting
would produce fruitful discussions in order to make the best use of JARPA information for
management of whale resources in the Antarctic.
1. ELECTION OF CHAIR
Kato was elected Chairman.
2. APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR
Pastene agreed to act as rapporteur assisted by Mori, Murase and Kanda.
3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The meeting adopted the agenda shown in Annex B.
4. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS
The documents available to the meeting are listed in Annex C and are available on the following web
site: www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm
5. REVIEW OF JARPA RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
JR1 reviews JARPA research objectives and the work on the JARPA tasks recommended by the IWC
Scientific Committee in 1997 (IWC, 1998). The Government of Japan has been conducting JARPA
since the 1987/88 austral summer season under Article VIII of the International Convent
Regulation of Whaling, as a long-term research project. The last survey of JARPA will be completed in
the 2004/05 season. The original objectives for the research had been:
(1) estimation of the biological parameters to improve the stock m anagement of t he Southern
Hemisphere minke whale;
(2) elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
Subsequently, as part of the natural evolution of the program and in response to developing
requirements, two further objectives had been added:
1This report is available in the following website: www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm
1
121Annex 102
(3) elucidation of the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans;
(4) elucidation of the stock structure of Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
management.
The tasks recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1997 were the following:
(1) Ab undance estimates
(a) Development of method to correct bias of abundance estimate.
(2) Sto ck structure
(a) Stock definition.
(b) Statistical analysis of mtDNA data considering inclusion of school size as a covariate.
(c) Pilot study on nuclear DNA on JARPA minke samples.
(d) Effort to obtain biological materials for genetic analysis from low latitude areas of the
Southern Hemisphere.
(e) External morphology/morphometry analysis.
(f) Examination of possible stock boundaries (geographical and temporal) in Areas IV and V.
(3) B iological parameters
(a) Segregation study
(b) Recalculation of biological parameters by biological stocks
(4) Marine ecosystem and environmental change
(a) Meso-scale survey plan
JR1 concluded that reasonable progress had been made on these tasks.
The meeting noted th at the research objectives at the start of JARPA had been designed to meet
management needs at that particular time. Although these needs have changed, the meeting agreed that
JARPA work remains relevant for providing data important for management, for example for
estimating MSYR now compared to natural mortality M in the past, because the two are interrelated in
the interpretation of catch-at-age data.
6. REVIEW OF JARPA SURVEY PROCEDURE AND DATA COLLECTED
6.1 Surve y procedure
JR2 presents a review of the general methodology and survey procedures of JARPA. Following two-
year feasibility surveys in the austral summer seasons of 1987/88 and 1988/89, full JARPA surveys
have been conducted annually since the 1989/90 season. JARPA is designed to repeat surveys in the
Antarctic Areas IV and V in alternate years (Fig. 1). Although the whole research period was from the
end of November to March, the primary research in Areas IV and V was concentrated in January and
February. Two or three sighting/sampling vessels (SSVs) conducted sighting and samp ling surveys on a
predetermined track-line with parallel sub-track lines. A dedicated sighting vessel (SV) was introduced
from the 1991/92 season and the SSVs followed the SV to avoid any influence of sampling activity on
the sighting survey. One or two Antarctic minke whales were sampled randomly from each primary
sighting of a school by the SSVs. A total of 300 (with 10% allowance) Antarctic minke whales were
taken from Area IV or V in alternate seasons. From the 1995/96 season onwards, the survey area was
expanded into parts of Areas III and VI and 100 (with 10% allowance) further samples were added. A
summary of research procedures and results for each survey cruise were also provided in JR2.
A table showing an outline of the JARPA program was presented to the meeting. This included
summary information for each survey conducted from 1987/88 to 2003/04. Several suggestions to
improve the table were offered by the meeting. An improved version of the table is shown in Annex D.
It was suggested that three pieces of information, in addon to those presented in JR2, could be helpful
for the interpretation of abundance estimates from JARPA data: specification of the relationships
between searching effort (number and positioning of dedicated observers) on SV and SSVs in JARPA
in comparison to those in IDCR/SOWER surveys; more information on changes in the extent of
2
122 Annex 102
‘skipping’ in the JARPA track design for surveys over time and provision of information on observer
experience.
6.2 Data collected
A list of the data sets produced by JARPA was presented to the meeting. Several suggestions to
improve the list were offered by the meeting. An improved version of the list is shown in Annex E.
7. REVIEW OF RESULTS IN THE LIGHT OF JARPA OBJECTIVES
7.1 Stock structure of Antarctic minke whale
7.1.1 Genet ic analyses
JR3 presented the results of mtDNA RFLP (six restriction enzymes) and microsatellite (six loci)
analyses for identifying stock structure from the samples of Antarctic minke whales obtained during
JARPA surveys from the 1987/88 to the 2003/04 austral summer seasons in Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW.
The mtDNA and microsatellite analyses involved a total of 5,838 and 5,808 samples respectively.
Statistical analyses were based upon the geographical strata defined for the JARPA surveys. Both
analyses showed substantial spatial heterogeneity in some of the comparisons between whales from
different geographic strata. The general pattern of spatial variation was concordant among the two
approaches: a) no evidence for differences between the whales in Area IIIE and in Areas IVW and IVE,
b) no evidence of differences between the whales in Area VIW and in Area VE, and c) evidence for
differentiation between the whales in Areas IIIE, IVW, IVE and in Areas VE, VIW. These results were
therefore consistent with the hypothesis of two stocks that were possibly related to the proposed
breeding areas in the eastern Indian and the western South Pacific Ocean. A fine-scale mtDNA analysis
suggested a ‘soft’ boundary at 165°E.
The meeting considered that JR3 is an important paper given that elucidation of the stock structure of
the Antarctic minke whale is one of the objectives of JARPA.
Participants commented that the results presented in JR3 strongly rejected the scenario of a single stock
in the JARPA research area. Questions were raised whether results presented also gave evidence of
more than two stocks in this area. Pastene responded that the results presented are most readily
explained by the two-stock scenario. In this context Pastene briefly presented For Info 5 (Kasamatsu et
al., 1995). This paper used sighting data derived from the Japanese sighting surveys in low latitudes
during 1976 to 1987 to attempt to locate breeding areas of Antarctic minke whales. The spatial
distribution in tropical and subtropical waters during the latter half of the conception period suggested
two breeding grounds in the eastern and western South Pacific and two in the eastern and western
Indian Ocean. Pastene suggested that the two stocks proposed in the JARPA research area could be
related to these breeding grounds suggested in the eastern Indian and western South Pacific Oceans.
Butterworth pointed out that from the geographical point of view there is the possibility that animals
from the western Indian Ocean breeding ground could contribute to the minke whales found in Area
IIIE. If so, a scenario with three stocks in the JARPA research area is possible.
Hatanaka believed that the two stocks hypothesis is more consistent with the results and asked if there
was a basis for the multiple stocks hypothesis. Walloe responded that although the two-stock
hypothesis was the simplest and most likely explanation, it was still premature to rule out the
possibility ofmore than two stocks.
Ohsumi noted that the sighting effort in the study by Kasamatsu et al. (1995) was very limited. He
presented information on the distribution of fetus size in relation to the migration distance from
breeding areas. Females with small (≤6cm) and large (≥280cm) fetuses are those which are close to
their breeding areas. Based on such information he suggested that there is the possibility of a single
breeding ground for minke whales in the central Indian Ocean; these then migrate to feeding areas from
Area IIIE to approximately 150-160°E, thus supporting the results and interpretation of the genetic data.
Hester asked about the actual age difference between a fetus of 6cm and one of 280cm. Ohsumi
responded that the difference might be about 9 and a half months, but depended on their growth rate.
The Chair added that based on a period of 70-75 days to reach 15cm, a fetus of 6cm would be 40 days
old.
3
123Annex 102
Butterworth pointed out that the difference in sampling time in Areas IIIE and VIW should be
considered in future analyses because small fetuses might have been preferentially obtained from
females collected early in the season. Ohsumi agreed to consider that factor in future analyses.
The Chair advised that a Russian scientist had found females with mummified fetuses in the Indian
Ocean, suggesting that this was one of the breeding areas for Antarctic minke whales. Ishikawa
commented that there were a few reports of fetus mummification in the JARPA samples, but no
obvious linkages to breeding areas have been found thus far.
The meeting noted that the suggested boundary at 165°E was based on mtDNA only, and that the ‘soft’
boundary concept suggested in JR3 could alternatively be interpreted as two stocks mixing near that
longitude. Hatanaka mentioned that the analysis of biological parameters also supported a boundary at
165°E.
In terms of setting a boundary, Butterworth suggested estimation of mixing proport ions around this
boundary, treating the westernmost and the easternmost areas in JARPA as ‘pure’ stocks. Pastene
agreed to conduct such an analysis in future.
Walloe noted that the number of microsatellite loci used (6) in the analysis was smaller than that used
for the North Pacific minke whale (17).
Butterworth asked for an explanation on why females showed more structure than males in some
analyses. Pastene responded that one possible reason was sex difference in site fidelity.
7.1.2 Non-genetic analyses
JR3 also presented the results of an analysis of the stock structure of the Antarctic minke whales that
utilized the following non-genetic methods: mean body length of physically matured whales (n=2,323),
morphometrics (5,549) and distribution of the parasite Anisakis simplex (n=6,338). Samples obtained
during JARPA surveys from the 1987/88 to the 2003/04 austral summer seasons in Areas IIIE, IV, V
and VIW were used in the analyses. Grouping of samples in these analyses was the same as for the
genetics analyses. Similar to the genetic approaches, the results supported the hypothesis of two stocks
in the JARPA research area.
The meetingnoted that the pattern of stock structure found by non-genetic approaches was similar to
that found by the genetic approaches. There was a suggestion that the statistical analysis used for
examining morphometric data could be further elaborated. Genetic population structure in Anisakis
simplex has been studied in other areas. The question was therefore raised of whether any such studies
are included in JARPA. Pastene responded that no such study has been conducted at the ICR. Otani
added that a genetic research plan for Anisakis collected by JARPA was now being discussed. He
further introduced a phylogenetic study of Anisakis conducted in the North Pacific.
7.1.3 Summary of results
The meeting noted that the part of the JARPA program addressing issues of stock structure had been
designed in accordance with a number of studies that had concluded that the most effective way to
address questions on stock identity is to consider results from several techniques. The meeting agreed
ta tARPA has obtained useful results from a number of genetic and non-genetic analytical methods
applied to investigate the stock structure of the Antarctic minke whale, and that the aim of the JARPA
design to sample randomly had aided in obtaining representative samples from the research areas
covered. With regard to the tasks that needed to be pursued to facilitate interpretations of stock
structure from JARPA data that were recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee in 1997 (see
section 5), the meeting agreed that good progress had been achieved on all of these tasks. However, the
meeting also stressed the importance of examination of samples from low latitudes for obtaining a
clearer genetic delimitation of breeding stocks.
The results from the different techniques provide strong evidence to reject the hypothesis of a single
stock in the research area. The most parsimonious explanation of the results is that there are two stocks
present in the research area: an eastern Indian (I) and a western South Pacific (P) stock. These stocks
boundary, which would
would mix across a soft probably best be placed near 165°E. Further analyses
could usefully estimate the proportion of I and P animals in an overlap area such as VW using a
method such as that applied in the case of North Pacific minke whales (IWC, 2003). However, the
4
124 Annex 102
possibility of more than two stocks cannot as yet be ruled out. For example there could be some
presence of a stock from the western Indian Ocean in the western most part of the research area
(following the postulate of Kasamatsu et al. (1995) based on sighting rates in low latitudes of two
breeding stocks in the Indian Ocean). It was noted, however, that the study by Kasamatsu et al. (1995)
was based on limited searching effort thus there is uncertainty regarding the occurrence of two
breeding grounds in the Indian Ocean as proposed in that study. Information on distribution of fetus
length suggested that there is possibly only one breeding ground in the central Indian Ocean.
Overall the meeting agreed that these results suggested the need to revise the IWC’s current
specifications for management Area boundaries. The results will also assist in calculating abundance
and biological parameter values that relate more closely to biological stocks units. They will also
inform the specifications and testing of appropriate Combination Areas for cascading under the RMP.
7.2 Biological parameters of Antarctic minke whales
7.2.1 Un biased estimation of abundance and trends
JR4 examined the effect o f sampling activities, particularly closing mode, on the estimation of
abundance using the methods of Haw (1991). The bias originating from under-surveying in high
density areas was examined. Correction factors were estimated by comparing uncorrected abundance
estimates among SSV, SV in closing mode and SV in passing mode. As significant differences between
estimates for these different modes were detected, abundances were adjusted using correction factors.
Corrected abundance estimates are not significantly different to those from IDCR surveys during CP II,
and are larger than those derived from spatial modeling. This last matter should be investigated further.
No significant trend in abundance was detected in either Area IV or Area V. The authors concluded
that the underestimation of abundance pointed out at the JARPA review meeting in 1997 is largely due
to the effects of closing mode and of sampling activity. Abundance estimates derived by the method
proposed can be used to estimate biological parameters with high er precision.
Butterworth commented that the two correction factors for the abundance estimates (R1: correction
factor between SSV and SV; R2: correction factor between SV closing mode and SV passing mode)
should be examined carefully, especially the R1 correction factor. The reason for this is that there had
been some change in “skipping” protocol over the course of the JARPA survey period. To examine the
annual effect of this factor might be difficult because of data limitations; therefore Butterworth
suggested that it might instead be useful to categorize this factor as “large” or “small” and then
incorporate this into the model as a covariate. He emphasized that these abundance estimates are key
input to other analyses, and also raised the importance of conducting possible sensitivity tests to check
the robustness of the estimates.
Hakamada responded that the reason why he did not consider skipping in this analysis is that in his
preliminary calculations, no significant difference was found in relation to skipping between the early
and late surveys using ANOVA.
Butterworth c ommented that he was pleased that Hakamada has looked into this effect, but also
stressed the importance of considering Type II error. Even though there is no significant difference, he
suggested conducting the analysis with and without the skipping factor to ascertain the difference in the
abundance estimates and their precision. Hakamada agreed to consider this effect in more detail in
future analyses.
Walloe pointed out that some of the detection functions shown in Figure 3 of JR4 do not fit the data
well, and suggested that these aspects should be re-examined.
Butterworth noted that due to considerable stratification of the data, some of the sample sizes in the
analysis have become small. This may lead to false impressions of the detection function and hence to
biased estimates of abundances. It might be important to conduct the analysis by first pooling the data
to see whether there are any significant differences between the covariates. He further commented that
though pooling the data may not show different results to the analysis in JR4, it is important to show
such results as sensitivity tests. He also noted that the R2 factor was appreciably lower than for the
IDCR surveys, and suggested that reasons for this be sought.
Hakamada expressed appreciation for these comments and agreed to consider them in future work.
5
125Annex 102
JR20 presented a study based on a spatial model of minke whales using JARPA data from 1990/1991
to 2000/2001 in Area V. A Horvitz-Thompson estimator was used to obtain estimates of the expected
school size, by stratum, based on estimated detection probabilities which allow for the effects of
covariates. Estimates of minke whale abundance, as well as abundance of schools of size 1 and
abundance of individuals in schools of size greater than 1, were presented to use for estimation of
biological parameters. The resultant abundance estimates in Area V are notably lower than those in JR4.
Butterworth commented that a reason why the abundance estimates shown in this paper are smaller
than those of Hakamada is that this analysis considers the survey mode factor by year and omits it as
non-significant, whereas JR4 considers this effect in combination over all years and finds significance
given the larger sample size. Butterworth suggested that the authors of JR20 should also consider the
effect of survey mode as in JR4, and then compare the results for the two methodologies.
Hakamada responded tha t it is possible to examine this effect. However, he also pointed out that at the
2004 IWC Scientific Committee meeting, it was shown through simulation tests that spatial modeling
gives unbiased results regardless of survey mode, and the JR20 analysis is based on that assumption.
The meeting noted that the methods presented in JR20 and JR4 used different assumptions and agreed
that it is important that these analyses are presented in a more comparable way so that valid
comparisons between these different analytical methods become possible. There is a need for further
discussion between the respective authors to achieve this.
7.2.2 Estimation of biological parameters
JR5 used materials collected by the JARPA surveys in Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW in 1987/88 to
2003/04, to estimate some biological parameters of the Antarctic minke whales by incorporating a new
sample grouping at 165°E based on the new stock scenario (‘Eastern Indian Ocean Stock (I-stock)’ and
‘W estern South Pacific Stock (P-stock)’). These parameters included sex ratio, sexual maturity rate,
body length and age at sexual maturity, body length and age at physical maturity, proportion of
pregnant in matured female(PPF), foetal sex ratio and the occurrence of multiple births. Significant
differences were detected between the two s2ocks for sex ratio, sexual maturity rate for both sexes, PPF
and foetal sex ratio by application of the χ-test and for body length at 50% sexual maturity for
females, age at 50% sexual maturity for females and body length at 50% physical maturity for both
sexes by likelihood ratio analysis. Significant yearly trends were detected among males for the
following parameters by linear regression analysis: sexual maturity rate in the I-stock, body length and
age at 50% sexual maturity in the I-stock and body length and age at 50% physical maturity in the P-
stock. Year was also selected as an explanatory variable for age at physical maturity and body length at
physical maturity by use of stepwise logistic regression analysis, but for age and body length at sexual
maturity were not selected. These results suggest the possibility that expansion of the carrying capacity
for the minke whales has ceased and that the ecosystem begun to return towar ds the conditions that
existed before the expansion had taken place.
Participants commented that the yearly trends of some biological parameters shown in this paper are
interesting, and it is important to discuss these trends together with the results from other studies (i.e.
minke VPA, abundance estimates).
JR6 provides a point estimate for the natural mortality coefficient for Antarctic minke whales using
JARPA data, by modifying the original method proposed by Tanaka (1990). Skewed age distributions
arising from mature/immature segregation were corrected using the maturity rate at age. Net rates of
natural increase of stock sizes corresponding to the new interpretation of a stock boundary were
estimated by maximum likelihood. Under a zero increase rate for stock size (which corresponded to the
statistical model selected by the c-AIC criterion), the point estimates of the natural mortality coefficient
were 0.0486 (per year) for the Eastern Indian Ocean Stock and 0.0490 for the Western South Pacific
Stock.
Butterworth commented that it is very importa nt to have this analysis in addition to VPA. He also
noted the importance of showing confidence intervals for the estimate of natural mortality (M) shown
in Table 3 of JR6. He further suggested that results for the M estimate when the increase rate parameter
(r) was estimated should also be shown in the Table, even if it was not selected by the model selection
6
126 Annex 102
criterion, and that the sensitivity of the M estimates to different assumptions should be discussed in the
paper. Tanaka responded that at present bootstrap data to be able to calculate the confidence intervals
have still to be generated, but this is planned for future work. Tanaka also commented that once the
input data for the model are finalized, the estimates will be re-calculated.
JR7 examined longer term changes in the age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by counting
transition phase layers in earplugs using a total of 4,547 earplugs collected from the 1971/72 to the
1986/87 commercial whaling operations and from the 1987/88 to the 2003/04 special permit surveys
under the JARPA research program in Area IV. The paper incorporated the same correction methods for
biases due to the truncation and the ‘age-specific’effects that were addressed in past debates. No
systematic ageing errors were detected between the two primary age readers. The present analysis
revealed again that the age at sexual maturity declined frm around 12-13 years for the 1940s cohorts
to about 7 years for the late 1960s’. Using the new data set produced by JARPA, it was further found
that the age at sexual maturity had remained about constant at 7 - 8 years, with perhaps a slight increase
in cohorts from the early 1970s to the late 1980s.
The meeting welcomed this contribution. Walloe pointed out that it would be of interest to see the trend
in age at sexual maturity shown in Fig. 7 extended to more recent years, rather than to 1993 only as
shown in this figure. He further suggested using the median rather than the mean age, since this may
increase number of years for which an estimate can be made. Zenitani responded that the reason why
the results had been shown to 1990 only is because recent data suffer from truncation biases. Zenitani
expressed appreciation for the useful comments, and will consider using the median for future analyses.
Butterworth commented that this analysis is important for interpreting trends obtained from abundance
estimates. He also suggested that the analysis could provide estimates for more recent years using the
model of Thompson et al. (1999). The meeting recommended that future analyses of this kind be
carried out in collaboration between ICR and UCT.
Participants also commented that the effect of time lags should be considered when considering the
results in relation to abundance trends .
Butterworth commented that it may be useful if a plot similar to Fig.8 of JR7 showing the age at sexual
maturity from direct observations and the age at transition from the earplug for the same animal, could
be provided. This type of plot would help understand the relationship between transition phase and
sexual maturity of the animal.
In JR21 Virtual Population Analyses were performed to infer natural mortality coefficients for
Antarctic minke whales in Areas IV and V using catch-at-age data from both commercial whaling
(1971/2-1986/7) and scientific whaling (JARPA 1987/88-2003/2004). Abundance estimates from IWC
and JARPA surveys were used as tuning indices. Some sensitivity tests related to the estimation of the
natural mortality coefficients were also performed. A clear difference in the estimates of the natural
mortality coefficients between Areas IV and V was observed. Sensitivity analyses showed the estimate
of the natural mortality coefficient in Area IV was slightly influenced by both grouping of data (such as
2-year-2-age and 3-year-3-age) and the assump tion made for the maximum age used in the log-
likelihood for the catch-at-age data, while the estimate in Area V was rather stable by comparison. In
addition, the amount of bias in the abundance estimates arising from setting g(0)=1 affected the
estimates of the natural mortality coefficient in Area IV to some extent. As expected, the extent of
additional variance did not impact the point estimates in either Area, but it did lessen their precision.
In JR18 the ADAPT-VPA assessment methodology of Butterworth et al. (1999) is applied to
abundance estimates (from both IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys) and catch at age data (both
commercial and scientific) for Areas IV and V. The methodology is extended to be able to take account
of inter-annual differences in the distribution of the population between the two Areas when they are
assessed jointly. An important feature of these updated results is that revised JARPA estimates of
abundance are shown to be statistically comparable with estimates from the IDCR/SOWER program
(i.e. calibration factor not significantly different from 1). The general pattern shown by results is of a
minke whale abundance trend that increased over the middle decades of the 20 thcentury to peak at
about 1970, and then declined for the next three decades. The recruitment trend is similar, though with
its peak slightly earlier. The factor to which the results are most sensitive is the value of natural
mortality M. The assessments do show retrospective patterns, primarily related to changes in the best
7
127Annex 102
estimate of M as time has progressed. This in turn seems linked to the IDCR/SOWER survey trends
suggesting higher, and the JAPRA survey trends lower estimates of M. For the assessment of the two
Areas combined, M is estimated at 0.068 with a CV of 0.12; this compares with CVs of typically 0.35
for the Area-specific assessment of Butterworth et al. (1999), which were based on eight seasons’
fewer data. The paper reflects an account of work in progress, and suggestions are made of areas where
further analysis would be desirable.
In response to an enquiry about JR21, Kitakado commented that further sensitivity analyses to different
selectivity functions and to age-dependent natural mortality will be conducted. He also commented that
from preliminary calculations, he had found that assuming various functions for age-dependent natural
mortality led to unreasonable estimates because of a lack of information content in the data.
The meeting noted that the estimation of the coefficient of variation (CV) of M was greatly improved
compared to previous similar analyses. Two reasons for this improvement were given: (1) addition of
data obtained from further JARPA cruises, and (2) th e abundance estimates of Hakamada et al. (JR4)
(which corrected for biases between survey modes) could now be treated as comparable to those from
the IDCR/SOWER surveys.
Komatsu questioned whether it is really necessary to collect samples from young animals (i.e. age 1 or
2 years old) for which the estimation of M seems to be difficult. Zenitani responded that from an age-
determination point of view, it is difficult to distinguish ages 1 and 2 groups and thus these are often
not used for analyses. Ishikawa commented that from a sampling point of view, there is no difficulty in
collecting young animals. Kitakado remarked that changes in selectivity pattern would introduce
additional estimable parameters in the model and their estimation may compromise precision.
Butterworth was also concerned that changed sampling patterns might complicate data interpretation,
and urged careful consideration before any changes might be implemented.
Morishita enquired about the importance of conducting similar analysis for other Areas such as Area
IIIE and VIW for which JARPA data are also available. Butterworth responded that the extension of
the analysis at this stage to Areas IIIE and VIW will introduce some difficulties as the sampling design
was not random in those regions, so that it was likely best to postpone such initiatives for the moment
while concentrating on analyses for Areas IV and V.
Kawahara asked about estimating fishing mortality (F) in the analysis. The response to this query was
that the main important results from the minke VPA are the population trend and the MSYR estimates
(see below). The F matrix is calculated in the VPA and values can be provided if requested.
The meeting agreed that these analyses were valuable contributions toward the main objective of the
JARPA, which is the estimation of biological parameters. Participants offered several suggestions on
how these analyses could be further developed. For example, the suggestion was made to consider a U
shape function for age dependent M for future analyses. There was a further suggestion to conduct the
analysis on the basis of theroposed new stock structure scenario (the I and P stocks). Butterworth
responded that for future studies, various functions for age dependent M will be explored, but as
Kitakado had noted, due to lack of information content in the data, this may not lead to better
estimation overall. He also remarked that different scenarios for stock boundaries can be explored, but
extensive analyses on this matter might be better conducted after some feedback from the IWC
Scientific Committee had also been obtained.
JR22 analyzed the results of the Base Case assessment of Areas IV and V to better understand the
dynamics of Antarctic minke whales in the region. A stock-recruitment model of the Pella-Tomlinson
form was fit to recruitment and adult female abundance estimates. The underlying assumptthns were
that carrying capacity of minke whales first increased, then later decreased during the 20Century.
An initial attempt at this fit suggested that the carrying capacity increased about five fold from 1930 to
the mid-1960s, and then decreased again by about half. Th e estimated MSYR for the model was 4.0%.
1+
Kitakado thanked the authors for the analysis presented and suggested that in equation (6) of JR22, it
may be better to weight the observed recruitment data depending on the precision of the estimates. He
also suggested consideration of a smoother functional form for changes in carrying capacity (K) in the
model. Butterworth endorsed these comments and advised that further analysis would be conducted
incorporating these suggestions.
8
128 Annex 102
Kawahara asked what would be the consequences of taking account of changes in the age at sexual
maturity of minke whales by year for the stock-recruitment plot. Butterworth responded that
qualitatively, probably the stock recruitment plot shown in Fig. 1b of JR22would stretch toward the
upper left side, in better agreement with the stock-recruitment function suggested. This would be
examined in further analyses.
The meeting was pleased to note that the approach in JR22 allowed for estimation of MSYR.
7.2.3 Summary of results
Incorporation of inter-mode calibration factors (cf. Haw, 1991) in design-based estimation (JR4) of
minke whale abundance from JARPA sighting surveys provides results that are comparable with those
from IDCR/SOWER surveys. The model-based abundance estimates (JR20) are appreciably lower, but
do not explicitly allow for the possibility of inter-mode differences; the meeting recommended that
possibilities to make such allowance in the model-based approach be investigated to ascertain whether
this would lead to comparability between the results of the two approaches. Estimated annual increase
rates in abundance from the design-based results, together with associated 95% confidence intervals,
are 0.3% [-4.6%; 3.9%] for Area IV and 2.5% [-1.4%; 6.2%] for Area V, i.e. not significantly different
from zero, but also not excluding either positive or negative trends.
Time series of biological parameter values were reported on a biological stock basis, as requested by
the mid-term JARPA review meeting (specifically for the I and P stocks, with their boundary set at
165°E – see section 7.1.3). Some significant differences between the stocks were reported, and there
were significant recent increases in the age at physical maturity. Consistent with this, an examination
of the transition phase in earplugs for Area IV suggested a slight increase after the 1970 cohort
following an earlier appreciable decline.
Two different methods for estimating age-independent natural mortality M from catch-at-age and
abundance data provided comparable results. The VPA method, for example, estimates M=0.068
(CV=0.12) if both Areas IV and V are assessed in combination. The meeting noted that thisreflects
much greater precision than obtained from earlier analyses, in part because of the further data now
available. The VPA results all broadly reflect both recruitment and abundance increasing until about
1970, and then declining. Initial fits of these results to a population model suggest that carrying
capacity for minke whales must have first increased, but subsequently declined during the 20 thCentury,
and also allow MSYR to be estimated. The meeting noted that the results reported reflected work in
progress, and identified the desirability of conducting VPA calculations assuming two stocks with a
165°E boundary.
The meeting also noted the broad consistency between trends in some biological parameters and in
abundances predicted by VPA models, as discussed further under section 8 below.
7.3 Role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem
7.3.1 Krill consumption and body condition of Antarctic minke whale
In JR8 feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whales were examined using stomach
content data collected in JARPA. A total of ten prey species, including one amphipod, four euphausiids
and five fish species were identified. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) was the most important prey
species throughout the survey period. The analyses of prey digestion showed that whales tended to feed
on prey in the early morning and late evening. Daily prey consumption for the Antarctic minke whale
was estimated using two methods: a direct method (diurnal changes of stomach contents mass) and an
indirect method (energy requirements). Daily consumption estimates were similar between the two
methods and ranged from 3.6 to 5.3 % of body weight. Annual consumption of Antarctic krill from the
1990/2000 to the 2002/03 season was calculated as being equivalent to 4% and 26 % of the krill
biomass in Areas IV and V, respectively. These results indicate that Antarctic minke whales are one of
the dominant top-predator species in Areas IV and V.
It was noted that the decreasing trends in the mean mass of stomach contents was consistent with
results that showed that the age at sexual and physical maturity has stabilized and then increased in
recent years. In response to a question from Ohsumi on why minke whales occur in the Ross Sea, a
region with low food availability, Tamura responded that this paradox is still unresolved. Vikigsson
9
129Annex 102
noted that energy intake, and consequently consumption estimates by the indirect method, might be
underestimated if residence times in the Antarctic exceed the four month period (December-March)
covered in the study. It was suggested that an index related to the mean mass of stomach contents
should be defined to assess changes in food availability. Currently, daily food consumption is estimated
over combined areas because available samples are not sufficient to allow estimation by area.
Because area specific daily consumption rates are important to understand the change in food
availability to Antarctic minke whales, the meeting agreed that this aspect should be considered in
future analyses.
JR9 presented an analysis of recent trends in blubber thickness and factors that affect this thickness in
Antarctic minke whales for both mature males and pregnant females in Areas IV and V. The results
showed that a decrease of blubber thickness occurred over the JARPA survey period. This indicated
that food availability for those minke whales has decreased over this survey period, quite possibly
caused by either or a combination of intra- and inter-species competition among baleen whales.
The appropriate part of the animal at which to measure blubber thickness of baleen whales was
discussed. Previous JARPA workers examined several body parts for blubber thickness and concluded
that blubber thickness on the lateral side of the body was most practical to measure. The meeting
agreed that the appropriate part of the body for blubber thickness measurement would be species
specific.
7.3.2 Distribution and abundance trends of A ntarctic minke and large (blue, fin and humpback)
whales
JR10 investigated the distribution and abundance of large whales (blue, fin and humpback whales)
using JARPA data from 1989/90 to 2003/04. A shift in baleen whale dominance from the Antarctic
minke to humpback whales was evident in Area IV. In the 1989/90 season, the biomass of Antarctic
minke was higher (382,000 tons) than that of humpback whales (128,000 tons); but 15 years later, in
the 2003/04 season, the biom ass of humpback (841,000 tons)was twice that of Antarctic minke whales
(335,000 tons). Expansion of humpback whale distribution was also observed in Area IV between the
earlier (1989/90-1996/97) and the later half of the surveys (1997/97-2002/03). Increases of fin whales
were also observed in Areas IIIE and IV. Current abundances of fin whales were estimated as 7,000-
11,00o in the 2001/°2 and 2003/04 seasons. A preliminary estimate of the number of fin whales south
of 40 S between 35 E and 130° E based on JARPA and Japanese Scouting Vessel (JSV) data was
21,000 (CV=0.27). Abundance of blue whales was still less than 1,000 (biomass: less than 80,000 tons
in the JARPA research area. The authors commented that long term cetacean sighting surveys are very
important for the management of baleen whales in the Antarctic.
Butterworth suggested that it would be important to investigate differences in the sighting rates of
humpback whales 1) between passing and closing modes and 2) between SV and SSV modes using
GLM. It is expected that, in comparison to minke whales, the effect for this species would not be strong
(because these whales are bigger and hence easier to sight), but the results of such an exercise would be
important to provide justification as to why the bias correction is necessary in the case of Antarctic
minke whale abundance estimation but not necessary for humpbacks.
It was noted that during the 2004 IWC Scientific Committee meeting, several recommendations for
further analyses of abundance of large whales were made (IWC, 2004). The meeting agreed that
considerable progress has been made in addressing them.
JR19 presented results of dynamic production model analyses of the West and East Australian
humpback breeding populations using the most recent JARPA survey abundance estimates as well as
data from Australian coastal surveys. The model incorporated the information on mixing of t he tw o
breeding populations on the feeding grounds of Areas IV and V. Best estimates projected under
continuing zero harvest indicated that the western population will approach its pristine level in some 10
years, and the more depleted eastern population in 15-20 years.
In the discussion Komatsu remarked that results of the analysis will be affected by how the carrying
capacity of humpback whales is defined. Butterworth advised that the context of the analysis is a
“single species” one in which humpback population carrying capacities are assumed to remain
unchanged over time. Pastene pointed out that the IWC Scientific Committee defined the Western
10
130 Annex 102
Australian breeding stock as “Stock D” and the Eastern Australian breeding stock as “Stock E”. He
suggested standardizing terminology among the reports.
The meeting agreed that the status of the western stock of humpback whales provided a unique
opportunity to study changes in biological parameters as a population approaches carrying capacity,
with the eastern stock serving as a control.
7.3.3 Inter-species relationships
JR11 presented the results of krill biomass estimation using quantitative echo sounder surveys
conducted in JARPA since the 1998/99 season. This is to achieve one of the main objectives of JARPA,
which is elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The surveys were
conducted concurrently with cetacean surveys. Similar biomass estimates were obtained in Area IV in
the 1999/2000 (36.4 million t) and 2001/2002 (36.1 million t) seasons. In Area V, biomass estimates in
the 2000/2001 (18.7 million t) and in the 2002/2003 (21.0 million t) seasons were similar, but biomass
in 1998/1999 (32.3 million t) was higher than for the other two years. Higher biomass in 1998/99 could
be explained by seasonal effects and area coverage differences. The biomass in Area IV was higher
than in Area V. Regional krill distribution pattern differences in response to the southerly shift of the
SB-ACC were observed in Area IV. Because krill biomass surveys in the whole of Areas IV and V
were rarely conducted in the past, krill data collected by JARPA provided especially valuable
informationto understand krill-baleen whale relationships in the Antarctic.
Butterworth commented that some of the values in the paper had large CVs, so that care should be
exercised in arguing evidence for temporal trends. He also raised concerns about target strength and
analyses without concurrent species identification. Kim also mentioned some concerns about the large
scale survey design and the species identification method for acoustic abundance estimation of small
prey species. Murase advised that JARPA and CCAMLR use the same procedures with regard to target
strength and species identification ofrill. In future surveys species would be identified by conducting
concurrent net sampling from the Japanese fisheries research vessel, Kaiyo-Maru. This vessel joined
JARPA for the first time in 2004/2005, engaging in a krill and oceanographic survey. The outcome of
the survey would contribute to improving future JARPA surveys and would address the concerns raised
by Butterworth and Kim.
It was noted that the Government of Japan is prepared to provide the Kaiyo-Maru on a regular basis for
future surveys in the Antarctic. The meeting agreed that this will provide an excellent opportunity to
conduct ecological and biological research in the area.
The meeting noted that density estimate differences between the Australian survey (BROKE) and
JARPA could be attributed to either or a combination of 1) actual inter-year fluctuations, and 2)
uncertainty associated with survey methodology problems and species identification of krill in JARPA.
These differences should be further investigated to attempt a more detailed explanation.
JR12 assessed the magnitude of food consumpti onby An tarctic minke, humpback and fin whales, on
krill based on data collected by JARPA in Areas IV and V from 1999/2000 to 2002/2003. Three data
sets - whale abundance, daily krill consumption rate of whales and krill biomass - were used in the
analysis. All data used in this analysis were collected in situ except for the daily krill consumption rate
of humpback and fin whales because of lack of biological information. Three baleen whales consumed
10-21% and 30-35% of the krill standing stock in Areas IV and V respectively. In Area IV, humpback
whales consumed about twice as much krill as Antarctic minke whales. The results indicated that the
krill surplus period for Antarctic minke whales in Area IV could now be at an end because of the
increase of humpback whales, though this point should be investigated quantitatively in future using
multi-species models which included both baleen whales and krill.
Butterworth commented that the overall distribution of fin whales did not overlap exactly with other
whales considered in the paper and asked whether their consumption north of 60°S was also primarily
krill. In response, advice was provided that fin whles north of this latitude also consumed other
euphausid species, but that for the area south of 60°S the assumptions of the paper were reasonable.
JR 23 introduced a multi-species predator-prey model of whales, seals and krill in the Antarctic that is
currently being developed, and illustrated some example results that had been obtained from the model.
Due to limited time, sensitivities of model outputs to various input parameter values and functional
11
131Annex 102
response forms have not yet been investigated. This is planned for future work. Preliminary results
show the possible role of predator-prey interactions in influencing the dynamics of the Antarctic
species considered in the model.
It was suggested that consideration be given to including some of the biological parameters that were
obtained by JARPA in the model in future work. Mori responded that currently the biological
parameters used in the model were static but she would try to use dynamic biological parameters in the
model in future. Butterworth suggested that it is premature to include those parameters in the model at
this stage: the current model uses a simple age-aggregated approach, and advance to age-structured
models which could take explicit account of such changes would better first await more progress with
the simpler form. The meeting encouraged the further development of multi-species models.
7.3.4 Summary of results
Feeding studies conducted during JARPA have confirmed Antarctic krill as the main prey of minke
whales, which in their turn remain a major predator of krill. However the mean mass of minke whale
stomach contents has declined appreciably over recent years, and there has been a coincident decrease
in blubber thickness. Results from pollutant studies (see item 7.4.1) are also consistent with a recent
decline in per capita food consumption by minke whales.
Estimates of abundance from JARPA surveys indicate increases in both humpback and fin whale
populations, and population modeling of humpbacks taking account also of the results from coastal
surveys suggests that the breeding stock off Western Australia (stock “D” as defined by the IWC) has
already recovered to its MSY level.
Contrary to the situation at the start of the JARPA progam, estimates of krill consumption in recent
years by humpback whales in Area IV now exceed those for minke whales. Acoustic estimates of krill
biomass have been obtained during recent JARPA surveys, and estimates of krill consumption by
minke, fin and humpback whales constitute an appreciable fraction of the krill abundance estimates
obtained.
Taken together, these results are indicative of possible growing competition for krill amongst the
baleen whale species in theregion covered by the JARPA program. Initial multi-species population
modeling studies (which implicitly incorporate such competitive effects) are able to broadly reproduce
the various Antarctic whale population trends indicated by sighting surveys. These models need to be
developed further to ascertain whether closer correspondence can be attained, and hence whether such
approaches might have utility as predictive tools for management purposes.
The meeting emphasized the value of the availability of the research vessel Kaiyo Maru for mesoscale
studies.
7.4 Effects of the environmental changes on cetaceans
7.4.1 Po llutant analysis
In JR13 the concentrations of Mn, Fe, Cu, Ni, Zn, Cd, Hg, and Pb were reported from the liver and
prey species (krill) from the stomach contents of Antarctic minke whales taken from Antarctic Areas
IV and V during the 1988/89 to 2002/03 seasons. The ranges of concentrations for each compound
were, in µg/g wet wt: Mn, 1.4-7.4; Fe, 1.6-10591; Ni, <0.1-0.1; Cu, 3.1-10; Zn, 18-103; Cd, 0.10-66;
Hg, 0.004-0.43, Pb, <0.3-0.5. The levels of essential elements, such as Mn, Cu and Zn, in Antarctic
minke whales were comparable to those of other baleen and toothed whales in the Northern
Hemisphere. Hepatic Hg levels for Antarctic minke whales were one order of magnitude lower than
other baleen whales in the Northern Hemisphere, while their Fe levels were one order of magnitude
higher than for other whales elsewhere in the world. Hepatic Pb and Ni levels were close to the lower
limit of detectability. There were remarkable sex differences for hepatic Fe levels for Antarctic minke
whales. Before the 1995/96 season, no correlation with age was evident for Fe, Cd and Hg
concentrations in livers. However, in recent years, these concentrations showed increases with age.
Small changes of accumulation in Antarctic minke whales could be detected in the early 1990’s.
During discussion it was noted that obtaining separate values of methyl mercury and ionic mercury
concentrations would be informative. It was pointed out that while methyl mercury is toxic and
12
132 Annex 102
accumulates in e.g. brain tissue, the ionic form of mercury is secreted by the kidney and does not
represent a threat.
The global distribution and long range transport of mercury in the environment was discussed. Because
of the transport of Atlantic deep water from the North Atlantic to the upwelling zone in the Antarctic, it
was suggested that the low values of Hg may only represent a delay compared to the relatively higher
concentration of Hg in the Northern Hemisphere. In response, it was explained that airborne particle
dispersion is the most important way of dispersing mercury in the environment, and following the
industrial revolution there was a rapid increase in mercury concentrations over large geographic
regions. However, Antarctica remained little influenced, and the remoteness from industrial centers and
the patterns of atmospheric circulation systems therefore seem to be the main reason for the continued
low concentration of mercury in Antarctic minke whales. It is therefore reasonable to assme that Hg
concentrations in Antarctic minke whales will continue to be very low.
JR14 examined environmental changes in the Antarctic Ocean through analysis of concentrations of
organochlorines (PCBs, DDTs, HCHs, HCB and CHLs) in blubber tissues of mature male Antarctic
minke whales (from 21 to 25 years) from the Antarctic Areas-IV and V. The ranges of concentrations
for each compound were, in ng/g fat wt: PCBs, 44.8-88.7; DDTs, 29-340; HCHs, 0.20-4.3; HCB, 75-
430; CHLs, 10-120. Residue levels of PCBs, and DDTs in blubber of Antarctic minke whales from the
Southern Ocean were apparently lower than those levels in other baleen whales from middle latitude
areas. Significant regional differences between Areas IV and V were observed in PCBs, HCHs, HCB
and CHLs levels in Antarctic minke whales. Furthermore, their HCHs and HCB levels decreased
significantly over the 1988/89 to 2002/03 austral summer seasons. The directions of trends in PCB and
DDT levelsare unclear over the 1988/89 to 2002/03 austral summer seasons, suggesting that the trends
in levels of organochlorins may be near a turning point in the Antarctic Ocean.
The mechanisms for the very low concentrations in Antarctic minke whales compared to most other
cetaceans globally were discussed. It was pointed out that organochlorines (OC’s) enter cetacean
tissues mainly through the food web. Therefore, both the pristine conditions of the Antarctic feeding
grounds due to the remoteness from sources of OC pollution, and the feeding ecology of Antarctic
minke whales may contribute to the low OC levels recorded in the tissue of whales sampled in the
JARPA program. While toothed whales and minke whales in other areas feed at higher trophic levels
on a mixed diet including e.g. fish, the Antarctic minke whales are at a low trophic level and feed only
on planktonic crustaceans. The effect of feeding on low trophic levels is also shown by the low OC
levels recorded in the plankton-feeding bowhead whales off the North Slope of Alaska.
It was further pointed out that not all OCs are toxic tomans, and that it is important to present values
for the different compounds included in the analysis.
The OC concentrations (except for DDTs) in Antarctic minke whales from Area IV (1987/88 to
2001/02 seasons) were significantly higher than those recorded from Area V (1988/89 to 2002/03
seasons), and the possibility of using contaminants as a supplement to stock identification evaluations
was suggested. In response it was pointed out that stock identification requires larger sample sizes and
that OC analyses are expensive and time consuming.
7.4.2 Environm ental changes examined through oceanographic analysis
In JR15 oceanographic observation data obtained by JARPA were analyzed to clarify physical
oceanographic conditions in the JARPA area as a basis for understanding of characteristics of the
habitat of whales. Accumulated XBT, XCTD and CTD data were stored in the HydroBase format and
utilized to describe the oceanographic features of the JARPA area. The Southern Boundary (SB) of the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current was clearly observed as a 0ºC temperature contour line on the 27.6
sigma-theta isopycnal surface. It is evident that the position of the SB is colled by ma jor features
of bottom topography such as the Kerguelen Plateau and the Pacific-Antarctic ridge. The analyses
presented evidence for year-to-year variations in oceanographic conditions, including large year-to-
year meridional shifts of the SB that were found east of the Kerguelen plateau. The JARPA data also
provided new evidence of Antarctic Bottom Water formation in the Prydz Bay region. Comparison
between the JARPA data and satellite-derived chlorophyll distribution indicates that the intensity of the
wintertime cooling determines the primary productivity south of the SB in the following seasons.
13
133Annex 102
In the discussion it was pointed out that the surveys were primarily designed to study minke whales and
the cruise lines therefore were not ideal for exploration of oceanographic conditions. However, the
oceanographic data have revealed some interesting results, e.g. it was demonstrated that El Nino events
could be traced into Antarctic SST and temporarily impact the distribution of minke whales. It was
noted that this information could be used to explain observed temporal differences in minke whale
abundance. Continuation of the oceanographic studies was therefore encouraged as a supplement to
collection of abundance estimation data.
In a discussion of the possibilities of using oceanographic conditions to define stock boundaries, it was
demonstrated that the position of the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is
controlled by the bottom topography: the current runs near the continent west of 150°E and then moves
away from the continent at about 150°-165°E following the Pacific Antarctic Ridge. These longitude s
coincide with the stock boundary for Antarctic minke whales suggested by genetic data.
7.4.3 Summary of results
The meeting noted that the most important findings of the environmental studies were the following:
• The bottom topography may contribute to the explanation of minke whale stock
boundaries through its effect on the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar
Current.
• While Fe showed very high concentration in Antarctic minke whales, the Hg values were
very low.
• The concentrations of OC in Antarctic minke whales were also documented to be very
low, also in comparison with concentrations recorded in minke whales harvested in other
geographic areas.
These results provided evidence of changes in the Antarctic cetacean habitat (the biological
environment), which supplement the growing evidence of density dependent responses in the minke
whale population. These observations are possibly related to intra- and inter-specific competition for a
single food resource (krill). The meeting emphasized the importance of further studies of minke,
humpback and fin whale abundance, distribution and feeding ecology with concomitant continued
monitoring of biological and physical oceanography.
7.5 Other results
7.5.1 Stock structure of humpback and fin whales
JR16 presented the results of mtDNA and microsatellite (humpback whale only) analyses conducted
on the biopsy samples of 287 humpback and 23 fin whales obtained during JARPA surveys. The
humpback whale samples from their feeding grounds were grouped according to the stock distribution
in the feeding grounds proposed by the IWC Scientific Committee’s comprehensive assessment of the
species. Analysis of mtDNA control region sequences clearly discriminated the Stocks C, D, E, F and
G on the feeding grounds. However, analysis of the six microsatellite loci failed to discriminate these
stocks, although some degree of genetic heterogeneity among the samples was evident. These results
suggested a different degree of fidelity to breeding areas between females and males. Analysis of
mtDNA suggested that the historically mixed sector between the Stocks D and E at 110-130°E was
occupied in recent years mostly by the D stock. For the fin whales, the level of observed mtDNA
diversity was similar to that for the Antarctic minke whales. No significant differences were found
when comparing fin whales from Areas III+IV and V that correspond approximately to the Indian and
western South Pacific Oceans populations respectively. However the lack of observed differences in
this study could be due to the small number of samples available.
The meeting welcomed this contribution. Walloe commented on possible differences in the pattern of
stock structure between North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. He noted that
structure in the Antarctic was more evident in mtDNA than microsatellites. Pastene responded that site
fidelity to either feeding, breeding, or both areas is less in males than in females, resulting in more
structure in mtDNA than in microsatellites.
Butterworth remark ed that results in this paper are broadly consistent with those in JR19. He further
suggested the use of biopsy samples from lower latitudes, if available. Pastene responded that a limited
number of mtDNA control region sequences from the D and E stocks are available from low latitudes
and that these will be used in future analyses.
14
134 Annex 102
Miyashita asked whether there was any photo-id matching based on JARPA material. Pastene
responded that there had been two matches thus far, one between photos taken from eastern Australia
and Area V and the other from IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys both in Area VI.
7.5.2 Ot her
No matters were raised under this Agenda item.
8. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
JR17 discussed changes in the Antarctic minke whale stocks based on various results from JARPA
including the age at sexual maturity, growth curve, blubber thickness, prey consumption, and ADAPT-
VPA assessments as well as results from research on mercury accumulation.
Following d iscussion of JR 17, the meeting agreed t hat, vi ewed broadly, res ults from JAR PA are
consistent with the behaviour to be expected of baleen whale populations competing for a dominant
single food reso urce, krill. Studies that allow extrapolation back to the m iddle decades of t he last
century suggest that minke whales increased coincident with the reductions in the populations of larger
baleen whales that were subject to heavy whaling pressure. However, it seems that from about 1970
this situation began to change; some commercial catches of minke whales took place and, as the larger
baleen whale species started to recover, there are indications that there have been consequent negative
impacts on minke whales. JARPA has, over the period of the program, provided data from a number of
studies which are all broadly consistent with this inference. For example:
• abundance estimates from surveys indicate appreciable increases in humpback and fin
populations;
• population models incorporating survey abundance estimates and catch-at-age data indicate
some decline in minke whale recruitment;
• the age at physical maturity for minke whales has increased;
• a number of indicators, including weights of stomach contents and measures of blubber
thickness, confirm deterioration in feeding conditions for minke whales; and
• annual consumption of krill by baleen whales contribu tes an appreciable fraction of estimated
krill abundance.
This provides strong qualitative evidence that competition for prey (krill) plays an important role in the
dynamics of the Antarctic ecosystem. Modelling studies need to be developed further to ascertain
whether such competitive effects alone can fully explain the trends observed, or perhaps there is a need
to postulate environmental shifts in addition. Nevertheless, the meeting agreed that the results
obtained provide clear support for the need to take species-interaction (ecosystem) effects into account
in understanding the dynamics of the baleen whale species in the Antarctic ecosystem, and in
predicting future trends in their abundance and population structure. Accordingly, management also
needs to be based on ecosystem approaches, rather than upon single species considerations alone, and
future data collection plans need to take cognizance of such requirements.
Regarding stock structure the meeting agreed that the most parsimonious explanation of the results of
JARPA is that there are two minke whale stocks present in the research area. These stocks mix across a
soft boundary, which would probably best be placed near 165°E. Further research is necessary to
investigate a) whether this mixing region changes from year to year and b) possible additional structure
in Area III (e.g. determination of a western boundary for the I stock) (see item 7.1.3). The importance
of obtaining samples from low latitudes for developing a clearer genetic delimitation of breeding stocks
is stressed
The meeting also agreed that JARPA has provided valuable information to assist in understanding the
physical oceanography in the research area. Bottom topography, and therefore the southern boundary
of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, may contribute to an understanding of minke whale stock
boundaries. It is recommended that data collection on physical oceanography and work to examine the
relationships with the patterns of distribun of whale stocks and prey be continued.
Overall, the meeting considered that JARPA had made good progress in addressing its objectives (see
section 5).
15
135Annex 102
In conclusion, the meeting agreed that:
- JARPA has collected a very large and consistent date base (Annexes D and E)
over a 16-year period, which provides a basis for time series analyses relating
whales to the Antarctic environment and the beginning of an ecosystem
approach to the management of whale resources in the region;
- JARPA has contributed to the elucidation of biological parameters of minke
whales, and improved the understanding of the Antarctic marine ecosystem;
- JARPA has revealed that changes have occurred in the ecosystem since the
1970’s, suggesting competition among minke and other large whales; and
- data obtained through this monitoring will contribute to the development of
ecosystem models, which are necessary for ecosystem-based management of
whales.
The meeting also agreed that tasks identified in the midterm review meeting in 1997 (see section 5)
had been appropriately addressed and progressed.
9. OTHER
No matters were raised under this Agenda item.
10. REVIEW OF THE REPORT
A first draft of the report was available to the meeting. Several editorial suggestions were offered. It
was agreed that the rapporteurs should complete the final draft of the report for subsequent distribution
among participants via e-mail.
11. CLOS URE
Walloe, on behalf of the foreign participants, thanked the Government of Japan for hosting the meeting
and for the hospitality provided. In addition he thanked the Chairman Kato, the rapporteurs Pastene,
Mori, Kanda and Murase, and the interpreters Ohta, Kawagishi and Yamagiwa. Hatanaka thanked the
Chairman for his efficient conduct of the meeting. He also thanked all participants for their
constructive approach to the review of results from the JARPA program and noted that the outcome of
this review would be taken into account in the planning of the JARPA II program which will be
submitted to the IWC Scientific Committee at the end of March.
REFERENCES
Butterworth, D. S., Punt, A. E., Geromont, H. F., Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 1999. Inferences on the
dynamics of Southern Hemisphere minke whales from A DAPT analyses of catch-at-age information. J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 1(1):11-32.
Haw, M.D. 1991. An investigation into the differences in minke whale school density estimates from
passing mode and closing mode surveys in IDCR Antarctic assessment cruises. Rep. int. Whal. Commn
41:313–30.
International Whaling Commission. 1998. Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data
and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997.
Rep. int Whal. Commn. 48:377-412.
International Whaling Commission. 2003. Report of the workshop on North Pacific common minke
whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Implementation Simulation Trials. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5
(Suppl.): 455-488.
International Whaling Commission. 2004. Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 6 (Suppl.):1-60.
16
136 Annex 102
Kasamatsu, F., Nishiwaki, S. and Ishikawa, H. 1995. Breeding areas and southbound migrations of
southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 119:1-10
Tanaka, S. 1990. Estimation of natural mortality coefficient of whales from the estimates of abundance
and age composition data obtained from research catches. Rep. int Whal. Commn 40:531–6.
Thompson, R.B., Butterworth, D.S. and Kato, H. 1999. Has the age at transition of Southern
Hemisphere minke whales declined over recent decades? Marine Mammal Science 15 (3):661-82.
17
137Annex 102
18
Figure 1: Map of the JARPA research area (from JR2).
138 Annex 102
Annex A
List of Participants
Bando, Takeharu The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Butterworth, Douglas University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Fujise, Yoshihiro The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Goodman, Dan The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan
Hachimine, Akira Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Hakamada, Takashi The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Hatanaka, Hiroshi The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Hester, Frank Technical Advisor to the Government of
Grenada.
Ishikawa, Hajime The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Kanda, Naohisa The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Kato, Hidehiro National Research Institute of Far Seas
Fisheries, Japan.
Kawahara, Shigeyuki National Research Institute of Far Seas
Fisheries, Japan.
Kiwada, Hiroshi The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Kim, Zang Geun National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Republic of Korea
Kitakado, Toshihide Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan.
Komatsu, Masayuki Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Konishi, Kenji The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Mae, Akihiro Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Matsuoka, Koji The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Miyashita, Tomio National Research Institue of Far Seas
Fisheries, Japan.
Mori, Mitsuyo University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Morishita, Joji Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Moronuki, Hideki Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Murase, Hiroto The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Nagatomo, Takanori Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Ohsumi, Seiji The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Otani, Seiji The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Pastene, Luis The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Rambally, Jeannine Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, St. Lucia.
Rerambyath, Guy Anicet IWC Commissioner for Gabon, Gabon
Suga, Toshio Tohoku University, Japan.
Tamura, Tsutomu The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Tanaka, Eiji Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Japan.
Tanaka, Syoiti The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Tominaga, Haruo Fisheries Agency, Government of Japan.
Vikingsson, Gisli Marine Research Institute, Iceland.
Walløe, Lars University of Oslo, Norway.
Yasunaga, Genta The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Zenitani, Ryoko The Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan.
Observers
Bjørge, Arne Vice-chair, IWC Scientific Committee.
Interpreters
Kawagishi, Rei
Ota, Midori
Yamakage, Yoko
19
139Annex 102
Annex B
Agenda
1. El ection of Chair
2. El ection of rapporteur
3. Adoption of the agenda
4. R eview of documents
5. Review of JARPA research objectives
6. Review of JARPA survey procedure and data collected
6.1 Sur vey procedure
6.2 Data collected
7. Review of results in the light of JARPA objectives
7.1 Stock structure of Antarctic minke whale
7.1.1 Genet ic analyses
7.1.2 No n-genetic analyses
7.1.3 Summary of results
7.2 Biological parameters of Antarctic minke whale
7.2.1 Unbiased estimation of abundance and trends
7.2.2 Estimation of biological parameters
7.2.3 Summary of results
7.3 Role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem
7.3.1 Krill consumption and body condition of Antarctic minke whale
7.3.2 Distribution and abundance trends of Antarctic minke and large (blue, fin and
humpback) whales
7.3.3 Inter-species relatnships
7.3.4 Summary of results
7.4 Effects of environmental changes on cetaceans
7.4.1 Pollutant analysis
7.4.2 Environm ental changes examined through oceanographic analysis
7.4.3 Summary of results
7.5 Ot her results
7.5.1 Stock structure of humpback and fin whales
7.5.2 Ot her
8. Overview of results and identification of future research needs
9. Ot her
10. Review of the report
11. C losure
20
140 Annex 102
Annex C
List of Documents
JA/J05/JR1. Hatanaka, H., Fujise, Y., Pastene, L.A. and Ohsumi, S. Review of JARPA research
objectives and update of the work related to JARPA tasks derived from the 1997 SC meetings.
JA/J05/JR2. Nishiwaki, S., Ishikawa, H. and Fujise, Y. Review of general methodology and survey
procedure under the JARPA.
JA/J05/JR3. Pastene, L.A., Goto M., Kanda, N., Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T., Otani, S. and
Fujise, Y. A new interpretation of the stock identity in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera
bonaerensis) based on analyses of genetics and non-genetics markers.
JA/J05/JR4. Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K. and Nishiwaki, S. An update of Antarctic minke whales
abundance estimate based on JARPA data, including a comparison to IDCR/SOWER estimates.
JA/J05/JR5. Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. Biological parameters of Antarctic minke
whale based on materials collected by the JARPA survey in 1987/88 to 2003/04.
JA/J05/JR6. Tanaka, E., Zenitani, R. and Fujise, Y. A point estimate of Natural Mortality Coefficient
using JARPA data.
JA/J05/JR7. Zenitan i, R. and Kato, H. Long- term trend of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke
whales by counting transition phase in earplugs.
JA/J05/JR8. Tamura, T. and Konishi, K. Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke
whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis in JARPA research area.
JA/J05/JR9. Konishi, K. and Tamura, T. Yearly trend of blubber thickness in the Antarctic minke
whale Balaenoptera bonaerensis in Areas IV and V.
JA/J05/JR10. Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Nishiwaki, S. Distribution and abundance of humpback,
fin and blue whales in the Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW (35°E-145°W).
JA/J05/JR11. Murase, H., Nishiwaki, S., Ishikawa, H., Kiwada, H., Yoshida, T. and Ito, S. Results of
the cetacean prey survey using echo sounder in JARPA from 1998/99 to 2002/03.
JA/J05/JR12. Murase, H., Tamura, T., Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Konishi, K. Preliminary
estimation of feeding impact onkrill standing stock by three baleen whale species (Antarctic minke,
humpback and fin whales) in Areas IV and V using JARPA data.
JA/J05/JR13. Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Honda, K. and Kato, H. Yearly trend of trace
element accumulation in liver of Antarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis.
JA/J05/JR14. Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Tanabe, S. and Kato, H. Spatial and temporal
variation in organochlorine contaminants in the Antarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis.
JA/J05/JR15. Watanabe, T., Yabuki, T., Suga, T., Hanawa, K., Matsuoka, K. and Kiwada, H. Results
of oceanographic analyses conducted under JARPA and possible evidence of environmental changes.
JA/J05/JR16. Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N. and Nishiwaki, S. Genetic analyses on stock
identification in the Antarctic humpback and fin whales based on samples collected under the JARPA.
JA/J05/JR17. Fujise, Y., Hatanaka, H. and Ohsumi, S. Changes occurred on Antarctic minke whale
stocks in the Antarctic and their ecological implications.
JA/J05/JR18. Mori, M. and Butterworth, D.S. Progress on application of ADAPT-VPA to minke
whales in Areas IV and V given updated information from IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys.
21
141Annex 102
JA/J05/JR19. Johnston, S.J. and Butterworth, D. Assessment of the west and east Australian breeding
populations of southern hemisphere humpback whales using a model that allows for mixing on the
feeding grounds and taking account of the most recent abundance estimates from JARPA.
JA/J05/JR20. Burt, M.L., Hedley, S.L., Marques, F.F.C., Hakamada, T. and Matsuoka, K. Spatial
modeling of JARPA survey data in Area V.
JA/J05/JR21. Kitakado, T., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T. and Kato, H. Estimation of natural
mortality coefficients for Antarctic minke whales through VPA studies.
JA/J05/JR22. Butterworth, D.S. and Mori, M. Implications of the updated ADAPT-VPA assessments
for the dynamics of minke whales in Areas IV and V.
JA/J05/JR23. Mori, M. and Butterworth, D.S. Progress on multi-species modelling in the Antarctic.
For information Papers
For information 1. Report of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from
Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997.
(Rep.Int,Whal.Commn. 48: 377-390)
For information 2. Mori, M. and Butterworth, D.S. Consideration of multispecies interaction in the
Antarctic: A preliminary model of the minke whale -blue whale- krill interaction. Ecosystem
Approaches to Fisheries in the Southern Benguela, Afr. J. mar. Sci. 26: 245-259.
For information 3. Murase, H., Matsuoka, K., Ichii, T. and Nishiwaki, S. Relationship between the
distribution of euphausiids and baleen whales in the Antarctic (35ºE-145ºW). Polar Biology 25:135-
145.
For information 4. Matsuoka, K., Watanabe, T., Ichii, T., Shimada, H. and Nishiwaki, S. 2003. Large
whale distributions (south of 60°S, 35°E-130°E) in relation to the southern boundary of the ACC.
Antarctic Biology i a Global Context, pp 26-30. Edited by A.H.L. Huiske, W.W.C. Gieskes, J.
Rozema, R.M.L. Schrno, S.M. van der Vies and W.J. Wolff. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The
Netherlands.
For information 5. Kasamatsu, F., Nishiwaki, S. and Ishikawa, H. Breeding areas and southbound
migration of southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 119: 1-10.
22
142 Annex 102
23
Annex D
Outline of the JARPA Surveys
143Annex 102
Annex E
List of Data Sets Produced by JARPA
Total
Sample size
I SIGHTING DATA
1 Angle and distance experiment data (no. of experiments) 5935
2 Photo-ID, other species than minke whale (no. of photographs) 879
3 Sighting data (no of schools) 44531
4 Survey effort data (research days * no. of SV and SSVs) 5820
5 Weather data (research days * no. of SV and SSVs) 5820
Number of samples (no. of individuals)
II BIOLOGICAL DATA
♂ ♀ Total
6 Age 3,452 2,901 6,353
7 Baleen plate set mouth cavit 681 593 1,274
8 Baleen plates, length of plate series 767 748 1,515
9 Blubber thickness (14 points) 583 492 1,075
10 Blubber thickness (3 points) 1,579 1,261 2,840
11 Blubber thickness (5 points) 1,859 1,606 3,465
12 Body length 3,452 2,901 6,353
13 Body proportion 3,452 2,900 6,352
14 Body weight 3,291 2,773 6,064
15 Brain weight 1,131 975 2,106
16 Catching date 3,453 2,901 6,354
17 Catching location 3,453 2,901 6,354
18 Corpora albicantia and lutea (number) - 2,896 2,896
19 Craniometric data 19 23 42
20 Discovery-type marks recover 1 3 4
21 Endocrinogical studies on reproduction 0 0 4
22 Epididymis weight 3,452 - 3,452
23 Foetus, body length 814 773 1,662
24 Foetus, body proportion 755 720 1,482
25 Foetus, body weight 813 767 1,616
26 Foetus, number - 2,894 2,894
27 Foetus, sex 817 817 1,692
28 Jacobson's organ shape 3,452 2,900 6,352
29 Lactation condition - 2,894 2,894
30 Lipids contents 587 493 1,080
31 Mammary gland measurements - 2,894 2,894
32 Maturity stage 3,452 2,901 6,350
33 Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences, humpback whale 143 133 276
34 Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences, fin whale 0 0 23
35 Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences, minke whale 516 476 992
36 Mitochondrial DNA RFLP-derived haplotype distribution 3,195 2,643 5,838
37 Nuclear DNA microsatellite (6 loci) 3,203 2,610 5,813
38 Organ weights 587 493 1,080
39 Parasites, external occurrence record 3,452 2,900 6,352
40 Parasites, internal occurrence recor 3,452 2,900 6,352
41 Ribs (number) 3,451 2,900 6,351
42 Selenium analysis 0 0 74
43 Sex 3,453 2,901 6,354
44 Skeleton (whole skeleton measurement) 5 5 10
45 Skull (length and breadth) 3,345 2,812 6,157
46 Stomach contents (IWS format) 3,451 2,899 6,350
47 Stomach contents weight, first stomach, excluding liqui 3,336 2,802 6,139
48 Stomach contents weight, including liqui 3,336 2,802 6,139
49 Stomach contents weight, second-fourth stomachs, excluding liqui 644 613 1,257
50 Tail notch shape 3,452 2,900 6,352
51 Testis weight 3,452 - 3,452
52 Transition phase 3,452 2,901 6,353
53 Uterine horn (breadth) - 2,876 2,876
54 Ventral grooves (number) 3,452 2,900 6,352
55 Biopsy sampling (Humpback, blue, right, fin, sei, sperm, killer whales)* 410
III ENVIRONMENTAL DATA Number of samples (no of individuals)
♂ ♀ Total
56 Heavy metals (liver) 922 150 1,072
57 Heavy metals (Stomach contents) 67 33 100
58 Marine debris (Stomach contents) 7 2 10
59 Organochlorine (blubber) 105 0 105
Number of samples
60 Marine debris (Sighting survey) 255
61 Organochlorine compounds (air) 9
62 Organochlorine compounds (sea water) 7
63 Temperature (XBT survey) 904
*: This includes 304 humpbacks, 35 right, 26 fin, 22 blue, 20 minke, one sei, one sperm and one killer whales.
24
144 Annex 103
103. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005,
p. 45-46
J. CETACEANRES.MANAGE.7 (SUPPL.),2005 45
the examination should apply the best available method. sampling vessels (SSV) and one research base ship were
The Committee has previously agreed that the effects of
engaged in the research. Area IV strata were surveyed in
scientific permit catches on stocks should be examined the order of west-north, east-north, east-south, west-south
assuming they were ongoing, as well for a shorter period, and Prydz Bay: Area IIIE was surveyed prior to Area IV
e,venif the proposal was initially presented as a feasibility for the purpose of collecting the W stock samples, as those
study (IWC, 2001b, p.57). Some members had noted in
whales may migrate early in the feeding season. The SV
2002 that a catch level of 50 sei whales a year should not covered 7,000 n. miles and sighted 454 schools and 1,756
have been proposed without new, reliable information on individual Antl\fcticminke whales. Three SSVs searched a
which to base an assessment of impact, such as stock totalof 12,287 n. miles and sighted 638 schools and 1,494
structure (IWC, 2003d, p.75). The proponents explained individual Antarctic minke whales. A total of 473
that the methods used for estimating sample size of sei individuals were targeted for samplingof which only 440
whales were appended to SC/54/02, which described the individuals were sampled. The most common reason for
JARPN II research plan. They stated that this included sampling failure was that the targeted whale escaped into
·distribution, density index, stock structure, biological the pack ice. Mature females were dominant in the east
parameters, abundance estimation and some other aspects south and the west-south stratas in Area IV, mature males
of sei whale life history and ecology. were dominant in Area IIIE and in the west-south stratum
The second issue of cancelli was whether or not, in the in Area IV. In Prydz Bay, mature males and females
absence of any current understanding of stock status, the predominated. The fraction of immature animals was
Committee would be in a position to make an a<:lequate relatively high in the east~no strtthm of Area IV.
assessment of the possible effects on the stock of proposed Maximum body length was 10.05m for females and 9.39m
research takes.It was further noted that evaluation of the for males, while the minimum lengths were 4.9m and 4.9m,
effects on stocksof scientific permit catches is especially respectivey. These results were not significantly different
difficult in cases where the stocks have not been assessed from previous JARPA cruises. . The most characteristic
by the Committee in recent years and where there is no resultof the present survey was the large number of
agreed abundance estimate. Some members proposed that humpback whale sightings, which exceeded the number
when substantial takes are envisaged from such stocks, seen during anyprevious JARPA cruise.
priority should be given foran in-depth assessment of the Estimatesof humpback abundance based on data in the
stock concerned as soon as possible. Proponents and some 1989/90 and 2002/03 seasons were 4,426 (CV=0.20),
other members held the alternate view that Article VIli 32,519 (CV=O.ll), 2,759 (CV=O.l6), 1,551 (CV=0.24), in
placed no such restrictions on research activities, and that Areas III-E, IV,V and VI-W, respectively. Instantaneous
the best currently available estimatesf abundance were ratesof increase of humpback whales were estimated as
quite adequate for an assessment of the effects on stocks. 18.1% (CV=0.21) and 12.2% (CV=0.21) in Areas IV and
These members therefore disagreed with the statement and V, respectively (SC/56/SH11). Expa nsion of humpback
proposal, noting that Article VIII provided Contracting whale distribution was observed in Area IV. Estimated
Governments with an absolute right to issue Scientific abundances of fin whale were 3,382 (CV=0.52), 7,642
Permits at their discretion and that an 'in-depthassessment' (CV=0.26), 3,031 (CV=0.33) and 474 (CV=0.32), in Areas
is not necessarily required to assess the effects on stocks ofIII-E, IV, V and VI-W, respectively. Instantaneous rates
scientific permit catches. increase for fin whales were 29.8% (CV=O.'IO)and 12.9%
(CV=0.25) in Areas IV and V, respectively. Further details
In summary, one view expressed support for a new
procedure confined to scientific aspects only, and another on applied methods andresults are given in Annex P.
view was that given the intractable nature of these Some members pointed out that the reported rates of
discussions, the Committee remain with the existing increase were biologically implausible, while other
guidelines. An alternative suggestion was that the members noted that observed ratesof over I0% have been
Committee should consider using independent reviewers, reported in other areas. However, the Committee agreed
as had been done for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary that there might be other factors contributing to the
Review, to tryto develop a consensual approach to this magnitude of the increase that was observed. Some factors,
issue. However, no agreementwas reached on any proposal such as change in whale distribution in relation to JARPA
for changes in the procedure for reviewing special permit survey design, need further considerations.
proposals. There was general agreement that lacking 16.2.1.2 PREPARATION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL JARPA
further guidance from the Commission, the Committee RESULTS
would not be able to agree recommended changes to the At its 2003 meeting, the Committee appointed a small
guidelines it currently uses to review proposals for group to prepare for reviewof final JARPA results (IWC,
scientific permit whaling. The Scientific Committee will 20041,p.410) but did not identify a convenor. This year,
therefore remove this item from its agenda unless the Zeh agreed to convene this Steering Group(Annex U).
Commission instructs otherwise. The Committee agre.ed that it will undertake a full
review of the JARPA programme when the complete set of
16.2 Review of results from existing permits results ate available following the completion of the 16-
year programme i.e. some time after the 2005 annual
16.2.1 Japan - Antarctic minke whales
16.2.1.1REVIEW OF RESULTS meeting of the Committee. The Steering Group will
SC/56/012 described the most recent results of the JARPA submit a progress report onpreparations for consideration
programme. Work was conducted in Area IV and the by the Committee next year.
eastern part of Area Ill between 30 November 2003 and 3 Hatanaka reported ·that Japan will host a meeting
March 2004. One sighting vessel (SV), three sighting and reviewing JARPA results (limited to the first15 years of
145Annex 103
46 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
JARPA) open to interested scientists in early 2005 prior to difficult to include many speci"esand complicated food
the Ulsan meeting. It was agreed by the Committee that webs in MULTSPEC. However, it is possible to
this meeting would be considered a non-IWC sponsored incorporate the detailed dynamics of a subset of species
workshop. Hatanaka commented that recommendations with direct interactions between them into MUL TSPEC.
from that workshop would be used to design a JARPA II They noted that the species in the model were important
proposal. fishery resources to Japan, which have a large biomass and
16.2.2 Japan- North Pacific common minke, sei, Bryde's occupy a significant portionof the upper trophic level of
the ecosystem in the area.
and sperm whales Sei whale abundance was estimated based on the 2002
The offshore component of the 2003 full-scale survey and 2003 JARPN II surveys. These results were compared
under JARPN II sampled totals of.IOOcommon minke, 50
Bryde's, 50 sei and 10 sperm whales (SC/56/013). The to an abundance estimate for the period 1997-2001 using
data from JARPN. Discussion of the validity of these
coastal survey in 2003 had been planned as the second year estimates is provided in AnnexP, and under Item 16.3.2.
of a two-year feasibility stuoy. The first year survey was
carried out in autumn 2002 in coastal waters off Kushiro Some elements in the research plan were defined by the
proponents as feasibility studies: the logistics of sampling
and the 2003 coastal survey was conducted in the coastal in the coastal area in 2002 and 2003 using small type
waters off Sanriku, and 50 minke whales were ki)led as whaling catcher boats; the sample sizeof minke whales in
part of JARPN II. All whales from the coastal survey were
landed at the JARPN II research stations. Biological the coastal component; the sample size of sei whales and
sampling of sperm whales in the ·offshore component.
samples were subsequently taken (SC/56/014). Based on the results from 2002 and 2003, the proponents
SC/56/015, SC/56/016, SC/56/017 and SC/56/018 concluded that:
included information on prey selection, prey consumption
and interaction between the studied species and fisheries. (1) no substantial problem occurred during the coastal
surveys using small type whaling catcher boats,
SC/56/024 reported progress in multi-species modelling. A
comprehensive description of results and progress is given therefore the coastal component of the JARPN II
inAnnexP. should continue using the same kind of vessels and
A number of questions were raised during discussion methodology;
(2) the sample size of minke whales in the coastal
including:
(I) whether 'uncertainty had been incorporated into the component should be increased from 50 to 120, with
60 animals to be sampled in each of the early and the
multi-species model; late seasons;
(2) what sensitivity analyses for the input parameters had (3) the sample size of sei whales in the offshore
been made; and
(3) how sensitive the model was to assumptions about component should be increased from 50 to I00
animals; and
functional responses. (4) the sampling of 10 sperm whales should be continued
The proponents reported that sensitivity tests, which were a (SC/56/02).
major component of the modelling approach, are currently There was no agreement on the acceptability of these
being conducted. conclusions. A discussion of the effect of the proposed
The possibilityof bias in the analysis originating from a
more rapid passage time of krill through the digestive tract removals is reported under Item 16.3.2.
as compared to fish was discussed. In response, it was 16.2.3 Iceland- North Atlantic common minke whales
noted that only the fore-stomach was sampled, and In August 2003, the Government oficeland issued a permit
different passage rates were unlikely. There was for a takeof 38 minke whales, and in June of 2004 another
disagreement over whether passage of krill through the permit had been issued for a further 25 minke whales.
fore-stomach would be quicker than thatof fish. However, permits authorising the take of the fin and sei
With regard to the ecosystem studies, some members whales had not yet been issued, and no decision had yet
noted that the model described in the reports mentioned been taken on these species.
above includes only four elements: three commercial fish In2003, a totalof37 common minke whales was taken
species, krill, whales and a human fishery. These represent including one struck and lost. Catching for 2004 is still
a very small fractionof the ecosystem components in this underway. Further details and preliminary results from
area, and the model also does not include any feedback analyses of sampled whales, shipboard and aerial sighting
mechanisms or second-order effects. Some members thus surveys and a synoptic resource survey are outlined in
concluded that the resulting analysis can only be viewed as AnnexP.
an over-simplification of"thefunctional relationshipswithin A new technique to investigatefood ingestion rate based
a true ecosystem. on blood and urine samples was presented (SC/56/0 11),
and the methodology is detailed in Annex P. This analysis
Other members felt that its unreasonable to criticise the
developmental stage of ecosystem modelling as overly was preliminary and will continue to be elaborated.Some
simplistic. They stated that JARPN II would include the members thought that this represented a new means of
development of sophisticated ecosystem models, and . analysing feeding ecology of whales through lethal
referred to progress made to identify keystone predators sampling, and that as such it would be useful to implement
among many species or species groups in the area. They in the JARPN II programme as well. Hatanaka agreed and
also noted .that theULTSPEC model does not require all added that the collaborative work with the University of
of the components of an ecosystem to be specified to Hokkaido on the molecular endocrinology to understand
perform adequately. In discussion, it was clarified that it is seawater adaptation of minke whales in the North Pacific
146 Annex 104
104. “Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations”,Appendix 2,Annex D, Report
of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, pp. 84-89
84 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEEA , NNEXD
Appendix 1
AGENDA
I. Convenor's opening remarks 5.6 Other
2. Election of Chair, appointment of rapporteurs 5.7Workplan
3. Adoption of agenda 6. RMP ~preparat foroInplementation
4. Review of documents 6.1 Western North Pacific Bryde's whales
5. Revised management (RMP)- General issues 6.1.1 Reportofthe intersessional group
5.1 Review progress on adjusting convergence criteria 6.1.2 New information
for the CATCHLIMIT program 6.1.3Pre-implementation assessment
6.2 Review of information on North Atlantic fin
5.2 Review the Implementation process in the light. of
experience with western North Pacific minke whales
whales 6.2.1 Report of the intersessional group
5.3 Levels of information required for pre-implem 6.2.2 New information
entation assessments and for _proceeding to an 6.2.3 Planning for thpre-implementation
Implementation. assessment
5.4 Spatio-temporal considerations in the RMP 6.3 Work plan
5.5 Updated guidelines for surveys 7. Adoption of report
Appendix 2
REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATIONS 1
An Implementation for a species in aRegion involves the considered to be of 'low' plausibility2, but to which the
delineation ofSmall Areas and, where appropriate,Medium, RMP is not very robust in terms of conservation, are·indeed
Large, and Residual Areas. A selection between possible . 'low' plausibility. The Committee will> prioritisethe
options for Catch-cascading and/or Catch-capping is made suggested research activities taking account of feasibility,
during an Implementation, which includes the designation cost and the likely utility of the results.
of Combination Areas as may be appropriate. The Committee may decide to recommend more than
· The overall Implementation process (Adjunct l) involves one RMP variant to the Commission. This may take the
deciding if there is sufficient information to begin pre form of recommending 3n RMP variant which did not
implementation assessment, conducting a pre perform 'acceptably' for all trials for application for a I0-
implementation assessment and then after completing the year period, during which time a research programme,
pre-implementation assessment, proceeding to an guided and approved by the Committee must be conducted .
Implementation, which should normally to be conducted This 10-year research program would include both data
over two Annual Meetings and two intersessional collectin and data analysis. An Implementation Review at
workshops. The outcome from an Implementation will be the end of the 10-year period will evaluate the results of the
recommendations to the Commission regarding variants of research program. If this evaluation reveals that the research
the RMP (if there.are any given current information) that has shown that the trials for which thRMP variant did not
can be used to set catch limits for the species inRegion. perform 'acceptab ly' should be assigned 'low' V<ieght,
In this context, an RMP variant consists of specifications for future catch limits will be based on this variant. However, if
where and when whaling is to occur (i.e. specificati ons for the research did not show that these trials should be
management areas and for temporal constraints on the assigned 'low' weight, futurecatch limits will be based on a
whaling operation) and whether, for example, Catch more conservative RMP variant (see Section 4.1) than that
capping or Catch cascading are to be applied. The applied over the first I years following a 5-year period in
recommendation to the Commission will be accompanied which the less conservative variant is phased-out, so that the
by suggestions for research needs. These suggestions may, performance over the 100-year period is still acceptable, i.e.
for example, focus on research needed to eliminate some of the combination of the two RMP variants will be such that
the considered hypotheses or to confirm that hypoth eses conservation performance over I 00 y ears has acceptable
1Throughoutthis documen,tthetennImplementationrefersto the procesFor ease of presentation, the term 'pwill bused to refer to
leadingto the Committeemaking arecommendationof catch limits(zeropotheseand 'weight' to referto trials.
or otherwise) to the Commsision) not an implementatiby the l Section 4.1 of this document provides guidelines for 'acceptable'
Commissionitself(whichhasnotyetagreedanRMS). performane.
147Annex 104
J. CETACEANRES.MANAGE.7 (SUPPL.),2005 85
risk. If an RMP variant which is linked to required research and particularly where abundance surveys and
is adopted by the Commission, a progress report on the harvest are likely to occur; and
research programme must be submitted annually to the (b) whether the data are in a suitable form for analysis
Scientific Committee. Failure to implement the research by the Committee.
programme to the satisfaction of the Committee will result It is extremely important that discussions on plausible
in catch limits immediately being based on the more hypotheses begin at an early stage. Although not
conservative RMP variant that would have been put in place required, progress through the pre-implementation
following the 10-yeai period.
assessment will be facilitated if the stock structure data
In order for it to be possible to apply the RMP variant have been analysed and the proposal includes an initial
adopted by the Commission for a species and Region it is suggestion for a set of inclusive stock structure
necessary for the Committee to define the catches, the hypotheses for consideration by the Committee. If
bycatches and the estimates of abundance (and their requested, an e-mail correspondence group of the
variance-covariance matrix) for this species and Region Committee will be established to provide guidance on
(IWC, 1999) as well as future projected anthropogenic this process.
removals (IWC, 2001, p. 5). The process of defining these (2) The Committee will review the summary and, taking
inputs to the CLA must occur in parallel with the account of the advice of an e-mail correspondence
specification of trials and RMP variants and the selection of
group, determine if there is sufficient information to
a RMP variant. It must be completed by the Second Annual initiate apre-implem entation assessment.
Meeting if it is intended that theCLA will be applied after (3) If the Committee determines that there is insufficient
the Implementation is complete. It is important that the set information, it will specify additional data/information
of catch histories and abundance estimates considered in requirements.
trials is sufficiently broad that the catches and abundance
(4) If the Committee determines that there is sufficient
estimates used when applying the CLA are encapsulated by information, the plans for a pre-implementation
thisset.· assessment (including data requirements at the
appropriate resolution) will be included in its annual
1.Pre-implemen tation assessment Work Plan submitted to the Commission.
The purpose of apre-implementation assessment is to tryto (5) If the Commission approves the Committee's Work
Plan, then Procedure A regarding data availability will
answer specific questions agreed by the Committee to apply (see IWC, 2004, p.57).
determine whether it is in a posi.tion to embark on the
Implementation process. It is not the same as an in-depth If all the above conditions are met, the Committee will be in
assessment. Its primary objective is to develop a set of a position to begin to carry out the pre-implementation
assessment.
plausible stock structure hypotheses that will be specified in
terms of an operating model to be used in the 1.2 Nature ofthe ·assessment
Implementation Simulation Trials (ISTs). In addition, The pre-implementation assessment will focus on the
abundance estimates and the likely temporal and spatial following issues:
aspects of intended whaling operations will be considered. 4
(I) the. establishment of plausible stock hypotheses
consistent with the data (taken inter alia from an agreed
1.1 Information required to initiate a pre -implementation listof archetypes [to be determined]) that are inclusive
assessment enough that it is deemed unlikely that the collection of
At the outset, it is the responsibility of a member
government or several member governments to propose that new data during the Implementation process will
suggest a major novel hypothesis (e.g. a different
a species in a region should become a candidate for number of stocks) noi already specified in the basic
consideration for an eventual Implementation. trial structur;
(2) examination of available abundance estimates;
(1) Any IWC Member(s) who seek(s) an RMP
Implementation shall develop a proposal and submit (3) information on the geographical and temporal nature of
this to the Committee for consideration at least one 'likely' whaling operations - taking into account the
meeting before the proposed meeting in.which the pre complexity of the situation with regard to spatia
implementation assessmen t is to begin. This proposal temporal issues; and
must include 'a summary of data and related (4) information on the geographical and temporal nature of
information including: 'likely' future levels of anthropogenic removals other
(i) operational data; than due to commercial whaling.
During the pre-implementation assessment, the Committee
(ii) extent of likely whaling operations;
(iii)abundance; and may use a 'simple model filter' (e.g. Punt, 2003) to examine
(iv)stock structure and movement. the importance of any hypothesised factors in a
management context, in order to inform future work and the
The proposal must include an overall summary table of development of appropriate Implemen tation Simulation
this information (Adjunct 2 includes a suggested format
and a few hypoth"eticalexamples). The proposal need Trials.
not be limited to this summary table and it is expected
that narrative and additional tables would be included 4Atthisstage,thehypotheses willonly needtobespecifiedinbroaddetail
in a proposal. The Committee will evaluate the (hypothesisedlocationsof breedinggrounds,feedinggrounds, movement
information in terms of: corridors,numbersof stocks) - values for parametersrelatedto, for
example,dispersalandmovementwillnotbeeKpectedatthisstage.
(a) whether the abundance and genetics data provide sThiscoutdbejudgedby evaluatingthepowerof more(genetic)samples
adequate geographic coverage of the entire Region toidentifyadditionalstocks intheRegion.
148 Annex 104
86 REPORT OFTHE SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE,ANNEXD
The precimplementation assessment may take place over The aim of such trials 6 is to encompass the range of
several Annual Meetings (although it is possible that it plausible scenarios involving inter alia stock structure,
could be completed during a single Annual Meeting). Some MSY rates (MSYR), removals and surveys. These trials are
iteration may occur as additional research is identified and used to investigate the implications of various choices of
conducted. Unlike later stages of the Implementation RMP variants such as Catch-cascading from a risk- and
process, new data can be introduced during the pre catch-related perspective, with a view to recommending an
implementation assessment to refine the set of hypotheses. appropriate variant for implementation of the RMP for a
specific species/area.·
Workshop discussions will include the items listed
1.2.1OUTCOME below.
On the basis of this assessment, the Committee will make a
recommendation as to whether or not to formally begin the (1) A final review of the plausible hypotheses arising from
Implementation process. This decision will be based. on the pre-implementation assessment (and, if appropriate,
elimination of any hypotheses that are inconsistent with
whether the following information is available.
the data) - this will take into account the probable
(I) Abundance estimates: management implications of such hypotheses to tryto
avoid unnecessary work in the precise specifications of
(i) abundance estimates for use in the CLA (data hypotheses for which these are very similar.
meeting the specifications for abundance estimates
intheRMP); (2) An examination of more detailed information in
(ii) abundance estimates for use in conditioning ISTs expected operations, including whether coastal, pelagic,
on migration, on feeding, on breeding or combinations
(data need to have sufficient temporal and spatial of these. When providing such information, users and
resolution to allow estimates to be developed at the
scale of the sub-areas that would be likely to be scientists may provide options or suggest modifications
used in simulation trials); to the patternf operations.
(3) The determination of the small geographical areas
(iii)whether and how account is taken of g(O) - e.g. ('sub-areas') that will be used in specifying the stock
when conditioning the trials/applying the CLA; and
(iv)plans for future surveys (including spatial coverage structure hypotheses and operational pattern.
and frequency). (4) The development of (options for) potential Small
Area/ and management variants.
(2) Catches: (5) The specification of the data and methods for
(i) catch history to be used in thCLA in the trials - as conditioning the trials that will be carried out before the
complete as possible at this stage (e.g. including next annual meeting (an e-mail correspondence group
will be established to make revisions should any
incidental catch) and with sufficient spatial problems arise).
resolution for the management areas likely to be
considered in the Implementation; and (6) Further consideration of experimental ways to
(ii) where appropriate, alternative possible catch distinguish amongst competingstock hypotheses.
It is important to note that after this stage:
histories for use inISTs in cases of uncertainty over
catch history including incidental catch. (I) there shall be no changes to the agreed trials structure
that implements the agreed plausible hypotheses; and
(3) An inclusive set of stock structure hypotheses which, it
is agreed, cover the plausible range that needs to be (2) no new data will be considered, although new analyses
tested in the trials. of existing data may be presented to the First Annual
Meeting (see below).
(4) Initial discussion of experimental ways to distinguish
amongst competing stock hypotheses.
(5) Any data to be used to estimate dispersal rates among 3. First Annual Meeting
putative stocks within the operating model. . The primary purpose of the first Annual Meeting is to
review the results of conditioning and to finalise the JSTs. It
(6) Any data (e.g. values for biological parameters such as is expected that failure to achieve adequate conditioning
natural mortality and fishery selectivity) intended to be
used when conditioning the operating model. will be avoided through revisions to the trials specifications
by the e-mail correspondence group. However, if some
If the Committee does not recommend that the trials cannot be conditioned, this may or may not influence
the relative weights assigned to the trials (e.g.f a specific
Implementation process can begin, it will formulate
appropriate research recommendations to try to obtain instance of a stock structure hypothesis cannot be
necessary information. If it recommends favourably, then conditioned adequately, this does not imply that the stock
the Implementation timetable begins. The Committee will structure hypothesis concerned is implausible).
This review may include new analyses of data available
advise the Commission of the resource implications of
starting the Implementation process and will indicate any up to the time of the previous workshop but new data may
delays that might result due to lack of resources (such as not be introduced at this stage·.After reviewing the results
lack of staff/funding for intersessional meetings). of the conditioning, the Trials themselves may be changed,
but the overall structure can not be changed.
2. First intersessional workshop The primary output will be the detailed specifications of
the finalJSTs. These will be determined on the basis of:
The primary objective of the first intersessional workshop is
to develop an appropriate Implementation Simulation Trials 6
structure and to specify the associated conditioning so that it A trial is the combinationof a set of 'hypot(e.g.about stock
7tructurMSYR).
can be carried out before the following Annual Meeting. SmallAreascannotbesmallerthansub-areas.
149Annex 104
J:CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 7 (SUPPL.), 2005
87
(I) final consideration of the plausibility of the various of results will be necessary, particularly in order to inform
hypotheses and hence the weight assigned to each of decisions about whether future research is needed. During
the trials (the overall balance of the ISTs will be review of the results, discussions will continue on the
accounted for when weights are assigned);
development of a research programme to try to distinguish
(2) discussion of what data/research may reduce the amongst hypotheses, for final recommendation at the
number of hypotheses and possible time-frames.for this Second Annual Meeting.
research/data collection; The steps involved in reviewing the JSTs(see Fig. 1 for a
(3) updates/improvements to standard data sets (i.e. flowchart of the overall process)w.illbe as follows. Adjunct
abundance, catches, bycatches) for use by the CLA in 3 applies each of these steps to an illustrativeexample.
fmal trials and when evaluating the plausibility of
hypotheses and hence assigning weights to trials (new · (1) The conservation performance ·(given the highest
priority by the Commission) for each trial and variant
data would not be used when conditioning the trials); will be examined using predetermined guidelines (e.g..
and those in Table I), and each combination of variant and
(4) specification of operational features (geographical and
trial will be classified as either 'acceptable',
temporal) and management variants. 'borderline' or 'unacceptable' (box I of Fig. 1). This
The specification of final trials will: will result in the initial ranking of the variants. Note
(1) include trials to examine effects of using one RMP that this classification step only · considers trials
variant over an initial period (up to10 years) followed, weighted as 'high', 'medium' or 'no agreement'
after a 5-year phase-out period, by a more conservative because the 'low' weight trials were excluded during
the First Annual Meeting 9• The exact numerical
variant (see discussion below);
(2) exclude potential 'low' weight trials (e.g. those where specifications for the thresholds used when defining
at least one factor is considered to have 'low' 'acceptable' and 'borderline' will be based on the
plausibility); and values for relevant performance measures for the single
stock trials. Specifically, the values for 'acceptable'
(3) assign weights to the remaining trials of 'high',
'medium', or 'noagreement' 8. performance are based on the results for the Dl and Rl
base-case trials for the 0.72 tuning of the CLA, while
A timetable for the remaining work (including circulation of those for 'borderline' performance are based of the
trial results and format) will be developed - the timetable 10
will be determined so that there is a reasonable expectation results for these trials for the.60 tuning of the CLA •
that the resultsof the trials will be available well before the The results for the DI trial will be used to specify the
thresholds related to fmal depletion while those for the
second intersessional workshop. Rl trial will be used to specify the thresholds related to
The Committee will also commence discussions related
to defining the inputs for actual application of the CLA the minimum ratio of the population size with catches
(catches, bycatches, estimates of abundance and projected compared to that with only incidental catches.
(2) Variants that are classified as 'acceptable' for all trials
future anthropogenic removals). can be recommended to the Commission without any
4. Second intersessional workshop additional research (although there may be some
suggestions related to future research) (see box '2' on
The primary objective of this workshop is to review the Fig. 1).
results of the final trials and develop reconunendations for (3) Variants that are classified·as 'unacceptable' for any
consideration by the full Conunittee on:
'high' weight trials are unacceptable and will be
(1) management areas; eliminated 11from consideration at this stage (see box
(2) RMP variants (e. g. Catch-cascading, Catch-capping); '3'on Fig. !).
(3) associated operational constraints (e.g. temporal
(4) The detailed performance of the variants which
restrictions); performed acceptably for most (taking the balance of
(4) suggestions for future research (either within or outside the trials into account) of the trials but 'borderline' for
whaling operations) to narrow the range of plausible a small number of the 'medium' weighted trials will be
hypotheses/eliminate some hypotheses; and
examined. If performance on the conservative-related
(5) 'less conservative' variant(s) with their associated performance statistics for these trials is . close to
required research programs and associated duration. 'acceptable' (e.g. lower z%-ile of final depletion ---xK)
Discussions regarding the inputs to the actual application of
the CLAwill continue. 9
Some'low'weighttrialsmayberunto confirmwhichof thesetrialshave
4.I Guidelinesfor thereviewofISTs a largeimpacton theperformanceof theRMP.Theresultsof these trials
It is to be hoped that the attention to the development of will not, however, be used to select an RMP variant to select to the
final ISTs will have ensured that the number of trials is Commissionbutmay playa role in the developmentof suggestionsfor
futureresearch.
minimised. In order to extract the most information out of 10The Committee implicitly agreed that tunings from 0.60 to 0.72 for the
the results of the ISTs, conservation performance should be DI base-case trial were acceptable for the single stockroviding
examined for each RMP variant and trial. The set of the Commissionwith this rangeof alternatives.The Commissionchose
decision rules listed below is semi-automatic. ·It is not, 0.72.
11Notethatalthoughavariantmaybeclassifiedas unacceptable,thisdoes
however, fully automatic because some 'human integration' notprecludea membergovernmentfromconductingresearchwhichcould
show that the trial on which perfonnaoce was unacceptable should have
beena'low'weighttrial.Informationfromsuchresearchwill beevaluaetd
' 'No agreement'trialsare trialsforwhichareasonablecaseis madethat duringtheregularImplementationReviews. lf theresultsof researchshow
the weight should be 'high' although this is in disagrTrialfor thatsometrialsinitiallyassigned'high"weightareactuallyquiteunlikely
whichthereis disagreementn whethera trialis 'medium'or'low'would (and dese_rve 'low' weight), this could resintreconsideration of
normallybetreatedas'medium'intheprocessofreviewingtrialresults. previouslyrejectedRMPvariants.
150 Annex 104
88 REPORTOF THESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE,ANNEX D
Table I
Categoriesofconservationperformance.
Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable
Either: Either: Anythingthat cannobeclassified
as'acceptable'or 'borderline'.
lowerv%-ileoffinaldepletion>a.K; lowerw%-ileof final deplet>~K;
and/or· and/or
thelowerx%-ileoftheminimumovereachof thelowery%-tleof theminimumovereachofthe
the 100yearsof theratioof thepopulationsize 100 yearsof theratioof populationsizetothat
tothatinthesamescenariobutthereareonly inthesamescenariobutthereareonlyincidental
incidentalcatches,remains:ry(Fig. 2). catches,remain>a.
these variants could be judged 'acceptable' by the compared with those for the variants which are
Committee and could be recommended to the acceptable (box 5 of Fig. 1). In addition to the
Commission without a required research program (see usual statistics: i.e. media5th and 95 hercentiles
the two box 4's in Fig. 1). If this performance is not for 'Total Catch', 'Catch by Smqll Area, Medium
close to 'acceptable', these variants are considered Area' and 'AverageCatch over the last I0 years of
further as described in step (5). · the 100-year Management Period', the Committee
(5) The performancestatistics for the variants for which no might wish to considercatch statistics for an initial
decision has yet been made (i.e. they are neither periodof management (say 20years).
'acceptable' nor 'unacceptable') are evaluated to (b) The IWC Member(s) who made the proposal will
determine whether these varian ts fall into one of three be requested to state 13 whether, based on the
categories: 'rejected/unacceptable', 'accept12le ', and comparison of the catch-related performance
'possiblyacceptable withrequiredresearch' • measures, they remain interested in the remaining
(a) The values of the catch-related performance variants given that application of these variants
measures for these variantswill be examined and will require that a research programme guided and
1.Evaluateperformanceusingpredetennine1------- - -----,
2.Yes('Acx:eptable' guidelines.Isperfomance'acceptable' 3. 'Unacceptable'
perfonnance onalltrials? performanceforat
on alltrials). leastone'high'weight
'Borderline'f unae<:eptbale' tri.
ansome'mediuma'nd/or
'noagreement'trials.
4a. Detailedevaluationof 5. Evaluate catchrelated
results. Areresults'acceptable'? perfonnance.
Yes
No
Acceptablewithout Unacx:eptable.
research.
Fig.!.Flowchart.
12Note that only variants which achievbord ie~rperformance on
. 'high'. 'medium' or 'no agreement' weighted trials or 'unacceptable'
perfonnance on 'medium'or 'no agreement' trials will be considered at
this stage becauseany variantswhich achieved'unacceptable• perfonna13e
for a 'high' weight trial wilbearejected(see step3). Via theirScientific Committeerepresentative.
151Annex 104
J.CETACEAN RES. MANAGE . 7 (SUPPL.), 2005 89
approved by the Committee be implemented (box 6 If the Second Workshop had recommended additional
of Fig. I). Only variants in which interest has been trials, these will be reviewed at the Second Annual Meeting.
expressed will be retained. Particular attention will be given to the conservation
(c) For each of the remaining variants, the Committee performance of those trials where a 'less conservative' RMP
will then decide whether a research programme variant is assumed for the first 10 years, followed by a
can be developed that provides information that
phase-out period, after16hich catches are set by a 'more
can be used to assess whether the combination of conservative' variant • If conservation performance for
factors on which the trials for which these variants these trials satisfies the requirements of adequate
perform poorly should have been 'low' rather than performance, that variant [or variants] will be presented as
'medium' or 'high' weight (box 7 of Fig. !). The acceptable in association with a research programme agreed
aspects considered during such an evaluation will by the Committee. The associated research programme will
include: be formul!!ted such that it identifies expected progress in a
manner that will allow the Committee to review annually
(i) feasibility of addressing the uncertainties
concerned over a 10-year period; whether the programme is being adequately followed.
(ii) the number and nature of trials for which the· When presenting such variants, it will be explicit that:
14
variants did not perform 'acceptably' ;and (1) if at any time the research programme associated with
(iii) the extent to which the variant failed to the RMP variant has not progressed to the satisfaction
of the Committee, the Committee will recommend that
perform 'acceptably'.
(d) If the Committee decides that it is· feasible to catch limits immediately be based on the 'more ·
conservative' RMP variant; and
design a research programme for any of the
variants, it will establish additional trials to (2) the option to choose a 'less conservative variant +
research programme' can only be invoked once.
examine conservation performance, assuming
management is based on these variants for 10 years
after which management will revert, via a five-year
REFERENCES
phase-out process, to being based on one of the InternationaWhaling Commission. 1999. Repon of the Scientific
acceptable variants 15•The results of these trials Committee. Annex N. The Revised ManagementProcedure (RMP) for
will be considered at the Second Annual Meeting. baleen whales.CetaceanRes. Manag(.(Suppl.) I: 251-8
International WhalingCommission. 2001. Report of the · Scientific
Committee.J. CetaceanRes.Manage.(Supp/.) 3: 1-76
5. Second Annual Meeting InternationaWhaling Commission. 2004. Report of the Scientific
The primary purpose of this meeting is to review the results Committee.J.CetaceanRes.Manage. (Suppl.) 6:1-60.
of the Second Intersessional Workshop (including any Punt,A.E. 2003. Progress on softwarefor the rapidevaluationof the
perfonnanceof the RMP when stock-structureis uncertain. Paper
additional trials) and agree recommendations for SC/55/SD2 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2003,
implementation including the specifications of the inputs to Berlin (unpublished).pp .. [Paper available from the Office of this
the CLA. Journal].
12,000
1.200
1.000
:2
~ 0.800
~
0.600
l
0 0.400
~
II:
2,000 0.200
0+----------r---------r---------,
0 50 100 150 0.000
25 45 65 85 105 125
Year Year
No catches -+- With catches
Fig. 2a.Two examplepopulationsize trajectories.The populationis Fig. 2b. The time-trajectory of the ratio of the population size with catch to
initiallydepletedto 3,000 animals.The solidlinecorrespondsto a no thatwithoutcatch.'Acceptable'perfonnancecorrespondsto thisratio
catch scenario and the triangtosa scenario in which there are remaining above y for the duration of the IOO·year period while
catches. 'borderline· perfonnancecorrespondsto thisratio remaining about
for the duration of the I00-year period.
14
A large number of trials need oot lead to immediate rejection of the
possibility of a research program if all the trials concerned involve16 small
numberofuncertainties hichleadtopoorperformance. Thisvariantis onethosewhichis acceptable withouta requiredresearch
15This is to simulatea situationwhere the recommendedresearch program and which. when tested in combination with the 'less
programmedoes not yield reSultsthat show the initial variantto be conservativ'eRMPvarian,twasfoundtoachieve'acceptable' perfonnance
acceptable (i.e. that the trials for which it was not robust had 'low' weight).ials. This variantneed not bethe variantamongthose thatare
Note thatthe'acceptable'variantmightinvolvezerocatches. 'acceptable'without a research program that leads to the highes· catches.
152 Annex 105
105. Adjunct 1-3,Appendix 2,Annex D, Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. 7 (Suppl.), 2005, pp. 90-92
~..,0 ..."'., ~U)() ~ ~ () ~ "' ~ "'0
0"' 0 i !""
t. == ~ ....
~ 0 =a ...g. Q. llir s..=(;' 15'.. = ~ ...i ~ ~- "'"'"'.. = = "' a' ~ ~ IS:::."::- "' ~ ~
'5 ..Q {;
A
as) a e.t
tri this tte c
the al forto musifi
o ient
dition ti egral CommiSc
review11d ,t programme
ti to tersetiional on h the the
is Jn any i rc byisoyoamme
Mee opt th ll
ual ective a vc'uncndao
j Seoood j ed armua
Annrecommendati(including greapproded . " if
ee the rec1mmenda a repitte . since lier
tt of includes dnd an nonnally
Second primary agn:e s sconservgress l years tar .
' mpletne iil ro subm that S bu stoabundance
Commi TheresWoandlopIf 'lew guidebe Conunittee. 5 ifiesou ous), on to,tc
than
boxs~ iewte prevview logy
see9 Revla (R
~ ~eriod n fhe OIIevirethodo
t o i w jome
the by nts .f ection: in lll111ma
i nr varian ll armotatiole
i range Intcrvt:~~io eme tty,
reviewelop ; constra 1 schedupld den
Workshop to and l rith and ~6 DatRMPImpbemcomlmionpirestimation
lrialsiJ consideration narrow
v trialsn: .. opntona (ithe
fma f areas; ) conservative'
o cJ,.cerastrictioDS); period. .............................
lotersessionaltil or r needs Jess . e
the variants hypotheses;me has on
resultmarof Committee operations it t
pi fullmanagemeassociatedrche appropriate if las ).
Second RMP lu and at fi(9
') ReviewTheresultsm(I)datcascadingg outp (5)withf'aciated ......... o nlo
. 110dloand eme
inside/outside pl
... oJDitispace trialsl Meeting
- . inf er to
t this new t
iewt no ti .... newif hypothe tnnual
datbut ting sets . parametee a
revand new lffi i number lritonalrsifica ,t~aigh
trial is new data nt s ys,orksh~i.
DOt Fina ge fma cla ..... nlAnnuExadetermineJfwed IfR
final ve changed ionf hovs;alt reduce in opegme .
Meeting incbutbe udi ,atches, BDd
and objectiitioUing /STcfwmay standard mana imetablcfor
n of maydatmaystructure.cl to for
Annual or t, and
iioni sults on: bli eofthe eificatioa
First prirerysethlysesioverall usi discushypotheses;spce specificationt 101t
'3) lfioalconsi)ecat 4) eatures
CondtrTheureflThisanThethebas(dplatrials{2tdatoft(3)(i.ec(tcbes(5)off(6)ttials;ngwork ............. acco yesemble
. to (depending
Workshop ma sage(3)).
1 trials th
td l new
infonraition
in on out in ~~
- op lalissocia e prodableld for) l; termineomp
the l thei used lbe 'llntenessiooal
velSmu carried avo detai smabe hypotheses lrie;<perimcntao De foron citherstage(2)or
okshOp de be include: to re the managementheof ................
W io spccil)rwill.aaccount m operatwill; nd considered.
itn the of structureoptions ning changes be
lpment to of intiatioof that t amongst
eve andhaAnnual rk;on expected patteAreas . no will
d objectiveo imwlani areasook ifi cdiftguishaanJI ta
JmplemenFirstscu.ssioos on termioatioo r constintttion da
lotersessional on dc hical developmentfo di hypotheses;
structure structure ftnali'Cviewxami p tal to hypothesstrocturethatimplemc:ntstheagn:ed
Firal primal}' A eesAnry The opeThetona\ Further thetssha no ............. Make
'2)ri before un poten methodways lisimptriplausiblethatafterthis$1agc:
T Theapproconditioningoppmanag(2)inf(3)·aetoiand(4)cifyi(5)The(s6p)ectock(
Review.
1 Commission.
to
as
a to e
will (takeneemedwould and ard th leeting
stock d dats (e.g. l reg lmplementolion
' Annuallowindatarchetypes) already the the out
th of it newrocesnot abundance: begin Annua
sment thelisthatf p 'halingth ')
es assessonnt plausible geographicat recommendation CarrycommendatiOfls
ass 0(" of with hypstocks) a Connally .....................
onefocus agreed availathe intsitu:ationssestoent,
enocollenovel of on issuesthisaot proc.css.
M«ting:; will an the thel of n
during coosistcnt lmplem'entatioand takofg wior
and froinclusiveajnumber nalureofemporabasis
Annual establaliaenl thest t
x+ pre-implemethetion areke e e.1aminationation the whether
ll 'rt:-lThetakeMiss(1)=ypolhthatsndrsuggifspccificdiothcb.uictrialstructw'e;tteeementation
inter
153Annex 105
J.CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 7 (SUPPL.), 2005 91
Adjunct 2
Example summary table for proposals for pre-implementation assessment with a few hypothetical illustrations
Item Details Rawfonnat Where held Analytical methods Key papers Comments
Opei-ationaldata
CatchhistoryE.g.Nation,operation,dateE.g. Electronic IWC E.g. Wright-Phillips, Being updated
length,sex,other 20??; Anelka, 20??
Effort data E.g. Simple (e.g. CDW), tE.g. Paper National lab - IWC, 19??
budget
Abundance
Shipboard E.g. Dates, tracks, what E.g. Electronic IWC-DESS E.g. Line-transect,(O) Already
recorded, methodology suitable forDistance correction accepted by SC
Aerial · E.g. As forshipboard E.g. Electronic IWC-DESS E.g. Cue-counting
suitableforDistance
Stockstructureand dispersalrates
Genetic E.gn,allozyme, microsatellite,SeeSection9.1 E.g. Hypothesis testing,
etc. boundaryrank,dispersalrates
MoryhometricE.g. What measured, E.g. PCA
positions,sex, etc.
Discovery E.g.Releases,recoveries(dates, SeeTable99.99 E.g. Simple plots,
marks positions,effortetc.) Effort based probabilities
Telemetry E.gn, trackdivetimesetc. E.g. Simple plots, input to
aerialsurveyanalysis
Biological E.g. Reproductive data (foetal,
parameters dates.positinnetc.)
Ecological E.g. Pollutant, parasites
Adjunct3
An illustrative example of reviewing the results of a set of ISTs
The decision rules outlined in Fig. I and Section 4.1 are applied to the illustrative example in Table 1. In this example, there
are six RMP variants and 11 trials (four of which have 'high' weight, five 'medium' weight the ~as no agreement on the
weight for the last two trials).
Table I
Conservationperformanceby managementvariantandtrial.
Variant Variant
Trial Weight 2 4 Trial Weigbt 6
I High A A A u A A 7 Medium u A A "A B A
2 High A A A B B A 8 Medium A A A u A B
3 High A A A B A A 9 Medium B A A u A B
4 High A A A B A A 10 No agreement B A A u u A
5 Medium A A B u A A II No agreement A A A A A A
6 Medium A A A B A A
Results: A=acceptable, B=borderline , U=unaceeptable.
The initial ranking of the variants in Table I (see boxes I, 2 and 3 of Fig. I) suggests that only variant 2 is acceptable without
additional research because it is the only variant that achieved 'acceptable' performance for all of the trials. One possible
outcome at this point is that variant 2 could be recommended to the Commission. This recommendation would not involve any
required research (although there may besome suggestions for research). This initial ranking would also result in rejection of
variant 4 as unacceptable becauseit performs unacceptably on"Trial I (which has 'high' weight). A summary of the situation at
this point is:
Variant 2 4 6
Status No decisionye~ No decisionyet Unacceptable No decisionyet No decisionyet
The performance of the remaining variants (I, 3, 5 and 6) in Table I for each trial would now be examined in detail (step 4 in
Section 4.1). Variant 3 performed acceptably for allf the trials except trial 5 where.its performance was 'borderline'. The
detailed results for this trial would be examined by the Committee. Assuming that variant 3 was judged acceptable following
detailed examination of the performance statistics because its results are close to 'acceptable', variant 3 would be deemed
acceptable. The summary of thestatus of the various variants becomes:
154 Annex 105
92 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE,ANNEXD
Variant 4
Status No decision yet AcceptableAccePtable Unacceotable No decision yet No decision yet
The decision rule has now reached the point at which decisions need to made regarding whether any of the remaining variants
(i.e. variants I, 5 and 6 in the example) are acceptable if they are accompanied by required research (step 5 in Section 4.1). The
catch-related perfonnance statistics would now be examined and the IWC Member(s) who made the proposal for
Implementation would be requested to state whether they remain interested in variants I, 5 and 6. Let us assume that the
Member(s) proposing Implementation .decide that variant 6 does not provide sufficient additional catch to warrant the cost of
the large research program that would be needed to show that the factors that underlie trials 8 and 9 are 'low' weight. The
summary table now becomes:
Variant 2 6
Status No decisionyet~ ~ UnacceJJtableNo decisionyet Notworthpursuing
The Committee would then decide for each of the remaining variants (1 and 5) whether a research program could be developed
that provides infonnation that could used to assess whether that the combination of factors on which the trials for which
variants I and 5 perfonned poorly (trials 7,9 and 10 for variant I and trials 2, 7 and 10 for variant 5) should have been 'low'
rather than 'medium' or 'high'weight (box 7 of Fig. 1).A possible outcome of this is that there is no feasible 10-yearresearch
program to revise the weight for trial9 (which say involves a low value for MSYR) so variant 1 (which achieved 'borderline'
perfonnance for trial 9) would be omitted from consideration. The summary table is now:
Variant 3 4 6
Status No feasible research Accep,t~ble Unacceotable No decision yet Not worthpursuing
The Committee would then establish additional trials to examine conservation perfonnanC:eif management was based on
variant 5 for 10 years (box 8 of Fig. I). These trials would involve using variant 5 for ten years followed by one of the
acceptable variants. In the case under consideration, there would two ways to running these trials: i) variant 5 followed by
variant 3, and ii) variant 5 followed by variant 2. These calculations would be conducted assuming that the catch limits for
years 1-10 are calculated using variant5, the catch limits for years 11-15 are calculated using aweighted average of those from
variant 5 and one of variants 2 or 3 (where the weight changes from I in year 10 to 0 in year 15), and the catch limit for years
15+ are calculated using variants 2 or 3. If these calculations lead to perfonnance measures for all of the trials that would be
classified as 'acceptable' (using the classification scheme in Table 1), variant 5 would be judged to be 'acceptable' if
accompanied by a research program. The final summary table is then:
Variant 2 4
Status No feasible research AcceptaAcceptable Unacceptable Acceptable withrequireNotworthpursuing
research
Appendix3
REQUIREMENTS AND GillDELINES FOR CONDUCTING SURVEYS AND ANALYSING DATA WITHIN THE
REVISED MANAGEMENT SCHEME
1. Introduction Sections 3-6 provide guidance on survey and analysis
l.1 Scope methodology that has been accepted by the Scientific
This document fonns part of the Revised Management Committee. That is, the methods have been reviewed by the
Scheme (RMS) of the International Whaling Commission. Committee prior to the acceptance of estimates of
Its.main purpose is to aid the process of obtaining estimates abundance calculated from the data for use in the RMP
of abundance for use in the Revised Management Procedure either as input to the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA/ or as
(RMPiby: input to Implementation Simulation Trials (ISTst Novel
(i) stating the requirements under the RMS in this methods, i.e. those that have·not been reviewed by the
respect (Section 2); and Committee in this context, are referred to in Section 7.
Estimates of abundance calculated from data collected and
(ii) providing guidance on methods of conducting
surveys and analysing data (Sections 3-6). analysed using methods not yet accepted by the Committee
1RevisedManagementScheme(RMS):Thisincludesallscientificandnon ' Catch Limit Alg01·ilhm(CLA): This is the process used to calculate the
scientific aspects of management,as covered in the Commission's limitforaManagemenAt reaundertheRMP.
resolution (IWC, 1993). 4 Implementation Simulation Trials (/STs): These are case-specific
2RevisedManagementProcedure(Rlt.JP): his is thescientificpartof thsimulations,the resultsof whichleadtotherecommendationof aparticular
RMS (IWC, 1999). variantof theRMPforaspecies inaRegion.
155156 Annex 106
106. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 ,
p. 47
1. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 47
whale catcher boats, one echo-sounder trawl survey vessel of 36). This year seven animals were taken ashore for a full
and one dedicated sighting survey vessel. An additional veterinary post mortem examination. Aerial surveys were
dedicated sighting survey using one small-type whale also conducted during the period April to September 2004
catcher boat was also attempted. The sampling was and the resulting maps of survey effort and sightings were
conducted in coastal waters within50 n.miles of the port of shown in SC/57/014 and SC/57/08 .
Kushiro and all whales sampled were landed at the land Satellite telemetry was attempted on seven animals and
stationat the port ofKushiro. data were received from one .of these for several months,
During the survey, the total search effort for whale until 5 December 2004, at which time the animal was off
sampling was about 6,920 n.miles (635 hours), 151 schools the coast of West Africa (SC/57/09). A summary of other
and 156 individual common minke whales were sighted and projects within the overall programme was also given in
59 whales were sampled. · The average body length of the SC/57/014 . Some members commended the work on
sampled whales was 6.87m (SD~0.8 n04,7)for males and satellite telemetry.
6.00m (SD=l.09, ~12) for females. Dominant prey In response to questions about the criteria used to select
speci.es found in the forestomach were Japanese anchovy animals for toxicological studies, it was stated that from the
(62.1%) and Pacific saury (31%). The concurrent 'prey animals taken under the Special Permit, five animals had
survey revealed the distributionf those prey species in the been selected under domestic legislation for marketing
research area, and the dedicated sighting survey sighted 17 purposes. Another 25 animals had been selected over the
schools (18 individuals) of common minke whales within two years for toxicological studies ·in order to obtain a
some 810 n.miles searched. Compared with the results of representative sample from both sexes and different age
the 2002 survey off Kushiro, the length frequency of the classes from the whales taken under Special Permit. Some
whales inclined towards larger males, while the species of these samples needed to be sent abroad for full analysis,
composition of the prey species found in the forestomach and there had been some delays in obtaining the relevant
was similar. permits.
These results revealed yearly changes in the migration In order to address the question of how effectively faecal
and feeding habits of common minke whales in the coastal samples collected at sea might be used to study diet, faecal
waters off Kushiro in the autumn season, and it was matter was also being collected from the posterior end of
suggested that those changes might be related to yearly the rectum of some common minke whales in order to make
variation in environmental factors such as the comparisons with stomach contents. This might then be
oceanographic conditions or the distribution of prey species. compared with results from an International Fund for
To evaluate the potential for long-term competition between Animal Welfare (IFA W) project that had collected faeces
whales and fisheries in the local area and to clarify the role under a research permit issued by the Icelandic authorities
of whales in the marine ecosystem, the proponents stated in 2004. The project wil lhed light on the feasibility of
that further surveys should be conducted on a yearly basis. collecting common minke whale faecal samples at sea to
The relevance of the reported collection of oocytes from study their feeding habits.
female common minke whales for in vitro fertilisation Childerhouse welcomed the increase in attention to non
(SC/57/05) was questioned. The Committee was referred lethal methods. Vikingsson welcomed a proposal from
to the work of Prof. Y. Fukui, of the Obihiro University of Hatanaka for collaboration with Japanese scientists.
Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine,'who has published The Committee noted the lower than expected sampling
several papers in international journals on his work on rate. As for the preceding programmes, opinions were
oocyte development and whale reproduction, some of which divided on other aspects of the work, and reference was
are detailed inC/57/015. made to earlier statements on this programme by proponents
There remained divided views on the validity of the and opponents respectively (IWC, 2005c, pp.46-7).
JARPN II research programme and its results, as expressed
in previous years (e.g. see IWC,2005c, p.46; IWC, 2004d, 16.1.4 Review report from non-IWC meeting on JARPA
p.364). results
A JARPA Review Meeting called by the Government of
Japan was held at the Institute of Cetacean Research,
16.1.3Iceland-NorthAtlantic common minke whales Tokyo, on 18-20 January 2005, and is summarised in
The Icelandic Research Programme on common minke
whales was reviewed in SC/57/014. The original plan had SC/57/06. The JARPA research objectives and its work
called for a sampleof200 common minke whales in the two tasks wereftrst reviewed. The JARPA survey procedure, the
years after the review by the Committee in June 2003. The data collected and the results were also reviewed in the light
ofthe JARPA objectives. The meeting agreed that:
programme began in August 2003, with takes of 36 whales
that season, followed by 25 in the 2004 season. Progress (I) JARPA has collected a very large and consistent
has therefore been much slower than anticipated. The database over a 16-year period, which provides a basis
reasons for this were political rather than scientific, with the for time series analyses relating whales to the Antarctic
Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries deciding the rate of
environment and the beginning of an ecosystem
sampling. This should not present a problem in scientific approach to the management of whale resources in the
terms, so long as the total expected takef 200 is achieved region;
and the original seasonal and geographical distribution is (2) JARPA has contributed to the elucidation of biological
retained. The present expectation is that 39 whales will be parameters of Antarctic minke whales, and improved
taken in 2005 and the remaining 100 in 2006. the understanding of the Antarctic marine ecosystem;
The 2004 season was 3 June-6 July. Three catching and
boats had been employed with search effort distributed all (3) JARPA has reveal ed the changes that have occurred in
around Iceland. The 2004 season had taken more females the ecosystem since the 1970s suggesting competition
than males (15 out of 25) than in the previous year (13 out
among Antarctic minke and other large whales and data
157158 Annex 107
107. “Report of the Sub-Committee on In-Depth Assessment”, Annex G, Report of the
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp. 132-133
132 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX G
in recruitment and population size in SC/57[IA17 agreed not support a very large reduction in minke whale
well with the corresponding reference case results in abundance between CPll and CPlli .
SC/57(IA9. The factor to which the results of SC/57/IA17 A number of members of the sub-committee were
were most sensitive was the value of the natural mortality,
concerned that the simple population dynamic evaluations
M. The assessments showed retrospective patterns, described above, though helpful, restedon assumptions that
primarily related to changesn the best estimate ofMas time might not hold in this case. They referred to indications in
has progressed. This in tum seemed linked to the SC/57 [IA9 and SC/57!IA19 that carrying capacity had
IDCR/SOWER survey trends suggesting higher, and the changed. They believed it appropriate to consider the
JARPA survey trends lower estimates of M. For the analyses above in conjunction with further results from the
assessment of the two Areas combined, M is estimated at VPA and statistical CAA evaluations, once available.
0.068 with a CV of 0.12; this compares with CVs of Nevertheless, the sub-committee acknowledged that
typically 0.35 for the Area-specific assessments of consideration of trends in biological parameters had utility
Butterworth et a/. (1999), which were based on eight in checking for consistency with the results from abundance
seasons fewer data. The model chosen to assess age surveys and population models.
dependent mortality indicated thatM increases.with age. SC/57/021 was presented by Mori and Butterworth. The
SC/57[IA17 suggested areas where further analyses history of human harvests of seals, whales, fish and krill in
would be desirable. It was suggested that probability the Antarctic was summarised briefly, and the central role
distributions that permitted the estimation of over played by krill was emphasised. New information on
dispersion within the likelihood might be used. Some population and trend levels that have become available since
differences between the results of SC/57{IA17 and the krill surplus hypothes is was first advanced was
SC/57!IA9 were noted; e.g. omitting the JARPA abundance discussed . The study examined wheth er predator-prey
data had a large effectn the former paper but not the latter. interactions alone can broadly explain observed population
The difference between the trends indicated by the revised trends of the major species without resorting to
JARPA and IDCR/SOWER abundance estimates for Area environmental change hypotheses. As a first step, a model
IV is clearly of concern. Further, the ADAPT-VPAapproach was developed including krill, four baleen whale (blue, fin,
needs to be extended to take account of the differences in humpback and minke) and two seal (Antarctic f ur and
selectivity patterns between the Japanese and Russian fleets crabeater) species. The model commenced in 1780 (the
indicated by SC/57 [IA9. In addition, possible differences in onset of fur seal harvests) and examined the Atlantic[Indian
selectivity patternsat large ages between JARPA and the and Pacific sectors separately becauseof the much larger
commercial catches need to be investigated further and past harvests in the former sector. The study inferred that: (i)
plausible hypotheses concerning the reasons for any such species interaction effects alone can explain observed
differences advanced. The authors of both papers stressed predator abundance trends, though not without some
that their results were preliminary and that guidance from difficulty; (ii)t is necessary to consider other species in
the SC was needed regarding stock structure hypotheses, addition to baleen whales and krill to explain observed
abundance estimates that should be considered and trends, with crabeater seals being particularly important and
environmental factors that could be included in models. It in need of improved abundance and trend information; (iii)
was noted that the upcoming review of JARPA by the SC the Atlantic!Indian region showed major changes in species
should provide some guidance. However, given that this abundances, in contrast to the Pacific which was much more
review is unlikely to take place before the6 SC meeting, stable; (iv) baleen whales need relatively high growth rates
relyingon it would -have implications for the time frame for to explain the observed trends; and (v) the previous estimate
completing the population dynamics modelling work. of some 150 million tons for the krill surplus (Laws, 1977)
It was noted that SC/57!IA19 had fitted a stock may be too high since his calculations omitted density
recruitment model of the Pella-Tomlin son form to dependent effects on feeding rates.
recruitment and adult female abundance estimates from the The sub-committee recognised that investigations into
Base Case ADAPT-VPA assessment of Areas IV and V interactions between large whales and other species are
combined. The trends of the resulting plots require the important "in the sub-committee's work and so welcomed
assumption that minke whale K :first increased, then later contributions of this issue. This model raised a lot of
decreased, during the20thCentury. An initial attemptat this discussion. A brief summary of those discussions follows.
fit suggests that K increased about four fold from 1930 to the A query was raised as to why beaked whales were not
mid-1950s and then decreased again by some 60%. MSYR 1 included in the model.The authors responded that there was
is estimated at 5% for this model. The sub-committee did too little information available for most other species,
not have time to discuss this result. including beaked whales, to include in the model. A
previous paper (Branch and Williams, 2003) ~uggs ted that
killer whales may have reduced the populations of some
3.3.3Other marine mammals including Antarctic minke whales. It
Analyses and arguments were presented that the very large might therefore be worthwhile to include killer whales in the
reduction of abundance estimates between CPll and CPlli model. The authors responded that the biggest consumers of
was biologically unrealistic. Using an estimate of the krill were included, but that it was not possible to include all
coefficient of M of 6.8%, the reduction of abundance species and interactions. The authors of SC/57/021
estimates between CPll and CPill (SC/57{IA16)was argued concluded that killer whales could not solely have caused
to correspond with a situation of zero recruitment having the decline in abundance of minke whales.
continued for 14 years. However, age compositionsin Areas It was suggested that the large krill surplus indicated by
IV and V from JARPA surveys over 14 years suggested that the model in the mid-20th century may imply th at primary
recruitment rates and morality rates were very stable. In production was not being fully utilisedy krill prior to this
addition, the apparent maturity rates during the time period time. It is not clear whether primary productivity is limited
corresponding to half of CPll and all of CPlli were also in the Antarctic. If it is, it might not be possible to generate
stable. Therefore, the available biological information did an additional krill surplus.
159Annex 107
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 133
Several members commented that minke whales inside addition, the model smoothes out small-scale krill and
the shelf break feed primarily on Euphasia crystallorophius predator relationships. The authors agreed that these
and not E. superba. The extent of competition between patterns were smoothed over in the model but it was not
minke whales and other baleen whales may therefore be less possible to build a very complex model based on limited
than assumed in the model in which 'krill' refers to all data since there is a trade-off between predictive power and
euphausiid species southof 60°S. Hatanaka commented that
degree of model complexity that can be supported in such
although the JARPA data showed that in the deep parts of circumstances.
the Ross Sea and Prydz Bay minke whales feed on E. It was noted thatjust because one model is consistent with
crystallorophius, the overall consumption was far less than the data, this is not a reason to accept its underlying
of E. superba (Tamura and Konishi, 2005). hypotheses as the only plausible hypothesis. Many other
It was noted that southern right whale and Antarctic fur hypotheses may also lead to models that fit the data,
seal breeding success was correlated with good krill years. including a combination of top-down and bottom-up
This indicates that inter-specific competition may occur hypotheses. Furthermore the history of ecosystem models
only in poor krill years. The authors responded that the shows that they have poor predictive power.
model is a long-terrn model that in'tegratesout short-term
variability in krill abundance. 3.4 Other
There was a long discussion about the quantification of SC/57/IAl 0 reported that in April 2004 three minke whales
uncertainty and model fitting. Many of the parameters strartded at Navarino Island, Chile, in the southern tip of
estimated in the model wereon the bounds of pre-set ranges. South America. In the field, observations on external
Thus the true global minimum may be quite different if all characters were made, photographs were obtained and skin
the parameters were unbounded. Furthermore, for technical samples were collected by the Marine Biology Group of
reasons it would be problematic to quantify the uncertainty
CEQUA (Centre for the Studies of the Quaternary). On the
of the model fit using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) basis of comparative analysis with available information for
methods. In addition, model structure uncertainty in such an the two species of minke whale, B. bonaerensis and B.
approach is probably at least as important as parameter acutorostrata, for both external characters and genetics
estimation uncertainty and it is probably umealistic to (mtDNA control region sequences), the animals were
incorporate this within an MCMC framework. The identified as dwarf minke whale, B. acutorostrata. This is
suggestion was made that it might be worthwhile to examine the first documented record for this species in Chile. Dwarf
likelihood proftlesof the parameters to infer estimation minke whales have been observed in Brazil from July to
precision. In the absence of quantification of such February, but with most individuals recorded in the austral
uncertainties, one would not have much confidence in winter and spring, suggesting that these whales present
extrapolations. It was also noted that the model would be some degree of seasonal north/south movement (Zerbini et
fairly heavily driven by thevalues used for preset bounds for
a/., 1996). The records presented in this study were
feeding and mortality rates; given that these bounds were observed in April, a month when whales were not recorded
derived from the real world of age-structured populations, further north in tropical latitudes. This, coupled with the
whereas the model used a simpler age-aggregated approach, close genetic relationship observed in whales from Chile
it was not clear that these bounds were necessarily and Brazil, suggests that the population wintering off Brazil
appropriate. The authors responded that it would indeed may move towards the southern tip of the South American
prove difficult to implement MCMC, but that the bounds continent in the summer.
were intended to keep the model within the realms of The sub-committee was interested in the numbers of
biological plausibility. minke whales identified in Chile. Pastene confirmed that 16
The authors suggested that the crabeater seals in the minke whales had been identified and that three were dwarf
model was in part a proxy for many different types of minke whales.
predators that were not modelled individually, such as birds,
fish and squid.Some members pointed out that squid have
dynamics very different to those of crabeater seals and may 4.IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT OF WESTERN NORTH
take up any surplus production much more rapidly. The PACIFIC COMMON MINKE WHALES, WITH A
authors agreed that the crabeater seal results had been FOCUS ON J-STOCK
difficult to interpret and that quantitative abundance and
4.1 Report from intersessional Steering Group
trend information on this species was lacking. The model's SC/57/NPM4 reported the activities of the intersessional
results should therefore be interpreted qualitatively and not Steering Group for an in-depth assessment of western North
quantitatively.
It was noted that this model was a top-down model and Pacific(WNP) common minke whale, with a focus on the_J
suggestions were made that a bottom-up model might fit the stock. During the 2004 meeting the Committee
recommended the following priority items of work that need
data more parsimoniously. In particular, the larger baleen to be accomplished prior to an assessment:
whale species were recovering from low levels due to
exploitation and these recoveries did not require any special (I) analysis of sighting survey data to provide estimates of
krill surplus to have occurred. Species whose behaviour abundance, their variances, and any estimates of g(O);
required some special explanation were particularly rninke (2) analysis of genetic and any other data to form
whales and crabeater seals because of their apparent hypotheses of stock structure - this should include
increasing then _declining trends. These trends may have analysis of data from the Pacific coast of Japan- there
been caused by bottom-up forcing leading to changes in krill was disagreement on the priorityof the analysis of these
abundance, perhaps because of long-terrn changes in the data versus data from theSea of Japan;
Antarctic Oscillation Index (Jones and Widmann, 2004). (3) consideration of the linkage between points (1) and (2)
The point was raised that some species in the model - how to deal with the lack of information on the
utilise waters both north and south of 60°S and these proportion of 'J' stock animals in the Sea of Okhotsk
movements have not been incorporated in the model. In was particularly important here;
160 Annex 108
108. “Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group”, Annex O2,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 ,
pp. 265-267
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 265
Annex 02
Progress Report of the JARPA Review Planning Steering Group
Members: Zeh (Convenor), Brownell, Childerhouse, Zeh believe that terms of reference (3) and (4) and Items 9.1 ·
Fujise, Gales, Hatanaka, Pastene,-Schweder and 9.2, at least, must part of the JARPA review because
The Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special they reflect explic.it instructions from the Commission to the
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) completed its last survey in SC. These members are open to discussion regarding
late March of 2005. The IWC Scientific Committee has for whether Item 9 should be covered as part of the review
some time been planning a final reviewof JARPA results. A meeting or postponed until the SC meeting that considers
JARPA Review Planning Working Group was established the report of the review meeting. Fujise, Hatanaka and
during the2003 SC meeting (IWC, 2004b, p.410) but Jacked Pastene.believe that terms of reference (3) and (4) and Items
a convenor. Gales and Zeh (Convenor) were added during 9.1 and 9.2 should notbe part of the SC review of JARPA
the 2004 SC meeting, and the group was renamed the because they deal with political rather than scientific issues
JARPA Review Planning Steering Group (IWC, 2005b, and because the SC review should concentrate on how well
p.390).Its termsof reference were as given in IWC (2004b): JARPA objectives have been met and what scientific
'Prepare for a review of the JARPA programme in 2005'. contributions have been made by the programme. Pastene
During the discussion in 2004 (IWC, 2005a, p.45), the SC noted that if Item 9 were to be covered, it should be at a
agreed to 'undertake afull reviewf the JARPA programme subsequent SC meeting rather than during the review
when the complete set of results are available following the meeting. There was less disagreement among members of
completion of the 16-year programme i.e. some time after the Steering Group regarding draft agenda Items 9.3, 9.4 and
the 2005 annual meeting of the Committee.' It also agreed 9.5, which were considered useful as a reminder of research
that the Steering Group would submit a progress report on encouraged by the Commission which has been conducted
preparations for considerationt the 2005 SC meeting. The under the JARPA programme, than about Items 9.1 and 9.2.
Steering Group worked intersessionally, primarily via Of course, the Steering Group agreed that the SC should
e-mail correspondence, to produce this progress report. consider only the scientific aspectsthe resolutions. It will
The Steering Group agreed that this review, like the 1997 be necessary to go through any resolutions that are to be
JARPA Review (IWC, 1998b, pp.95-105; IWC, 1998a), considered, extracting and listing the scientific matters
should be carried out by an Intersessional Working Group to involved so that they can be considered independently of
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on non-scientific aspects of those resolutions. The SC will need
Minke Whales in the Antarctic. This wou ld be done during to do.its best to follow Commission instructions in so far as
an intersessional meeting, most likely in TokyoThe report is within its competence. Altho ugh many Commission
from that meeting would be presented and discussed at the resolutions and discussions have dealt with JARPA, a
following SC meeting. The review would cover all 18 years relatively small number (see Appendix 1) contain the
of the JARPA programme (1987/88-2004/05). relevant Commission instructions and recommendations, in
Draft terms of reference for the review are given in some cases by noting earlier resolutions .
Appendix 1 and a draft agenda in Appendix 2. The draft The objectives of JARPA are summarised by IWC
terms of reference are based on the draft terms of reference (1998a, p.378):
for the 1997 review (IWC, 1996) and Steering Group (1) estimation of the biological parameters tomprove the
discussions.As indicated in the draft agenda, the review stock management of the Southern Hemisphere minke
meeting will cover JARPA work on sightings surveys and whale;
abundance estimation, stock structure, biological parameter (2) elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine
studies, the marine ecosystem and environmental change ecosystem;
including pollution.The results will be reviewed in the
context of the stated objectives of the JARPA programme (3) elucidation of the·effect of environmental changes on
and of stock management. Other results not directly related cetaceans; and
to JARPA objectives will also be reviewed, e.g. results on (4) elucidation of the stock structure of the Southern
blue and humpback whales. In preparing the draft agenda, Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
attention ·was given to issues raised in the 1997 JARPA management.
Review (IWC, 1998b, p.103). In addition, in response to a question regarding the sighting
The Steering Group has not yet reached agreement surveys conducted as part of the programme and the
regarding terms of reference (3) and (4) and Item 9 of the abundance estimates obtained from those surveys, it was
draftAgenda, which deals with these terms of reference. stated that although the primary reason for the sighting
Item 9 covers the relationship of the JARPA research to surveys Wl!S their contrib ution to objective (1), their
relevantIWC resolutions and discussions and, in particular, pertinence to theRMP and the associated implementation
the utility of the lethal techniques used by JARPA compared process for Southern Hemisphere minke whales should be
to non-lethal techniques. Brownell, Childerhouse, Gales and seen as a derivative objective.
161Annex 108
266 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX 02
The JARPAReview Planning Steering Group will need to the (1b) papers and which therefore should be available as
accomplish several tasks well ahead of the review meeting: 'For Information' papers at the review meeting. The
Steering Group will make proposals regarding tasks (4) and
(1) Compile and circulate: (5), andpossibly (3), for review and amendment by other SC
(a) a list of papers arising from JARPA research, members.
including publications in scientific journals and
unpublished reports (e.g. SC documents), with The terms of ·reference for the Steering Group were to
prepare for a review of the JARPA programme in 2005.
abstracts if available; However, because the last JARPAsurvey was not completed
(b) a list of papers to be updated and presented to the
·IWC JARPAreview meeting!. . until late March of2005, itis likely thatthe review will need
to be postponed until mid or late 2006. That will allow time
(2) Compile and circulate an annotated list of datasets to be for careful checking of the final datasets and preparation of
considered, bearing in mind data availability
requirements under Procedure B (IWC, 2004a). papers including all the data, as specified by the SC.
(3) Prepare and circulate suggestions, if any, for additional
analyses to be carried out. REFERENCES
(4) Decide time, venue, facilities, agenda, budget, and International Whaling Commission. 1996. Report of the Scientific
relevant participants, including Invited Participants. Committee.Annex Q. Draftterms of reference for Intersessional
Working Group to review data and results from special permit
(5) Examine the resolutions and the SC reports mentioned research on minke whales in the AntarcRep. int. Whal. Comnm
in those resolutions. Outline the topics tobeconsidered 46:224.
under agenda Item 9 and recommend whether these
International Whaling Commission. 1998a. Report of the Jntersessional
topics should be dealt with during the review meeting or Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
only by the SC as a whole. Research on Minke Whales in theAntarctic, Tokyo. 12-16May 1997.
Rep. int. W!Ja/.Commn 48:377·412.
It is anticipated that Japanese scientists will prepare the task International Whaling Commission. 1998b. Report of the Scientific
(1) and (2) lists for consideration by theteering Group and Committee.Rep.int. Whal. Commn 48:53-!18.
other SC members, who may suggest additions. An example International Whaling Commission. 2004a. Report of the Scientific
Committee.AnnexT. Reportof the dataavailability workinggroup.
of such additions would be papers not arising from JARPA J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Supp/.) 6:406-8.
that contain methods or results relevant to the discussion of International Whaling Commission.2004b. Reportof the Scientific
Committee.Annex U. E-mailCorrespondenceGroupsandTermsof
Reference. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 6:409-10.
I These listwillbe available on the web, and information needed to International Whaling Commission. 2005a. Report of the Scientific
access them will be circulated through the IWC Secretariat. A Committee.J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 7:1-62.
provisional version (b)is the list of papers.presented to the JARPA International Whaling Commission.2005b. Reportof the Scientific
review mee~i ngld in January2005 by the Japanese Govemment, Committee.Annex U. E-MailCorrespondenceGroupsandTerms of
Reference. J. Cetacean Res.Manage. (Suppl.) 7:389-90.
given in Annex C of SC/57/06.
Appendix 1
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
To review the final results of the Japanese special permit REFERENCES
research in the Antarctic, 1987/88-2004/05. To evaluate: International Whaling Commission. 1996a. Chairman•s Report of the
Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting.Appendix 10. IWC Resolution 1995-
(1) how well the initial and revised objectives of the
research have been met; 9. Resolutio11 on whaling under special permit. Rep. int. Whal .
(2) other contributions to important research needs; Commn 46:46-7.
International Whaling Commission. 1996b.hairman's Reportof the
(3) the relationsh ip of the research to relevant IWC Forty-Seventh Annual MeetinAppendix II. JWCResolution 1995-
resolutions and discussions, including those dealing 10. Resolution on the environment and whale stocks. Rep. int. Whal.
with the Antarctic marine ecosystem (IWC, 1999), Commn 46:47-8.
International Whaling Commision. 1998a. Chairman's Report of the
pollution (IWC, 1 996b; 1998a; 2000b), environmental Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting. Appendix 7. JWC Resolution 1997-7.
changes and their impacts on cetaceans (IWC, 1996b; Resolution on environmental change and cetaceans. Rep. int. Whal.
1998a; 1999; 2004) and SC reviews of special permit Commn 48:48-9.
research (IWC, 1996a; 2000a; 2004); in particular, International Whaling Commission. 1998b. Reportthe lntersessional
Working Group to Review Data and Res ults from Special Permit
(4) the utility of the lethal techniques used by JARPA Research on Minke Whalesinthe Antarctic ,Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997 .
compared to non-lethal techniques (IWC, 1996a; Rep. int. W!Jal. Commn 48:377-412.
2000a). International Whaling Commission. 1998c. Report of the Scientific
Committee.Rep. int.Whal. Commn48 :53-118.
JARPA work on sightings surveys and abundance International Whaling Commission.1999. Chairman's Reportof the
estimation, stock structure,biological parameter studies, and Fiftieth Annual Meeting. Appendix 8.IWC Resolution 1998,7.
studies of the marine ecosystem and environmental change· Resolution on coordinating and planning for environmental research
including pollution are to be evaluated, ·with attention to in the Antarctic. Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 1998:45.
issues raised in the 1997 JARPA review (IWC, 1998b; c), Internationalaling Commission. 2000a. Chairman's Report of the
Fifry-First Annual Meeting. Appendix 3. IWC Resolution 1999-2.
summarised in Table 2 of IWC (1998c).Relevant aspects of Reso lution on Special Permits for Scientific Research. Ann. Rep. Int.
Commission resolutions will be taken into account. Whaling Comm. 1999:52.
162 Annex 108
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006
267
International Whaling Commission: 2000b. Chairman's Report of theInternational Whaling Commission. 2004. Chair's Report Fifty
Fifty-First Annual Meeting. Appendix 5. IWC Resolution 1999-4. Fifth Annual Meeting. Annex G. Resolution-3 Adopted during
Resolutiononhealtheffects fromtheconsumptionof cetaceans.Ann. the 55th Annual Meeting. Southern Hemisphere minke whales and
Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 1999:53. Special Pennit whaling.. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2003:203.
Appendix2
AGENDA
1. Introductory items 4.2.2 Recalculation of biological parameters
1.1 Welcome and introduction by biological stocks
1.2 Election of chair and appointment of rapporteurs 4.3 Data collection methods and results
1.3 Meeting procedures and time schedule 4.4 Data analysis methods and results
1.4 Adoption of agenda ' 4.4.1 Mortality rates
1.5 Documents available 4.4.2 Growth curves and age at sexual maturity
1.6 Terms of reference for this review 4:4.3 Reproductive rates
1.7 Objectives of JARPA as stated in the original 4.4.4 Other
research proposal and subsequently 4.5 Synthesis
1.8 General outline of the IARPAresearch
1.9 Overview of the 1997 JARPA review and 5. Marine ecosystem
subsequent discussions 5.1 Background
5.2 Issue raised in 1997 JARPAreview: Meso-scale .
2. Sightings surveys and abundance estimation survey plan
5.3 Data collection methods and results
2.1 Background
2.2 Issue raised in 1997 JARPA review: 5.4 Data analysis methods and results
Development of method to correct bias of 5.5 Synthesis
abundance estimates
2.3 Data collection methods and results 6. Environmental change including pollution
2.4 Data analysis methods and results 6.1 Background
6.2 Data collection methods and results
2.4.1 Minke whales 6.3 Data analysis methods and results
2.4.2 Other species
2.5 Estimates of trends in abundance 6.4 ·Synthesis
2.5.1 Minke whales
2.5.2 Other species 7. Other results
7.1 Stock structure of humpback whales
7.2 Other
3. Stock structure
3.1 Background 8. Overview of results in the context of the stated
3.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review objectives of the JARPA programme and of stock
3.2.1 Stock definition mana gement
3.2.2 Statistical analysis of mtDNA data 8.1 Contributions to minke whale management
considering the inclusion of school size
8.1.1 Stock abundance and trends
as a covariate 8.1.2 Stock identity
3.2.3 Pilot study on nuclear DNA analysis on 8.1.3 Biological parameters
IARPAminke samples · 8.1.3.1 Mortality rates
3.2.4 Effort to obtain biological materials for 8.1.3.2 Other
genetic analysis from low latitude areas
8.2 'Marine ecosystem
of the Southern Hemisphere (potential 8.3 Environmental change
breeding grounds) and compare with 8.4 Synthesis
feeding ground data
3.2.5 External morphology/morphometry 9. ·Overview of results in the context of IWC resolutions
analyses and discussions
9.1 Utility of lethal versus non-lethal research
3.2.6 Examinat ion of possible stock
boundaries (geographical and temporal) techniques
in Areas IV and V 9.2 Other mandates regarding SC reviews of special
3.3 Data collection methods and results permit research
3.4 Data analysis methods and results 9.3 With respect to resolutions on the Antarctic
3.4.1 Genetics marine ecosystem
9.4 With·respect to resolutions on pollution
3.4.2 Morphometries and morphology
3.4.3 Other 9.5 With respect to resolutions on environmental
3.5 Synthesis change and cetace response
4. Biological parameter studies 10. Other matters
4.1 Background
11. Adoption of report
4.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review
4.2.1 Segregation study 12. Closure
163164 Annex 109
109. “Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised Management Procedure”,Annex D,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007,
pp. 94-96
94 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX D
3.1.3 Review results of conditioning dictating plausibility verdicts, but rather to provide an aid
Allison introduced the modifications to the trial towards an integrative appraisalof all the potential sources
specifications (SC/58/Repl, annex G) that had been of information.
developed since the Workshop. The sub-committee agreed The agreed process for interpreting the results from a set
to the revised specifications in Appendix 6. of RMP lSTs requires that a weight of either high, medium
or low be accorded to each trial (in cases where there is wide
range of views and hence no agreement, the weight of
3.1.4 Updates to standard data sets medium applies). It is important to recognise that where
3.1.4.1 ABUNDANCE . there are several hypotheses for a particular factor (such as
The sub-committee agreed with the conclusions of the stock structure) in the trials, the aim of the plausibility
intersessional·workshop. The pooled abundance estimates exercise is not to rank the hypotheses in order, but rather
obtained for the complete survey area considered (blocksF to classify them intone of these three broad categories .The
M: see fig. I of Annex H) was 21,826 (CV=0.295), to apply sub-committee recognised that this necessitated some
to 1995, with an additional standard deviation estimate of distinction between 'plausibility' and 'weight' of specific
oA=0.673. These results (and corresponding estimates for trials (for which the plausibility of several factors in
smaller areas as reflectein Annex H) were adopted for use combination has also to be addressed). While there might be
in the ISTs. It was noted that this estimate did not include differences in plausibility between certain hypotheses, the
contributions from blocks A-E (see fig. I of Annex H); this necessity that theRMP trials process provide an adequate
was'not of concern for conditioning purposes because the check that a recommended RMP variant manifest robustness
1998-2002 surveys indicated these contributions tb be to uncertainty, means that it may be appropriate to have two
relatively small, but tbe methodology to be used to obtain hypotheses feature in, say, the high weight category, even
abundance estimates for input on application of the RMP though they differ somewhat in plausibility. There are only
will need to take account of these blocks as well. With two weight designations (high and medium) that result in
respect to using abundance estimates in the RMP, to avoid trials being retained in the testing process, which means that
coding problems it was agreed that two separate estimates considerationsof balance have also to be taken into account,
and their CVs should be used. with weights accorded also factoring in aspects of
'importance' in this overall context.
Following lengthy deliberation, the sub-committee
3.1.4.2 CATCHES AND OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC REMOVALS developed the following views about the four stock structure
SC/58/RMPl provides a description of the Philippines hypotheses.
commercial whaling operation for Bryde 's whales in the Hypothesis I: There was general agreement that this had
1980s. It confirmed, from official documents obtained in high plausibility (relativeto the other hypotheses) and at
Manila, that the whaling was pelagic, not coastal, and that baseline level should be accorded a high weight in trials.
the whales were not taken in Philippine Exclusive Economic Hypotheses 2 and 3: It was agreed that these two
Zone (EEZ) waters but near the Ogasawara Islands and in hypotheses could be treated equivalently for the purposes ·of
Micronesia . s·ome of the whales taken in Micronesia may plausibility and weight designation. There was agreement
have been of the pygmy species (known currently as that the plausibility of these hypotheses was less than that of
Balaenoptera omurai but as yet still included in the IWC list hypothesis I, but there were varying views as to whether
of recognised taxa with the 'ordinary' Bryde 's whale under this difference was sufficient to. warrant a medium
B. edem). These points have been taken into consideration plausibility ranking when only three categories were
when constructing the final catch series and alternatives available for such designation. There was eventual
given as Appendix 7. agreement that a high-medium plausibility ranking was
appropriate. In the context of weighting for trials, most
members of the sub-committee were of the view that
3.1.5 Final consideration of plausibility (including considerations of balance dictated that a high weight be
weighting of trials in terms of overall balance) accorded to the associated trials at the baseline leveL
3.1.5.1 STOCK STRUCTURE HYPOTHESES However some members believed that according a medium
Pastene presented SC/58/PFI2 which provided an weight would have been more appropriate.
examination of the plausibility of the four stock structure Hypothesis 4: It was agreed that this hypothesis did not
hypotheses set out in the Report of the First Intersessional
merit a high plausibility ranking. Some members considered
Workshop on the WNP Bryde's Whale Implementation that the ranking should be low. They noted the indications
(SC/58/Repl). The paper considered information available provided by genetic information in Table l, and commented
from allozymes ; mtDNA, microsatel!ites, sighting on the considerable amount of data and extent of associated
distributions, catchdistributions, external body proportions, analyses to support this viewpoint that had become available
biological parameters, mark-recaptur e and age distributions since the 1998 review (table l in SC/58/Repl); they thus
of catches. believed that this hypothesis should be ranked as of low
The sub-committee reviewed the information summarised plausibilitY. Others, while welcoming the provision of these
in table 2 of SC/58/PFI2 regarding the plausibility of extra data, noted that the absence of genetic evidence for
different stock structure hypothesis. After lengthy distinction did not preclude the existence of some stock
discussions, which included recognition of the importance structure. They also referred to the unresolved reasons for
of including a NIW (Not Inconsistent With) designation to apparent difference s in age-structure in catches, and
cover cases where the absence of any identified signal in the accordingly believed that the hypothesis should be accorded
available data precluded any distinction being drawn medium plausibility. Given this absence of agreement, at the
between the relative plausibilities of hypotheses. A summary baseline level trials based on tl).is hypothesis would be
of this information as provided in Table I was agreed . It accorded medium weight. It was agreed that once the
was emphasised that the purpose of this table was not to investigations of the ageing data had been conducted, this
provide a form of scoring system with 'totals' of some form decision should be revisited.
165Annex 109
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 9 (SUPPL.), 2007 95
Table I
General sununary of the information Useful to assess plausibility of alternative stock-structure '+'oindicates evidence in favour of a
hypothesis,'·' indicates evidence against a hypothesis,'(+)' indicates weak evidence in favour of a hypothesis,'( ..)' indicate weak evidence against a
hypothesis, a (0) indicatesvery weak evidence, and 'NIW'indicates that the evidence is not inconsistentwith the hypothesis.Note that the designation
NIWoften reflects theasymmetricalnature infonnation on stockstructure(i.e.,existence ofdifferbecviewedas positiveevidence formultiple
stocks, but absence of differencesprovidesno information,and cannot be viewed as positiveevidence for a single stock). Notations at the bottom of this
table were extracted inpart fromthe reportof the 'First Intersessional Workshop'(SC/58/Repl publishedin thisvolume).
Evidence Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis2 Hypothesis3 Hypothesi4
Allozymes (+)' (-}" (-}'
(d)'
mtDNA ((+))b NIW' Nlw' -
Microsatellites N!Wb Niw' Nrw' d
Sightingdistribution NIW' Nlw' Nlw' NIW'
Catch distribution Nlw' NIW' Nlw' NIW'
External body proportion N!Wr N!Wr N!Wr N!Wr
Biological parameters N!Wr N!Wr NlWr NlWr
Mark-recapture 8 NlWh NlWh NlWg
NIW
Age distribution NIW; NIW; NIW; (+)/NlW;j
~e sub·committee agreed that while the power to detect genetic structbeconsidered to be low as only a single locus was analysed, the fact that
this had been sufficientto detect structurein the PacificOcean suggest that ifthere are multiplestocks levesimilar to that between the
westernNorth stockand otherstocks,'examinationof thissingle locusshould besufficientto detectthis. ·
b,eClusteringand hypothesistesting analysesof mtDNAand microsatelliteswere conducted,and asbyothe sub-committee, none of these analyses
revealed any significant heterogeneitywithinrea1. Only 6 mtDNA samples are available from sub-area 2 - these provide very real evidence for
hypothesis 1,but thisisnot sufficientlystbenconsidered inconsistwithhypotheses2 and 3.
•Mixingof twosub-stock.:There are no genetic datafor the breeding groundsso the possibilityof multiplesub-stocks cannot be excluded.Furthermoreif
two breeding stocks mix almost completely, it will be difficult to detect differences using,for example,genetics tests based on comparisonsbetweendata
for the west and eastf sub-area 1. However while complete mixing may lead to all methods of detecting stock structure having low power, the
plausibility lhis was considered fairlylowgiven the behaviour of most largewhales. Hypothesis testsbased on comparisonsforapproximatelythesame
areain sub-area 1 found no significant differences among years which suggest that if two sub-stocks mix in sub-area I, there is little difference in the
distribution proportionamong years. Although the dataset encompassesonly four years, such a lack of variation in distribution proportionsamong years
seems unlikely given the known behiour of whales. In principle evidence for hypo4hcould be obtained by testing for deviation from Hardy
Weinbergequilibriumwithin sub-areas IWand 1E becausesuch deviationsprovide evidenceof non-randommatingas well as selectionor migration, i.e.
when genetically two differentPopulations are being sampled. Analyses of nuclear markers for Bryde?ub~ales rhave been conducted and
these analyses provide no evidence for significant deviations in Hardy-Weinbeig equilibrium within sub-areas 1W and IE which would provide
support for multiplesub-stocks. ·
Statisticalpower:The Workshopreceiveda paper, whichevaluated the powertodetect populationstructureusing thechi-square test andFisher Exacttest
underan island modelin whichpopultiondifferentiationisconti-olledusinga single param•ter,F, Statisticalpower of the genetic analysisin sub-area I
1
wasfound to be high formoderate samplesizes and quitesmall values forile it was higherfor microsatellitedata than formtDNA.
e.yhesub-committee examined the sightings data and agreed that it revealed no evidence of a discontinuity in distribution within sub--areasI and 2. A
similarconclusion was reachedwith respectcatch distribution.Discontinuity in the commercialcatches identifiedin earlier meetingsmerely reflected
operationalconstraints.Evidencespatial discontinuitywould be viewed as positiveevidence for multiplestocks, but absenceofdiscontinuity isviewed
as neutra1infonnation, as there is no expectationthat their prey would have a discontinuousdistribution. Thereforcks could exist without
spatial discontinuity.
rExtemal body proportiondata (three features) and several biological parameters(bodyregnancy rate, length at sexual maturity, seasonality in
breeding)bad beenexaminedusing datarompastcommercialwhaling.Althoughoperationaldifferences(e.g.differentminimumlength limitsforcoastal
and pelagic whaling) meant that some comparisons could note, the authors of these analyses concludedthat there were no differencesthat could
not be attributed to operational factors. Evidencerences in biologicalparameters wbelviewed as positive evidence for multiplestocks, but
absenceof differences does not provide positive evidence for a single stock, because it is not necessary for separate populations to diverge in their
biologicalparameters,as theseare oftenconstrainedbytheir ecology. ·
&Mark-recaptureanalysis revealedmovementf animals within sub-area l. A very limitednumber of markswere placed insub·area 2 and whilerione has
been recovered in sub-area I, the sample sizes·for this sub--area are sufficiently small that even if there is mixing between sub-areas I and 2, zero
recaptures would notbe highlyikely.
hMark-recapture dataare availablemainlyfor sub-area 1.
;Oneof the possible explanation for the differences oinage istributionbetween sub-area 1W and 1E+2 is that thesedifferences are real. Other
possible explanations were geographicalsegregation by age or non-representativeness of the samples, perhaps as the result of unreadability of certain
earplugs, inaccuracyin length detennination,or inter·readerdifferencesin ageing. ·
iThere was no consensuson thisverdict.The different views hinged on differentinterpretationson an appropriate entrygiven that there Werealternative
explanationsfor the observationestion.
3.1.5.OTHER (e.g. MSYR) Each trial will be assigned a weight that is equal to the
The sub-committee reviewed theISTs specified in table 6 of lowest plausibility of any component of that trial. The
SC/58/Rep1. All 22 trials were retained, and an additional
plausibility of the components of each trial was
six trials were specified. Four of these new trials used discussed and the sub-committee agreed to tlie following
mixing matrix B (instead of D) in combination with the assignments.
High catch series and with Additional process error (at both
MSYR rates). It was agreed that the Additional process error MSYR: It was agreed that MSYR=4o/o would be given high
would be specified using values from annex H of the plausibility and MSYR=l% would be given medium
Intersessional Workshop report. The final two additional plausibility.
trials will also use mixing malrix B with the High catch
series in combination with Age-specific mixing (at both Age-dependent mixing: The age-dependent mixing accounts
MSYR rates). for theobservations of different age dislributions indifferent
166 Annex 109
96 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX D
areas. It was agreed that boththe inclusion of age-dependent (4) sub-areas I and 2 (combined) are taken to be a
mixing and the exclusion of it would be given high Combination Area, and sub-area 2 and sub-areas in IW
plausibility.
and IE are Small Areas, with catch-cascading applied.
The simulation applicationof the RMP is based on using the
Additional process error: It was agreed that the inclusion 'best'catch series (see Table 2).
of additional process error would be given high
plausibility.
3.1.8 Specification and classification of final trials
The full list of specified trials, including the weights of each
Stochastic mixing: It was agreedth~ ttochastic mixing of trial given by the lowest plausibility any component, is
two stocks in sub-area 1 would be given medium found inAppendix 6, table 6.
plausibility.
3.1.9Work plan
Alternative bounda1y: The default in trials is that the' In accordance with the 'Requirements and Guidelines for
boundary between 1W and IE is at the survey boundary. lmplemellfations' (IWC, 2005) plans were made for the
Alternative boundary allows for the stock boundary toe in second intersessional Workshop for theWNP Bryde's whale
locations other than the survey boundary.These alternative
boundaries were all given medium plausibility. Implementation. Japan offeredto host the meeting, as for the
first intersessional Workshop,to be convened by Kawahara.
The cost will be the same as for the first workshop.
Low and High catch series: The Low catch series and the
High catch series are specified to accouQtfor uncertainty in
the catch series, mainly dtie to uncertain species 3.2 North Atlantic fin whales
identification between Bryde's and sei whales, along with 3.2.1 Report of the joint NAMMCOIJWC Scientific
Workshop
the possibility that the true catches are higher than the Wall~ peesented the report of the1oint NAMMCO/IWC
reported catches (Kasuya and Brownell, 2001). Iri
discussion, it was suggestedby Perrin that the High catch Scientific Workshopon the catch history,stock structure and
series wasequally plausible as the reported catch series, and abundance of North Atlantic fin whales (SC/58/Rep3). The
both shouldhave high plausibility.As reportedpreviously in main objective of the Workshop was to consider the
available information on stock structure, catch history,
IWC (2006), Kasuya and Brownell (2001) had noted the biological parameters and abundance and trends in orderto
total actual catches off the Ogasawara Islands might be 1.6
times the reported catchesbut the original records havebeen advance the fin whale assessments ongoing in the two
lost and are not available. Therefore, it is not possible to organisations.
examine this issue any further to elucidate which catch Several papers on stock structure, based on both genetic
series is more likely, and consequently both catch records and non-genetic data, were presented at the Workshop. A
number of key factors emerged that require further work
should be accorded high plausibility. This ensures that the before a full understandingf the contribution of the genetic
performance of both catch series (Best and High) will be
held to the same standards in trials. The sub-committee work to the elaboration of stock structure in the North
agreed that both the Best and High catch series would be Atlanticfin whales can be completed, and these were given
given high plausibility. as recommendations for work to be completed before the
IWC meeting in St. Kitts. The Workshop then went on to
consider the hypotheses with respect to feeding areas, using
3.1.6 Data/research to reduce hypotheses
Under this item the sub-committee noted its earlier the schematic figures of IWC (2005) as a guide. It is
important to stress that the figures are schematic and the
discussions under Item 3.1.1, and in particular under Item locationof the 'breeding stocks' is not intended to suggest
3.1.5.1, hypothesis 4. any specific geographical location. The Workshop
considered each of the figures in tum and modified them
where appropriate. The Workshop noted that in many cases
3.1.7 Specification of operational features and
management variants the discriminatory evidence is weak. The results of these
The following four management options will be discussions are given in SC/58/Rep3, fig.. The Workshop
considered: agreed that pressures of time meant that it had not been
possible to fully consider the need for possible further
Management options based on calculating limits by Small scenarios (e.g. incorporating possible north-south structure,
Area:
alternative links and/or strength links between breeding
(I) sub-areas IW, 1E and 2 are Small Areas and catch stocks and feeding areas, or finer structure within feeding
limits are sety Small Area; areas).
(2) sub-area 2 is taken to be a Small Area and the complete The Workshopreceived a complete review of estimates of
sub-area I is treated as a Small Area. For this biological parameters for fm whales, including age and
length at sexual maturity, asymptotic length, lengtht age
management option, all ofthe future catches in sub-area
1 are taken from sub-area 1. five, ageat recruitment, mortality rate, ovulation rate and
interval and the proportion pregnant in the mature female
Management options based on applying catch cascading: catch.It was agreed that there was nothing in the review to
(3) sub-area 2 is taken to bea Small Area and sub-area 1 is necessitate change to the parameter values used previously
by both the IWC (IWC, 1992b) and NAMMCO
taken to be a Combination Area. Sub-areas IWand IE
are Small Areas, with catch-cascading applied; (NAMMCO, 2000; 2001; 2004) Scientific Committees.
Anumber ofpapers detailing catch series for the northeast
1 Defined to be 140°E-165°E and 165°·180° irrespective of the true central Atlantic were prented to the Workshop. It was
boundary used to define the structure of the populations in theagreed that there was sufficient uncertaintythe catches, in
operating modeL particular in years when the finhale catch was estimated
167168 Annex 110
110. “Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns”,Annex K,
Report of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9 (Suppl.), 2007,
pp. 243-246
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 9 (SUPPL.), 2007 243
Among physiological effects, it is important to 7.1Preparation for IWC-CCAMLR Ecosystem
validate/improve indicators of the onset of injury, for Workshop
example, TIS studies relating exposures to non-auditory SC/58/E34 'invited the Scientific Committee to join the
damage and stress. CCAMLR Scientific Committee in organising a Workshop
Studies of the impacts of anthropogenic sound on to review information required for ecosystem models being
behaviour require data on normal responses to biologically
developed to provide management advice on krill predators
salient sounds for proper interpretation. For behavioural in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
studies, the group recommended measuring behaviour After some discussion, there was agreement by the SWG
likely to affect vital rates (e.g. ratesraging or singing, to work cooperatively with CCAMLR and form a joint
disruptionof mother-calfpairs) orresultin injury (e.g. rapid steering group for the purposeof convening the workshop.
surfacing, stranding). It was further noted that there may be some flexibility as to
Exposure to an airgun has been shown to affect the when the workshop would be held (e.g. possibly in 2007
behaviour of marine mammal prey, including caged squid rather than 2008). However, it was noted that typically
and fish, and to damage the hearingf fish. ln addition, full CCAMLR cannot host meetings much after June of a given
scale seismic surveys have been shown to significantly year and still prepare the necessary reports by their annual
reduce the catches of commercial fish species in Norway, meeting in October. It was also noted that hosting such a
suggesting that prey might also be less available to foraging workshop prior to the IWC SC meeting in May 2007 would
marinemammals (Pearson eta/.,1992;Skalski eta/.,1992). be difficult for many involved. There was general support
The group recommended additional work on the effects of for this position. Therefore, it seems likely that the
sound on marine mammal prey and on the consequences for workshop will have to be held sometime after the October
marine mammals. annual meeting of CCAMLR andbefore theIWC SC annual
The group also recommended research to improve meeting in 2008. The SWG nominated the following
existing seismic survey technology and thus reduce participantsto serve on joint IWC/CCAMLR steering
undesired emissions, as well as research on and committee: Bj!ilrge,Butterworth, DeMaster, Hedley, Koch,
development of alternative technologies. This should Leaper (Rebecca), Murase, Mori and Polacheck.
include research on beam patterns of the <!ifferentsound During the meeting, the steering group appointed by the
sources. SWG for the joint IWC/CCAMLR workshop met and
produced Appendix 6. In this appendix, the following
information is provided: (1) the information that the IWC
6.5 Recommendations can provide to the joint workshop, (2) the steps needed to.
ln addition to specific recommendations, the group agreed make this information available for the joint workshop, and
that it should provide a set of recommendations for (3) the information or benefits the Scientific Committee
member governments permitting seismic surveys, i.e. that hoped to derive from its participation in the workshop.
they should:
7.2 FAO expert consultation on modelling ecosystem
(1)Implement monitoring programs, as defined above. interactions
(2) Develop and/or evaluate nationally relevant mitigation It was reported that an invitation to nominate experts for
procedures. consideration by FAO for invitation to an FAO Expert
(3) Identify and facilitate research, monitoring, and Consultation on modelling ecosystem interactions for
mitigation procedures that address the informing an ecosystem approach to fisheries was received
recommendations detailed above. by the convenerof the EcosystemModelling working group
intersessionally. The draft terms of reference for this
ln light of the uncertainty over the potential impacts of important workshopwere distributed.The primary objective
seismic surveys, and the fact that seismic surveys may be of theExpert Consultationis to 'review the majorecosystem
repeated throughout the life of an oil field, the group modelling approaches currently being applied on fishery
recommended the earliest possible establishment of long .related topics' and to 'formulate recommendations/advice
term monitoringprograms for vulnerable species in areasof for usersofexisting generic modelling approaches and those
concern. The design of such long-term monitoring should considering developing new models'. The date for the
take into account the likely size of any effect and the workshop is tentatively scheduled for the second quarter of
probability of detecting it within a reasonable time span. 2007; the venue has yet to be decided.
The group also recommended that seismic surveys be It was noted that FAO will develop their list of invitees
designed to use only the amount of acoustic output required based inter alia on participants having high levels of
for the desired geological objectives. expertisein the subject under consideration and collectively ·
Rosenbaum thanked John Bannister (or his excellence in includeexpertise on any aspectpertinent to the objectivesf
chairing the SWG pre-meeting and Meghan Donohue for the workshop.
her exceptional rapporteuring. Assistance from the IWC After some discussion, it was recommended that the
SWG should recommend to the full Scientific Committee
Secretariat, especially from Helen Sharp, Jemma Miller and
Julie Creek, was greatly appreciated. The work of Reeves, that(1)a list of potential participants familiar with the work
DeMaster and Clark was also appreciated. of the Committeebe developed and (2) the following names
go forward to the full Committee for consideration:
Butterworth, Cooke, Hammond, Mori and Punt.
7.3 General progress on the development of ecosystem
7. ECOSYSTEM MODELLING
models ·
DeMaster convened and chaired a working group to discuss SC/58/E3 highlighted the importance of spatial
further this matter, since ecosystem modelling was subject considerations in multi-species models that investigate
to discussion in several sub-committees last year. shifts in species composition and associated trophic effects
169Annex 110
244 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMfiTEE, ANNEX K
in. marine ecosystems. The paper described a GIS based A second paper on general approaches, SC/58/E48,
attempt to globally map the changes in great whale species ·provided a summary of the types of uncertainty that
composition that were aresult of whaling activities and how have come to the fore in multispecies models (i.e. structural
these may have translated into changes in large-scale uncertainty and aggregation in the food web, functional
patterns of great whale food consumption of different prey uncertainty in predator/prey relationships, and data
types in different decadesof the 20thcentury. The paper also uncertainty). In this paper the authors provide
compared estimated spatially-explicit food intake of great examples of each of these sources of uncertainty using as a
whal es and some pinniped species with fisheries catch rates case study a Gulf of Alaska ecosystem model developed
to investigate the relative role that different species, to test various hypothes es regarding interactions
including humans, may have played as top consumers in between Steller sea lions and the groundfish fishery.
marine ecosystems during the last century. Their findings indicate that currently available
:The authors noted that results of this analysis indicated multispecies tools give reasonable advice for developing
that humans have increasingly replaced the large whales as ecosystem approaches to management. However, the
top consumers in marine ecosystems in many areas of the authors further noted that the successful use of
world over the course of the past 50 years, except for the multispecies models will require a revolution in the way
Antarctic where crabeater seals may have taken over that uncertainty is considered, communicated, and used for
role. Although the uncertainties associated with the results strategic planning in both·the scientific and policy-making
of the analysis were difficult to quantify, it was argued by arenas.
the authors that the patterns of increasing and expanding In discussion there was general agreement that the way in
human dominance were likely robust to any changes of which the authors had incorporated uncertainty into the
input parameter settings, given the relative difference model, as well as the methods for representing uncertainty
between estimated marine mammal consumption rates and · in the output, was a welcomed step forward. It was also
fisheries catch rates. The authors proposed that - ignoring noted that the authors approach in this paper (i.e. multi
all other issues of food web complexity - the large species) was similar in philosophy to that used by this
discrepancies between local marine mammal food intake Committee in assessing the status of single species or
and fisheries catch rates suggest that itunlikely that global population s. Further, it was recogni sed that model
catches of currently targeted prey species could be increased uncertainty was a very important factor to consider in using
significantly·through a competitive release of prey by multispecies model and in interpreting results from such
reducing whale populations. models. Finally, as noted by the authors of SC/58/E48, the
In discussion several points were raised regarding this SWG concurred that it was very important to incorporate
pape r, including: (1) whether the use of relatively few various management scenarios in the modelling process to
covariates was adequate to reliably predict the distribution allow for an evaluation of the extent to which management
of certain species such as sperm whales, (2) the apparent practices could be affected by trophic interactions and vice
lack of better information regarding the distribution of versa.
sperm whales in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, where SC/58/E21 reported that the recent developments in the
considerable survey effort has been reported, (3) the use of spatial modelling with long-term datasets can be used
conclusions drawn by the authors regarding the impact on to investigate the possible effects anthropogenic stressors
global landings of fish of reducing whale P,Opulationsdid on cetacean distribution and abundance. Such stressors may
not consider possible impacts on krill ·abundance in the include locally intense maritime traffic and over-fishing.n
Southern Ocean, (4) the uncertainty associated with some of this context, spatial modelling may also help us to
the abundance estimates from the 1990s used in her analysis understand whether fluctuations in cetacean distribution and
(e.g. abundance of humpback whale and Antarctic mink abundance over time are a result of natural or human
whale in Southern Ocean), (5) whether there was there an related factors. The methods reported in SC/58/E21 use
assumption in the model regarding large whales feeding on physical and environmental data to help explain
breeding grounds or on migration, and (6) the importance of variation in distribution and density of cetaceans and to
incorporating uncertainty in the input parameters to the predict areas that are important for the target species.
model and evaluating the robustness of conclusions drawn This approach is an .alternative to conventional line
from the analysis in lightof this uncertainty. transect sampling. Its advantage is that it is suitable for
Kaschner responded that the details of the approach estimating abundance of cetaceans from surveys that have
reported in SC/58/E3 could be found in Kaschner et al. not been designed to achieve equal coverage probability.
(2006). She noted that the predicted distributions of species Three examples of spatial modelling applied to
were succ essfullyvalidated for more than 80%of all species long-term cetacean population studies were given to
tested using data from large-scale dedicated surveys. The illustratethese points: a study of common dolphins off
author agreed to work with scientists from the fisheries south-eastern Spain.over 14 years, in which a reduction in
laboratory in La Jolla regarding access to data on sperm density and shift in distribution seems to be related to a local
whale survey results from the ETP. In addition, she increase in fish farms; a study of bottlenose dolphins off
commented that many of the primary patterns reported in southern Spain also over 14 years, where natural
SC/58/E3 were robust to uncertainty based on the minimal fluctuations occur in density but not in distributi on,
changes observed when running the model under different apparently umelated to any anthropogenic stressor; and a
scenarios and. input parameter settings. It was also study of bottlenose dolphins in Croatian waters over 9 years,
recognised by some members of the SWG that for where a shift in distribution and a reduction in density was
manageme nt purposes, there was a need to structure spatial associated with areas of increased recreational boat traffic.
models to handle data at smaller scales (e.g.ocean basins or These three case studies showed the added value of
marine ecosystems). This was particular important for high combining spatial modelling techniques with traditional
latitude areas where variation in the distributionf sea ice line-transect surveys, as well as the importance long-term
was likely to be an important factor in explaining the studies to (1) characterise the distribution of cetaceans, (2)
distributionof large whales. differentiate real trends in abundance from natural
170 Annex 110
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 9 (SUPPL.), 2007 245
fluctuations and (3) establish possible links between marine ecosystem). The SWG further agreed that with the
changes in either the abundance or distribution of cetaceans relative paucityof information on many of the key species
and anthropogenic effects. in the Southern Ocean it would be possible to generate
In discussion of this paper it was noted that the methods models with varying degrees of top-down and bottom-up
used in SC/58/E21 would be relatively easy to apply to other forcing that were consiste nt with the available data. As
areas, including studies that involved large-scale surveys, noted in SC/58/E48, it is important to incorporate
assuming that the covariate data on which the models uncertainty in multispecies models to allow inferences as to
depend were available. There was also discussion as to the what hypotheses can be tested with available data and what
expected relative contribution to overall variance in the hypotheses cannot be tested with available data.
model from the line-transect survey data and the After some di scussion, the SWG agreed that what is of
environmental data, if this approach were implemented in critical importance in moving this field of research forward
other areas. It was agreed that this question would have to be at this time is the identificationthose data sets that would
addressed on a case-by-case basis. allow for hypothes is testing with acceptable statistical
power and the development of alternative modelling
approaches. It was further noted that incread collaboration
7.4 Progress on modelling krill-predator dynamics of between scientists involved in designing field surveys and
the Antarctic ecosystem those developing analytical models was n eeded to more
SC/58/El4 addressed work conducted on the Mori efficiently utilise the limited resources available to cetacean
Butterworth multi-species model of the Antarctic ecosystem .researchers.
subsequent to the· Ulsan meeting of the Scientific Clapham noted that one of the principal objectives of the
Committee. Points raised about the model during that JARPA ITprogram was to model competition among whale
meeting are addressed in turn. Results are quoted that species (SC/58/07, p.2), notably humpba ck and minke ·
suggest that krill is indeed unable to fully utilise the primary whales. He drew the group's attention to.SC/58/E32, which
production available. The precision of parameters estimated provided strong evidence for resource partition ing between
when fitting to the model to abundance and trend data was these two species (s!le also Item 8.4). Clapham noted that
reported. The·model was extended to include an 'other these findings were in keeping with predictio ns from
predators' variable (reflecting squid, fish and seabirds) so ecological ·theory and that, prior to the beginning of
that the crabeater seal variable did not act as a surrogate for commercial whaling in the Antarctic in 1904, baleen whale
these in addition to the seals themselves. This changein the populations were much larg er than they are today; despite
model structure resulted in an improved fit of the model to the potential for interspecific competitiqn under such
recent abundance estimates for crabeater seals.The authors circumstances arguab ly being greater than it is currently,
also presented a listof topics for possible further work on large popu lations evidently managed to coexist on a single
the model. The authors further noted that the development resource at that time. He continued that there were no data
of an improved set of abundance and trend estimates for the demonstrating that krill abundance in the Southern Ocean is
various krillpredators ·shouldbe a priority for improving the a limiting resource for baleen whales, and requested that
reliability of current models, and suggested that this should unambiguous criteria for determining the presence or
be a key focus of the proposed joint IWC-CCAMLR absence of competition be provided by JARPA II.
workshop on this topic. Mori and others responded that the findings reported in
In discussion it was recognised that the model structure SC/58/E32 should be considered with care for the following
described in SC/58/El4 , which now includes a category for reasons: (I) the survey was conducted in April-June which
other krill predators, represented an improvement over the ismuch later than the peak feeding season of these species;
model discussed during last year's meeting (Mori and (2) the result is based just on a single year survey at a very
Butterworth, 2005). However, irrespective of how variance small portion of their distributional area with no information
in the model is absorbed, the model output indicates that available for the rest of the vast Antarctic water; (3)
there has been a large increasein other predators for which although their observations may suggest resource
there are no data included in the model beginning in the partitioning between the two species, whether humpback
1940s. There was some discussion of data available to test whales are actually feeding on larger sizes of krill than
this prediction and it was noted that the estimated minke whales can only be confirmed by examining the diet
abundances of sorrie species of krill predator s have composition in their stomach contents; (4) the relatively
increased in the Southern Ocean, this has not been the case small number of sightings made during the study; and (5)
for all speciesof krill predators. resource partitioning between species does not directly
It was also pointed out that there remains a critical lack of mean that there is no competition between the species since
data to evaluate the reliability of models such as the one they are feeding on the same population of prey.
described in SC/58/E14 , especially regarding data on lower In addition, Mori and others noted that the fmdings
trophic levels. That is; to fully evaluate the degree to which reported in SC/58/E32 were bas ed on surveys conducted in
a model is successful at predicting a given outcome, it is Area I of lhe Southern Ocean. The annual rate of increase
necessary to have spatial and temporal information ,on (ROI) in abundance for humpback whales in this area (i.e.
abundance from a set of species representative of both ihe estimated at 4% per year based on SOWER data; Branch,
lower and upper trophic levels. Therefore, the SWG noted 20 06) is relatively small in·comparison with other Areas. In
that it remains difficult for the Committee to evaluate, contrast, the ROI inArea IV (part of the JARPA survey area)
validate or test rnultispecies hypotheses or make inferences was estimated as 15% per year. Given the difference in area
regarding the importance of competition (direct or indirect). specific ROis, Mori and others noted that the degree to
Nonetheless, the SWG agreed that multispecies models which competition impacted various life history parameters
such as the one described in SC/58/E14 were useful in could also vary by area. She added that it is important to take
allowing the Committee to develop hypotheses regarding into account the statusof a population in a given area, when
trophic dynamics (e.g. the importance of top-down forcing evaluating the extent to which competition for limited
or competition in structuring the species composition of a resources is occurring.
171Annex 110
246 REPORT OF TilE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX K
Finally, Mori and others commented that in SC/58JE32, 8.1.1Bottlenosedolphinsubproject
the authors estimated the length of krill using acoustic data. The primary objectives of the Bottlenose Dolphin
She noted that there are several key assumptions that must Subproject were to: (1)try to select and examine a number
be met for this approach to produce reliable estimates and of biomarkers of exposure to and/or effect of PCBs and try
to determine whether a predictive ~nd quantifiable
that these assumptions are described in SC/58/E32. Mori
and others recommended that direct sampling of prey to relationship with PCB levels in certain tissues exists; and)
.determine the size composition is needed to adequately examine the relationships between concentrations of
characterise the size distribution of krill utilised by variables obtained by biopsy sampling with those of
cetaceans as part of studies designed to test for resource concentrations in other tissues that can only be obtained
partitioning. They further recommended ·that in future from fresh carcases.
surveys of this nature a combination of echosounder, net The research design called for collection of blubber
sampling and stomach content analysis of large whales be samples from bottlenose dolphins inhabiting three areas
used. In addition, it was recognised that the application of providing distinctly different levelsf exposure to PCBs,
data logging devices, such as time-depth recorders, would and for the collection of additional data on associated health
provide useful information for this kindof analysis. parameters from the intermediate site, the only site wheret
was possible to capture, examine, sample and release
bottlenose dolphins. If a potential biomarker was identified
through the detailed sampling and health assessment, then
8. OTHER HABITAT RELATED ISSUES
its potential could be investigated through comparisons ·
8.1 Pollution 2000+: review final report of Phase 1 across sites covering a range of contaminant concentrations.
The Chair welcomed the final report of Pollution 2000+ and Initial fieldwork at the Bahamas site was successful and
indicated that this was a groundbreaking project with a PCB levels found in biopsy dart samples suggested this to be
novel approach to investigate pollution in cetaceans and a suitable 'pristine'area. However, a variety of logistical and
funding problems unfortunately rendered it impossible to
congratulated the members of the group for their hard work. return there to collect the necessary larger sample sizes.
The SWG concurred with this view.
SC/58/E38 constituting the final report on POLLUTION Analysis of the PCB levels in animals from Charlotte
2000+ Phase I, was presented by Peter Reijnders Harbor,'Florida,showed that the levels were only marginally
(programme co-ordinator) and Steering Group members lower that the intermediate site and certainly not suitable for
Alex Aguilar, Todd O'Hara and Teri Rowles. consideration as a 'pristine environment'. Funding and
The IWC-POLLUTION 2000+ programme was initiated timing issues unfortunately meant that it was not possible to
carry out the necessary investigative fieldwork to examine
to investigate pollutant cause-effect relationships in
cetaceans. It arose from the major workshop on chemical further potential sites.
pollution and cetaceans held in Bergen in 1995. An outline With respect to collecting sufficient samples from a
proposal for a follow-up research programme was heavily polluted area, off the Balearic Islands in the
developed further at a special workshop held in Barcelona in Mediterranean Sea, PCB levels found in five animals
1999.The short-term objectives of the programme were: showed that the site couldbe considered as heavily polluted.
However, calculation of the amount of effort required to
(a) to tryto select and examine a number of biomarkers of collect a suitable sample size meant that the costs of doing
exposure to and/or effects of PCBs and try to determine
whether a predictive and quantifiable relationship with so were prohibitive given the available funding. Funding
PCB levels in certain tissues exist; prob1ems also precluded sampling at another identified
potential heavily polluted site at Tampa Bay in Florida.
(b) to validate/calibrate sampling and analytical techniques Despite this, the biopsy sampling attempts did highlight
to address such questions for cetaceans specifically: some problems with this approach to investigating pollution
(i) determination of changes of concentrations of · cause-effect relationships in cetaceans:(1) blubber is not
variables with post-mortem times; homogeneous across its thickness and as biopsy darts
(ii) examination of relationships between
concentrations of variables obtained by biopsy probably did not sample the entire thicknessof the blubber,
interpretation of the data on OCs and biomarkers derived
sampling with those of concentrations in other from the samples was complicated; and (2) the relatively
tissues that can only be obtained by fresh carcasses. small sample masses obtained from biopsy darting did not
The examination of these two objectives was considered to permit sufficient testing for the full suite of potential
biomarkers.
be Phase 1of what necessarily would have to be a long-term
programme. There was considerably more success with the
The present final report summarises the work carried out programme of work at Sarasota Bay (the intermediate site)
under Phase I for each of the two subprojects: bottlenose via the capture-release project.
dolphins and harbour porpoises. It examines the field work, A major feature of the analyses undertaken was that they
analyses and the results in terms of what was expected to be highlighted the complex relationships between
achieved, identifies what might be considered in any Phase organochlorine concentrations and potential biomarkers due
to the variation in patternsf accumulation and depuration
II of the project, it considers more general lessons learned
from the conduct of Phase I, summarises Phase I from the relative to age, sex, nutritive status and reproductive status.
perspective of the IWC, and lists. the scientific output of The POLLUTION 2000+ studies confirmed that
Phase I. concentrations in females, originally similar to males of the
One of the first important tasks (and indeed same age, decrease dramatically after calving and lactation,
achievements) of the programme was to develop an with a concomitant increase in concentrations in particularly
the first calf. The implicationsf these findings (e.g. with
integrated protocol for sampling, storage and shipping
procedures to ensure that tissue samples to becollected were respect to first calf survival rates) are important inputs to
adequate and would reach the designated laboratories in modelling exercises to tryto examine potential effects at the
suitable condition for the analyses. population level. Because males showed decreased blubber
172 Annex 111
111. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008,
pp. 26, 58-59
26 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
they are finalised next year. The following topics were commercial whaling. The mean difference between the two
considered likely to be important for interpreting these readers was O.QI :!0.220 (SE) years.
results: In discussion, it was pointed out that this result indicated
that the difference between commercial and JARPA ages in
(I) further examination of the relationship between whales of intermediate ages (primarily 15-30 years old) was
density/abundan ce and sea ice extent, including in
regions of complex and changing ice extents (such as unlikely to be due to a learning effect. However, both
the Ross Sea in Area V); and readers were from the same 'school', so a bias affecting
both readings was still possible. The Committee
(2) further investigation, including a review of the relevant recommends further experiments (Annex G, Appendix 6) .
ecological literature,into the presence and likely ·
abundance of minke whales in polynyas (such as those to provide additional insight into ageing errors. It was noted
found in the Weddell Sea in Area II). · that power analyses should be carried out to verify the
suggested sample sizes. Using a length-strat ified sample
Furthermore, the Committee considered that any further would complicate analyses , so the Committee agrees that
insight into the relationship between features of the
environment (such as proximity to the Antarctic slope front initially a random sample of the left/right earplugs should
be read by the Japanese readers. If the results from this
or krill density) and whale density (such as that presented in initial experiment suggested that a sample size of 250 was
SC/59/IAI2 for Area V) might be valuable, particularly if it inadequate, then the initial sample could be supplemented
could be extended to include other Areas. with additional earplugs either from a random sample across
10.2.3 Catch-at-age analyses all length classes or a stratified sample with higher
proportions of larger whales.
The report of the intersessio nal Working Group on Virtual SC/59/IA4 provides further development of statistical
Population Analyses (VPA) related to Antarctic minke catch-at-age models for Antarctic minke whales. The model
whales is given in Annex G, Appendix 5. Four tasks had
been identified as of highest priority for work. Progress on is applied to catch, catch-at-length and age-length keys as
two tasks was not accomplished intersessionally, but it is well as indices of relative and absolute abundance in order
to identify a 'reference case' set of specifications related to
expected to be possi ble to complete them soon after the vulnerability , examine the sensitivity to using reduced
present meeting. portions of the commercial catch-at-age data for assessment
purposes, and to examine an alternative density-dependence
10.2.3.1 PRELIMINARY RESULTS function. The results confirm previous results that the data
SC/59/IA18 provided a summary of responses from support: a non-uniform vulnerability pattern; a dome-shaped
experienced researchers to a questionnaire on minke whale vulnerability for the period of commercial harvest; an
· ageing and length measuring. Although the sample size was increase in ininke whale recruitment in Areas III-W, IV, V
small, the two most important issues: (!) the assessment'of
and Vl-W until about the early- to mid-1960s and a decline
the readability of individual earplugs; and (2) undercounting thereafter; and large changes in carrying capacity and
of bands in older animals as the result of tight packing of somatic growth rates. However, the model had difficulty in
growth layers. The author noted that the consequence of achieving biologically reasonable estimates for stock E and
non-migration of whales to and/or from the Antarctic on the
had convergence problems when vulnerabilities were
formation of growth layers is also a potential source of bias assumed to be age-specific. Both of these issues require
in age estimates. With respect to length measures, the further analyses.
Committee agrees that because the possible biases are small SC/59/IA13 documented additional modifications to the
and measurement error in lengths can be allowed for in
modeiiing,.·further investigations along these lines are ADAPT-VPA models for the putative I- a nd P-stocks of
Antarctic minke whales (SC/59/Repl) . The modifications ·
probably no longer necessary. include:
SC/59/08 addressed one oftbe tasks of the intersessional
Working Group and a recommendation that was made (!) inter-annual differences in the distribution of the
during the JARPA review (SC/59/Repl). It had been noted population between different management Areas;
that whales aged five or younger had longer body lengths on (2) incorporation of a stock-recruitment relationship in the
estimator;
average in the commercial catch than in the JARPA catch, (3) the effects of possible ageing-error; and
and it was suspected that this might be due in part to coding
errors. A cross-check with original ageing notes and (4) the effects of possible change in age-at-sexual maturity
biologicalrecords for 2,270 whales aged five or younger over time as indicated by analyses of transition phase
data.
uncovered 45 coding errors. In addition, 474 of the age
readings were categorised as 'biologically unlikely' on the In further response to requests by the JARPA review
basisof large body size, recorded ovarian corpora counts or Workshop , performance of the estimator in the complete
large testes weight Correcting the coding errors and absence of commercial catch-at-age data was examined for
eliminating the biologically unlikely ages reduced the mean the !-stock, and found to lead to convergence difficulties
difference considerably. probably related to the fact that there was insufficient
The Committee welcomes the report and the fact that information to estimate early recruitment trends in such
checking for coding errors and biologically unlikely ages circumstances.
was being extended to older age classes. It also endorses The Committee noted that there are few data for the P
the plans to train young Japanese scientists to read earplugs stock (Areas V-E and IV-W) with the result that model
and use multiple readers for each earplug. estimates (e.g.of natural mortality) are more uncertain for
SC/59/08 also reported results of an inter-reader ageing the P-stock than for the !-stock. The Committee agrees that
calibration using 100 good earplug samples retained from consideration could be given to estimating common values
173Annex 111
58 REPORTOFTHESCIENTIFICCOMMITTEE
The collection of tissue samples in Japan is from conducted in the intersessional period. The budgetary
scientific whaling in the Antarctic (JARPA-JARPAII) implication for this work is discussed under Agenda Item
and North Pacific (JARPN-JARPNII), bycatch and 21.
strandings.The collection includes complete coverage for
2006 throughout the 2006/07 Antarctic season. The
Committee was informed that a toial of 505 genetic samples 17. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS (SEE ANNEX 0)
of the Antarctic minke whale and three of the fin whale 17.1 Review of results from JARPA
were collected from the 2006/07 austral summer survey 17.1.1 ReportoftheJARPA Review Workshop
of JARPAII. From JARPNII in the western North Pacific (SC/59/Rep1) .
(NP) samples stored in 2006 were: NP common minke An intersessional meeting to review the results from the
whale, n=l95; NP Bryde's whale, n=50; NP sei whale, JARPA research programme was convened in Tokyo in
n=IOO;and NP sperm whale, n=6. The samples from December 2006. The Committee noted its appreciation to
bycatch stored in 2006 were: NP common minke whale, Bannister, the Steer!ng Committee for the Workshop , the
n=147; NP humpback whale, n=3; and NP sperm whale, rapporteurs and the Head of Science for their efforts in
n=I. Genetic samples were stored for the following stranded organising, convening and preparing the Workshop report.
whales in 2006: NP common minke whale, n=8; NP Annex D of SC/59/Rep I indicates that considerable data
Bryde's whale, n=3;NP humpback whale, n=l; NP right have been collected by the JARPA prograrnrrie by both
whale, n=I; and NP sperm whale, n=l (see Appendix 4 of lethal and non-lethal methods, although there was
AnnexN). disagreement regarding the analysis and interpretation of
Some of the collection of samples in Iceland is taken some of these data. Item 8 of the Workshop report provided
from scientific whaling, tissue samples stored in 2006 were:_ an overview of results in the context of the stated objectives
North Atlantic common minke whale, n=58. For of the 'JARPA programme and of stock management. The
commercial whaling samples stored in 2006 were: North Committee reviewed the Workshop report and endorses its
Atlantic common minke whale, n=l; and North Atlantic fin conclusions and recommendations .For convenience, a short
whale, n=7 (see Appendix 5 of Annex N). summary of the conclusions on the main topics covered in
the JARPA review is given below. However, this is not
16.3Reference databases and standards for diagnostic intended to subsume SC/59/Rep I. A number of these
DNA registries scientific issues were considered furtherthe reports of the
relevant sub-committees at this meeting.
Genetic analyses have been completed and data on mtDNA,
Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) and sex entered in the 1. ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS
Norwegian register for years through 2004. Genetic analysis Estimates of population trend arising from JARPA are
of samples collected in 2005 and 2006 is in progress (see
Appendix 3 of Annex N). summarised in table 2 of SC/59/Rep I. Current confidence
intervals forthe estimates of trend are relatively wide.
For the Japanese register all genetic analyses have been These results are, therefore, consistent with a substantial
completed for NP common minke, NP Bryde's and NP sei decline, a substantial increase, or approximate stability in
whales through 2006, mtDNA for NP sperm whales through Antarctic minke whale abundance in these geographic areas
2006 and sex for all samples from all species. The genetic
over the period ofJARPA (SC/59/Repl, p.ll).
samples of Antarctic minke whales and southern fin whales Considerable progress has been made in addressing the
have not been analysed yet. For bycatch and stranding issues reltad to Antarctic minke whale abundance and
samples, mtDNA has been completed through 2006 (see trends and provided the recommendations given under item
Appendix 4 of Annex N).
2 of SC/59/Repl are followed, the Committee may be able
For the Icelandic register all genetic analyses have been to agree estimates . This issue discussed in detaiat this
conducted for fin whales caught in 2006. Genetic analysis meeting (see Item 10.2.1.2) with a summary in Annex G,
of the minke whale samples is in progress (see Appendix 5 item6.
ofAnne x N).
The abundance estimates provided in Matsuoka el al.
The Committee_agrees that report of updates of registers (2005) for humpback whales represented useful steps
should include a listf references with relevant documents forward in . working towards acceptable estimates of
on register documentation and specification sThe abundance. Further discussion of this issue is reported in
Committee also agrees that any substantial new technical
improvement in the registers should be presented to the Annex H.
Committee as separate documents. 2. POPULATION STRUCfURE
A very considerable amount of work has been undertaken
16.4Work plan since the mid-term review and progress has and can be
The Terms of Reference for the Working Group for the next made given the data collected. Based on the analyses of the
genetic and morphometric data presented, it was agreed that
year will remain the same as for this year, unless the
Commission requests other information in the interim. there are at least two stocks of Antarctic minke whales
Members of the Committee are encouraged to submit present in the JARPA research area. The data do not support
papers relating to these terms of reference and to propose the current IWC Management Areas for Antarctic minke
whales. The data also suggest an area of transition in the
additional agenda items. In particular the Committee looks
forward to the presentation and discussion of the recent region around 150°-165°E across which there is an as yet
published paper by Rohland and Hofreiter (2007). The undetermined level and range of mixing. Samples from the
Committee agrees that the first round of sequence breeding areas would greatly facilitate these analyses, and
validation is important and recommends that it should be are likely to be requifed to resolve issues relevant to stock
174 Annex 111
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008
59
structure and mixing within the JARPA research area analyses were presented and discussed at this meeting
(SC/59/Repl, p.l6) . (Annex Kl, item 1.5).This work is ongoing (see item 13.4).
3. ESTIMATION OF NATURAL MORTALITY RATE 6. POLLUTANTS
The estimation of this parameter was the main objective of Levels of toxic metals and organochlorines were low
JARPA when the programme was initiated. The natural compared with whales in the Northern Hemisphere, with
mortality rate estimates from JARPA data alone (Tanaka et some indication of decrease over time. There was
a!., 2006), were, at around 0.04, within the plausible range, speculationas to the causeof this.
but the confidence limits (from below zero to above 0.10) 7. OTHER RESULTS
spanned such a wide range that the parameter is still
The important contribution of the genetic analyses of dwarf
effectively unknown. minke whale samples from JARPA to the understanding of
The ADAPT-VPA provided estimates of natural the phylogenetic relationships among minke whales from
mortality rates with a CVof about 0.15 but these depend on
the use of commercial catch-at-age data, about which, as different ocean basins was recognised. Genetic results had
contributed to the taxonomic review of rninke whales
discussed in SC/59/Repl, there are some problems (and see conducted by Rice (1998) that confrrmed the existence of
Item 10.2.3). two species of minke whales, the Antarctic minke whale
4. OTHER BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS and the common minke whale (SC/59/Repl, p.30).
Estimates of several biological parameters according to one Additional work on genetic diversity and spatial pattern of
stock hypothesis presented at the Workshop are summarised genetic variation in southern humpback whales was
in table 3 (SC/59/Repl, p.20). These parameters·are length reported.
at sexual maturity, age at sexual maturity, length at physical 8. MANAGEMENT
maturity, age at physical maturity, size at age (i.e. The Committee concurs with the view reported in
generation of a growth curve), percentage of matured
females pregnant, foetal sex ratio (% male) and mean litter SC/59/Repl that 'The results of.the JARPA programme,
while not required for management under the RMP, have
size. ln general, it was agreed that the results confirmed the the potential to improve management of minke whales in
high pregnancy rates found in this species in the previous the Southern Hemisphere' (SC/59/Repl, p.31) in a number
commercial data, and corresponds essentially to a one-year
of ways. The Committee agrees that the following
reproductive cycle (SC/59/Repl, p.21). statement, taken from the mid-term review, still applies:
Differing views were expressed about the level of
reliability that could be assigned to the estimates of The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for
historical trends in biological and population parameters of management under the RMP ~ have the potentiato improve
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the
minke whales prior to the JARPAperiod. following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios
For the JARPA period, no marke rends in biological considerediImplementation Simulation Tand(2) identification
parameters were found. The growth rates were apparently ofnewscenariostowhichfutureImplementationSimulationTrialswill
constant, while the pregnancy rate remained high with some have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure).
The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used in this way
annual fluctuation. The transition phase data suggested a perhapsto increasetheallowedcatchofminkewhales intheSouthern
possible small increase in the mean age at maturity over the Hemisphere, ithoutincreasing depletionriskabovethelevel indicated
JARPA period, but the age at first ovulation showed a by theexistingImplememationSimulationTrials of theRMPforthese
minkewhales (IWC, !998a).
decrease, at least for the putative 'P' stock (SC/59/Rep1,
p.23). 17.1.2 Additional Scientific Committee discussion
5. ROLE OF ANTARCTIC MINKE WHALES IN THE The Committee concurs with the summary reported in
ECOSYSTEM Appendix 3 of Annex 0 of major findings of the JARPA
A total of ten prey species, including one amphipod, four ·research programme in the context of IWC resolutions.
Whilst Workshop participants had agreed that a discussion
euphausiids and five fish species were identified based on
analysis of stomach contents. Antarctic krill (Euphausia of the respective merits of lethal and non-lethal
superba) was the most important prey species throughout methodology was important, there had been insufficient
the survey·period. The estimates of daily consumption time to do so and it had been suggested that this topic
reported ranged from 2.6% to 5.0% of body weight per day should be discussed at the Annual Meeting. The report of
(SC/59/Repl, p.24). Daily prey consumption estimates were this discussion is presented in Annex 0. As has been the
similar to those from North Atlantic common minke whales case in past Committee discussions on this topic, it was not
possible to reach consensusamongst the participants.
(Haug et al., 1995) and to those predicted by Lockyer
(1981). It was inevitable that the discussions at the Workshop
It was further noted that the Committee welcomes the would give rise to suggestions for further and/or refined
oceanographic and krill-related work undertaken since the analyses. The Committee noted the table of
1997 Workshop. The Committee also agrees that recommendations and the current state of their
considerable relevant data had been collected bythe JARPA implementation provided inAppendix 4 of Annex 0.
programme on matters related to body condition and
feeding. However, it is clear from the discussion under Item 17.2 Review of results from existing permits
5 of the JARPA review that the simple nature of several of 17.2.1 JARPA II
the analyses present at the JARPA review means that A summary of findings from the JARPA II research
relatively little progress has been made in·addressing this programme was reported in SC/59/03 and 04. Discussion
regarding this research report focused on the
objective, even allowing for the complexities of the subject.
However, it was also noted that a number of more refined representativeness of samples, as well as the impact on the
175176 Annex 112
112. “Summary of Recommendations from the JARPAReview Workshop”,Appendix 3,
AnnexO,ReportoftheScientificCommittee,J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.),
2008, p. 349
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 349
Appendix 3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE JARPA REVIEW WORKSHOP
RT Analyses In the report Status
AE
I. Furtherinvestigationof J3approachusingsimulationstudiestoassesscorrectionperformance. Suggested To be considered after
2007 SC meeting
2. On Skip C, the possibility of post-application oad~aptive 'sampling to closing mode survey for findiSuggested To be considered after
bettercorrectionfonnulae. 2007 SC meeting
3. Satelliteatamayprovidemoreaccurateinfonnationontheice-edgefortheDSM. Suggested
Tobeconsideredafter
2007 SC meeting
4. Regardingabundanceestimationof Antarcticminkewhaleabetterapproachis tofita modelwhichis ableto Agreed Tobeconsideredafter
accountforheteroscedascityinsamplingviuianceandincorporateadditionalvariance. 2007 SC meeting
5. Regardingdetection functionestimation,as a guideline, detectionfunctionsshouldbe estimatedusing an Recommended Consideredin
absoluteminimumof 15sightings.Wherefewersigbtingsoccurpooling shouldbeundertaken. SC/59/JAII
6. RegardingvarianceestimationfromtheSSV data,the datato be re-analysedtreatingall threeparalleltransectRecommended To be consideredafter
legs as the sampling unil · 2007 SC meeting
7. Regardingtheaccountingfortheorderthatthestrataweresurveyed(whichis relevant.fortrendestimation)a, Recommended Consideredin
generalised linear modelling approach (similar to that conducted in J6) be taken whereby appropriately c'osen SC/59/IAII
covariatesor factors(suchas thenliddledatethata stratumwas surveyedina givenyear)couldbe included
toenablemorevalidbetween-yearcomparsions.
8. Additionalvariancebeestimatedas well as taking due accountof estimatesof samplingvarianceforeach RecommendedTobeconsideredafter
stratum. 2007 SC meeting
9. Regardingestimation of Fffectivestripwidthand meanschool size fromthe SSV data,sensitivitiesto the RecommendedTobeconsideredafter
pooling ofthree SSY tracklines forestimation of effective strip width and mean school size, be investigated. 2007 SC meeting
10. Regardingextrapolationintounsurveyed areas,it would be valuableto boundthe problemby examining Recommended Consideredin
results forwhich the abundance in the unsurveyed area is treated as zero. SC/59/JAII
II. WhCresuch (primaryE-W)extrapolationare necessary,the ratioof deqsity in the unsurveyedareato the Recommended Consideredin
surveyed area be calculated from data in other years. The product of this ratio and the density in the surveyed SC/59/IAII
areainthatyearwouldbeusedasthe estimateddensitytoextrapolate into theunsurveyedareainthatyear.
12. Regardinganalysis usingthe saw-toothtracktinedesign,alltransectswouldbe usefulat leastinestimating Agreed, Tobeconsideredafter
effective strip width and mean school size (and their variInorder to more fully understand the results Recommended 2007 SC meeting
in Table 4 of J6 and their implications, the sensitivity analyses of 16 are repeated but with appropriate
weighting of the data (e.g. in proportion to the number of sightings within a stratum), and/or by bootstrapping
(conditionalonthe totalnumberofsightings).
13. Regardingtheestimation of~nd inhumpbackwhalesfurtherrefinementofthe linearmode],asdiscussedfor RecommendedTobeconsideredafter
minke whales, by incorporatign processerroras wellas a trendparameter,an areaeffect and the survey 2007 SCmeeting
samplingerrorbe examined.
ss
I. Inadditionto geneticstudiesit wouldbe usefulto includepotentialalternatvie stockmarkerssuchas stablSuggested Willnotbe
isotopes (e.g. Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogenand Strontium). Considered
2. Clusteringmethods based on individualgenotypes, that avoid a priori assumptions about population RecommendedTobeConsideredafter
boundaries may be usefully applied (e.g. MDSor PCA methods). 2007 SC meeting
3. Spatialcorrelationand Manteltest were suggestedto resolve the positionand natureof this transitionalSuggested Willnotbeconsidered
pattern. ~
·4. Other analysis based on individual genotypes such as landscape genetics as assessed in the progrnm 'Suggested To be considered
space' may help resolve the pattern of structure and mixing (though this would likely require but this requires under !ARPA II
I5+microsatelliteloctoprovidesufficientpower).
5. Transitional area could be studied by fitting a mixing model where the fraction of whales belonging Suggested To be considered after
putative population is a function of the longitude at which it was sampled. This could be a simple logistic 2007'SC meeting
regression model coupled with two-product multinomial models describing the allele frequencies in the two
putative stocks eitherside of the transition area.It could be extended beyond two populations, and incorporate
bothgeneticandmorphometricdata.
6. Satellittrackingtoinvestigatelocationof breedinggrounds. Emphasised To beconsidered
under JARPA II
7. Analysis of availablesamples forthe potential extension of the analysis geographically (e.g. Areas liiRaisedI) To beconsidered
under !ARPA II
BP
I. In order to verify age readings using known age animals the feasibility of detecting the bomb radiocarbon RecommendedWillnotbe
signalinearplug laminaebelookedinto. Considered
2. The comparability of commercial and !ARPA age data be investigated by re-reading a subset of the Recommended Considered in
commercial samples in an appropriatelydesigned blind test SC/59108
Considered in
3. The ADAPT-VPA could be run without using the commercialage data. Task identified
SC/59/JAIJ
ME
1. Determination ofthedurationof thefeeding periodis fundamenatl to estimatetcon~ump atndo nstbe Recommended Tobeconsideredafter
adequately addressed. · 2007 SC meeting
2. Examinationatsmallerspatialscales. Recommended Tobeconsideredafter
2007 SC meeting
3. Use ofG LMor similartoexaniinetrend,incorpOratincgovariaets suchas age,size andreproductivestatusof Recommended Consideredin
whales as well as the dateand time of day. SC/5910 9
Cont.
177178 Annex 113
113. “Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006”,
J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 10 (Suppl.), 2008, pp. 411-445
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 411
Report of the Intersessional Workshop to Review Data and
Results from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the
1
Antarctic, Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006
1. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS 1.6 Terms of reference for this review
The Scientific Committee had agreed two years ago to hold
1.1 Welcome and introduction an intersessional scientific workshop to assist in its review
The Workshop met at the Institute of Cetacean Research of the results of the Japanese special permit research in the
(ICR), Tokyo, on 4-8 December 2006. The list of Antarctic (JARPA) programme , 1987/88-2004/05 and
participants is given in AnA.xThe Chair of theScientific
Committee (SC), Bj¢rge, welcomed the participants, m establishedaSteering Group under Zeh to prepare for the
particular the invited experts that do not normally attend therkshop. The Committee agreed that the objectivesf the
meetings of the SC. Bj¢rge also thanked the Government of full revw are to evaluate:
Japan and the ICR for the venue and facilities made (1) how well the initial and revised objectives of the
available for the meeting and acknowledged the Japanese research have been met;
scientists for their considerable work in preparation for th(2) other contributions to important research needs;
meeting. . . (3) the relationshipof the research to relevant IWC
A Steering Group chaired by Zeh had planned th1s resolutions and discussions, including those deahng
meeting over several years and Bj¢rge conveyed to the with the Antarctic marine ecosystem, environmental
meeting Zeh 'sregrets that she could not attend and address chanoes and their impact on cetaceans and Committee
the meeting in person. She sent her sincere thanks to all revi ofesp~cal permit research; and (4) the utility of
members of the Steering Group, and to all those who had the lethal techniques used by JARPA compared to non·
contributed to the preparations for the meeting. The meeting
agreed to askBj¢rge to forward its thanks and appreciatio,n lethal techniques.
to Zeh for her work in the Steering Group.
Morishita welcomed the participants on behalf of the The Committee had agreed (IWC, 2006a, p.48) that the full
review will consider only scientific issues; ethical issues are
Government of Japan who was hosting the Workshop. He beyond its competence. This agreement was taken into
particularly thanked those scientists who had travelled far account in the discussion.The Committee had also agreed at
attend the Workshop. He explained the importance Japan that time that some discussion of the respective merits of
attached to the forthcoming discussions and looked forward lethal and non-lethal methodology is important and that
to a full and fair scientific discussion of the items on theInvited Participants would be able to contribute to that
Agenda. debate.However, the Committee had also agreed that the
main focus of the Workshop would be on Items 1-8 of the
1.2 Electionof Chair and appointment of rapporteurs . Agenda (Annex B); the more contentious issues undr Item
Bj¢rge noted that the SC/58 Convenors Meeting had agreed 9 would mainly be discussed at the subsequent Annual
that Bannister should Chair the Workshop. Donovan
coordinated production of the report with assistance from Meeting (SC/59). 1n fact, time constraints at the Workshop
Hedley, Kitakado, Hoelzel, Cooke, Reid, Mori, Aguilar and meant that Item 9 could note discussed here.
Pastene.
1.7 Objectivesof JARPA as stated in the original
1.3 Meeting procedures and time schedule research proposal and subsequently
Practical arrangements were dealt with by the ICR. The SC/006/Jl presented an outline of the JARPA research
meeting agreed to a time schedule proposed by the Chair. objectives.he Government of Japan has conducted JARPA
surveys since the 1987!88 season under the Article VIII
1.4Adoption of Agenda the International Convention for Regulation of Whaling, as
The Working Group adopted the Agenda shown in Annex B. a long-term project. The last survey of the JARPA was
completed in the 2004/05 season. As the programn;e
1.5Documents and data available
The documents presented to the Working Group are listin progressed, the objectives the project evolved from two m
Annex C. The Workshop was pleased to note that the data the original plan to four after the 1995/96 season. The
from the programme listed in Annex D had been available authors noted that the additionalobjectives were not an
alteration of the original plan, but rather its development.
for participants under the Committee's Data Availability The IWC Scientific Committee held a mid-term Workshop
Agreement (DAA). in 1997 to review JARPA data and results (IWC, 1998a) and
during its 1997 Annual Meeting (IWC, 1998b), the
1Presented to the meeting as SC/59/Rep 1. Scientific Committee discussed the report of the Workshop
179Annex 113
412 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
and identified several future tasks to be addressed in the experiments with respect to sampling method were
programme. The authors concluded that reasonable progress conducted to improve the methodology of the
had been made on most of the tasks. sighting/sampling survey. In parallel with the lethal
The two original research objectives as defined in the sampling survey, a variety of non-lethal studies were
JARPA project, submitted as SC/39/04 (Government of conducted e.g. oceanographic surveys, prey surveys, and
Japan, 1987) to the 1987 Committee meeting (IWC, 1998b), photo-identification and biopsy sampling for large baleen
were: whales. A summary of research procedures and results in
Objective I. Estimation of biological parameters to each cruise was also presented in the document.
improve the stock management of the Southern Hemisphere The Workshop welcomed this report which provided
minke whale; and valuable irrformationfor many topics on the Agenda.
Objective 2. Elucidation of the role of whales in the
Antarctic marine ecosystem. 1.9 Overview of the 1997 JARPA review and
The addition of a third objective occurred in 1995/96 subsequent discussions
(Government of Japan, 1995): The Workshop considered the report of the 1997 )ARPA
Objective 3. Elucidation of the effect of environmental review Workshop (IWC, 1998a) and the discussions at the
change on cetaceans (a development of Objective 2). subsequent Annual Meeting (IWC, 1998b). Relevant issues
The final addition was made in 1996/97 (Government of are considered in detail under the appropriate Agenda items
Japan, 1996): below.
Objective 4. Elucidation of the stock structure of
Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock 2. SIGHTING SURVEYS AND ABUNDANCE
management (already implicit in Objective 1).
The Workshop did not spend time discussing the ESTIMATION
objectives of the programme in any detail.Annex E provides 2.1 Background
the wording of the original proposal and the changes The proposers noted that the primary reason for conducting
included for the 1995/96 season. The Workshop's JARPA sightings surveys was their contribution to the
conclusions on the extent to which the objectives have been improvement of the management of Southern Hemisphere
or can be met are given under Item 8. minke whales. Their pertinence to the RMP and the
associated implementation forSouthern Hemisphere minke
1.8 General outline of the JARPA research whales was seen as a derivative objective. From the
SC/D06/J2 presented a general outline of JARPA, including beginning of the programme in 1987, the first objective of
sighting and sampling protocols as had been requested at the IARPAwas to estimate a:nage-specific mortality coefficient
2006 Annual Meeting. JARPA was conducted every year through stochastic sampling (later modified to an average
from the 1987/88 to 2004/05 seasons. After two seasons of mortality rate), in combination with systematic sampling
feasibility research, full-scale research began in 1989/90. surveys. One of the improvements to the original plan
The programme was designed to repeat surveys in Antarctic adopted at the startof the full programme (following two
Areas IV and Valternately in each of the sixteen years of the years of feasibility study) was the conduct of line transect
research period. Area IV was divided into five strata and surveys.
Area V into four strata. Although the whole research period In contrast to the IWC IOCR/SOWER surveys which
ranged from the end of November to March, regular
have recently completed the third of three circumpolar (CP)
research in Areas IV and V was concentrated in January and surveys in the Southern Ocean (covering up to 60° of
February. A Special Monitoring Zone was established to longitude each year for almost 30 years), JARPA surveys
investigate seasonal variation of whale density from the have been conducted in IWC Areas IV and V for 18 years
1992/93 to 1994/95 seasons. From the 1995/96 season,.the with more recent extensions to the east and the west of this.
survey area expanded into a part of Areas ill and VI to
During the mid-term JARPAreview meeting in 1997, it was
improve the stock structure study.In order to achieve itsfour noted that JARPA provides more frequent repetition of
objectives JARPAcomprises a combination of sighting and surveys of the same localities than the IOCR/SOWER
sampling surveys. In general, a saw tooth (right triangles) programme, which could better facilitate estimation of the
shape track line at intervals of 4° longitude or extent on inter-year variability in locabund~c end in
IOCR/SOWER style zigzag track line were used in the tum lead to improved trend estimation. In examining the
southern strata and a zigzag track line at intervals of 15° JARPA sighting survey results at this Workshop, attention
longitude (or flexibly as in IOCR/SOWER) was used in the focussed on the suitability of absolute abundance estimates
northern strata. In order to obtain biological samples for use in biological parameter studies (Item 4) and
representing whole population in the research area, a estimation of trend from these estimates for input to models
random .sampling method coupled to line transect sighting of the marine ecosystem (Item 5), although inevitably there
surveying was adopted. Two or three sighting/sampling will be some inter-relation between the two.
vessels (SSVs) conducted sighting and sampling survey on
the predetermined track-line with parallel sub-track lines. A 2.2 Issue raised in previous IWC meetings
dedicated sighting vesselSV) was introduced from 1991/92 2.2.1 1997 !ARPA review
and the SV preceded the SSVs by a distance of over 12 The 1997 JARPA review meeting recommended that more
n.miles, to avoid influence of sampling activity on the research was required to develop a reliable method for
sighting survey. One or two Antarctic minke whales were adjusting for negative bias in abundance estimates induced
sampled randomly from each primary sighted school within by undersampling of high density areas resulting from the
3 n.miles of the trackline of each SSV. Individuals to be JARPA survey design (sampling of whales in high density
sampled in a school were chosen by a researcher on board areas meant that these areas were under-represented in the
using a series of tables ofrandom sampling numbers. All the
sampling effort). It considered that once this had been
whales sampled were subject to biological sampling and achieved, theresultant abundance estimates should be useful
measnrements on the research base vessel. Some both as absolute and relative abundance indices.
180 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 413
The Workshop noted that a number of contributions (1) How are tracklines adjusted 'real-time' on the vessels,
addressing this issue had been considered by the Committee including when the ice edge is encountered
since 1997. Further discussions of this are found under the unexpectedly?
relevant agenda items. (2) How do the vessels interact at the endf the survey day,
and how is the amount of night steaming by each vessel
2.2.2 Humpback whale Workshop independently decided?
The 2006 Hobart humpback whale Workshop (!We, 2006b) (3) Which vessels were used in the surveys, and were they
recommended that thefollowing sevenitems bepresented to used any differently in different years?
the Scientific Committee:
Information on how the location of the ice·edge changed
(1) clearer/enlarged displaysof effort and sightings data, in during the courseof a survey was also requested.
particular to show detailsof the southern strata and the
ice edge;
2.3 Data collection methods and results
(2) display/analyses of the temporal distribution of The Workshop welcomed the provision of SC/D06/J2 that
searching effort within-season, particularly with respect had been provided in part as a response to the request from
to latitude and the·iceedge, in order to allow evaluation the Scientific Committee. The authors had concluded that
of any changes over time and to evaluate whether the sightings data obtained from JARPA were reliable
following the path of any migration may be of concern;
enough to use for abundance estimation purpose because (a)
(3) a full description of the policy that determines when the in principle, tracklines were set systematically so as to
vessels steam/transit without sampling/sighting effort, 'collect random data and (b) JARPAhas surveyed Areas IV
how and when this may change over the course of a and V alternatively for 18 years with the maximum survey
survey and displays/analyses of any potential bias that effort being spent in Areas TV/V during January and
may result from policy decisions;
February, which was considered to be the peak migration
(4) analyses of sightings cues by inter alia area, time, period of the minke whales. The authors noted that sighting
season, sighting distance etc.; surveys had been conducted eight times in Areas IV and V,
(5) separate analyses of sighting effort for vessels that carry respectively. During the survey period searching effort was
out sightings only (SV) and vessels that also catch distributed uniformly in these Areas (the starting position of
whales (SSV);
the sighting survey was selected randomly).
(6) separate analyses of school size by SV and SSV,taking The Workshop noted that the sighting survey procedures
into account time within a season and are·a,especially that have been used in JARPAwere similar to those used in
with respect to latitude and ice edge; and IWC IDCR/SOWER surveys. The closing procedures (e.g.
(7) evaluate/display how the fraction/density of whales in to determine school size) were identical to those used in
the northern and southern areas covered by the vessels
closing mode for the IOCR/SOWER surveys, except that
may have changed over time (taking into account additional timewas spent on sampling and that closing was
seasonal differences in timingof effort etc.). limited to minke whales. The vessels engaged in such
sampling (termed 'SSVs') surveyed along parallel
The first four of these were presented to the 2006 Annual tracklines, but from the 1991/92 season, one vessel (the
Meeting (IWC, 2007b, pp.l88-209). The analyses requested
in Item 4 did not reveal that heterogeneity in sighting cue 'SV') at any one time was devoted to sighting only, in order
needed to be accounted for directly in the analyses. The last to investigate the effectf sampling activity on abundance
three items were recognised as matters that would be estimates. Since 1995/9 6, the SV conducted a sighting
survey and an active acoustic survey independently, using
relevant when considering the analyses presented to this closing and passing mode procedures on tracklines surveyed
Workshop. independently from those of the SSVs. ·
2.2.3 Other One key difference between JARPA and IDCR/SOWER
At the 2006 Annual Meeting, three further issues were was noted, namely that IOCR/SOWER has operated in
alternate IO (Independent Observer) and closing mode,s,
raised when examining line transect analyses. The first of whilst JARPA operated in (different types of) closing and
these was the question of how to deal with apparently passing modes without lOs. Conventional line transect
unsurveyed areas within strata (for example due to ice edge
movement), and it was recommended that abundance analyses of IOCR/SOWER data have assumed g(O)=l and
estimates be based on the surveyed (ice-free) portion of the have standardised on IO mode, correcting for possible bias
in closing mode, but theommittee is moving towards more
stratum. The second concerned the saw-tooth trackline elaborate estimation methods that do not make these
design employed in some southern strata. It was suggested
that this design might be biased if there was a density assumptions.
gradient of whales from theice edge and that as a sensitivity· Relevant data obtained in JARPA sighting surveys are:
analysis, abundance for these strata should be estimated (1) number of angle/distance experiments: 6,426
using datafrom the north-south transects only and compared (2) sighting data (number of schools): 48,600
with estimates which used data from all the transects. The (3) survey effort data: primary effort of 293,811 n.miles
third issue raised was the question of uneven coverage covered in 6,188 ship-days
probability within some of the southern strata. (4) weather data (number of observations): 94,840.
Furthermore, the Committee recommended (IWC, 2007a
, p.38) that the JARPAsurvey design, itsprotocols, how they Information on other data can be found inAnnex D.
have changed over time, and any differences between the
design and the implementation of it were set out in a single 2.4 Data analysis methods and results
document and presented to the JARPA review meeting. It In considering the issue of abundance estimates from the
noted that this should ~Iarif tye following three specific survey, the Workshop noted that any estimates refer to the
number of animals present in a particular geographical area
questions, which would help determine the appropriate
method to estimate variance. at a particular time of the year and that this (given the
181Annex 113
414 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
discussion of stock structure and mixing on the feeding encountered when applying this approach to real JARPA
grounds summarised under Item 3) will not be indicative of survey data. In particular, the available spatially-referenced
biological population abundance, although abundance for covariates (latitude, longitude and distance from ice edge as
one possible stock structure hypothesis (see Item 3) is recorded from the vessels when in the southern strata) were
presented. frequently inadequate to describe the distribution of
sightings. Model-fitting was difficult, particularly in the
more topographically complex Area V,and sometimes low
2.4.1 Minke whales coverage in the edges of the survey region caused
SC/D06/J3 examined the possibility of correcting for the undesirable behaviour in the smooth surface. This was
effectof skip. Four types of skip arose in JARPA surveys: especially apparent when estimating variance, because the
night steaming (type A); catching up with the schedule of non-parametric bootstrap was unable to reproduce the
the survey (type B); closing and chasing of whales rargeted spatial coverage in effort achieved by the actual data. The
(type C); and bad weather condition (type D). Amongst
authors concluded thatwhilst spatial modelling methods in
these, Hakamada et al. (2006) suggestedthat the estimate of principle can correct for a non-random sampling design, the
minke whale density is only affected by skip types Aand C. current application of the methods relies on appropriate
In this paper, a modification of the method of Burt and model specification and this has proved difficult with the
Borchers (1997) was developed to correct bias due to skip JARPA data. Furthermore, they anticipate that some of the
type A which affected only the surveys from 1989/90 to specific problems related to appropriate smoothers and
1992/93 (after which a different survey protocol applied). complex geographical areas may be alleviated when
Corrected abundance estimates in Area IV obtained from methods that deal with these issues directly (Wood et al.,
SSV data were 32,630 (CV=0.142) in 1989/90 and 34,982 2007) are·fully developed.
(CV=0.171) in 1991/92. Those in Area V were 108,457 In discussion, it was suggested that determination the
(0.124) in 1990/91and 84,813 (CV=0.162) in 1992/93.The appropriate scale of the grids was important for such
corrected abundance estimates were greater than the purposes. If the length of skip type A is larger than the scale
uncorrected ones. This suggested that skip type Aresulted in of whole clusters, then effects of large and small densities in
negatively biased estimates although the level was not the partof a leg skipped leg might cancel out, and hence the
substantial. Corrected abundance estimates obtained from impact of skip would be negligible. In this sense, local
the method developed in the paper tended to be smaller than clustering would not affect skip type A. However, it was
those from the method of Burt and Borchers (1997). A pointed out that the effect of local clustering could not be
further correction was made by using Haw's method (Haw, ignored in examination of skip type C. Local clustering also
1991) to calibrate the difference between survey vessels. affects the assessment of uncertainty in abundance
The estimated abundance series were used to estimate estimation even if the effect of the skip is small. It was also
annualincrease rates and theirCV's,and results showed that suggested that the possibility of the post-application of the
the estimates were -1.10% [-4.25%, 2.02%} and -2.16% adaptive sampling (Thompson and Seber, 1996) to closing
[-4.83%, 0.44%} in Area IV and V, respectively. Neither mode survey for finding better correction formulae should
estimate was significantly different from and the authors be investigated.
concluded that skip type A would not substantially affect In the DSM approach (see SC/D06/J4), the abundance
estimatesof trends in abundance trend for Antarctic minke estimate is deiived by summing up the grid-based
whales. abundance estimates predicted by the smoother, which are
The Workshop noted that this was an issue raised at the correlated. However, the variance of the abundance estimate
2006 Annual Meeting and welcomed this analysis that is estimatedwithout taking this covariance intoaccount, and
represented progress in correcting bias due to skip. therefore is negatively biased. Bootstrap methods that
However, some concerns were raised about the approach incorporate covariance were suggested as a possible way to
employed and it was suggested that it would be difficult to address this. Over-smoothingalso causes underestimationof
remove this bias completely. The need for further variance. It was noted that a new model allowing for trend
investigation of the approach using simulation studies to and clustering being developed by Bravington may provide
assess correction performance was also suggested. It was better varianceestimates. It was also suggested that satellite
noted that aslight difference in estimates for annual increasedata may provide more accurate information on the ice-edge
rate with and without the correction could still lead to the for theDS M.
large differences over a longer period. Given that the In summary, the workshop noted potential difficulties
estimates of abundance from 1989/90-1992/93might reflect in correcting for skip effects by applying spatial
overcorrectionof the bias caused by skip, it was noted that models to estimate abundance, and agreed that standard
this implied that estimated annual increase rates based on design-based estimates were best at ~is stage even if
abundance ·series that incorporate this correction were those need some sorts of correction as put forward in
probably lower bounds. Thus the results in this paper SC/D06/J3.
contributed to limiting the possible ranges of annual SC/D06/J5 introduced a model for the estimationof g(O)
increase rates. under a single-platform sighting survey. The surfacing
SC!D06!14 reviewed the spatial modelling analyses probabilityin a unit time was used as a known parameter.A
(density surface models(DSM)) that have been conducted detection probability function with covariates such as
on JARPA survey data. These analyses were originally sighting conditions and group size is employed, and
proposed as a potential means to correct for the negative ~stim eatby the maximum likelihood method. Simulation
biased induced by skip type 'A'. Initial results from studies showed that theestimator of g(O)was unbiased when
simulation studies which looked at a range of densities and the true detection probability function was assumed
clustering scenarios were promising, with little or no bias although it was not robust to misspecification of this
evident from one of the model-based approaches examined function. The method was applied to the JARPAsurvey data
in the simulation study when appropriate levels of in Area IV, and provided estimates of g(O) that were
smoothing were chosen. However, some problems were significantly less than 1.
182 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 415
The Workshop recognised the value of developing Workshop agreed that a better approach, similar to that
methods to estimateg(O)from single platform surveys such applied in SC/D06/J06, is to fit a model which is able to
as JARPA. It thanked the author for his paper but for a
account for heteroscedascity in sampling variance and
number of reasons it did not believe that the approach givenincorporate additional variance.h a model could also be
in SC/D06/J5 was appropriate. For example, the method more readily adapted to examine other factors, such as
assumes thatQ (O,Q) w~hIreQ is the detection probability changes in mode effect over time (depending on sample
function. Furthermore, as the model assumes constant size).
surfacing rates, which imply essentiallyisson processes In further discussion, a number of technical issues with
for surfacing pattern, well-established hazard probability the analyses presented inC/D06/J6 were raised. A small
models under the Poisson assumption can be applied group under Hedley was convened to discussthese'issues in
without the complication of the model developed. The detail, to recommend alternative or additional analyses
Workshop strongly encouraged the author to consider where appropriate and to consider, possibly in the lioft
previous literature and discussionsthe Committee on the these new analyses, the utility of abundance and trend
issue of g(O). The Workshop also draws attention for the estimates from JARPA data. Their discussions and
need for any proposed new techniques to be tested using the recommendations have been incorporated into the report
IWC simulated datasets. below.
SC/D06/J6 presents updated abundance estimates for
Antarctic minke whale based on JARPA sighting data using DETECTION FUNCTION ESTiMATION
IWC 'standard'methodology and the inter-mode calibration
method of Haw (1991). All estimates assumed g(O)~ n. In SC/D06/J6; different detection functions were estimated
for each stratum. In some cases, this led to estimating
order to address some of the recommendations and detection functions using very few sightings (possible due to
comments made at the 2006 Annual Meeting (Item 2.2},the the 'smearing' technique used). The Workshop
following adjustment and sensitivity tests were conducted. recommended that as a guideline, detection functions
The effectsof closing mode and of sampling aG:tivitieson
should be estimated using an absolute minimum of 15
abundance estimates were investigated using a linear model sightings. Where fewer sightings occur pooling should be
approach. The area size was recalculated to reconsider undertaken. The preferred option for this is to pool East
boundaries of survey strata to address the issue of West strata as sighting conditions and school size
unsurveyed areas. In addition, the effect on estimation of
including and excluding certain tracklines along the ice edgeistributions would be expected to be fairly similar.
Although a suggestion that pooling options for analysis of
was investigated by estimating abundance using option A, data for a small number of specific years could be selected
all tracklines (PA), exclusion of tracks that appeared to using an objective criterion such as Akaike's Information
follow the ice edge(P8) and finally excluding all but N-S Criterion (AIC), the Workshop recognised that this could be
tracks(Pc). The authors concluded that their results showed
difficult to apply consistently when consideringhe full
that including tracklines along ice edge in the analysis doeseries of JARPA data.
not lead to overestimates of abundance. After recalculation
of areas, the abundance estimates differed by typically up to
about 10%. The average of P /8A was not significantly VARIANCE ESTIMATION FROM THE SSV DATA
different from one in each case; the average of PcfA is In SC/D06/J6, variance in encounter rate was estimated
separately for each transect covered by theVs. (Survey
significantly larger than one in some cases. The authors protocols dictated that the SSVs rotated transects daily).
concluded that including all completed tracklines would not
greatly impact estimates of abundance while improving This estimation method assumes that the three parallel SSV
estimates of precision. The estimates of abundance in Areas transects are located independently of each other, and would
be.expected to underestimate the true variance (since the
IV and V presented were 44,564(CV~0.2 9n2003/04 and variability between any two parallel transects on the same
72,087 (CV~0.14 r6spectively and those for the putative
I and P stocks proposed in SC/006/112 (see discussion day would be expected to be less than any two randomly
under Item 3) were 118,956 (CV~0.16 i4 )003/04 and selected transects). Whilst recognising thatlls issue has
only relatively recently been raised within the Committee,
91,819 (CV~0.1 )4i7 2004/05, respectively, based on the the Workshop nevertheless considered it important and
calibration method of Haw (1991). The estimated annual recommended that the data be re-analysed, treating all three
ratesof increase are discussed under Item 2 and their 95%
Cis in Areas IV and V were -0 .42% [-4.02%; 4.59%] parallel transect legs as the sampling unit.
(1989/90-2003/04) and - 1.54% [-4.91; 2.18%] (1990/91-
2004/05), respectively. For the putative I and P stocks the ACCOUNTING FOR THE ORDER THAT THE STRATA WERE
values were 7.93% [-0.05%; 11.45%] (1995/96-2003/04) SURVEYED (RELEVANT FOR TREND ESTIMATION )
and -5 .88%. No significant increase or decrease in In the first half of the JARPAsurveys, both the northern and
abundance trend was detected. southern strata had been surveyed in the early part of the
survey period, but latterly survey effort at this time was
The Workshop acknowledged the considerable work that
had gone into the analyses of SC/D06/J06, aninparticular primarilyin the northern strata. This change may cause a
was appreciative of progress made .in addressing questions problem particularly when estimating trends in abundance
raised by the previous IWC meetings discussed under Item and considering other processes such as changes ip the.
2.2.One of these issues was the estimation of a correction location of the ice edge (and ice type) and whale migration.
factor due to survey mode. SC/D06/J6 considered two This issue is not simple to resolveas an appropriate first
approaches to this question: estimation of 'Haw-type' step·the Workshop recommended that a generalised linear
calibration factors that standardiseV passing mode and modelling (GLM) approach (similar to that conducted in
use inverse-variance weighting to adjust estimates in SC/D06/J6) be taken whereby appropriately chosen
covariates or factors (such as the middle date that a stratum
mode to SV closing mode and in tum SV closing mode to
SV passing mode. One drawback of this two-stage process was surveyed in a given year) could be included to enable
is that it fails to .account fully for covariances. The more valid between-year comparisons. The Workshop also
183Annex 113
416 REPORT OF THE INTERSESS IONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
recommended that additional variance be estimated as well they did not occur very often and that they occurred only in
as taking due account of estimates of sampling variance for Area IV (Table 1). The authors of the paper concluded that
each stratum (e.g. IWC, 2007d). this treatment typically made a difference of up to about
10% of the total estimates and therefore would not
WHALE REACTION TO SAMPLING ACI'IYITIES substantially impact on trend estimation. After considerable
The general question of the possible effect of chasing and discussion, while the Workshop broadly agreed with the
sampling whales by one vessel on the sightings made by authors' conclusion, it also recommended that it would be
other vessels (and thus abundance estimates) was raised. valuable to bound the problem by examining results for
This is particularly relevant to the three SSVs travelling in which the abundance in the unsurveyed area is treated as
parallel seven miles apart and potentially di~turbing zero, as had been recommended at the 2006 Annual
individuals from one line to another. The Workshop was
Meeting. During discussion of the report, Childerhouse
informed of an experiment conducted in four of the JARPA noted that in some cases, different treatmentof unsurveyed
surveys to examine how minke whales may respond to such areas could make up to about 20% difference.
activities. In the summary of these experiments provided in
SC[D06/J2, the authors stated thatthere was no evidence of
obvious whale reaction to sampling activity apart from one Table I
case (out of 69 schools observed) where there was Unsurveyedarea(betweennorthernandsouthernstrata)expressedasa
discernible movement away from the sighting vessel when percentage of the tofBIArea IV south of60°S.
it approached to 1.5 n.miles. Furthermore, the Workshop
Season Percentage Season Percentage
was reminded of the protocols on JARPA to alleviate the
effects of such disturbance to the whales by the sightings 1995/96 8.6 2001/02 2.8
survey. If the chasing of a whale by one vessel was 1999100 4.3 2003104 11.1
considered by the Cruise Leader (stationed on the Nishin
Maru) to be affecting the sighting activities of a vessel on an
adjacent trackline, then the affected vessel would stop and
wait until those activities were over (or no longer considered As in any survey, poor weather and other factors can
to be within the surveyable strip of the affected vessel), affect the cruise schedule and may lead to some planned
before resuming effort. Given this additional information tracklines in an area not being.completed. Occasionally this
(more fully explained in SC!D06/J2), no further analyses occurred in the JARPA surveys so that, for example, only
were specifically recommended at this stage. Nevertheless, the tracklines in the western part of a stratum were covered
it was noted that an empirical way of examining the existing and not tho se in the eastern part. Whilst extrapolation into
.data to seef these activities might be problematic would be unsurveyed areas is not generally desirabl, when looking at
to check that sightings on the three SSV tracklines were trends in abundance it is helpful to do so for comparable
located in three (along-trackline) distance bands (in front, in areas. The Workshop recommended that where such
between, behind) in equal proportions in the presence of (primarily E-W) extrapolations are necessary, the ratio of
chasing/sampling on an adjacent trackline. density in the unsurveyed area to the surveyed area be
The general question of responsive movement to vessels calculated from data in other years. The productof this ratio
was alsoraised.The Workshop agreed to refer this matter to and the density in the surveyed area in that year would be
the IA sub-committee as it was relevant to estimating minke used as the estimated density to extrapolate into the
whale abundance for both the IDCR/SOWER and JARPA unsurveyed area in that year.
surveys.
ANALYSIS USING THE SAW·TOOTH TRACKLINE DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVE STRIP WIDTH AND MEAN SCHOOL At the 2006 Annual Meeting, the Committee had
SIZE FROM THE SSV DATA recommended that the saw-tooth trackline design employed
The analyses in SC!D06/J6 had pooled across the three SSV in some southern strata be examined. In particular, it had
tracklines for estimationof effective strip width and mean considered that design-unbiased estimates would be
school size.Although recognising that the rotation of vessels obtained from the N-S transects and that as a sensitivity test,
between these tracklines would help to 'average out' any estimates from these transects alone should be compared
potential vessel effect, the. Workshop recommended that with estimates from all saw-tooth transects (i.e. using those
sensitivities to this pooling be investigated. Furthermore, constructed. at an angle to the next planned waypoint as
because of the rotation, not only should a potential vessel well). SC!D06/J6 reported the results of this sensitivity
effect be examined but also a potential 'transect effect'. analysis, which somewhat counter-in tuitively seemed to
These sensitivity tests are considered particularly important indicate that estimates using all transects were all
for effective strip width estimation and less so for the appreciably and in most cases significantly less than for the
estimation of mean school size. N-S transects only (table 4 of that document). Noting
concerns about a reduction in precision using the data from
EXTRAPOLATION INTO UNSURVEYED AREAS the N-S transects alone, the authors of SC[D06/J6 concluded
As reported under Item 2.2.3, the Committee had that it was bettero use data from all transects.
recommended at the 2006 Annual Meeting that abundance Ishikawa (Cruise leader on several JARPA surveys)
estimates be based only on the ice-free areas within a commented that JARPA adopted both the saw-tooth design
surveyed stratum (so that when converting density estimates 'and IDCR/SOWER design tracklines in the southern strata
to abundance estimates, areas covered by ice were and the latter had been introduced in the complex region
excluded). As part of the analyses presented in SC[D06/J6, where the ice-edge could be changing substantially, such as
this issue was specifically examined. Abundance in the in the Ross Sea, adding that all tracklines were implemented
unsurveyed area was in fact estimated using densities in conformity with the protocols (i.e. trackline construction
estimated from the northern stratum. The Workshop noted was not arbitrary even in 'difficult'regions). Nevertheless, it
the process which led to these areas not being surveyed, that was evident to the Workshop from examination of the .Plots
184 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 417
of tracklines that the practical logistics of designing were different from the previous five surveys in all these
tracklines real-time in complex regions where the ice edge categories. In Area V there was also a trend in the sequence
could be changing were so difficult that it was impossible to in which the strata were surveyed, with a different sequence
implement the saw-tooth design as intended in some years. .occurring particularly during the last three surveys. The ice
There was considerable discussion of this issue, during edge stratum (SW) was surveyed later (March) during the
which it became apparent that for some ice edge last three surveys than during the first five surveys
configurations, particularly the more complex ones (December-February); furthermore, he noted that coverage
frequently encountered inArea V,it was not necessarily true was relatively low during the last two surveys. The SE
that estimates using the N-S transects alone would be strat (R~oss Sea) was surveyed earlier during later
design-unbiased. The Workshop agreed that all transects surveys, and the extent of ice was high or medium during
would be useful at least in estimating effective strip width three of the last four surveys whereas it was low in all of the
and mean school size (and their variances). Howeverit was first four surveys. Given that minke whale density is
unable to resolve the issue of which transects to use for relatively high in the ice edge strata, he considered that
abundance estimation at this Workshop. In order to more changes in timing of the coverage of these strata could have
fully understand the results in Table 4of SC/D06/J6 and influence on the trends in.abundance resulting from the
their implications, the Workshop recommended that the JARPA surveys. Such changes can potentially confound
sensitivity analyses of ·sC/D06/J6 are repeated but with interpretatioof trends in abundance of any whale species
appropriate weighting of the data (e.g. in proportion to the from JARPA data if that species' density has some relation
number of sightings within a stratum), and/or by to the ice edge. He also noted that the large changes in the
bootstrapping (conditional on the totalnumber of sightings). extentof ice at the time of the surveys changes the size of
These new analyses should also be categorised into the overall survey area considerably, with the survey area
'successful' implementation of the saw-tooth design and larger in Area IV but smaller in the Ross Sea in the more
'unsuccessful' implementation (i.e. situations where the recent surveys. This could influence absolute abundance, as
saw-tooth p~tte imnot clearly seen because of complex ice the proportionof minke whales south of 60°S (and therefore
edge configurations). Although recognising that this would in the study area at the time of the survey) could vary
be a substantial piece of work, it was also suggested that the according to the amount of open ocean available at that
data be post-stratified (for example into three bins) with time. He believed that it was important to try to determine
distance from ice-edge, andre-analysed. Noting that it is not methods to account for such changes in the sequence and
necessary to have results from every year of the JARPA timing or the survey of the southern strata.
programme to look at trends, a further possible pragmatic The Workshop noted that given.the lack of time, it was
way forward suggested was to use only those surveys where not possible to discuss the review in any detail. It was
the saw-tooth design was subjectively considere!l to have agreed to append an abbreviated version to the present
been successfiilly implemented. report as an authored Annex (Annex F). Wade was
The Workshop recognised the progress that had been encouraged to present the full version or a modified version
to the Scientific Committee for consideration at the Annual
made with respect to obtaining abundance estimates from
the JARPA surveys but it believed that progress would Meeting, particularly by the IA sub-committee. The
probably have required fewer iterations if the Committee. Advisory Group established above to examine abundance
and analysts had adopted a more co-operative approach. estimates further would also consider these general issues to
Some of the additional work required has been due to either the extent possible in its intersessional work.
a misunderstanding of recommendations made by the Finally, it was noted that within the Committee, much
Committee or due to the lack of detail given in the time has been devoted to discussing potential sourof bias
Committee's report. It therefore agreed to establish an in estimating abundance and trend from IDCR/SOWER
Advisory Group (comprising Kitakado (Convenor), surveys. Many of the generic issues (i.e. those not related to
Butterworth, Hedley, Hakamada and Matsuoka) to facilitate specific IDCR/SOWER methodology) could also be sources
the undertaking of the recommendations given here (and the of bias for JARPA estimates, such as changes in the
recommendations made with respect to abundanceestimates locations of the ice edge, changes in the proportion of
and trends given elsewhere under Item 2). This group will animals south of the ice edge and changes in the proportion
work by email to ensure that the work to be done is fully of animals north <if60°S (Branch, 2006). The magnitude of
specified, review the results and if necessary suggest some of these biases could be large and in either direction
modification.s with a view to consolidated analyses being with resulting impacts on the estimates.
presented, ideally in time for consideration at the 2007
Annual Meeting. 2.4.2 Other species
Towards the end of the meeting, Wade reviewed coverage SC/D06/J7 reported information on current distribution
of strata and the sequence of surveys relative to the ice edge abundance for humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin
during JARPA. Some of these points had arisen during (Balaenoptera physalus) and blue (B. musculus intermedia)
discussions in the Workshop and sub-groups but there had whales in the Antarctic Areas HIE, IV,V and VIW, south of
not been time for full consideration. He noted that the 60°S. The sighting survey under JARPAwas designed as a
logistics of surveys in the Southern Ocean are difficult, large-scale and long-term monitoring exercise using line
particularly with regard to surveying along the ice edge. The transect surveys. As noted above, it was carried out in a
fact that the surveys take three to four months to be broadly consistent way every year alternating between
completed means that considerablechanges can occur in the Areas IV and V from 1987/88 to 2004/05 austral summer
location of the ice edge during the survey. In Area IV, there seasons. Sighting surveys were repeated in the same area in
the same month(mainly January and February) for 18 years.
were trends in (a) the timing of the survey of the ice edge
(i.e. southern) strata, (b) in thent of sea ice at the time For the whole period, a total search distance on primary
of coverage of the ice edge strata and (c) in whether a gap effort of 293,811 n.miles was achieved during 6,188 ship
occurred between the northern and southern strata. In days. The survey protocols were similar to those used
particular, the last three surveys (from 1999/00 to 2004/05) IWC/IDCR-SOWER surveys. Analyses were conducted
185Annex 113
418 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
using the program DISTANCE, taking into account the 2.5.1Minkewhales
suggestions offered in recent Committee meetings. The The extensive discussion of the abundance estimates for
largest concentration of humpback whales has occurred Antarctic minke whales presented under Item 2.4.1 is clearly
recently to the eastof the Kerguelen Plateau between.80° relevant to the discussion of the trends presented in
and 120°E, and the authors commented on apparent SC/D06/J6. Table 2 provides the estimates of trend and
latitudinal and longitudinal expansions of this area over associated confidence intervals from the JARPA surveys as
time.In general, fin whales were said to be more widespread reported in SC/D06/J6 (tables 8 and 9).
in Area V than Area IV. However, in recent years they have
alsobeen observed frequently in the western part of Area IV.
Furthermore, high density areas were observed to the west Table2
of the Balleny Islands and Kerguelen Plateau. Blue whales
EstimatesoftrendinabundanceofAntarcticminkewhales takenfrom
were widely distributed in the research area although no SC/D06/J6. .
apparent regional aggregation was evident. The eight full Area Estimate 95%CI Period
scale surveys in eachof Areas IV and V provided estimates
of abundance for these species with reasonable precision AreaIV -0.42% (-4.02%,4.59%) 1989/90-2003/04
given the relatively large numbercifsightings. The effect of Area V -1.5% (-4.91%,2.18%) 1990/91-20 04105
AreaJJJE+JV+VW 7.93% (-0.05%, 11.45%) 1989/90/91"2 003/04/05
survey mode on the estimates was examined by the authors. (35'E to 16S'E)
Sensitivity to alternate selection from tracklines in southern AreaVE+VIW -5.8% (-12.19%, 0.18%) 1989/90/91"2003104i05
strata showed that possible biases in estimates were very (J65'Eto145'W)
small. The resultant abundance estimates of humpback
whales were 27,783 (CV=O.I2) inArea IV in 2003/04 and
9,342 (CV=0.34) in Area V in 2004/05. Abundance
estimates of fin whales were 6,514 (CV=0.27) in 2003/04 The Workshop noted that the current confidence intervals
for the Indian Ocean stock and 5,241 (CV=0.38) in 2004/05 for the estimates of trend are relatively wide. These results
for Western South Pacific stocks, although it must be are, therefore, consistent with a . substantial decline, a
remembered that fin whales are mainly found north of 60°S. substantial increaseor approximate stability in minke whale
The abundance of blue whales for the whole research area abundan ce in these geographic areas over the period of
was estimated as 1,265 (CV=0.33). A total abundance JARPA. These trend estimates were based on abundance
estimate for fin whales based on the two recent surveys for estimates for which several important re-analyses and re
the halfof Antarctic Areas (35°E -145 °W) south of 60°S evaluations had been recommended, and these could lead to
was 12,000 (CV=0.22). The authors proposed a 'shift in changes to the point estimates and variance estimatesnoted
baleen whale dominance' from Antarctic minke to above. Given the importance of the recommended re
humpback whales in Area IV since the 1997/98 survey. analyses, the Workshop agreed that the estiates of trend as
As noted above, several suggestions and presented in SC/D06/J6 need to be re-evaluated once revised
recommendations had been made at previous IWC meetings analyses have been completed.
regarding the estimation of abundance as well as its trend
(e.g. see Item 2.2.2). The Workshop appreciated that the 2.5.2Other species
considerable amount of work had been undertaken in the SC/D06/J7 reported estimates of trends in abundance for
relatively short time available since the 2006 Annual humpba ck, fin and blue whales. For humpback whales, the.
Meeting. It agreed that a large dataset on distribution and annual increase rates from 1989/90 to 2004/05 seasons in
abundance for humpback, fin and blue whal es has been Area IV and V were estimated as 12.4% (95% CI=7.5%-
accumulated by sighting surveys conducted under JARPA. 23.4%) and 9.7% (95% CI=l.5%-18 .0%), respectively (i.e.
The Workshop noted that some of the points raised in the significantly greater than zero). Abundance estimates for
discussion of the Antarctic minke whale analyses are also humpback whales from IOCR/SOWER surveys, which were
relevant to the analyses of these other species. In the limited noted at the 2006 Hobart workshop as being broadly
time available for discussion, some specific points that comparab le to those from JARPA surveys (IWC, 2006b),
require further consideration were made, including the fact also indicated high increase rates for this species in both the
that in some cases the effective strip widths in some Areas. The authors suggested that the apparent habitat
strata/years were estimated to be rather small, indeed expansion of humpback whales to the south of the Antarctic
smaller than for rninke whales in the same strata/years . Circumpolar Current observed in Area IV might had been
Overall,the Workshop agreed that the abundance estimates related to high increase rates south of 60°S for humpback
provided in this paper represented useful steps forward in whales. A significant increase for fin whalesf 10.2% (95%
working towards acceptable estimates of abundance. It also CI, 8.9%-19.3%) was observed for the 1995/96 to 2004/05
agreed that the future work can best be facilitated by the period; an estimateof 7.4% (-1.4%:29.0%) was obtained for
Advisory Group appointed above. blue whal es from 1989/90 to 2004/05 in Areas IV and V
combined. Catch data showed that in summer fin whales
were once widely distributed from middle latitudes to south
of 60°S over a wide'longitudinal range; they concentrated in
2.5Estimate s of trends in abundance Area ill (between l0°E-60°E), in Area IV (between 80°E
In considering the issue of trends, the Workshop reiterated l100E), Area V (between 140°E-170°E) and Area VI
that any estimates refer to trends in the number of animals (between 170°W-150°W). During the Japanese Scouting
presentin a particular geographical area at a particular time Vessel (JSV) period, fin whales were rarely found south of
of the year and that this (given the discussion of stock 60°S. However, large numbers of fm whales have been
structure and mixing summarised under Item 3) is not observed south of 60°S during the JARPA period (1987/88-
necessarily indicative of trends in populations , although .2004/05) and the authors not ed that this change in the
abundance for one possible stock structure hypothesis (see distributional pattern might bias thencrease rate estimated
Item 3) is presented. as a measure of that for the population as a whole. They also
186 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 419
commented that the point increase rate for blue whales for data provided any evidence of stock level differences
the JARPA survey is similar to that obtained using the between minke whales in Areas IV and V. Subsequently,
IDCR/SOWER data for the whole Antarctic pooled (7.8%) JARPA samples were used in genetic studies (mtDNA)
(Branch and Ensor, 2004). Finally, they noted that the which suggested substantial genetic heterogeneity in Areas
present estimates of absolute abundance show that the blue IV and V and some stock structure hypotheses were
whale remains well below its pre-exploitation abundance. proposed, which were not consistent with the current
The Workshop welcomed the information presented in boundaries of Areas IV and V.Results were presented and
SC/D06/J7. It drew attention to the comments made during discussed during the JARPA review meeting in 1997. That
the discussion of trends for Antarctic minke whales (Item meeting recommended that additional analyses be
2.5.1), many of which are also applicable to these other conducted (in addition to mtDNA) and the possibility of
species. Discussion focussed on the trends reported for different stock structure than implied 'by the traditional
humpback whales. The Workshop noted that there have been management ·areas was not discarded. Subsequently, in
reports of recent increases of humpback whale numbers 1997, the Scientific Committee recommended that several
from studies on the breeding grounds, feeding grounds and tasks be completed to improve understanding of stock
migratocy corridors. This was discussed extensively at the structure (IWC, 1998b). In reviewing the results on stock
2006 Hobart Workshop. Regarding the estimation of trend, structure derived from JARPAin 2004, the Committee noted
the Workshop recommended further refinement of the that onlypreliminacy conclusions can be drawn at that time
linear model, as discussed for minke whales, by and that more concrete conclusions will be able to be made
incorporating process error as well as a trend parameter, an following the completion of additional analyses. It further
area effect and examination of survey sampling error. This supported the suggestion that additional analyses using
model should also allow estimation of the additional alternative groupings and analytical methods should be
variance, which might lead to better estimation of the conducted (IWC, 2004b). Consequently the JARPA stock
uncertainty of abundance estimates from feeding ground structure study was extended by the use of several biological
surveys. markers, both genetic and non-genetic, and a more detailed
The Workshop noted that the estimates of increase rate grouping of samples.
and associated precision for humpback whales from the
JARPA surveys•would change when abundance estimates 3.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review
were refined in the light of the recommendation above. It 3.2.1Stock definition
noted further that the precision of these estimates is During the 1997 meeting the Committee had agreed that the
appreciably less than those from coastal surveys; this is as tolack of a working defmition of stocks and sub-stocks is a
be expected, as spatial movements from year to year would ·general problem, not for JARPAalone, and therefore needed
be greater on feeding grounds than in the migration corridor. to be addressed by the Committee (IWC, 1998b). The
Turning to the fin and blue whale estimates, the Workshop Committee consequently established a Working Group on
recommended that refinement of the method for estimating Stock Definition, where this particular topic is discussed
be applied also to fin and blue whales. It emphasised annually. However, the Committee has not yet reached
trend
that overlap between areas surveyed and distributionof fm agreement on the defmition of stocks for management
whales be carefully considered. It noted that the wide range purposes. In discussion at this Workshop, a question was
of the 95% CI for the increase rate for blue whales arose raised about the consideration of 'soft' boundaries, and it
from one particular influential abundance estimate, deletion was reported that this had not been dealt with specifically by
of which would greatly improve the estimated 95% Cl. that Working Group, but reference was made to the
'TOSSM'approach (IWC, 2007c).
However, considering the wide confidence intervals, it
remained difficult to identify a clear trend for fin and blue
whales from the JARPA surveys. 3.2.2 Statistical analysis ofmtDNA data considering the
The Workshop agreed that the details of the improved inclusion of school size as a covariate
analyses.be considered by the Advisocy Group established Analyses considering the inclusion of school sizes as a
under Item 2.4.1. covariate in the mtDNA survey were carried out by Pastene
and Goto (1999). Results were presented during the 1999
3. STOCK STRUCTURE (ANTARCTIC MINKE SC Meeting (IWC, 2000a). These authors found no
WHALE) significant differences in haplotype frequencies among
different categories of school sizes.
3.1 Background
The Workshop noted that the study on stock structure in the 32 3 Pilot study on nuclear DNA analysis on JARPA
Antarctic minke whale was conducted under the JARPA minke samples
research objective 'elucidation of the stock structure of the Studies on stock identity in JARPA based on nuclear DNA
Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock markers (microsatellites) startedin 1998 and preliminacy
management'. Information on stock structure is important results were presented to the 1999 Committee meeting (Abe
for (a) the estimation of biological parameters, which should et al., 1999). Currently all samples taken by JARPA have
been examined with a set of six microsatellites (see
ideally be carriedout on the basis of biologically identified
stocks and (b) the future application of the multi-stock rules SC/D06/J9).
of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) (IWC, 1994).
When JARPAsurveys began in IWC Antarctic Areas IV and 3.2.4Effort to obtain biological materials for genetic
V in 1987/88, the assumption was that these two Areas were analysis from low latitude areas of the Southern
occupied by different genetic stocks. At that time there was Hemisphere (potential breeding grounds) and compare
with feeding ground data
little scientific evidence supporting such an assumption. At
the time of the 1990 Comprehensive Assessment (IWC, Results of a survey of biological materials from minke
1991) none of the molecular genetic techniques nor any of whales from low latitude institutions of the Southern
the non-genetic techniques that examined past commercial Hemisphere were presented to the 1996 Committ ee meeting
187Annex 113
420 REPORT OF THE INTERSE!!SIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
(PNC, 1997b); apart from the Brazil region, no other relationship between sample size and power for these
comprehensive materials of the Antarctic minke whale from analyses. Pastene indicated that a preliminary study had
low latitudes were available. Pastene reported that 61 been undertaken, and agreed that further analyses would be
samples from Brazil had been compared with 119 samples useful. It was suggested that in addition to genetic studies, it
from combined Areas IV and V in a mtDNA control region would be useful to include potential alternative stock
sequencing analysis, and no significant differentiation was markers such as stable isotopes (e.g. carbon, oxygen,
found based on KsT(Pastene et al., 2007). Of interest for the hydrogen and strontium). Aguilar noted that pollutant
JARPA studies are the materials from low latitudinal areas markers may have limited power in the Antarctic, as this
of the eastern and western side of the Indian Ocean and the habitatis far from the point sources of pollution.
western sideof the South Pacific Ocean. Japanese scientists
have been infonned of a collection of 200 baleen plate
samples of the Antarctic minke whales taken in Durban, 3.4 Data analysis methods and results
South African (western part of the Indian Ocean). These 3.4.1 Genetics
samples have been stored in formalin for some decades. SC/D06/J09 investigated stock structure of Antarctic minke
Effort is beingade to develop suitable genetic techniques whales in the feeding grounds using mtDNA restriction
to examine such samples. Hoelzel noted that it is the acidity fragment length polymorphism (RFLP, six restriction
of fonnalin that degrades DNA, and that buffered solutions enzymes) and microsatellites (six loci).amples used were
preserve DNA better, although useful DNA can sometimes obtained during JARPA surveys from 1987/88 to2004/05
be extracted even from unbuffered formalin (dependent in austral summer seasons in Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW.
part on the age and penneability of the samples). Samples were grouped into six longitudinal strata used by
JARPA surveys: IIlE (35°-70°E); !VW (70°-l00°E) (north
3.25 External morphology/morphometry analyses and south); IVE (100°-l30°E); VW (l30°-l65°E); VE
Morphometric analysis to examine stock structure had been (165°E-l70°W) (north and south) and VIW (l70°W-
conducted using allAntarctic minke whale samples takenby 1450W). Both genetic approaches showed substantial spatial
the JARPA (see SC/D06/Jl0 below). genetic heterogeneity among the strata. For both genetic
markers, whales in the most distant geographic strata!liE,
3.3Data collection methods and results IV and VE, VIW, respectively) were differentiated
Samples of Antarctic minke whales for studies of stock genetically.The authors noted that mtDNA was better able
structurewere taken along pre-defined track-lines covering to detect structure in the middle longitudinal strata. Results
both offshore and ice-edges regions (seeC/D06/J2). From were consistent with the hypothesis of at least two stocks,
1987!88 to 1991/92 a maximum of iwo whales were taken possibly related to proposed breeding areas in the Indian and
randomly from primary sighted school within 3·n.miles of western South Pacific Oceans, respectively.he pattern of
the track line by SSVs (see SC/D06/J2). From 1992/93 only spatial differentiation found provides little support for IWC
one whale was randomly sampled regardless of school size. stock boundaries for Areas ill, IV,V and VI. The dispersal
The rational for this change was that the sampling then pattern of males and females in the feeding grounds was
covers all schools·sightedby the SSVs. The objectives of similar according to the mtDNA analysis, which is
JARPA relative to stock identification included both genetic consistent with the previous view on whale longitudinal
and non-genetic techniques. As a result the following movement based on mark-recapture analysis. The
samples collected as part of JARPA ·(sample size in microsatellite heterogeneity tests suggested more structure
parenthesis) are particularly relevant to stock structure in females than males. However no significant differences
studies: were found when the allele frequencies of males and
(1) liver, heart, muscle, kidney (6,777 samples each)and females were compared in each of the strata. The authors
skin(6,77 tssu)s for genetic analyses; stated that the results of a fine-scale mtDNA analysis
suggested a stock division in the longitudinal sector 150-
(2) standard body length plus 19 additional body 1600E and that the possibility an area of mixing of stocks
measurements for morphometric analysis (6,777); around that longitude cannot be discarded. They noted that
(3) photographs of dorsal surface, dorsal fm and flippers for
morphological studies(6,777); and site fidelity to particular areaskrill concentrations could
(4) external and internal parasites occurrence observed explain the spatial segregationf stocks of Antarctic minke
whales in the feeding grounds.
(6,777). , In discussion, Pastene noted that an earlier analysis
Infonnation on other data can be found in Annex D. (Pastene and Goto,l997) based just on mtDNAancj smaller
While this represents an extremely large and sample sets.had suggested population structure that is no
comprehensive dataset for the feeding grounds, it was noted longer supported..He also indicatedthat independence with
that th~ lack of samples from the breeding grounds respect to linkage disequilibrium had been tested. The
precluded descriptionof this as a completely comprehensive Workshop noted that for many relevant analyses, power is
dataset for stock structure analyses, given the importance more effective!y increasedby an increase in the number of
such samples for a full interpretation of stock structure (andpolymorphic markers used, and Pastene reported that further
see Item 3.5 below). This applies to studies on stock microsatellite loci would be includedin future. Given that
structure in any other baleen whale species. Pastene the sampling area is in the feeding grounds -and may well
suggested that the effect size for the Antarctic minke whale represent a mixed assemblage of stocks, it was noted that
is low, and therefore a large sample size is necessary. While clustering methods based on individual genotypes, that
this may be the case it was also noted that the apparent low avoid a priori assumptions about population boundaries
effect size may simply reflect mixing. It was further noted may be usefully applied. Further, methods such as MDS
that aower analysis should be undertaken to determine the (multidimensional scaling) or PCA (principal component
analysis) were recommended, as assignment methods
2Oneskin tissue samplecOllectedfromone individualtakenbutlost based on violat of eqtui~brium assumptions (such as
during transportation to the research base vessel. STRUCTURE) may have too little power.
188 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 421
With respect to the area of transition,it was sugg_estedthgenetic analysis. Significant differences were found for this
methods that address the question of isolation by distance biological parameter among the geographical strata
(such as spatial autocorrelationandMantel tests) wouldhelp examined, which rejected the scenarioof a single stock in
.resolve the position and nature of this transitional patternthe research area. Whales in the western strata (IliE, IVW,
was further suggested that other analyses based on IVE, VW) are significantly larger than those in the eastern
individual genotypes, such as landscape genetics as assessedstrata (VE, VlW) for both sexes. Results were consistent
in the program 'alleles in space' (Miller, 2005) may help with the hypothesis of at least two stocks in the JARPA
resolve the patternof structure and mixing (though this research area, possibly relatedto the proposed breeding
would likely require 15+ microsate!lite loci to provide areas in the Indian and western South Pacific Oceans.
sufficient power).Hoelzel related a relevantexperience with There was some discussion about the potential that this
'the analysis of minke whale population ·structure in the could instead reflect the age structureof the respective
North Atlantic whereby analyses based on individual populations. To address this, it was noted that most of the
genotypes (in this case using likelihood assignments fmal body length is reached by sexual maturity, and that
implemented in the program Geneclass) revealed structure much of the subsequent growth is with respect to increased
that could not be detected using Wright's inbreeding girth.It was also hoted that length could reflect differences
coefficients (such as FsT) o~ exact tests. SCJD06/J9 in nutritionr other environmental factors.
indicated heterogeneity by year, and it was suggested that
these anomalous samples be investigated further as this 3.5 Synthesis
could conceivably be indicative of breeding stocks thatwere SC/D06/JI2 provided an overview of the studies on stock
at other times obscured by more extensive mixing. structure in the Antarctic minke whale with the~os ef
Schweder suggested that the transitional area be studied by establishing aplausible hypothesis for the stock structure of
fitting a mixing model where the fraction of whales this species in the JARPA research area (Areas IliE-Area
belonging to one putative population is a function of the VIW). Studies on stock structure started at the end of the
longitude at which it was sampled. This could be a simple 1970s and results were reviewed by the Committee during
logistic regression model coupled with two-product the Comprehensive Assessment in 1990 (IWC, 1991). All
multinomial models describing the allele frequencies in the the analyses were conducted using samples and data from
two putative stocks either side of the'transitionarea. It couldmmercial pelagic whaling in the Antarctic. Most genetic
also be extended beyond two populations, andinco~orate studies were based on allozymes although some studies
both genetic andmo~hometr data. based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA were conducted.
The Workshop stressed the importance of obtaining Most of these analyses involved small sample sizes from
samples from the breeding areas, noting the potential Areas IV and V only. Non-genetic studies reviewed in 1990
problems with inte~re thinresults of mixing models involved mmphology, catch and sighting d istribution
without this. Given laof knowledge of the location of the pattern, analysis of Discovery marks and ecological
breeding areas, !he value of satellite tracking studies was markers. Results from the different approaches failed to
emphasised. The question of the existence of historical/ identify unambiguously any isolated population in the
archive samples for the potential extensionf the analyses Antarctic. Ecological markers were identified as a
geographically, and to enable further comparisons among potentially usefl approach. Analysis of sightings data
years (especially over a longer timeframe) was raised. An suggested the occurrence of five breeding areas. Studies on
initial enquiry indicated that at least of these samples stock structure underJARPAbegan after the Comprehensive
are still available.Goto and Pastene reminded the Workshop Assessment. The author believed that samples taken by
that in 1998 the Committee noted that because the JARPA were more useful for studies on stock structure
commercial catch had been mainly near the ice edge, the given the wider geographical coverage of the surveys and
analysis of past commercial catches would not be because minke whales were taken along tracklines in a
particularly useful for stock identification (IWC, 1999, randop1mode design. Initially, the JARPAstudies on stock
p.25). structure were based on mtDNA and considerable genetic
heterogeneity in Areas IV andV was found. More recently,
3.42 Morphometries and morphology the total minke whale samples taken by JARPA in Areas
SC/D06/Il0 provided a comparison of mo~holog baysed IliE,IV, V and VIW have been examined using different
on 10 external measurements from 2,629 male and 1,803 analytical approaches (genetics and non-genetics) using
female mature Antarctic rninke whales undertaken across similar groupings. In general, the results the different
the JARPAresearch area. Males and females were separated approaches were inconsistent with the single stock scenario.
into two groups at 130°E and 165°E, respectively. Some The author concluded that the results of the different
concerns were expressed about the fact that not all approaches were consistent with the occurrence of at least
measurements were included in the comparisons, and that two stocks in the research area, probably related to the
the sex ratio varied between areas. This was explained by breeding areas in the eastern Indian Ocean and western
South Pacific suggested by previous sightings data. The
noting that some measurements were difficult or unstable
when assessed by different researchers, and therefore author proposed that these be termed the Eastern lndilln
excluded. The Workshop agreed that finer scale geographic Ocean Stock (!-Stock) and Western South Pacific Oceari
analyses would be worth undertaking in future. The broad Stock (P-Stock). In order to estimate biological parameters
consistency of the morphological and genetic data was in JARPA, he proposed that a boundary between I and P
noted, and it was suggested that they be investigated Stocks should be adopted at thedivision betweenAreas VW
together. andVE (165°E). This is consistent with the results of mark
SC/D06/Jl1 investigated stock structure in the Antarctic recapture that showed marked movements of whales
minke whale in the feeding grounds by examining body between Areas IV and VW. Although the most recent
length of physically mature whales based on samples analyses indicated that whales in Area IIIE belong to the I
collected during JARPA surveys from 1987 /8~ to 2004/05. stock, other analyses suggested some degree of
Grouping of the samples was the same as that used in the heterogeneity between Areas ill and IV. Therefore the
189Annex 113
422 REPORT OF THE !NTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
possibility,of additional stock structure in Area ill (e.g. the possibilitYof estimating Maximum Sustainable Yield Rate
occurrence of animals from the western Indian Ocean (MSYR), an important parameter for the RMP, from catch at
breeding ground) should be investigated in the future. The age data. Other parameters such as recruitment rate, age at
author noted that any stock boundary (or sectors of mixing) sexual maturity and reproductive rates are also potentially
among stocks in the Antarctic should be considered to vary useful for stock management and could contribute to
according to oceanographic conditions, which in tum improving Implementation Simulation Trials for the RMP.
controls the distribution of the key prey species of the At the JARPAreview meeting in 1997, it was agreed that,
Antarctic minke whale, the krill. He finally identified although not required for management under the RMP, the
several future research needs for stock structure studies. information presented provided valuable ·information on
The Workshop welcomed this review, and with respect to Tecruitrnent, natural mortality, decline in age at sexual
stock structure studies, recognised the very <;onsiderable maturity and reproductive parameters in Areas IV and V.
amount of work undertaken since the mid-term review and However, that meeting had also recognised that there some
the progress that has and can be made given the data
unsolved problems in the analyses and that further analysis
collected. Based on the analyses of the genetic and was necessary, for which some recommendations were
morphometric data presented, it agreed that there are at least made (see below).
two stocks of Antarctic minke whales present in the IARPA
research area. The data do ilot support the current IWC 4.2 Issues raised in the 1997 JARPA review
management Areas. The data also suggest an area of In relation to biological parameters, the Committee
transition in the region around 150-165°E across which recommended a number . of tasks (IWC, 1998b, p.103, table
thereis an.as yet undetermined level and range of mixing. 2) of which the following relate to biological parameters:
Some of the genetic analyses suggest the possibility of
further subdivision (e.g. for microsatellite DNA data, (1) segregation study; and
pairwise comparisons for females showed heterogeneity (2) recalculation of biological parameters by biological
stocks (IWC, 1998b, p.103, table 2).
between illE and IVWS), and the Workshop identified the
need for further analyses of the existing samples (together 4.2.1 Segregation study
with available historical samples from commercial whaling,
but see comment under Item 3.4.1), related especially to A study on segregation was conducted in the context of the
new statistical analyses, genetic marker development, and distribution patternf minke whales in relation to the pack
additional non-genetic markers, to further assess the number ice edge. Results (Fujise et al., 1999) for Area IV were
reported to the Scientific Committee (IWC, 2000a, p. l68).
of putative stocks. Such analyses should allow a more The authors used regression analyses to suggest the
thorough specification of stock structure and the relative following segregation pattern:
. plausibility of different hypotheses. The Workshop
recognised that samples from the breeding areas (e.g. as (1) males (especially matures) predominated in the research
could be obtained through a combination of satellite area in all seasons although their proportion tended to
· tracking and biopsy sampling) would greatly facilitate these decrease with increasing latitude;
analyses, and are likely to be required to resolve issues (2) mature males tended to be found in larger school sizes;
relevant to stock structure and mixing within the JARPA and
research area. Analysis of historical samples (asavailable) (3) females (especially matures) tended to be found in the
from areas to the east and westof the study area may also be southern part of the research area.
useful towards resolving stock issues within the JARPA
research area, especially with respect to Areasll and VI. 4.2.2 Recalculation of biological parameters by biological
stocks
Many biological parameters were estimated on the basis of
4. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETER STUDIES proposed (SC/D06/Ji2) new biological stocks (the putative
4.1 Background I and P stocks with their boundary set at 165°E discussed
The original primary objective for JARPA, as specified in under Item 3). ·
SC/39/04 , was to estimate the age-specific natural mortality
coefficient for Antarctic minke whales (IWC, 1988), since 4.3Data collection and results
knowledge of this parameter was at the time considered to Following the cessation of commercial whaling, biological
be the key to determining the replacement yield rate and data and samples have been accumulated under the JARPA
hence important for the rational management of ~!arctic programme from 1987/88 to 2004/05 in Areas illE, IV, V
whale populations. After five seasons, a change in the and VIW. A total of 6,779 individuals, including 2 animals
immediate focus of the primary objective was reported, taken but lost in transit, were taken. Each whale was
from estimating the age-specific natural mortality to the examined in detail and a variety of samples were collected,
average natural mortality rate (IWC, 1993). The Scientific including:
Committee completed the RMP in 1992. Since the RMP
(1) body length measurements (6,777);
does not require biological parameters such as the natural (2) earplugs for age determinatin (6,777); and
mortality rate,M, Japanese scientists reconsidered whether (3) testis (3,636) and ovaries (3,151) for sexual maturity
or not the first objectivebe further modified. By the 1997
Workshop to review the results of JARPA to date, this status.
objective had evolved to the current 'estimation of the Other available biological samples and datacan be found in
biological parameters to improve the stock management of
the list of JARPA data (Annex D).
the Southern Hemisphere minke whale' (IWC, 1998b).
Hatanaka explained that Japan considered that estimation Reliability of age determination
of M was still useful for understanding the population The issue of the reliability of the age determination results
dynamics of minke whales, and therefore important for the arose in several contexts in the discussion of biological
management of whale stocks. Furthermore, there is the parameters. The catch-at-age analyses by Punt and
190 Annex 113
1. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 423
Polacheck (Polacheck and Punt, 2006) showed that there by catch location, which represent one stock structure
was an inconsistency in the age determination of younger hypothesis. The Workshop emphasised that there is no
animals between the commercial and scientific catches that .agreement yet that these represent valid stock designations,
can not yet be explained. Hatanaka and Kato noted that the but agreed that it was useful, for the purposef comparing
procedures had been much improved in the JARPA results ·from different data and methods, that the same
programme relative to the data collection from commercial partition was used for all analyses.
whaling.They believed that, atleast for theJARPAdata, the
age readings could be treated as reliable. A particular 4:4.1 Natural mortality
problem with the commercial data had been the large SC/D06/Jl3 derived estimates of the average natural
number of broken or incomplete earplugs:better handling of mortality rate of the.10+ population for the I and P stocks
the material meant that this rarely occurred in JARPA, and from JARPA abundance and age sample data, using the
that 85% readability had been achieved. The residual method originally proposed by Tanaka (1990). The estimate
fraction of unreadable earplugs was mainly due to the of annual mortality rate was 0.038 (SE=0.036) for the !
absence of a clear pattern of layering in those earplugs. stock and 0.040 (SE=0.035) for the P-stock. The method
Childerhouse asked what effect the residual proportionof uses both catch age composition and abundance estimates
·unreadable earplugs might have on the estimates of from the surveys, both stratified by stock are(I/P),school
biological parameters. This had not been assessed size (solitary vs. schoolsof size 2+) and sex. The method
quantitatively, but Butterworth considered that the estimates the decline in abundance of groups of cohorts over
unreadable earplugs would have to come from an extremely time: for example the 10+ population in 1990 becomes the
select component of the population in order to materially 12+ population in 1992, and the decline in their numbers
bias parameter estimates. represents natural mortality over 2 years. The authors
The Workshop noted that to date there were no readings considered thattheseestimates are valuable becausethey are
from known age animals with which to directly verify direct estimates from large scale surveys. The estimates are
earplug readings. Butterworth noted that for southern blue lower than the value of M used in the Implementati on
fin tuna, otolith readings had been calibrated with Simulations Trials and also that in the assessment by Hitter
radiocarbon signals corresponding to atomic bomb tests of runs (e.g. IWC, 1991). Use of these estimates will lead to
known date. Brownell recalled a paper (Bada and Brownell, some results different from those in the past and the authors
1996) where the bomb signal had been examined in a expected that will reduce the extentf uncertainty in M.
Bryde's whale sample in order to determine its year of In discussion, it was noted that the main contribution to
capture.The Workshoprecommended that the feasibility of the variance of the estimate is from the variance in the
detecting the bomb radiocarbon signal in earplug laminaebe abundance trend, and this limits the precisioof the results.
looked into. The high standard error implies that the confidence interval
The Workshop agreed that the earplug laminae probably extends from negative values to greater than 0.10. A much
were annual layers that were deposited independently of smaller standard error would be obtained if it could be
feeding, migration and other external factors, analogous assumed that ·the abundance had zero trend, but the
with tooth layers that are laid down in odontocetes even in Workshop agreed that this assumption should not be made,
populations that do not migrate. However, Aguilar pointed especially given that one of the original motivations for
out that accessory layers often occur which can confuse the estimating the natural mortality rate was to better determine
reader: because of this, experience and inter-reader ·the trend in stock size.
calibration are important. He suggested that there should be Cooke noted that the varianceof the age composition was
at least three readers, and earplugs or teeth that yield probably underestimated, because previous studies (e.g.
inconsistent results be omitted from the analyses. Cooke et a/., 1997) had shown that there is considerable
Kato drew attention to the inter-reader calibration study overdispersion in theage composition,even after stratifying
between himself, Ohsumi and Zenitani (Kato et al., 1991) by more covariatesthat had been considered in SC/D06/Jl3.
which showedgood agreement between experiencedreaders However, it was likely that the variance in the abundance
(Kato and Ohsumi) and a CV of age readings of only 6.6%. trend would still be the dominant factor.
Cooke recalled the analyses of Cooke et al. (1997) to the Cooke further noted that the very low precision of the
1997 JARPA review which showed notable shifts between estimate had been predicted in. the review of the initial
years, for example the Zenitani readings for the first two JARPA feasibility study proposal in 1987 (IWC, 1989), for
years of overlap were significantly lower than the Kato example as calculated in his document (Cooke, 1987). The
readings by 1.5years on average,while in the third year her authors of SCJD06/Jl3 responded that the precision was
readings were an average of 0.5 years higher than the Kato lower than had been anticipated at the start of the
readings. Kato explained that this occurred during the programme because: (1) the abundance data showed
training period, after which the two readers obtained considerable inter-annual additional variance in addition to
comparable results. the sampling variance of the abundance estimates, and this
Wall¢eand Ohsumi drewattention to thegood correlation was taken into account in SC/D06/Jl3; and (2) the data
between age readings and corpora counts in females shown showed that even with the JARPA sampling scheme, it was
in SC/D06/J17 (see Item 4.4.3). not possible to sample the younger animals representatively,
The Workshop recommended that the comparability of because they did not all migrate beyond 60°S; consequent
commercial and JARPA age data be investigated by re restrictionof the analysis to the0+ population diminished
reading a subset of the commercial samples in an the effective sample size.
appropriately designed blind test. The Workshop agreed that the metho_dused to derive the
estimates in SC/D06/Il3 was broadly valid, and in particular
4.4 Data analysis methods and results was free of assumptions about stock-recruitment
The Workshop noted that many of the results in this section relationships, but some members felt that the extremely low
are presented in terms of the putative I and P stocks (see precision meant that the resultas that the natural mortality
SC/D06/Jl2 and Item 3), by partitioning the data at 165°W rate had, for practical purposes, not been determined. In
191Annex 113
424 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
particular, even a zero value was not excluded by the JARPAalone.The additionalassumptions included: a stock
analysis. Butterworth countered that, prior to JARPA, the recruitment relationship; and alternative options for the
commercial whaling age data were suggesting an apparent · selectivitof the commercial age data.
mortality rate of around 0.14, but this was confounded with In analyses of catch-at-age data there are three factors that
a suspected trend in stock size. At that time, a finding that are confounded in the present context: (1) the natural
the true mortality rate was less than0.11 would have been mortality rate; (2) the past recruitment trend; and (3) the
regarded as very valuable information. selectivity slope. The role of the trend in abundance
In SC/D06/J14, the ADAPi'-VPA assessment provided by the sightings surveys in removing one element
methodology originally developed by Butterworth et al. of this confounding had been illustrated in earlier analyses
(1999b) was improved by taking into account various -presented on this issue (e.g. Butterworth et al., 1999a;Mori,
comments made during recent Scientific Committee 2006) but specification of the selectivity slope remained
discussions. It was applied here to abundance estimates influential. Butterworth drew attentionto the results of the
(from both IOCR/SOWER and JARPAsurveys) and catch sensitivity tests reported in SC/D06/Jl4 that showed iri
at-age data (both commercial and scientific) for the putative particular that it would require a very marked downward
I and P-stocks of Antarctic minke whales. The trend inselectivity of older animals in the commercial catch
improvements to the methodology reported at the 2006 to invalidate the finding of an increased recruitment trend
Scientific Committee meeting (IWC, 2007a) allowed prior to exploitation. Furthermore, the overall pattern in
account to be takenof various further aspects, primarily: (1) recruitment (rising from low levels to a peak in 1968,
inter-annual differences in the distribution of the population followed by a quick decline to lower levels and little change
between. different management Areas; (2) a stock thereafter) did not depend on the introduction of a stock
recruitment relationship; and (3) the effects of possible recruitment relationship into the estimation method, as
ageing error. Furthermore sensitivities to various functional previous analyses without such inclusion had provided
forms for selectivity and natural mortality with age were similar results.
explored. The general pattern shown by the results for both Some members expressed considerable unease arising
stocks was of aminke whale abundance trend that increased from apparent dependence of the finding of increasing
over the middle decades of the 201hCentury to peak at about recruitment before 1968 on the inclusionof the commercial
1970, and then stabilisedor declined somewhat for the next age data, especially in the lightof the problems with the
three decades. The recruitment trend was similar, although commercial age data (if taken at face value, these implied a
with its peak slightly earlier. The annual natural mortality sudden change in somatic growth when JARPA started). A
rate,M, was estimated to be 0.056 with a CV of0.16 for the sensitivity testin/006/J 14to exclusion of thefirst halfof
!-stock, and 0.069 with a CV of 0.15 for the P-stock for the the commercial age data reduced·estimated rate of increase
'reference case' assessments. When only the JARPA of the I stock from 0.057 to 0.014. Wade considered that if
abundance estimates are used for tuning, M is estimated as the change in age distribution from the commercial to the
0.038 and 0.060 for the 1- and P-stocks, respectively. The JARPA period is the factor that is driving the results, it
estimation of M is fairly robust to the various assumptions would place a major question mark over the results.
of the model. The CVs of these M estimates for the Butterworth argued that the problems found by Punt and
'Reference case'assessments, when compared with those of Polacheck with the commercial data applied only to
typically 0.35 for the Area-specific assessments of growing animals, whereas SC/D06/Jl4 had used the
(Butterworth et at., 1999b), which were based on fewer data, commercial age data only for ages 16+. Cooke responded
indicate an appreciable improvement in the precision of that Punt and Polacheck had only discovered the problem
these estimates due to the accumulation of data over the through the inconsistencies in the age-length distributions
long-term of the JARPA surveys. The fits of the stock for younger animals.Since length for older animals was not
recruitment model generally required a carrying capacity for a function of age, the problem would not be detectable in
minke whales that first increased and then stabilised or this wayfor older animals, even if they were also affected by
declined somewhat during the last century, and suggested it. It was, therefore, not safe to assume that the problem was
MSYR(t+)values in the 4-6% range. The improved precision restricted to the younger animals.
in the estimation of Mmay contribute to the improvement of Maunder considered that if the aging of the older cohorts
management and assessment of this species on a stock is acceptable, the trend in recruitment ought to be correctly
specific basis, since it can redthe uncertainty concerning estimated, but wanted to see what extent of bias or error in
the value of M and provide an improved prior distribution
agingcould accountfor the apparent trend. He asked to what
for MSYR. The latter in particular, in the context of extent the·precision of the mortality estimate depended on
providing a measure ofthe productivityof which the species the stock recruitment relationship. Butterworth replied that
is capable, is essential information for effective RMP the sensitivity to this could be checked by downweighting
implementation through reduction of the range of plausible its contribution to the likelihood. Maunder also considered it
scenarios which need to be considered in Implementation useful to determine to what extent the precision of the M
Simulation Trials. estimate,in this analysis depended on inclusion of the data
·The Workshop noted that SC/D06/J14 was an integrated from the lethal partof the JARPAprogramme, i.e. the catch
analysis that involved simultaneous estimati on of natural at age.
mortality and recruitment rates. It was discussed both under Implications of the 'reference case'results ofSC/D06/Jl4
this Item and under Items 4.4.3 and 4.4.4. are discussed further under Item 4.4.4.
With regard to natural mortality, discussion focussed on
how SC/D06/Jl4 was able to produce more precise 4.4.2 Growth curves and age at sexual maturity
estimates of M, and hence of other linked parameters, than 4.4.2.1 GROWTH CURVES
SC/D06/Jl3. Tha,tis, which additional assumptions or data SC/D06/Jl7 presented growth curves from JARPA data,
are driving the results.The additionaldata used were:(1) the stratified by the putative I and P stocks, sex and cohort
commercial age data; and (2) the IDCR abundance data, (grouped by decade). The results indicated that there had
which provided a longer time series of abundance data than been no discernible changes in growth rate over the JARPA
192 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 425
period. Data from the commercial period presented in whole period 1987/88-2004/05),but no significant trend for
SC/006/126 (reproduced from Kato, 1987) showed an the I stock. A summary of the fmdings of SC/D06/Jl7 is
apparent increase in growth rate from the 1940s through to given in Table 3.
the 1970s. The 1997 JARPA review had noted an apparent
In discussion, it was noted that in the JARPAdata, cohorts
discrepancy between the JARPA results and the earlier
prior to 1970are already at maximumbody length, such that results using commercial age data which implied a much
one would not necessarily expect an earlier increase in higher average age at transition phase for the early cohorts
growth rate to show itself in the JARPA data. Further than did the JARPAdata (IWC, 1998b). This had not been
analyses of growth r11teshad been presented to the 2006 investigated further, and in the analyses presented to this
Scientific Committee Annual Meeting in Polacheck and workshop, only the JARPAdata had been used.
Punt (2006) which showed an apparent sudden drop in The Workshop recalled the previous discussions of the
growth rates between the commercial and JARPA periods, Committee, including the workshop held in 1983 (IWC,
but the authors cautioned against taking these results at face 1984) as to whether the transition phase was an indicatorof
value because of unexplained residual features in the sexual maturity, and as to whether trends in the transition
commercial age/length data and the difference in sample phase readings reflected genuine trends in age at maturity.
size between the two data sets. The 1997 JARPAreview meeting had found that there did
seem to be a genuine decline over time, rather than merely
an age-specific effect, because later cohorts showed a lower
4.4.2.2 AGE AT SEXUAL MATURITY age at maturity than earlier cohorts, even when comparing
SC/D06/Jl5 provided an updated analysisof the trend in age animals of the same age (captured in different years).
at sexual maturity, using transition phase (TP) and age It was noted that even for older animals, there was not
readings from a total of 2,803 individuals collected during always a transition phase; this did not imply that these
1987/88 to 2004/05 under JARPA. The analyses were animals were not mature, but that for some earplugs, the
stratified by the putative I and P stock areas, and confirmed transition from the irregularly spaced younger layers to the
the previously noted decline from about 10-12 years in pre- narrower, evenly spaced older layers did not occurat a well
1955 cohorts to around 7 years in the late 1960s and early definedpoint but wasa more gradual transition, and in these
1970s cohorts, for both stocks. Since the early 1970s, the earplugs the readersfound it safer not to identify a transition
mean age at transition phase for both stocks has remained layer.
constant at 7-8 years or increased slightly from the early There was some discussion as to what event in the life of
1970s to the early 1990s cohorts. the animal the transition phase was measuring. Lockyer
SC/D06/Jl6 applied a model-based approach similar to (1972) had suggested it may be related to skull.growth. The
that of Thomson et al. (1999) to the transition phase data age at transition phase of 7-8 years in recent decades is
obtained from JARPA surveys to examine trends in the age consistent with the age at sexual maturity of females
atmaturity for the putative I and stocks ofAntarctic minke reported in SC/D06/Jl7. However, the transition phase
whales. The results, which take into account various occurs at a similar mean age in males and females, and the
potential biases related to examining trend in transition age at 50% maturity for males is much lower.
In discussion of SC/D06/J16, comments were made that
phase data (i.e. truncation and fringe effects, differences
between readers, and readers learning over time) suggest the analyses had compared the patterns based on retaining
that the age at maturityof Antarctic minke whales declined the observed trends in age at transition phase as a real
from about 11 years in the late 1940s to 7 years in the late phenomenon, versus the patterns expected if the change
1960s for both stocks, and that these declining trends are were a certain kind of artefact. The fact that the latter
statistically significantt the 5% level. The analyses also hypothesis did notfit the data well didot necessarily imply
suggest that the age at maturity increased slightly from the that the effect was real, althought was agreed that such an
late 1960s to the late 1970s and has stabilised thereafter. exercise involving an alternative hypothesis was useful.
These trends are broadly consistent with the results obtained Butterworth responded that the various kinds of artefact
from VPA (Mori, 2006), which suggest that for both the I suggested to date could sometimes explain a decline but it
andP stocks, abundance increased from the 1940stothe late was hard to see how they could ever cause an increase, as
1960s and thereafter has been stable or declined somewhat. has been observed in Icelandic fin whales and now in recent
This consisten cy enhances the confidence to be placed in years in Antarctic minke whales.
estimates of parameters (such as natural mortality and The consistency claimed by the authors of SC/006/116,
MSYR) from such VPA analyses that may be of value for between theage at-maturity trends and the resultsof catch at
management purposes. It also serves to demonstrate the age analyses (SC/D06/Jl6) is discussed under Item 4.4.4. ·
utilityof age-at-maturity asan index to monitor stock status,
and suggests that continued monitoring of this parameter is 4.4.3 Reproductive and sustainable yield rates
desirable both for this purpose and for contributing to the SC/D06/JJ7 examined pregnancy.rate data among mature
understanding of the dynamics of the Antarctic ecosystem. females.These averaged93% for the I stock and 85%for the
SC/D0 6/Jl 7 contained estimates of age at maturity based P stock. There were some fluctuations between years, in
on the fraction mature by age (for both sexes) and the aget particular low values (below 80%) occurred in 1997-99 for
fust ovulation for females. The age at 50% sexual maturity the I stock and 1990/91 and 1994/95 for the P stock.
for males was 5.3 years (I stock)or 5.4 years (P stock), and Regression of ovulation rate against age showed ovulation
for females 7.6 years (Istock) or 8.0years (Pstock).The age rates close to one per year (0.98 yr-•for theI sto and 1.01
at 50% physical maturity was 16.0 years (I stock) or 17.0 yr-•·for the P stock). Cohorts prior to 1970had been omitted
years (P stock for males, and 21.2 years (I stock) or 20.6 from the regression, to avoid the confounding effect of a
years (P stock) for females. The mean age at fust ovulation higher age at maturity in earlier cohorts.
was 7.9 years (I stock) and 8.4 years (P stock). There was a Without a more careful spatial and temporal analysis, the
significant decline in mean age at fust ovulations over the Workshop agreed that it was difficult to judge whether the
period for the P stock (O.llyr- /yr or about 1.5-2yr for the apparent fluctuations in pregnancy rate might be due to
193Annex 113
426 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSJONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
Table3
Summaryofbiologicalparameteresstimatedaccordingonestockhypothpresen att~dWorkshop.
!-stock (Area IIIE+IV+VW) P-stock (Area VE+VIW)
Male Female Female
Lengthatsexualmaturity(m) Lmov 8.40m &.30m
Lm50% 7.29m &.16m 7.17m 7.97m
Age atsexualmaturity tmov 7.9 8.4
tm50% 5.3 7.6 5.4 8.0
Length at physical maturity (m) 50%mature &.32m 9.12m &.22m &.13m
Age at physical maturity 50%mature 16.0 21.2 17.0 20.6
Growth curve y= 8.61(1-e"!'""·"'l y= 9.16(1-e<'-"'""""J y=8.45(I-e""'""·"'J y= 8 93l·e·(0 .2lx-+t:l.591)
Percentageof maturedfemalespregnant 92.9% 85.4%
Foetal sex ratio (male%) 51.8% 46.8%
Meanlittersize 1.007 1.013
inter-annual changes in population pregnancy rate, or 4.4.4 Synthesis of information on biological parameters
due to segregation of reproductive classes and from different sources
fluctuations in the sampling of each. Kato considered that SC/D06/J26 examined historical changes in the Antarctic
the JARPA pregnancy rate data indicated a genuinely high minke whale stocks based on various results obtained from
pregnancy rate in this species, and thatif pregnancy rate is JARPA including age at sexual maturity, growth curve,
density dependent, as some studies have reported for fin blubber thickness, prey consumption, and ADAPT- VPA
whales, it is probably currently close to its upper limit for analysis of the stocks as well as research on mercury
Antarctic minke whales. Clapham noted that this could accumulation etc. It was assumed that feeding conditions of
imply that the stocks are well below their carrying capacity the minke whale improved with the removal of large baleen
(K). whales such as the blue whale by commercial whaling,
The regression plots of ovulation were found hard to which promoted rapid growth and younger age at sexual
interpret without seeing the scatter around the regression maturity; however, around 1970, conditions gradually
line. Assuming that actual pregnancies cannot exceed one shifted unfavourably, resulting in slower ratesof change in
per year per individual, the scatter around the line would the foregoing parameters. These changes were then arrested
places an upper bound on the pregnancy rate consistent with by the 1980s to the 1990s. Observations reflecting these
these data.Only if thescatter is sufficiently small, would the unfavourable changes, were reductions in blubber thickness
results be consistent with averagepregnancy rates as high as and stomach content weight, which indicated less prey
those observed. consumption.There was also a decrease in the accumulation
In general, the Workshop agreed that the results of mercury, perhaps resulting from less prey consumption
confirmed the high pregnancy rates found in this species in (see Item 6.3.1). In addition, the authors noted that the
the previous commercial data, and correspond essentially to distribution areaof humpback and fin whales in the feeding
a !-year reproductive cycle. However, pregnancy rates are season expanded southward in the Antarctic from around
not necessarily well correlated with effective recruitment 1990,suggesting further deterioration of feeding conditions
rate (production of age 1 animals) because of potentially for the Antarctic minke whales. The apparent consistency
high losses before full term and in the first year life. betweenthe different trends was also noted in thediscussion
SC/D06/Jl4 presented an integrated analysis of catch-at sections of other papers to the Workshop,e.g. SC/D06/Jl6 .
age and abundance data, which provided estimation inter Discussion focussed on whether the apparent trends in
alia of the history of annual recruitment (production of aged various minke whale parameters were indeed consistent
1animals) to the stocks, and of the adult female stock sizes, with this general picture, also indicated by the results the
and hence also per capita recruitment. The analysis also .VPA-ADAPTcatch at age analysis in the manner suggested.
estimated the natural mortality rate, and the paper is To assist discussion, results from various studies were
summarised under Item 4.4.1, where some concerns are replotted to aid comparison as shown in Annex G. It was
discussed. The paper showed that per capita recruitment recognised that the projections back prior ·to 1950 were
rate (recruits per mature female) was apparently high at based on very few data from old individuals, and were
around 0.4 in the 1950s and early 1960s in both stocks, but largely model-driven. Discussion therefore focussed on the
declined thereafter to much lower'levels (0.1-0.2)by 1980 post-1950 period.
and has remained low since. The decline started about 1965 With respect to the apparent trendsinminke age maturity,
in the I stock and about1970 in the P stock. the transition phase data suggested a decline from around11
The Workshop noted that the analyses had assumed a years in pre-1955 cohorts to 7-8 years in post-1980 cohorts.
constant age at maturity throughout.If account was taken of The ADAPT-VPA analyses suggested that per capita
a decline in the age at sexual maturity as suggested by recruitment was high in the 1950s and 1960s but low post-
SC/D06/Jl5 and SC/D06/J16, then the mature female stock 1980.The age-lengthrelationship from the commercial data
would be lower in the earlier period and hence the estimated suggested higher growth rates in the post 1970-cohorts and
recruitment per mature female would have been higher. lower rates in thepre-1960 cohorts.
Butterworth explained that the estimates of Maximum The Workshop recognised that these results are in
SustainableYield (MSY)rates (4%-6%) werelargely driven apparent contradiction to the conventional expectation that
by .the estimated increasing trend in recruitment in the high ages at maturity and low somatic growth rates would
earlier years. Under the model, the stock needed to have a tend to be associated with low per capita recruitment rates,
high MSY rate to show such an increase. Hatanaka noted while low ages at maturity and high somatic growth rates
that the estimatesof MSY rate, if theyare reliable, would be wouldtend to be associated withhighper capita recruitment
very important for management. rates. In discussion, a number of alternative suggestions
194 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 427
(summarised below) were made to explain the apparent (2) a subset of the commercial age data could be re-read as
discrepancy, but in the time available it was not possible to discussed under Item 4.3.
evaluate them further, and in particular to compare the In summary, the Workshop concluded that there were
consequences of alternate VPA results to those of the differing views expressed about the level of reliability that
'reference case' in SC/D06/14 upon which these
comparisons were all based. could be assigned to the estimates of historical trends in
biological and population parameters of minke whales prior
(l) It was suggested that the paradox may be a temporal to the JARPA period. For the JARPA period, no marked
trends in biological parameters were found. The growth
phenomenon, in that the response of some of the rates were apparently fairly constant, while the pregnancy
indices, such as ageat maturity, may be subject to time rate remained high with some annual fluctuation. The
lags. However, WallS!lereported that studies of terrestrial
mammals showed that age at maturity expressed by transition phase data suggested a possible small increase in
cohort is determined primarily by nutrition very earlyn the mean age at maturity over the JARPAperiod, but the age
at first ovulation showed a decrease, at least for Phstock.
life, and considered it unlikely that this parameter would The natural mortality rate estimates from JARPA data alone
be subject to much time lag. (SC/D06/Jl3) , were, at around 0.04, within the plausible
(2) The concern was noted under Item 4.4.1 that the trends
in recruitment estimated by the ADAPT-VPA analysis range, but the confidence limits (from below zero to above
may be unreliable, because they seemed to depend on 0.10) spanned such a wide range that the paramet er is still
inclusion of the commercial age data, with which some effectively unknown. The ADAPT-VPA provided estimates
of natural mortality rates with a CV of about 0.15 but these
unresolved problems had recently been identified depend on the use of commercial catch-at-age data, about
(Polacheck and Punt, 2006). which, as discussed above, there are some problems.
(3) The question of whether the pre-1970 decline in age at
maturity indicated by the transition phase analyses was
real had been discussed extensively at the 1997 JARPA
5. MARINE ECOSYSTEM
review and in previous Scientific Committee meetings,
and some members still considered this to be an open 5.1 Background
question. However, others considered that the results of One of the objectives of the JARPA established in 1987 was
SC/D06/Jl6 and those of Thomson et al. (1999) had the 'Elucidationof the role of whales in theAntarctic marine
demonstrated that the declining trend had been real.he ecosystem'. In the 1996/97 research plan, this second
1997 JARPA review had reached a similar conclusion. objective was restated as 'Elucidationof the role of whales
(4) The reality or otherwise of the apparent somatic growth in the Antarctic marine ecosystem through whale feeding
rate increase shown by the commercial data had been ecology'.
questioned when it was presented to the Scientific The research plan concentrates on the feeding ecology of
Committee in the 1980s (IWC, 1990), and furthermore minke whales by the analysis of stomach contents and
the recently identified ·problems with the commercial blubber volume. Changes in prey availability and their
age and length data identified in (Polacheck and Punt, possible effects on minke whales are expected to be detected
2006) placed it in further doubt. Some members by monitoring the feeding conditions and consequential fat
considered that little weighte attached to these data. storage of minke whales.
(5) Some members considered that even though the pre- In the JARPA review meeting in 1997, the striking
1970 decline in age at maturity was hard to reconcile similarityin the results obtained from the three methods for
with the ADAPT- VPAresults, the slight increasing trend estimating the daily prey consumption was noted. That
in age at maturity post-1970 indicated by the transition meeting agreed that these estimates could be used with
phase data may be consistent with other data, such as confidence for the estimation of total prey consumption by
declining blubber thickness. However it was surprising the Antarctic minke whale. It also noted the decrease in
that,if the earlier decline had really been so large, the . blubber thickness since 1970s and it was suggested that,
later rise was not more pronounced, as the VPA among possible explanations, this might be due to changes
ADAPT assessment suggested that the stocks were now in food availability due to inter-specific or intra-specific
close to their current carrying capacity. addition, the competition. Such information could contribute to the
age at first ovulation appeared to have declined during specificationof a range of krill surplus hypotheses for use in
the JARPA period, at least for the P stock (see Item further Implementation Simulation Trials for the RMP.
4.4.2). Finally, that meeting suggested that elucidating the role of
whales in the marine ecosystem also requires concurrent
There was some discussion about the plausibility of the studies on the distribution and abundance of prey species.
ADAPT-VPA results that the carrying capacity K was
estimated to have increased about 5-fold prior to its peak 5.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review: Meso-scale
the 1960s. However, the issues relating to the highestimated survey plan
per capita recruitment rates pre-1960s relative to their The JARPA review meeting in 1997 suggested that
recent values could also be considered without reference to elucidating the role of whales in the marine ecosystem
K. requires concurrent studies ·on the distribution and
There was insufficient time to discuss in detail what abundance of prey species. It was also suggested that
analyses might resolve the questions, and the Workshop process-oriented studies would be useful which integrated
recommended that the matter be discussed further in the information from physical and biological oceanography
Scientific Committee. In the meantime, the following tasks with zooplankton and predator studies.
were identified as providing potentially useful information: In response to that suggestion, acoustic surveys for krill
have been conducted since 1998/99 and a cooperative prey
(l) the ADAPT-VPA could be run without using the species survey was conducted concurrently from 25
commercial age data; and December 2004 to 27 February 2005 (65 days) in the Ross
195Annex 113
REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
428
Sea and adjacent waters by RN Kaiyo-Mam of the Fisheries estimated prey consumption rates simply confirmed results
of previous analyses by Lockyer (1981) and Bushuev
Agency of Japan as part of the meso-scale survey
programme (see Item 5.4). (1986).
Some participants expressed their disappointment and
concern at how little analysis had been undertaken given the
5.3 Data collection methods and results enormous dataset available. The Workshop recommended
Data on the feeding ecology of the minke whale were that more sophisticated analyses should be undertaken that
obtained from the species composition and mass of stomach more fully utilise the considerable ·dataset available. The
contents. Body mass, length, girth and blubber thickness of following factors at least should be taken into ;1ccount:
each whale were also measured. The abundance of the
whales obtained from the sighting surveys was used to {I) determination of the duration of the feeding period is
extrapolate food consumption to a larger area. The Kaiyo fundamental to estimating total consumption and mu st
be adequately addressed;
Mant- IARPAjoint survey in the Ross Sea in 2004/05 was
designed as a multi-disciplinary study combining surveys on (2) examination at smaller spatial scales; and
cetaceans, laill and oceanography. During the multi (3) use of GLM or similar approaches to examine trends,
disciplinary study, the JARPAvessel conducted the cetacean incorporating covariates such as age, size and
sighting and sampling surveys while Kaiyo Maru conducted · reproductive status of whales as well as the date and
detailed oceanographic and cetacean prey species surveys. time of day.
Oceanographic data were collected using CTD and XCTD;
prey species data were collected using·the RMT 8 net (the It was also noted that since some whales are not killed
multiple rectangular mid-water trawl net) and quantitative ·instantaneously, they might vomit during capture. This
echo sounder. could be examined by comparing the stomach contents of
The following main types of data were collected for this whales killed instantaneously with those that were not killed
particular objective, with sample sizes as indicated: instantly. In response it was noted that although no
(1) stomach content weight: 6,777; quantitative analysis had been undertaken, scientists present
(2) stomach content (prey species): 6,777; had not observed this phenomenon.
(3) body weight: 6,491; SC/D06/Il9 examined annual trends in energy storage in
theAntarctic minke whale. The results of stepwise multiple
(4) blubber thickness: 6,777; and linear regression analyses swed that blubber thickness has
(5) diatom adhesion record: 6,777. been decreasing over the JARPA period at -0.019 0 em
Information on other data can be found in Annex D. year-•. Date, extent of diatom adhesion, sex, body length,
foetus length and longitude were all identified as partially
independent ·predictors of blubber thickness. Possible
5.4 Results explanations for this were discussed in the paper and the
54.1 Food habit and krill consumption of Antarctic minke authors suggest that this indicated that food availability for
whales. Antarctic minke whales in the Antarctic has decreased over
In SC/D06/Jl8, feeding habits and prey consumption of the JARPA survey period, presumably caused by either or
Antarctic minke whales were examined using stomach combination of intra- and inter-species competition among
content data collected inARPA.A total of ten prey species, baleen whales.
including one amphipod, four euphausiids ·and five fish There was considerable discussion of this paper.Although
species were identified. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) the authors' analysis as presented showed a declining trend
was the most important prey species throughout the survey in the blubber thickness measurement chosen, some
period. The results indicated that the timing of feeding had members argued that the conclusion of a trend in energy
strong diurnal variation with most feeding occurring at storage was premature and could not be confirmed until
night. The authors suggested that there had been a decrease improved analyses had been conducted. In particular this
in average mass of fresh stomach contents for mature males involves the examination of other factors including age,
and females from 1991-present. In Area V, there was same latitude, distance from ice-edge and non-linearity in trends.
trend for mature females. The daily prey consumption of In addition, even if it is assumed that the trend is real,
Antarctic minke whales was estimated using adirect method consideration should be given to whether the particular
(diurnal changes of stomach contents mass) and an indirect blubber thickness measurement chosen was actually a good
method (energy requirement). The results of daily proxy for energy storage (for example, lipid content can .
consumption estimates were similar for the two methods vary considerably without necessarily affecting the
and ranged from 2.6 to 5.0 % of body weight. The annual thickness of blubber).The Workshoprecommended thatthe
consumption of Antarctic krill from the 1990/2000season to analysis be expanded to incorporate, in an integrated
the 2004/05 season in Areas IV and V was calculated as manner, the other extensive information available from the
being equivalent to3-4% and 21-35% of the laill biomass, JARPA dataset that relates to energy storage (e. g. other
respectively. blubber measurements, organ Weights,etc.).
In discussion, the Workshop noted that the daily prey Tamura pointed out that the reliability of the body
consumption estimates presented in SC/DQ6/Jl8 were condition indicators of Antarctic minke whales was also
similar to those from North Atlantic common minke whales analysed using indicators such as girth, body mass and other
(Haug et al., 1995) and to those predicted by Lockyer measurements of blubber thickness by Konishi (2006), that
(1981).The issue of the specific method used to subsample paper was not presented to the Workshop.
stomach material, and whether this might bias the results There was considerable discussion over the authors'view
compared to larger prey items was considered. that a likely exp)anation for the results was that it reflected
Childerhouse believed that the key biological fmdings of declining body condition of Antarctic minke whales as a
the research did not represent an increase in knowledge, result of 'competition'. The differing views expressed can
namely that 99% of the minke whale diet is krill and that the be summarised as follows:
196 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 429
(I) the idea of interspecific competition between minke and critically important. The mechanism of the interactions
humpback whales is overly simplistic in the context of among baleen whales for krill should be tested using a
the rest of the Antarctic marine ecosystem (simply minimum realistic ecosystem model such as Mori and
because two species feed on the same species of prey Butterworth (2006).
does not mean that there is competition per se unless Some participants expressed particular concern that these
there is evidencethat species arefood limited) and isnot analyses ignored the many other important krill predator
supported by the data presented;or populations, as well as ignoring the substantial uncertainties
(2) as both minke and humpback whales are feeding on krill around krill biomass estimates, environmental controls on
in the same area, then competition ishappening defacto krill population dynamics and a number of other, what
- what is of importance, however, is to identify the they considered to be, prerequisites to demonstrate
extent of this competition relative to the other factors competition.
influencing the dynamics of the populations. · SC/D06/J23 also used data from the joint survey of the
R/V Kaiyo Maru and JARPA and examined interactions
SC/D06/J20 presented the results of a comparison between between oceanography, distribution of krill and baleen
the length-frequency distribution of krill in the stomach whales in the Ross Sea and its adjacent waters in 2004/05.
contents of Antarctic minke whales and from net sampling The results indicated close relationships between
using a multiple rectangular mid-water trawl oceanography, krill and baleen whales.he oceanography of
(RMT(l+8)M). Whales fed mostly on Antarctic krill in the surface layer was summarised as an oceanographic
offshore areas and ice krill (E. crystarollophias) on the environmental index that integrated mean·temperature from
continental shelfof the Ross Sea. For both species, there 0 to 200m in depth (ITEM-200). Distribution of ITEM-200
was almost complete overlap in the length-frequency was used as background information for comparing with ·
distribution from stomach contents and RMT net samples distribution patternsof each species. Antarctic krill were
(although it was noted that RMT nets do not provide an mainly found in the Antarctic Surface Water (ASW) area
unbiased sample). In the western slope area, the stomach (ITEM-200 = 0 to -1 °C) and extended into the Shelf Water
content weights of the minke whale were the highest (no (SW) area (less than -I C). Ice krill were widespread in
empty stomachs were found), indicating that the continental SW but not ASW. Humpback whales were mainly found.in
slope of the Ross Sea is an important feeding ground for the the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) waters with high
Antarctic minke whales. density around 0°C near the Southern Boundary ofACC and
SC/D06/J21 reported the results of krill biomass slightly extended in ASW. Antarctic minke whales were
estimation using a quantitative echo sounder onboard mainly found in ASW and SW with high densities around
Kyoshin Maru 2 (KS2) since 1998/99 season in JARPA.The -1 °C in the continental shelf slope frontal zone. The
survey covered the region 35°E-145°W using an EK500 interaction between distributions of krill and baleen whales
(Simrad, Norway) echosounder. Acoustic backscatterings with ITEM-200 provide quantitative information to identify
were identified as krill when the difference between the the boundary of distribution of Antarctic krill and ice krill
mean volume backscattering strength (ll.MVBS) of 120and for biomass estimation using acoustic data in the surveys. A
38kHz fell between 2 and 16dB. Similar biomass estimates conceptual model of the relationships between
were obtained in Area IV in the 1999/2000 (34.2 million t) oceanography relating water mass and circulation pattern of
and 2001/2002 (34.1 million t) seasons.In A-reaV,biomass the oceanic surface layer with ITEM-200, will be able to
in the 2000/2001 (20.7 million t) and in the 2002/2003 (22.6 describe adequately the distribution and abundance of krill
million t) seasons were similar but biomass in 1998/1999 and baleen whales.
(29.7 million t) was higher than the other two years. In The Workshop welcomed the multi-disciplinary approach
2004/2005, Kaiyo.Maru (KM) conducted a standardised presented in this analysis, noting that it provided a clear
krill biomass estimation survey applying methods adopted indication that there was oceanic habitat segregation of
by CCAMLR, using both RMT net sampling and acoustic ·Antarctic minke, humpback, blue and fin whales in the Ross
surveys. The other vessel, KS2, conducted only an acoustic . Sea partof the JARPAresearch area.
survey as in previous JARPAcruises. The resultsof biomass SC/D06/J24 reported on the results of the study .of
estimates for Antarctic krill from the t2o vessels were distribution patterns and biomass of Antarctic and ice krill in
comparable (KM 5.36 (95% Cl=7.45) gm- KS2;2.64 (95% the Ross Sea in 2004/5 using Kaiyo Maru-JARPA joint
CI=2.35) gm- 2). survey data. Ice krill were found on the continental shelf
SC/D06/J22 attempted to assess the magnitude of the region (<l,OOOmwater depth). In contrast, Antarctic krill
interspecific competition among three baleen whale species, were found mainly in the oceanic waters (depth >l,OOOm)
Antarctic minke, humpback and fm whales, for their major although they were also found on the continental shelf
prey, Antarctic krill. Whale abundance(s~ :C/De06/J6 and where the integrated mean water temperatures between 0-
SC/D06/J7) and daily krill consumption rate of Antarctic 200m were higher than -I °C. The distribution of Antarctic
minke whales (SC/D06/Ji8) and krill biomass minke whales was related to the distribution of Antarctic
(SC/D06/J21) were used. Daily food consumption of krill.School sizes of Antarctic rninke whales were large
humpback and fin whales (assumed as mature males) and where the densities of Antarctic krill were high. The
average body masses of those species reported in Trites and distribution of Antarctic minke whales in the Ross Sea could
Pauly (1998) were used. The authors reported that the three also be relatedto the distribution patterns of Antarctic krill.
baleen whales consumed 10-21% and 31% of krill standing The biomasses of Antarctic and ice krill in this study were
stock in Area IV and V,respectively. In Area IV,humpback estimated as 1.46(CV=0.32) and 0.82 (CV=0.18) million t,
whales (7-12%) consumed,krill twice to three times as much respectively. The authors suggested that Antarctic minke
as Antarctic minke whales (4%). In contrast, 21-25% of krill whales could be considered as a biological sampler to
biomass was consumed by Antarctic minke whales in Area monitor krill, which plays key role in the Antarctic
V.The authors suggested that in order to accurately assess ecosystem. They concluded that multi-disciplinary studies
the feeding impact of humpback and fm whales on krill, such as the Kaiyo Maru-JARPA survey can reveal the
long term biological data sets for those two species are ecological relationships between krill and baleen whales.
197Annex 113
430 REPO~T OF THE INTERSESSIONALWORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
SC/D06/J25 reported the results of examination of attributed by the authors to less prey consumption.
influential environmental factors on distribution patterns of Furthermore, the distribution of humpback and fin whales in
Antarctic minke whales at a small scale. At the JARPA the feeding season had expanded southward in the Antarctic
review meeting in 1997, it was suggested that small scale (of from around 1990, suggesting further deterioration of
the order of ten to one hundred kilometres) study of physical feeding conditions for Antarctic minke whales.
and biological oceanography with. zooplankton and The Workshop noted that in the presentation of
predators should be conducted to elucidate the role of SC/D06/J26, a general hypothesis of inter-specific
whales in the marine ecosystem (one of the main objectives competition had been used to provide a framework for the
of JARPA). This study was conducted in response to that analysis.
suggestion. Influential environmental factors on distribution In considering the synthesis of the different components
patterns ofAntarctic minke whales at small scale (30 n.miles of JARPA presented in SC/D06/J26, some members
segments) in the Ross Sea in 2004/05 were examined based suggested that this was simplistic and ignored many other
on the Kaiyo Maru-JARPA joint survey data using the components of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. They thus
generalised additive model (GAM) approach. Three abiotic believed that it was not particularly informative regarding
factors, distance from physical boundary (combination of what may have occurred.
coast, ice edge and shelf ice lines), integrated temperature Some members (Clapham, Gales and Childerhouse) noted
and salinity mean from surface to 200m (ITEM-200 and that demonstration of interspecific competition was not a
ISAM-200) as well as latitude and longitude were used as simple matter, and listed prerequisites derived from other
covariates in the study. The distribution of krill was ecological studies together with comments on how JARPA
described by ITEM-200 and ISAM-200 as well as latitude had addressed them: (!)that the species in question must be
and longitude. Me.ankrill density increased at salinity values "shownto be resource-limited (JARPA has not provided data
higher than 34.5. The results indicated that krill on total krill abundance and on total consumption by all krill
distributioncould be related to the presence of Modified predators); (2) that there must be substantial overlap in
Circumpolar Deep Water (MCDW). Distributions of spatio-temporal distribution of the two species (JARPA has
Antarctic minke whale schools were explained by krill shown this is some area.sbut found evidence for segregation
density and ISAM-200 as well as latitude and longitude. In in others); (3) other variables must be categorically excluded
contrast to krill, the distributions of Antarctic minke whales as causes of failure to recover (JARPA has not collected the
increased at salinity values lower than 34.4. The presence of data to address this); and (4) that both species must occupy
Antarctic minke whales could be related to Antarctic essentially similar ecological niches. With regard to the
Surface Water (ASW). The peak number of schools of 2 latter, they noted that the only directed study of this
Antarctic minke whales was observed around the lg m- of involving Antarctic minke whales (Friedlaender et al., 2006) .
krill density and it levelled off toward both lower and higher has shown strong evidence for avoidance of competition
densities of krill. The authors hypothesised that at the scale through niche separation. They also commented that the
of this study, Antarctic minke whales might not be directly term competition is consistently used loosely in JARPA, and
searching for krill aggregations but following the retreating was not defined; furthermore it was surprising that the
sea ice (low salinity water) where the occurrence of JARPA papers made no reference to the large body of
moderate densities of krill could be found with high literature on competition from terrestrial and marine studies.
probability.It is promising that distribution patterns of They concluded that conducting any investigation of
baleen whales in relation to environmental factors can be interspecific competition without reference to this body of
related if good data sets from multi-disciplinary studies are work almost guarantees that interpretation of results, and
available. However, the authors stressed that the modelling indeed of the study design itself, would be inadequate or
used in this study was preliminary and much improvement wrong.
is necessary Other members (Tamura, Fujise, Konishi, Murase,
The Workshop agreed that this approach could provide Ishikawa, Mori and Hatanaka) commented that the study
described in (Friedlaender et al.,2006) was conducted in
important information required for model-based estimation
of cetacean distribution and density in unsurveyed areas. April/June. This is much later than the peak feeding season
of these species and thus inferring that this also applies to
the peak feeding season required great caution. Further,he ·
study was conducted in Area I. The estimated annual rate of
5.5 Synthesis increase (ROI) in abundance for humpback whales in Area I
SC/D06/26 examined historical changes in the Antarctic is 4% while it is 15% in Area IV (part of the JARPA survey
minke whale stocks based on various results from JARPA area) (Branch, 2007). Given the differencesin area-specific
including age at sexual maturity, growth curve, blubber ROis, it is important to take into account the status of the
thickness, prey consumption , ADAPT-VPA analysis and populations in a given area when evaluating the extent to
pollutant (mercury) accumulation. It proposed the followin! which competition for limited resources is occurring. The
hypothesis of changes in the Antarctic ecosystem in the 20 results of the recent JARPA surveys suggested that the
Century: minke whale feeding conditions improved with the spatial distribution of Antarctic minke and humpback
removal of large baleen whales such as the blue whale by whales appreciably overlapped (Ishikawa, 2003; Ishikawa et
commercial whaling, which promoted rapid growth and al.,2004; Ishikawa et al., 2002). These direct observations
younger age at sexual maturity; however, around 1970, strongly suggest the possibility of competition between
conditions gradually became unfavourable, resulting in Antarctic minke and humpback whales for krill at the same
slower rates of change in these parameters. These changes spatia-temporal scale.
were then arrested by the 1980s-90s. SC/D06/26 further During the Workshop, several recommend ations for more
suggested that, reflecting these unfavourable changes, comprehensive analysis of the time series summarised in
blubber thickness and stomach content weight were reduced SC!D06!J26 had been suggested. For example, the
(indicating less prey consumption). There was also a Workshop agreed that a more complete analysis of energy
decrease in the accumulation of mercury which was also storage over time is required to evaluate the hypothesis of a
198 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 431
long-term decline (see recommendations above). The pertinent to recommendations 1, 4 and 5 of the Bergen
Workshop also recalled tile recommendation for further Workshop.
analysis of the stomach content mass data before any trend
analysis could be undertaken. ·
6.2 Data collection methods and results
Some members considered that the multiple strands of There is a close relationship between the data collected for
evidence, notwithstanding the recommendations for studies on the marine ecosystem and tliose r equired for
improved/reanalysis, were generally indicative and
provided support for the hypothesis of interspecific studies on environmental change. In addition to these, data
competition. However, other members considered that, have been collected on marine debris and body burdens of
pollutants, including organochlorines and heavy metals.
when considering the current state of the analyses and being Tissues samples, including liver, muscle, kidney and
aware of the considerable uncertainties involved, there was blub.ber have been collected for these analyses. Marine
not necessarily consistency in the support provided for the debris data have been based on visual observations, but
hypothesis of inter-specific competition outlined in
SC/D06/J26. recently the use of nets has been introduced to estimate
The Workshop agreed that it would be valuable to have prevalence of smaller items of marine debris. Air and sea
water samples have been collected to monitor pollutant
the opportunity to review the trends summarised in levelsin the environment. The main relevant data collected
SC/D06/J26 when the recommended analysis had been during JARPA are:
conducted, in order to formulate alternative hypotheses that
set the observed changes in the context of a broader suite of (I) blubber tissues for organochlorine analysis: 113;
indicators from the Southern Ocean. (2) liver tissues for heavy metal analysis: 1,072;
Finally, the Workshop agreed that the JARPA dataset (3) stomach content of Antarctic minke whales for heavy
provides a valuable resource to allow investigationf some metal analysis: 100;
aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem. (4) air samples for organochlorine analysis: 4; and
With appropriate analyses, this has the potential to make an (5) sea water samples for organochlorine analysis: 4.
important contribution to the Scientific Committee's work
in this regard, as well as the work of other relevant bodies· Oceanographic data have been collected from the JARPA
research area. Vertical oceanographic structure was
such as CCAMLR. In order to facilitate the comprehensive observed by using XBT (eXpendable BathyThermograph},
analyses that this dataset warrants, the Workshop strongly CTD (Conductivity-Temperature-Depth profiler) and the
recommended that an advisory group is established to work
co-operatively to guide such analyses. more recent XCTD (eXpendable CTD). XBT was mainly
used in the first stage of JARPA (1987/88-1996/97) and
XCTD was used from the late 1990s. Relevant data
collected during JARPA are as follows:
6. ENVffiONMENTAL CHANGE INCLUDING (1) XBT surveys: 916;
(2) XCTD surveys: 915;
POLLUTION (3) CTD surveys: 499; and
6.1 Background (4) EPCS surveys: 1,307.
As already noted, the 1995/96 research plan added the Information on other data can be found in Annex D.
following objective 'Elucidation of the effect of
environmental changes on cetaceans'. This objective was
added in response to resolutions adopted by the Commission 6.3 Data analysis methods and results
on research on the environment and whale stocks (IWC, 6.3.1 Pollution
I995b) and on the promotion of research on the SC/D06/J27 examined concentrations of Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu,
conservation of large baleen whales (IWC, 1995a). This Zn, Cd, Hg and Pb determined in Antarctic krill collected
objective is also related to the resolution on research oe.th from Areas ill, IV, V and VI, as well as their temporal and
environment.and whale stocks (IWC, 1996). spatial variations during the period 1989/90 to 1998/90.
In the Scientific Committee, environmental changes are Differences associated with body size were found for some
addressed under the following topics (IWC, 1995c): (1) elements and size groups. Although some temporal variation
global warming; (2) ozone depletion; (3) pollution; (4) was observed in some trace elements, concentrations of
direct (intentional and incidental mortality) effects of toxic elements (Hg and Cd) did not show any significant
fisheries and indirect (ecological ramifications) effects of variation ·through the study period. Changes within season
fisheries; (5) noise; and (6) other human activities (e.g. were only found for Cd. As compared to other regions,
tourism, coastal developments). The Committee had noted concentrations were low except for Cd, which showed
that it was not feasible to address all these topics relatively high values.
simultaneously; this would be a longer-term iterative project SC/D06/J28 examined concentrations of trace elements in
(IWC,.1995c). Given this, it was agreed that initially two the liverof 1,056 minke whales taken from Areas IIIE, IV,
specialised workshops should be held, one relating to V and VIW during the period 1988/89 to 2004/2005 and
chemical pollutants and cetaceans, and the other on potential their variations in the liverof Antarctic minke whales.
ecological effectson cetaceans of climate change and ozone Levels of all elements except Fe were overall low and
significantly lower than those in cetaceans from the
depletion. The former Workshop was held from 27-29
March 1995 in Bergen (Reijnders et al.,1999b), and the Northern Hemisphere, which the authors took as an
latter Workshop was held from 25-30 March 1996 in Hawaii indication that whale health was not affected. Age- and sex
(IWC, 1997a). These meetings emphasised that studies related differences were observed for some elements. A
related to such topicshould be conducted in the Antarctic. decrease in Hg levels in the juvenile class (1-15 years old)
· At the JARPA review meeting in 1997, reference was was proposed to occur through the study period and the
made to the recommendations of the Bergen Workshop; it authors attributed this to adecrease food intake rates since
was considered that the pollutant studies under JARPA were the mid-1980s.
199Annex 113
432 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
There was some discussion on this hypothesis and several fidelity. Marked differences were foundEJetweenwhales in
members considered that the apparent decrease might be Areas IV and Vfor both mtDNA andmicrosatellites, and the
either an artefact or due to other biological factors not same pattern was found for both sexes. Resultsof the other
necessarily related to food intake. Further work is required pair-wise comparisons among Areas showed more
to address this. subdivisions in females than in males. A possible
explanation for this is that the difference is duehe lower
SC/D06/J29 described yearly changes on organochlorine
pollutants. Concentrations ofDDTs, PCBs, HCHs, HCB and sample sizes for males in these comparisons. The possibility
chlordanes were determined on the blubber of minke of intermingling of populations in bordering sectors cannot
whales. The research focused on adult males only to avoid as yet be discarded and a comprehensive analysis that
interferenceof age- and sex-related variations.The levels of involves genetic data from low and high latitudes is
PCBs and DOTs in blubber of Antarctic minke whales were recommended.
one order of magnitude lower than those of other whales in The Workshop welcomed this paper. Hoelzel noted that
the mid and low latitude areasf the Northern Hemisphere, some genetic data suggested the possibilityof male-biased
and the authors suggest that such levels would not have an dispersal, but that further analyses would be required to
adverse effect on whale health. Some variation was assess this (including assignment tests).stene noted that
observed between Areas. All organochlorine blubber levels in the case of Areas N and V, the Areas with the largest
in AreaV and HCHs and HCB levels in Area N decreased sample sizes, the patternof genetic differentiation was the
with time. The decrease was particularly marked for HCHs. same for females and males for both mtDNA and
The authors suggested that this might be an indication of microsatellites, based on the analyses undertaken to date.
decreased food availability throughout the period. The Workshop was reminded that at the 2006 meeting, the
In discussion, several members noted that since Scientific Committee endorsed the Hobart workshop
organochlorines are more difficulto mobilise than lipids, a recommendation that every effort be made for scientists .
decrease in fatness caused hy lowered food availability share data from low and high latitude and carry out DNA
would probably produce an increase of organochlorine analyses under the IWC Data Availability Access protocol
blubber concentrations with time rather than a decrease. (IWC, 2007a). Such co-operative analyses would allow for
a more comprehensive study of stock structure of humpback
6.3.2 Oceanography whales of Breeding Stocks D, E and F (see IWC, 2007a).
SC/D06/J30 examined oceanographic data obtained by
JARPA and provided some information on possible 7.2 Other
environmental changes in recent years in JARPAareas. The SC/D06/J08 presented a brief review of genetic studies on
time series of oceanographic data obtained by JARPA southern dwarf minke whale. Prior to the JARPA surveys,
surveys has allowed for the study of temporal changes in dwarf minke whales were believed to be only found between
environmental conditions. It is important to link JARPA 7-41•s. However, the distribution of the JARPAcatches in
Areas IV and V was mainly between 55-62°S (one animal
oceanographic observations with the monitoring by otherin
situ observation projects (Argo, IPY, etc.) and satellite was caught at 65°S), showing that the dwarf minke whale
observations. In order to contribute to research of the can be found, very rarely, much further south than that
Southern Ocean, it is also important to make the JARPA indicated by the previous data. A total of 16 dwarf minke
oceanographic data available internationally. Development whales was sampled by JARPA and these animals were
of all aspects of Southern Ocean research adds to the examined genetically with the purpose to investigate their
understanding and improved management of all marine relationshipto the southern 'ordinary'minke whale and to
resources in the area. minke whales in the Northern Hemisphere. Early studies
showed that the level of mtDNA differences between the
southern m.inkewhale 'forms'was large and similar to that
7. OTHER RESULTS found between the 'ordinary' minke whales and Northern
7.1 Stock structure of humpback whales Hemisphere minke whales. Phylogenetic analyses showed
SC/D06/J31 used biopsy 'samples from 411 humpback that the dwarf minke whale was more closely related to
whales obtained during JARPA a!ld the IOCR/SOWER Northern Hemisphere minke whales than it was to the
cruises to describe their genetic population structure in partsouthern 'ordinary' minke whale. In 1993, the Scientific
of the Antarctic feeding grounds. Samples were obtained Committee recommended the inclusion of the dwarf minke
from the IWC management Areas ill (n=81), IV (n=l72), V whaie in the Schedule, so that catch limits for Antarctic
(n=97) and VI (n=61), and were examined for (i) sex minke whales recognise the distinction between the two
determination; (ii) the sequence variation the first 334bp 'forms'. The genetic analysis undertake n. with JARPA
nucleotidesof the mtDNA control region; and (iii) genetic samples greatly assisted the taxonomic review of minke
variation at the genotypes of ·six microsatellite loci. whales conducted by Rice (1998) who confirmed the
Duplicated samples were excluded from the analysis. The existence of two species, the larger ('ordinary') Antarctic
levelof genetic diversity in the Antarctic was high for both minke whale confined to the Southern Hemisphere, and the
smaller, common minke whale distributed in both
genomes: the nucleotide diversity at the mtDNA was
estimated at.0263 and the mean expected heterozygosity at hemispheres. The distribution of dwarf minke whales and
the nuclear loci at 0.7820 for the total samples. In general, Antarctic minke whales overlap partially in the feeding
results based on both mtDNA and microsatellites were grounds; the former is-considered by some authors as a sub
similar and they suggest population structure among species of the common minke whale. More recent studies
humpback whales in the Antarctic feeding grounds. These have revealed genetic structure in dwarf minke whales in the
genetic results are consistent with the previous view based Southern Hemisphere (Pastene et al., 2007).
on non-genetic data thatAreasm. N ,V and VI are occupied The Workshop recognised the important contribution of
by different populations. The most plausible pattern of the genetic analyses of dwarf minke whale samples from
structure in the Southern Hemisphere therefore is multiple JARPA to the understanding of the phylogenetic
breeding and feeding grounds ·with some degree of site relationships among minke whales fro!ll different ocean
200 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 433
basins. Genetic results had contributed to the taxonomic The results from the JARPA programme. while not required for
review of minke whales conducted by Rice (1998) that management under the RMP, have the potential to improve
management of minke whales inthe Southern Hemisphere in the
confrrmed the existence of two species of minke whales, the following ways:(!) reductions in the current set of plausible
Antarctic minke whale and the common minke whale. scenarios considerinlmplemefltation Simulation Trials; and (2)
Hoelzel suggested that the apparent paraphyly of dwarf identificatiof new scenarios twhich future Implemenration
minke whales should be investigated further, and suggested Simulation Trialwm have to be developed (e.g. the temporal
componentof stock structure).The results of analyses of JARPAdata
that if further supported, it may have implications for the could be used in this way perhaps to increase the allowed catch of
taxonomic classification·of dwarf minke whales, including minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, without increasing
the possibility ofparallel evolution in differentocean basins. depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Pastene responded that discussion on classification of the Implementation Simulation Triaof the RMP for these minke
common minke whale (including the dwarf minke whale) whales.
should await the completion of ongoing morphometric and The present Workshop concurred with that view.
morphological studies, as well analyses based on nuclear In its discussions of possible contributions to
DNA. Finally it was noted that only one of the dwarf minke management, the 1997 Workshop also referred to: (1)
whales sampled by JARPA was sampled in more southerly
questions about long-term changes in abundance of minke
latitudes. whales in Areas IV and V; (2) elucidation of the role of
SC/D06/J32 presented an overview of other JARPA minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem (including the
results. JARPA systematically collected a comprehensive possible 'krill surplus' model); (3) elucidationf the effect
data/sample set over a long time period in order to conduct of environmental change on cetaceans and variation of
studies related to the four objectives of the programme. minke whale biological parameters; and (4) elucidation of
Samples collected by both the lethal and non-lethal stock structure to improve management. Progress and
components of JARPA have also been used in several conclusions on the,se are considered below.
studies with different objectives than the four objectives of
the programme. The paper presented an overview of these
8.I .I Stock structure
studies. They have contributed to knowledge of whales The issue of stock structure is fundamental to the analyses
primarily in three areas: reproductive physiology of of the data collected under JARPA, the interpretation of the
Antarctic minke whale, taxonomy and phylogenetic results and a view of whether it has reached its stated aims
relationships among·large whales and distribution and and objectives. As noted in 1997, the Scientific Committee
movement of baleen whales. at that time had no clear definition of a 'stock' in a
Indiscussion, the Workshop recognised the contribution management context. Despite·the ongoing work of the
of JARPA research to other aspects of whale biology, Working Group on Stock Definition, the Committee is still
genetics, movement and distribution. Danfelsd6ttir noted not in a position to provide such a definition, although it
that several co-operative studies have been conducted recognises that any definition has to be linked to the
successfully between ICR scientists and international management implications of such a definition, particularly
scientists.he also noted that DNA data from minke whales wiih respect to feeding areas. This is being investigated as
sampled from JARPA were included in the Japanese DNA partof the Committee'sTesting of Spatial Structure Models
register for large whales and that this represented a (TOSSM) project. In an RMP context, the approach has
potentially useful scientific tool, aside from its use in been to use the available data·to establish 'plausible'
management. Matsuoka commented that in addition, in situ hypotheses and to examine the management implications of
observation projects (Argo, IPY, etc.) and satellite these in the context of Implementation Simulation Trials.
observations are being conducted. Given this background, it is not surprising that the
Workshop cannot conclude that this issue has been resolved
for Antarctic minke whales in the JARPA research area at
8. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS IN THE CONTEXT OF the present time; however, it recognises that considerable
THE STATED OBJECTIVES OF THE JARPA progress has been made in addressing the issue of stock
PROGRAMME ANI>OF STOCK MANAGEMENT
structure since the 1997review. For example, the Workshop
Although the Terms of Reference (TOR) specified this agreed that there are at least two stocks of Antarctic minke
overview to include how well the initial and revised whales present in the JARPAresearch area and that the data
objectives of the research had been met, it was inevitable suggest anarea of transition in the region around 150-165°E
that the discussions at the Workshop would give rise to within which there is an as yet undetermined level and range
suggestions for further and/or refined analyses. Thus it was of mixing.The Workshophas made anumber of suggestions
unclear whether or not the conclusions of the Committee and recommendations for future work (see Item 3). The
under this component oftheTOR should or should not await results of this additional work will have major implications
consideration of the results of further analyses. for determining the level to which the programme will meet
its other objectives. It is also clear that this work is essential
8.1 Contribution to rninke whale management to any future Implementation Review under the RMP.
The Workshop noted that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
established in 1994 covers most of the Antarctic waters 8.1.2Stock abundance and trends
south of 40°S and all of the waters to the south of 60°S;
Information on stock structure is also important for the
within the Sanctuary, commercial whaling is prohibited interpretationof abundance and trend information obtained
although the Government of Japan has an objection with during surveys on feeding grounds.As stressed earlier in the
respect to Antarctic minke whales. If catch limits were to be report, such surveys provide information on numbers of
set at some time in the future, the present approach the animals (and trendsin those numbers) within a geographical
Scientific Committee has agreed to use for providing advice area. Information on abundance and trends in abundance is
to the Commission on commercial whaling catch limits is relevant to aspects of all of the objectives of JARPA
that specified by theRMP. When it last considered this issue including the estimation of biological P!ll'ameters and
in 1997,the Committee agreed to the statement below. changes in those over time, and the role of whales in the
201Annex 113
REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
434
Antarctic ecosystem. At the 1997 Workshop it had been 8.2Elucidation of the role of whales in the marine
agreed that more research was needed to develop a reliable ecosystem
method to use the JARPA data to obtain estimates of At the 1997 Workshop, it had been noted that the data on
absolute abundance and trends. body condition and biological parameters should result in a
There are general unresolved issues relatedto estimating better understandingof the status of Antarctic minke whales
abundance and trends in these waters that apply not only to in the research area and be usefulo test hypotheses related
the JARPA data but also to the IDCRJSOWER data that to aspects of the 'krill surplus' model. The importance of ·
require further~ork by the Committee. Given that, it is not understanding the feeding ecology of Antarctic minke
surprising that the Workshop has not developed agreed whales has been recognised by the Committee and formed
estimates of abundance and trend for Antarctic minke an important part of its SOWER 2000 programme (IWC,
whales in the JARPA research area at the present time; 2000b). The importance of but the inherent difficulties in
however, it recognises that considerable progress has been ecosystem modelling are also recognised by the Committee
made in addressing the issues related to abundance and (IWC, 2004a; 2007a). The Committee has long been unable
trends and provided the recommendations given under Item to reach agreement on interspecific competition among
2 are followed, the Committee should soon be able to agree baleen whales in the Antarctic , particularly with respeto
estimates. The Workshop draws attention to its comments on the so-called 'krill surplus' model. The Committee
the confidence intervals surrounding the preliminary welcomed the oceanographic and krill-relaed work
estimates of trends presented that suggest that even the undertaken since the 1997 Workshop. The Workshop also
revised estimates may only be able to detect very major agreed that considerable relevant data had been collected by
changes in the abundance of animals using the JARPA area the JARPA programme on matters related to body condition
over long time periods. The implications of this latter and feeding. However, it is clear from the discussion under
finding for addressing the other objectives (e.g. biological Item 5 that the simple nature of several of the analyses
parameter estimation) require further investigation. The presented at the present Workshop means that relatively
abundance estimates will be valuable for any future little progress has been made in addressing this objective,
Implementation Review under the RMP. even allowing for the complexities of the subject. Issues
related to the 'krill surplus' model remain as controversial as
ever. The Workshop strongly recommended the
8.13 Estimation of biological (life history) parameters to establishment of an advisory group (Item 5.5) to ensure that
improve the stock management of the Southern the extensive dataset is used to its full potential and progress
Hemisphere minke whale is made. It also agreed that it is essential that information on
As noted above, issues of stock structure are directly other krill predators as well as information on krill dynamics
relevant to the question of biological parameter estimation. is incorporated into analyses of the role of whales in the
The 1997 review had noted that the information from ecosystem and notes that planned discussions in the
JARPA had set the stage for answering many questions IWC/CCAMLRjoint workshop would_assist in this.
about long tenn changes in minke whales in the JARPA
research area and .had recommended that biological
parameters be analysed by stocks. Some advance towards
that had been made at the present Workshop in that estimates 8.3Environmental change
had been presented forone possible hypothesis based on the At the 1997 Workshop, it was noted that the pollutant
stock structure analyses undertaken thus far; in accordance analyses undertaken by the JARPA programme should take
with a Committee recommendation made in 2006. However, into account the recommendations made at the 1995 IWC
further work will be required as progress is made with Workshop·on Chemical Pollutants and Cetaceans (Reijnders
respect to stock structure and mixing in accordance with the et al., 1999a). The Workshop welcomed the presentation of
recommendations made under Item 3. Given that the pollutant analyses at this Workshop, although there was
background and notwithstanding further comments below, some disagreement over the implications of the results
the Workshop cannot conclude that this objective has been drawn by the authors (see Item 6.3.1). The Workshop also
fully met at present; however, the Workshop acknowledged welcomed the oceanographic work presented, noting that in
that considerable effort had been put into attempting to addition to its potential to assist in the ecosystemrk, it
obtain agreed estimates of biological parameters (and also has the potential to contribute to other environmental
changes in these over time) for one stock structure monitoring programmes in the Antarctic.
hypothesis. In discussion of the analyses presented at this
Workshop, the Workshop agreed that no marked trends in
life history parameters were found for the JARPA period.
However, problems were identified with the age data for the 8.4 Scientificcontributions of JARPA
commercial period and for this reason, there were differing The JARPA project has generated extensive data that are
views on the reliability of estimates of historical trends in available to IWC scientists through the 'data sharing
life history and population parameters prior to the JARPA agreement. The programme has also resulted in a number of
period. It was also noted that the confidence intervals publications in the IWC Journals and in other international
around the estimates of natural mortality estimated from the peer-reviewed journals. Except for cruise reports and
JARPA data alone spanned such a wide range that the commentaries there have been 22 articles in Rep. int. Whal.
param eter remains effectively unknown at present (narrower Commn and J. Cetacean Res Manage., and 58 articles in
confidence intervals were estimated for the ADAPT-VPA English language journals. Of the latter, the majority is in
analysis but this relies on commercial age data). The the fields of physiology, reproduction and chemistry,
Workshop agreed that every effort should be made to tryto while six articles are concerned with managemen t. In
resolve the issue of the commercial age data as this has addition a total of 182 scientific documents based on JARPA
important implications asto how well the objectives of the data have been presented to the IWC Scientific Committee
programme can be met.
meetings.
202 Annex 113
I. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 435
9. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS IN THE CONTEXT OF for preliminary research on the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic' by
the Government of Japan. Paper SC!D87/37 presented to the lWC
IWC RESOLUTIONS ANDDISCUSSIONS Scientific Committee Special Meeting to Consider the Japanese
The Workshop agreed that there was insufficient time to research Permit (Feasibility Study), Cambridge, December 1987
address these items and refers them to the Committee. (unpublished). [Paper available from the Office of this Journal].
Friedlaender..S., Lawson, G.L. and Halpin, P.N. 2006. Evidence of
resource partitioninand niche separation between humpback and
10. OTHER MATTERS mink.e whales in Antarctica,: implications for inter-specific
competition. Paper SC/58/E32 presented to the IWC Scientific
There were no other matters discussed. Committee, May 2006. St. Kitts and Nevis, West Indies
(unpublished). 37pp. [Paper available from the Office of this
Journal].
11.ADOPTION OF REPORT Fujise,Y., Tamura, T., lchihashi, H. and Kishino, H. 1999. Further
examinations of the segr~ga titern of minke whales inthe
The report was adopted on 8 December 2006. The Chair Ant~ct i cea IV using a logistic regression model, with
considerationson the pack-ice distribution. Paper SC/51/CAWS18
thanked all of the participants for their co-operation and
hard work and in particular the rapporteurs under Donovan. presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1999, Grenada, WI
(unpublished). 18pp. [Paper available from the Office of this
He also thanked the Goveriunent of Japan and the staff of Journal].
ICR for the excellent facilities provided. The meeting Government of Japan. 1987. The program for research on the Southern
H emisphere minke whale and for preliminary research.on the marine
expressed appreciation to the Chair for his usual firm but
fair handling of the Workshop. ecosystem in the Antarctic. Paper SC/39/0 4 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee, June 1987 (unpublished). 60pp. [Paper
available from the Office of this Journal].
Government of Japan. 1995. The 1995/96 Research Plan for the
REFERENCES
Japanese Whale Research Program under the Special Permit in the
Abe, H., Goto, M., Katsumata,Y,Mizutani,M. andPastene, L.A. 1999. Antarctic. Paper SC/47/SH3 presented to the IWC Scientific
Preliminary microsatellite DNA analysis to investigate stock Committee,May 1995 (unpublished). 9pp.[Availablefrom theOffice
structurein theAntarcticminke whale(Balaenoptera acurorostrata). of this Journal].
Paper SC/51/CAWS9 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, Government ofJapan. 1996.The 1996/97 researchplan forthe Japanese
May 1999, Grenada, WI (unpublished). 12pp. [Paper available from Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Anta cri~.
the Officeof this Joumall. Paper SC/48/SH3 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, June
Bada, J.L. and BrownelJ, R.L., Jr. 1996. Determination of the year of 1996, Aberdeen (unpublished). llpp. [Plus Addendum; Available
harvest of a Bryde'swhale based on the bomb radiocarbon signal. from theOffice of this Journal].
Paper SC/48/NP25 presented to lWC Scientific Committee, June Hakarnada, T.. Goto, M. and Ishikawa, H. 2006. Examination of
1996,Aberdeen (unpublished). 5pp.Paper available from the Office correction the effect of skip on the abundance estimate for Antarctic
of this Journal]. minke whales in JARPA. Paper SC/58/IA6 presented to the IWC
Branch, T.A. 2006. Possible reasons for the appreciable decrease in Scientific Committee, May 2006, St. Kitts and Nevis, West Indies.
abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales from the Also paper SC/D06/Jl presented to the JARPA Review Workshop,
IOCR/SOWER surveys between the second and third circumpolar Tokyo, 4-8 December 2006 (unpublished). 12pp. [Paper available
sets.Paper SC/58/IA4 presented to theJWC Scientific Committee, from theOffice of this Journal]. ·
May 2006, St. Kitts and Nevis, West Indies (unpublished). 8pp. Haug, T., Gjosaeter,·H., Lindstrom, U., Nilssen, K.T. and Rottingen, I.
[Paper available from the Office of this Journal]. 1995. Spatial and temporal variations in northeast Atlantic minke
Branch, T.A. 2007. Humpback abundance south of 60"S from three whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata feeding habits. pp.225-39 . In:
completed circumpolar sets of surveys. JCetacean Res. Manage. Blix,A.S., Wall¢e,L. and Ulltang, 0. (eds). Whales, Seals, Fish and
Submitted. Paper SC/A06/HW6 presented to the IWC Workshop on Man. Proceedi ngs oftirlllfernational Symposiuon t!JeBiology of
Comprehensive Assessment of Southern Hemisphere Humpback Marine Mammals in the Northeast Atlalltic. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Whales, Hobart, Tasmania, 3-7 April 2006 (unpublished). 14pp. 720pp.
[Paper available from the Office of this Journal]. Haw, M.D. 1991. An investigation into the differences in minke whale
Branch, T.A. and Ensor, P.2004. Report of the Scientific Committee. school density estimates fromssingmode and closing mode survey
Annex G. Report of the Sub~Commit teethe Comprehensive in IDCR Antarctic assessment cruisesRep. inr.Wlral. Comnm 4 1:
Assessment of Whale Stocks - In-depth Assessments. Appendix 5. 313-30.
Combining estimates from the third c ircumpolar set of surveys. J. Ishikawa, H. 2003. Report of the Scientific Committee. AnneX G.
Cetacean Res. Manage .(S11ppl.)6: 239-40. Report of the Sub-Committee on the comprehensive assessmen tof
Burt, M.L. andBorchers, D.L: 1997.Minke whale abundance estimated whale stocks - in-depth assessme nts. Appendix 6. Relationship
from the 1991/92 and 1992/93 JARPA sighting surveys. Paper betwe~ ice cond itioand number of sightings of Antarctic minke
SC/M97 /23 presented to the IWC Intersessial Working Group to whales - comparison between 1997/98 and 2001/2002 JARPA
Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke surveys in Area IIIE andIV.J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 5:
278-82.
whales in the Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished). 16pp. [Paper
available from the Officef this Journal]. Ishikawa, H.,tani, S., Kiwada, H., !soda,T., Tohyama, D., Ho,"K.,
Bushuev, S.G. 1986. Feeding of minke whales, Balaenoptera· Hasegawa,A., Terao, T., Kushimoto, T., Ohshima, T.. Sugiyama, K..
acutorostrata, in the Antarctic. int. What.Commn 36:24 1-45 . Sasaki,T.,Itch, S., Takarnatsu,and Yoshida,T. 2004. Cruise report
Butterworth, D.S., Punt, A.E., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. J999a. Do the of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Pennit in the
JARPA age~srtuctu data for Southern Hemisphere minke whales Antarctic (JARPA) Area N and eastern part of Area IIIE in
provide indication that comrcial selectivity could have been age 2003/2004. Paper SC/56/012 presented to the IWC Scientific
specificforhigher ages?Paper SC/51/CAWS21presentedto the IWC Committee, July 2004, Sorrento, Italy (unpublished). 18pp. [Paper
Scientific Committee, May 1999, Grenada, WI (unpublished).lOpp. available from the Office of this Journal].
Ishikawa, H.. Otani, S., Mogoe, T., Kiwada, H., Tohyama, D., Yoshida,
[Paper available from the Office of this Journal].
Butterworth,D.S., Punt, A.E., Geromont, H.F.,Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. T.,Hayashi,T., Nagamine, M., Fukutome, K., Koyanagi,T., Fujihira,
1999b. Inferences on the dynamicsof Southern Hemisphere minke T., SasakiT.,Ishihara, T. and Mori, M. 2002. Cruise report of the
whales from ADAPT analyses of catch-at-age information. J. Japanese whale research program under special permit in the
Cetacean Res. Manage. 1(1): 11-32. Antarctic (JARPA)Area Nand eastern part of Area lii in 2001/2002.
Paper SC/54/0 18 presented to the JWC Scientific Committee, April
Cooke, J., Fujise, Y., Leaper, R., Ohsumi. S. and Tanaka, S. 1997. An
exploratory analysis of the age distribution of minke whales collected 2002, Shimonoseki, Japan (unpub lished). 20pp. [Paper available
during JARPA expeditions 1987/88 through 1995/96. Paper from theOfficeof this Journal].
SC/M97/21 presented to the lWC Scientific Commitee Intersessional Intenational Whaling Commission. 1984. Report of the Minke Whale
Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Ageing Workshop, Cambrid ge, UK, 7-13 Aprill983. Rep. int. What.
Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic (unpublished). llpp . Comnm 34:675-99.
[Paper available from the Office this Journal]. International Whaling Commission. 1988. Report of the Scientific
Cooke, J.G. 1987. Comments submitted by J.G. Cooke (Invited Committee. Rep. int. What. Commn 38:32-155.
Participant) on the research plan for the feasibility study on 'The International Whaling Commission. 1989. Report of the Special
program for research on the Southern Hemisphere minke whaleand Meeting of the Scientific Committee to consider the Japanese
203Annex 113
436 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP. TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS
research permit (feasibility study). Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:159· Kato, H., Zenitani, R. and Nakamura, T. 1991. Inter-reader calibration
66. in age reading of earplug from southern minke whales , with some
International Whaling Commission. 1990. Repon of the Scientific notes of age readability. Rep. illl. Whal. Comnm 41: 339-43.
Committee , Annex F. Report of lhe sub-committee on biological Konis hi, K. 2006. Characteristics of blubher distribution and hody
parameters and MSYrates. Rep. im. Whal. Commll40:119-30. · condition indicators for Antarctic mink.e whales (Balaenoptera
International Whaling Commissio n. 1991. Repon of the Scientific bonaerensis).Mammal Study 31: 15-22.
Committee. Annex E. Report of the sub-committee on Southern Lockyer, C. 1972. The age at sexual maturity of the southern fin whale
Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. illWltal.Conmm41 :113-3 l. (Balaenoptel'a plzysalus) using annual layer counin the earplugJ.
International Whaling Commission . 1993. Report of the Scien tific Cons.ln t. Explor. Mer 34(2): 276-94.
Committee. Rep. int. Whal.Comm1143:55-92. Lockyer, C. 1981. Estimation of the energy costs of growth,
International Whaling Commission. 1994. Report of the Scientific maintenance and reproduction in the female minke whale,
Committee,Annex D. Reportof theSub-Committeeon Management (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), from the Southern Hemisphere. Rep.
Procedures. Rep. im. Whal. Conmm 44:74-92. int. Whal. Commn 31: 337-43.
International Whaling Commission. 1995a. Chainnan's Repon of the Miller,M .P. 2005. Alleles In Space (AIS): Computer Software for the
Fony-SixthAnnual Meeting,Appendix 13,IWC Resolution 1994-12. Joint Analysis of lnterindividual Spatial and Genetic Information. J.
Resolution on promotionof researchrelatedtoconservation of large Hered.96(6): 722-24.
baleenwhalesintheSouthernOceans.Rep.;nr. Whal. Commn 45:48. Mori, M. 2006. Application of ADAPT-VPA to various stock
International Whaling Commission. 1995b. Chairman's Repon of the hypothe si:s on Antarctic minke whales distributed through IWC
Fony·SixthAnnual Meeting, Appendix 14, IWCResolution 1994-13. ManagementAreas IIIE to VIW. Paper SC/58/IA8 presented to the
Resolution on research on the environment and whale stocks. Rep. IWC Scie ntific Committee, May 2006, St. Kitts and Nevis, West
bit. Whal. Commn45:49. Indies (unpublsihed).40pp. [Paper available from the Officeof this
International Whaling Commission. 1995c. Report of the Scientific Journal].
Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn45:53-103 . Mori, M. and Butterwonh, D.S. 2006. Funher progress on modeling the
International Whaling Commission. 1996 . Chainnan's Report of the krill-predatordynamics of the Antarcticecosystem. Paper SC/58/El4
Fony-SeventhAnnual Meeting.Appendix 11.JWC Resolution 1995- presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. May 2006, St. Kitts and
10.Reso lution on the environment and whale stocksRep. int. Whal. Nevis, West Indies (unpublished). 14pp. [Paper available from the
Commu 46:47-48. Office of this Journal].
International Whaling Commission. 1997a. Repon of the IWC Pastene, L.A. and Goto, M. 1997. Punher RFLP analysis of
Workshop on Climate Change and Cetaceans. Rep. int. Whal. Commn mitochondrial DNA in Antarctic minke whales from Area III anIV.
47:293-319. Paper SC/49/SHll presented to the 1WC Scientific Committee,
International Whaling Commission. I997b. Report of the Scie ntific September 1997,Bournemouth (unpublished). 14pp.[Paper available
Committee. Rep. int. What. Commn47:59·112. from the Office of this Journal].
International Whaling Commission . 1998a. Report of the Intersessional Pastene,L.A. and Goto, M. 1999.Funher spatial and temporal analysis
Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit of mitochondrial DNA variation in minke whales from Aieas IIIand
Research on Minke Whales in theAntarctic,Tokyo, 12-16May 1997. IV with considerationS on the pack-ice distribution. Paper
Rep. int. Wllal. Commn48:377-412. SC/51/CAWS11 presented to the JWC Scientific Committee, May
International Whaling Commissi on. 1998b. Report of the Scie ntific 1999, Grenada, WI (unpublished). llpp. [Paper available from the
Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48:53-118 . Officeof this Journal].
International Whaling Commission. 1999. Repon of the Scientific Pastene, L.A. , Goto, M., Kanda, N., Zerbini, A.N., Kerem, D.,
Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Sttppl.) 1:1-52. Watanabe, K., Bessho, Y., Hasegawa, M., Nielsen, R., Larsen, F. and
International Whaling Commiss ion. 2000a. Report of the Scientific Palsbjlll, P.J. 2007. Radiation and speciation of pelagic organisms
Committee. J.Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 2:1·65. during periods of global warming: the case of the common minke
IWC. 2000b. Repon of the SOWER 2000 Workshop. J. Cetacean Res. whale, Balae, optera acutoros trata. Molec ular Biology 16(7): 1481-
Manage. (Suppl.) 2: 319-46. 500.
International Whaling Commission. 2004a. Report of the Scientific Polacheck,T. and Punt,A.E. 2006. Minke whale growth models for use
Committee. J.Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 6:1-60. in statistical catch-at-age models. Paper SC/58/IA3 presented toe
International Whaling Commission. 2004b. Report of the Sc ientific IWC Scientific Committee, May 2006 , St. Kitts and Nevis, West
Committee. Annex G. Report of the Sub-Commiuee on the Indies (unpublished). 36pp. [Paper available at the Office of this
· Comprehens ive Assesse ment of Whale Stocks - In Depth Journal].
Assessments. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Supp/.) 6:224-45. Reijnders, P.J.H., Aguilar, A. and Donovan, G.P. 1999a. Chemical
lntema tional Whaling Commission. 2006a. Report of the Scientific Pollutants and Ceta ceans, Special Issue. InternationalWhaling
Committee. J. Cetacean 'Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 8: l-65. Commission, Cambridge, UK. V·viii + 273pp.
International Whaling Commission. 2006b. Report of the Workshop on Reijnders, P.J.H., Donovan, G.P., Aguilar, A. and Bjorge, A. 1999b.
the Comprehensive Asse ssme nt of Southern Hemisphere humpback Repon of theWorkshopon Chemical PollutionandCetaceans,March
whales, 4-7 April 2006, Hoban, Tasmania. Paper SC/58/Rep5 1995,Bergen, Norway. J. Cetacean Res. Mauage. (spedal issue) 1:
presented to the IWC Scientific Commi ttee, May 2006, St. Kitts and 1-42.
·Nevis,WestIndies (unpublished). 25pp. [Paperavailable atthe Office Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and
ofthis Journal]. Distributi on, Special Publication Number 4. The Society for Marine
International Whaling Commission. 2007a. Repon of the Scientific Mammalogy. Allen Press, USA. ix+23lpp.
Committee . J. Ceta cean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 9:1-73. Tanaka, S. 1990. Estimation ofnatural mortality coefficien t of whales
International Whaling Commission. 2007b. Repon of the Scientific from the estimates of abundance andage composition data obtai~!ed
Committee. Annex H. Report of the Sub-Commi ttee on Other from research catches.Rep. int, Whal. Commn 40:531-36 .
Southern Hemisphere Whale Stocks. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. Thompson, S.K. and Seher, G.A.F. 1996. Adaptive Sampling. Wiley
(Suppl.) 9:188-209. Interscience.New York.264pp.
InternationalWhaling Commission. 2007c. Report of the Scie ntific Thomson, R.B., Butterwonh, D.S. and Kato, H. 1999. Has the age at
Commi ttee. Annex I. Report of the Working Group on Stock transition of SoutherriHemisphere minkewhales declined over recent
Def mition. J.Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 9:210-14. decades? Mar. Mammal Sci. 15(3): 661-82.
International Whaling Commission. 2007d. Western Nonh Pacific Trites, A.W. and Pauly, D. 1998. Estimating mean body masses of
Bryde's Implememat;on: Report of the First Intersessional Workshop, marine mammals from maximum body lengths. Ca1t. J. Zoot. 76:
25-29 October 2005, Shizuoka, Japan. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 886-96.
(Suppl.)9:407-27. Wood, S.N., Bravington, M.V. and Hedley, S.L. 2007. Soap fihn
Kato. H. 1987. Densit y dependent changes in growth parameters of the smoothing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Submitted: 28pp.
southern minke whale. Sci. Rep. Whales Res.lllst., Tokyo 38: 47-73.
204 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 437
Anne:XA
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA H. Moronuki T. Eguchi
N. Gales H. Murase P.Wade
M. Naganobu
GERMANY R. Nakamura INVITED PARTICIPANTS
J. Cooke S.Ohsumi A. Aguilar
L.A. Pastene J. Bannister
GRENADA R. Suzuki D. Butterworth
F. Hester T. Tamura A. Danfelsd6ttir
E. Tanaka T. Haug
S.Tanaka·
ICELAND S. Hedley
G. Vikingsson T. Watanabe R. Hoelzel
G. Yasunaga Y.Ivashchenko
JAPAN R. Zenitani T. Kasuya
T.Bando H. Kishino
Y. Fujise NEW ZEALAND M. Maunder
D. Goodman S. Childerhouse K. Reid
M. Goto T. Schweder
T. Hakamada NORWAY
H. Hatanaka L. Wal!¢e SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
J. Hyugaji CHAm
H. Ishikawa REPUBLIC OF KOREA A. Bj¢rge
Y. Ishizuka Y.R.An
IWC SECRETARIAT
H. Kato
T. Kitakado ST. LUCIA G. Donovan
T. Matsuishi J. Rambally
K. Matsuoka INTERPRETERS
T. Miyashita USA S. Baba
M. Mori R. Brownell R. Kawagishi
J. Morishita P.Clapham M.Ota
AnnexB
Agenda
l. Introductory items 2.3 Data collection methods and results
1.1 Welcome and introduction 2.4 Data analysis methods and results
1.2 Election of Chair and appointment of rapporteurs 2.4.1 Minke whales
1.3 Meeting procedures and time schedule 2.4.2 Other species
1.4 Adoption of Agenda 2.5 Estimates of trends in abundance
1.5 Documents and data available 2.5.1 Minke whales
1.6 Terms of reference for this review 2.5.2 Other species
1.7 Objectives of JARPA as stated in the original
research proposal and subsequently 3. Stock structure (Antarctic minke whale)
1.8 General outlineof the JARPA research 3.1 Background
1.9 Overview of the 1997 JARPA review and 3.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review
subsequent discussions 3.2.1 Stock definition
3.2.2 Statisticalanalysis of mtDNA data
considering the inclusionf school size
2. Sightings surveys and abundance estimation
2.1 Background as a covariate
2.2 Issues raised in previous IWC meetings 3.2.3 Pilot study on nuclear DNA analysis on
2.2.1 1997 JARPA review JARPA minke samples
2.2.2 Humpback whale Workshop 3.2.4 Effortto obtain biological materials for
2.2.3 Other genetic analysis from low latitude areas
205Annex 113
438 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS, ANNEXC
of the Southern Hemisphere (potential 6.2 Data collection methods and results
breeding grounds) and compare with 6.3 Data analysis methods and results
feeding ground data 6.3.1 Pollution
3.2.5 External morphology/morphometry 6.3.2 Oceanography
analyses
3.3 Data collection methods and results 7. Other results
3.4 Data analysis methods and results
7.I Stock structure of humpback whales
3.4.1 Genetics 7.2 Other
3.4.2 Morphometries and morphology
3.5 Synthesis 8. Overview of results in the context of the stated
objectives of the JARPA programme and of stock
4. Biological parameter studies
4.1 Background management
4.2 Issues raised in 1997 JARPA review 8.1 Contributions to minke whale management
8.1.1 Stock structure
4.2.1 Segregation study 8.1.2 Stock abundance and trends
4.2.2 Recalculation of biological parameters 8.1.3 Estimation of biological (life history)
by biological stocks parameters to improve the stock
4.3 Data collection and results
4.4 Data analysis methods and results management of the Southern Hemisphere
4.4.1 Natural mortality minke whale
4.4.2 Growth curves and age at sexual maturity 8.2 :t;;lucidationof the role of whales in the marine
ecosystem
4.4.2.1 Growth curves 8.3 Environmental change
4.4.2.2 Age at sexual maturity
4.4.3 Reproductive and sustainable yield rates
4.4.4 Synthesis of information on biological 9. Overview of results in the context of IWC resolutions
parameters from different sources and discussions
9.1 Utility of lethal versus non-lethal research
techniques
5. Marine ecosystem 9.2 Other mandates regarding SC reviews of special
5.1 Background permit research
5.2 Issue raised in 1997 JARPA review: Meso-scale 9.3 With respect to resolutions on the Antarctic
survey plan
5.3 Data collection methods and results marine ecosystem ·
5.4 Data analysis methods and results 9.4 With respect to resolutions on pollution
5.4.1 Food habit and krill consumption of 9.5 With respect to resolutions on environmental
change and cetacean response
Antarctic minke whale
5.5 Synthesis
10. Other matters
6. Environmental change including pollution
6.1 Background 11. Adoption of report
Annex C
List of Documents
SC/006/J 6. HAKAMADA T,.,MATSUOKAK , .ANDNISHIWAKIS,. An
I. HATANAKA,H., FUJISE, Y., FASTENE,L.A. AND update of Antarctic minke whales abundance estimate based
OHSUMI,S. Review of JARPA research objectives and on JARPA data.
updateof the work related to JARPA tasks derived from the 7. MATSUOKAK , ., HAKAMAD,AT. AND NISHIWAKIS , .
1997 SC meetings. Distribution and abundance of humpback, fin and blue
2.NISHIWAKIS,., ISHIKAWAH,. ANDFUJISE,Y.Review of whales in the Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW (35°E-
general methodology and survey procedure under the 1450W).
JARPA. 8. PASTENE.L, .A. A brief review of the genetic studies on
3. HAKAMADA, T., GOTO, M. AND ISHIKAWA,H. dwarf minke whale based on JARPA samples.
Examination of the effect of skip on abundance estimates for 9. FASTENE,L.A., GOTOM. AND KANDA,N. Genetic
analysis on stock structure in the Antarctic minke whales
Antarctic minke whales.
4.BURT,M.L. A,NDPAXTON,C.G.M. Review of density from the JARPA research area based on mitochondrial DNA
surface modeling applied to JARPA survey data. . and microsatellite.
5. MATSUISHI,T., IKEDA, H. AND NISHIWAKI,S. 10. HAKAMADAT ,. A study on stock structure in the
Estimation of g(O) based on the sighting survey data of Antarctic minke w hale from the JARPA research area based
JARPA incorporating additional information. on morphometric analysis.
206 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 439
11. BANDOT , ., ZENITANI, . ANDFUJISE,Y.A study on 23. NAGANOBUM , ., NISHfWAKI,S., YASUMA,H.,
stock structure in the Antarctic minke whales from the MATSUKURAR,., TAKAO,Y., TAK,I K., HAYASHI,T.,
JARPA research area based on analysis of body length WATANABY E,.,YABUKIT,., YODA, .,NOIRI,Y., KUGA,M.,
physically matured whales. YOSHIKAWK A.,, KOKUBUNN , ., MURASE, ., MATSUOKA,
12. PASTENEL , .A. What do we know about the stock K.ANDITo,K. Interactionsbetweenoceanography,krill and
structureof the Antarctic minke whale? A summary of baleen whales in the Ross Sea and Adjacent Waters: An
studies and hypotheses. overviewof Kaiyo Maru-JARPAjoint survey in 2004/05.
13.TANAKAE,., ZENITANIR,. ANDFUJISEY , .An estimate 24.MURASEH , ., TAMURAT,., NISHIWAKS I,., YASUMA,
of natural mortality coefficient in Antarctic minke whaleH., MATSUOKAK , ., YABUKI,T. ANDNAGA NOBU,M.
usingJARPAdata. Biomass estimation of Euphausia superba and E.
14. MORI,M., KITAKADO T,. ANDBUTTERWORTD H.,S. crystallorophiain the Ross Sea in 2004/05 using Kaiyo
Progress on application of ADAPT-VPAto minke whalesin Maru-JARPAjoint survey data.
Areas IV and V given updated information from 25. MURASE,H., KITAKADOT,. , MATSUOKA,K.,
IDCR/SOWERand JARPAsurveys. NISHIWAKSI,. ANDNAGANOBU M,. Relating the distribution
15. ZENITANIR,. ANDKATOH , . Temporaltrend of age at patternof Antarctic minke whales with abiotic and biotic
sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales based on environmental factors inhe Ross Sea in 2004/05 using
transition phase in earplugs obtained under JARPAsurveys Kaiyo Maru-JARPAjoint survey data.
26. FUJIS, Y.,HATANAKA H,. AND0HSUM,IS.Changes
from 1987/88to 2004/05.
16. MORI,M., BUTTERWORTD H.,S., ZENITANI, . AND occurred on Antarctic minke whale stocks in the Antarctic
KATO,H. Model-based transition phase analyses for the and their ecological implications.
Antarctic minke whales in the JARPAresearch area. 27.YASUNAGA G,., FuJISE, Y. ANDHONDA,K. Trace
17. BANDOT , ., ZEN!TAN!, ., FUJISE,Y. ANDKATO,H. element accumulations of Antarctic krill, Euphausia
Biological parameters of Antarctic minke whale based on superba, in Areas-ill, IV, V and VI from Antarctic Ocean
materials collected by the JARPA survey in 1987/88 to during 1989-1999.
2004/05. 28. YASUNAGA, G., FUJISE,Y.,ZENITAN, IR., HOND, K.
18. TAMUR,AT. ANDKONISHIK , . Food habit and prey ANDKATOH , . Yearlytrend of trace elementaccumulationin
consumption of Antarctic minke whale Balaenoptera liverfAntarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis.
bonaerensis in the JARPAresearch area. 29. YASUNAGA G,., FUJISE,Y.,ZENITANI, ., TANE,S.
19. KONISH,IK., TAMURAT,. ANDWALL!iE l , L. Yearly AND KATo, H. Spatial and temporal variation in
trend of energy storage in. the Antarctic minke whale organochlorinecontaminantsin theAntarcticminke whales,
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in the JARPAresearch area. Balaenoptera bonaerensis.
20. TAMURAT,., KONISH,IK., NISHfWAKS I,., TAKI,K., 30. WATANAB ,T., YABUKIT , ., SU, T., HANAW,AK.,
HAYASHIT , . ANDNAGANOBUM , . Comparison between MATSUOA K, K. ANDKlWAD,AH. Results of oceanographic
stomach contents of Antarctic minke whale and krill analyses conducted under JARPAand possible evidence of
sampled by RMT net in the Ross Sea and adjacent waters. environmental changes.
21. MURASE,H., K!WADA,H., MATSUOKAK , . AND 31. PASTEN,EL.A., GOTO,M., NISHIWAK , SI., YOSHIDA,
NrsHIWAKIS,. Results of.the cetacean prey survey using H. ANDKANDAN , . Genetic characteristics and population
echo sounder in JARPAfrom 1998/99to 2004/2005. structure of humpback whales in the Antarctic feeding
22. MURASE,H., TAMURAT , ., MATSUOKAK , ., AND groundsas revealed by mitochondrial DNA control region
sequencing and microsatelliteanalyses.
HAKAMADT A.,First attempt of estimationof feeding impact
on krill standing stock by three baleen whale species 32. PASTEN,EL.A., ISHIKAWAH , ., GOTO, M. AND
(Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales) in Areas NISHIWAK , SI. Overview of the studies ·e whales not
and V using JARPAdata. related with the main objectiveshe JARPA
207Annex 113
REPORT OF THE JNTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA.AND RESULTS, ANNEX D
440
AnnexD
List of JARPA Data Sets
List of JARPA data sets, sighting data, biological data for Antarctic minke whales, genetic data for other large whales and
environmental data collected by the JARPA in the period 1987/88-2004/05.
Table!
Sighting data.
Total sample size
I. Angleanddistanceexperiment(numberof experiments) 6,426
2. Jceedge line 30
3. Photo·ID, humpback whale (number of photographs) 502
4. Photo-JD, right whale (number of photographs) 243
5. Photo·ID, blue whale (number of photographs) !53
6. Sighting data (number of schools) 48,600
7. Surveyeffortdata(searchingdistanceofSV andSSVs in n.miles) 293,811
8. Weatherdata(numberof observationsofweather) 94,840
Table II
Biologicaldata(Antarcticminkewhale).
Male Female Total
9. Age 3,626 3,151 6,777
!0. Blubber thickness (3 pointll4 points) 3,626 3,151 6,777
II. Body length 3,626 3,151 6,777
12. Body proportion 3,626 3,151 6,777
13. jlodyweight 3,466 3,025 6,491
14. Catching date 3,627 3,151 6,778
IS. Catchinglocation 3,627 3,151 6,778
16. Corpora a/bicantiaand lu.te(number) 3,151 3,151
Diatomfilm 3,626 3,151 6,777
17.
18. Discovery-typemarksrecovery 3,626 3,151 6,777
19. Foetus, body length 1,876
20. Foetus, body weight 1,876
3,151 3,151
21. Foetus,number
22. Foetus, sex 1,876
23. Freshness of stomachcontents 3,626 3,151 6,777
Girth 3,626 3,151 6,777
24.
25. Lactationcondition 2,064 2,064
26. Mainpreyinstomachcontents 3,626 3,151 6,777
27. Maturity stage 3,626 3,151 6,777
28. MitochondriaDl NAcontrolregionsequences 555 499 1,054
29. MitochondriaDl NA RFLP~der havpeoypedistribution 3,627 3,151 6,7?8
30. Nuclear DNA microsatellite (61oci), minke whale 3,389 2,881 6,270
31. Organ weights 606 512 1,118
32. Parasites,externaloccurrencerecord 3,626 3,151 6,777
33. Parasite1internaloccurrencereceird 3,626 3,151 6,777
34. Physical maturity 3,531 3,068 6,599
35. Sex 3,627 3,151 6,778
36. Skull (length and breadth) 3,626 3,151 6,777
37. Stomachcontents(IWSformat) 3,626 3,151 6,777
38. Stomachcontentsweight 3,626 3,151 6,777
39. Testisweight 3,626 3,626
40. Transitionphase 3,626 3,151 6,777
Tablelll
DNAdataavailableforotherlargewhales(obtainedfrombiopsysampling).
Numberof targetedindividuals
Male Female Total
41. MitochondrialDNAcontrolregionsequences,bluewhale 22
42. MitochondrialDNAControrlegionsequences finwhale 28
1
43. MitochondrialDNAcontrolregionsequences,humpbackwhale 176 166 342
44. MitochondrialDNAcontrolregionsequences,sei whale I
45. MitochondrialDNAcontrolregionsequences,rightwhale 36
46. NuclearDNAmicrosatellite(6 loci)humpbackwhale 176 166 342
208 Annex 113
J, CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 441
Table lV
Environmentaldata.
Numberofindividuals
Male Female Total
47. Heavymetals (liver) 921 151 1,072
48. Heavymetals(stomachcontents) 67 33 100
49. Marinedebris(stomachcontents) 3,626 3,151 6,777
50. Organochlorine(blubber) Ill 2 113
Numberofsamples
51. Organochlorine compounds(air) 4
52. Organochloriencompounds(sea water) 4
53. Marinedebris (sightingsurvey) 255
54. Temperature(XBTsurvey) 916
55. Temperatureandsalinity(XCfD survey) 915
56. Temperatureandsalinity(CfD survey) 499
57. Temperatureandsalinity(EPCSsurvey,days) 1,307
58. Echosounder(krilldistribution,days) 612
In addition, there is the dataset from the RV/Kaiyo Maru (6) Chemical environme nt data
Antarctic Ross sea survey in 2004/05):
(7) Primary production data
(l) NaYigation data (8) Acoustic surv-ey
(2) Field note (i) Acoustic export/track
(ii) Checked
(a) Noon position
(b) Climate and sea (a) ekset/1999-2000 krill/daily backup
(c) Iceberg - 2001 Tangaroa
- Backup
(3) Climate and sea satellite information
(a) Climate - Daily backup
(b) SA map CSV
(b) Sea ice
(9) Biological data
(4) Survey point field book
(a) Fish
(5) Physical environment data (b) Krill
(a) Data Excel CSV (c) Salpa
(b) Raw data/ADCP (d) Squid
(i) CTD/Parm. (10) RMT
(ii) Report ·(a) Sample photos
(iii) EPCS
(iv) XBT (b) Total field note
(11) Sighting data
(v) XCTD
Annex E
Objectives of JARPA
ORIG INAL OBJEC TI VES OF JARPA (IWC, 1988, sochastic sampling, which was carried out in combination
p.l39) with systematic sighting surveys.The programm e was also
designed totry to estimate reproductive parameters and their
Objective 1. Estimation of biological parameters to changes based on the same samples as well as stochastic
improve the stock management of the Sozuhem · changes in stock size.
Hemisph ere minke whale
According to the original proposal, the main reason for the Objective 2. Elucidation of the role of whales in the
failure of the SC to recommend an agreed catc.h limit for the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
Antarct ic minke whale stock in 1980s had been that its The reason for the establishment of Objective 2 was based
members were not able to reach agreement on the value of on the consideration that the most important need to
natural mortality coefficient and its age-specific patterns. understand the Antarctic ecosystem was the collection of
The proposal stated that its primary purpose was to estimate data on the prey-predator relationsh ip among krill, fish,
the age-specific natural mortality coefficient through squid and whales. The global scientific interest in the
209Annex 113
442 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTS, ANNEX F
Antarctic ecosystem had been growing, as reflected in the Afurther (and final) objective was added for the 1996/97
creation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic season.
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).
The plan of original research programme was reviewed
Objective 4. Elucidationof the stock structure of the
during the 1987 Annual Meeting (IWC, 1988) and the plan Southern Hemisphere minke whales to improve stock
for the feasibility study was reviewedat a Special Meeting management.
in December 1987 (IWC, 1989).After the completion of the Japan added this objective (the topic was already included in
feasibility study, the Japan retained theme two objectives the original Objective 1), as a consequencef the increased
but noted it would amend 'the original plan to: include importance of this topic to the proper estimation of
monitoring of recruitment among the main subjects of the biological parameters and for the implementation of the
study; shorten the interval between sampling years; and RMP to the Antarctic minke whales.
conduct sUiveys using line transect methods.
Results from the permit studies are reviewed each year
and comments can be found in the Scientific Committee REFERENCES
reports. A major mid-term review was held in 1997 (IWC,
1998). . International Whaling Commissio1988. Report of the Scientific
Conuniuee, AnnexR. The Japanese scientific permit proposal for
Southern Hemisphere minke whales: background and comments.
Rep. iltt. Whal. Commn 38:139-49.
International Whaling Commission. 1989. Report of the Special
ADDITIONS/CHANGES TO THE OBJECTIVES Meeting of the Scientific Committee to consider the Japanese
An additional objective was added for the 1995/96 season. research pennit (feasibility study). Rep. int. What. Commn 39:159-
66.
International Whaling Commission. 1995a. Chainnan's Report of the
Objective 3. Elucidation of the effect of environmental Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Appendix 13, IWC Resolution 1994-12.
change on cetaceans Resolutionon promotionof researchrelatedto conservationof hirge
Japan added this objective in response to two Commi ssion ·baleenwhalesin theSouthernOceaRep. int. Whal. Com45:48.
International Whaling Commission. 1995b. Chainnan's Report of the
Resolutions in 1994: 1994-13 Resolution on research on Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Appendix 14, IWC Resolution 1994-13.
environmenial change and whale stocks (IWC, 1995b); and Reso.lutionon researchon the environmentand whale stRep..
1994-12 Resolution on promotion of research related to intWhat. Comnm 45:49.
conservation of large whale stocks in the Southern Ocean InternationWhaling Commission.1998.Reportof theIntersessional
(IWC, 1995a). Some work on this new objective had been WorkingGroup 10Review Data and Results froSpeda lPermit
Resean:h on Minke Whales in theAntarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997.
carried out under the original objective 2. . Rep. ;m. Whaf. Commit48:377-412.
AnnexF
A review of the coverage of strata and the sequence of surveys
relative to the iCeedge during JARPA
Paul R. Wade
Note: A longer version of this Annex was developed the surveys (typically December to March) which
towards the end of the Workshop. There was insufficient sometimes meant that the location of the ice edge had
time todiscuss this (orhisAnnex) during the Workshop (see changed between the time a northern stratum was surveyed
/tem23 of the report). and the time the southern stratum below it was surveyed.
The density of minke whales is thought to have some
association with the ice edge, so good coverage of the ice
INTRODUCTION edge strata is important to the abundance estimates
Matsuoka et al. (2006) provides detailed maps showing calculated from JARPA data. For example, in SC/D06/J6,
achieved trackline effort (same for all species) during the approximately 40-50% of the abundance estimates ·for
JARPAsurveys inAreasIV and V.The logistics are complex minke whales calculated in Areas IV and V over the period
since the surveys attempted to cover the complete area from of JARPA comes from the southern strata (e.g. Tables 1-h
60°S to the ice edge by a Sighting Vessel (SV) and by and 1-i), even though the southern strata were typically
Sighting and Sampling Vessels (SSV) working in close much smaller than the northern strata.
association. Effort was divided between a southern stratum This review is based on figs 1-30 in Appendix 4 of
(ice edge to 45 n.miles northof the ice edge) and a northern Matsuoka et al. (2006). Some evaluations were made
stratum (from the southern stratum north to 60°S). The ice subjectively from the figures, and the evaluation should be
edge was usually retreating south during the time periodof confirmed and improved by quantitative analysis of the
210 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 443
survey data. However, this subjective evaluation was all that (4)Strata order (Order strata were surveyed)
was possible in the time available at the workshop. The This lists the order in which the survey strata were surveyed
evaluations are given in Table 1 and independent checking in each year. It provides information on potential shifts'in
can be undertaken intersessionally. · the timing of the survey of the ice edge strata.
A summary of my interpretation of these results is
included in the main report under Item 2.3. (5) Aveorder (Average order of survey of the southern
strata)
This takes the order (1 to 5 for Area IV or 1 to 4 for Area V)
EXPLANATION OF COLUMNS IN THE TABLE given in the previous columnand simply calculates what I
(1) IESC (Ice edge strata coverage) have termed the 'average order'n which the southern strata
SC/D06/J2 (fig. 2) shows the 'ideal' method of trackline (SE and SW) were surveyed. As an example, if the survey
design for the ice edge strata: one transect due north from orderin Area IV was SE-NE-SW-PB-NW, then the average
the ice edge for 45 n.miles followed by a transect at an angleorder would be calculated as:
designed to intersect the ice edge again 4° longitude further (1 [since SE wassurveyed first]+ 3 [since SW was surveyed
to the eastr the west. However, themaps in Matsuoka et al.
(2006) show that these ideal tracklines could not always be third]) 2 (two southern strata were surveyed) = 2
accomplished in practice. I have subjectively evaluated (for I have calculated this toyto make it easier to see patterns
SV and SSV separately) whether: the tracklines provided in the timingf the survey of the ice edge.
complete coverage from the ice edge to the northern
boundary of the stratum; there were significant gaps in .(6)IESW and IESW (Ice extent in the western and
coverage from east to west; and the sawtooth pattern was eastern strata)
accomplished as planned. The evaluation is expressed as There is considerable variability in the extent of ice that
high (H), medium (M), or low (L), where the goal was to
occurred along the continent in different surveys that may
evaluate whether coverage appeared to be >75% (H), 50- reflect inter-annual variability in ice conditions andhe
75% (M), or <50% (L), with additional consideration given timingof the survey. This column lists my subjective view
to as to whether a sawtooth pattern extending from the ice of the amount of ice as either: H (high) for a year in which
edge to the northern boundary was successfully much of the extent of ice extended more than 2° latitude
accomplished.
from the continent; L (low) for a year in which considerable
stretches of the continent appeared ice-free; or M (medium)
(2) NSC (Northern strata coverage) for a year in which the ice extent was less than latitude
Coverage was evaluated subjectively from inspection to be but there wereo large ice free stretches along the continent.
high (>75%), medium (50-75%), or low (<50%). However, for the Ross Sea (the SE stratum in Area V): H is
for a year in which it had little ice-free area; L is for a year
(3)IE main (Main months in which ice edge stratum in which most of the width of the stratum was ice-free and
was covered) the ice-free area extended south to at leastS; and M is
This lists the 'main' months that the ice edge strata were intermediate.
covered where 'main' is taken as a month that appeared to
have more than 20% of the survey coverage, so effort in a (7) Comments
month that appeared to be less than that was not recorded In some years a gap was left between the southern and
here. It provides some information on temporal changes in northern strata which was left unsurveyed. This appeared to
coverage of survey strata from north to south. For Area V, happen particularly in yearin which the northern stratum
the Ross Sea is also given in parentheses. was surveyed first, such that when the ice edge strawas
Table 1
Summaryof surveycoverageduringJARPA.Forexplanationofcolumnbeadingssee text.
(!)!ESC
- - - (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (7)
Year SSV SV NSC IEmain Strata orderAve order IESW !ESE Comments
Area IV
1989/90 M M Jan. SE-NE-SW-PB-NW 2 M M No SVdata
1991192 M H H Jan./Feb. NE-SE-SW-PB-NW 2.5 M M No SVdata inN strata ,
1993/94 M M H DecJJan. SE-NE-SW-PB-NW 2 M H
1995/96 L L M Jan. SW-NW-PB-NE-SE 3 H M Gap within SW. SV and SSV strata in Ware 'different
1997/98 M M H Jan./Feb. NW-SE-NE-SW-PB 3 M M Prydz Bay iced at time of survey
1999/00 L L H Feb./Mar. NW-NE-SE-SW-PB 3.5 L L Gap between NW and SW
2001/02 M L H Feb. NW-NE-SE-SW-PB 3.5 M L Gap between NW and SW and between NE and SE
2003/04 H H H Feb. NW-NE-SE·SW-PB 3.5 L L Gap between NW and SW
No SSV data in west part of SW
AreaV
1990/91 M H Jan. (Feb.) SW-NW-SE-NE 2 H L Gap between NE and SE (in Ross Sea). No SV data
NoN-Stransectsinice edge stratum
1992/93 M M H Jan./Feb. (Feb./MaNE-SW-NW-SE 3 L L Gap between NE and SE (in NE stratum)
1994/95 M M H DecJJan. (Feb./MarSW-NW-NE-SE 2.5 H L
1996/97 M M H Jan./Feb. (Feb./MaNE·SW-NW-SE 3 M L
1998/99 H H L Feb. (Mar.) NE-NW-SW-SE 3.5 L H OnlyyearwithsawtoothdesigninRoss Seaduetohighice
2000/01 M M H Mar. (Jan./Feb.)NE-SE-NW-SW 3 M M Gapineastern part of SW
2002/03 L L H Mar. (Jan./Feb.)NE-SE-NW-SW 3 M H No sawtoothdesiinSW,littleopenwaterinRoss Sea
2004/05 L L L Mar. (JanJF.) NE-SE-NW-SW 3 M L
211Annex 113
444 REPORT OF THE INTERSESSIONAL WORKSHOP TO REVIEW DATA AND RESULTG, ANNEX
surveyed later, the ice edge had retreated and was further REFERENCE
south, and therefore the northern boundary oMatsuoka, T., Hakamada, T., Kiwada, H., Murase, H. and Nishiwaki, S.
stratum (extending 45 n.miles northedge) stil2006. Updated distribution and abundance estimates of humpback
far shortthe southern boundary of the northern stratum.the Antarctic Areas IV and V (70E-170W). Paper
This column also includes information on whetSt. Kitts and Nev;s, WestIndies (unpublished).4lpp. [Paper available
missing, there were east to west gaps in survat the Office of this Journal].
within a stratum, and other changes in survey conditions or
coverage.
Annex G
Apparent trends in various minke whale parameters obtained
from a variety of studies
10.0..------F-m---- - ---- ---, P-stock:ale
9.0
I
c:8.0
.91
'8
<D
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Age
Age
--o19405 1950s -196~s 1970-Ji1980s -199-o-2000s
Male
261970-79ye..a .rcla,s••v~' pqll?
~.!"" _',~.~/ df>i:rliii ,,
\,/;/'I 1950-59yearclaIs ~
25
//1960-69yearclass 1940-49year class
Thetop t~gurestaken from SC/D06/J17.
The left figuresaretakenfrom Kato,H. 1987.
Densitydependentchangeswth parameters
£ of thesouthernminke whale. Sci. Rep.Whales.Res.
!30Female 1950-59yclass a.o lnst., Tokyo.38:47-73.
>. 1970-79 A..,lJ..._ .0,r\rJpO
;g ye\cl .a~s.~ l"."""d.\.T ' ..,.
28
~ _ yearclass 194049 year class
06 09 0
26 l.i
24 •
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Age (years)
212 Annex 113
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 10 (SUPPL.), 2008 445
~ Trendin true aoeat transition ohase~orTrendin trueage at transitionphasefor the P-stock
g12r------r-------.-----r--------, g12r--------r-----.--.-----------~
a11----"'==''f.t; ~~·=-----t--M-oel - a 11 -Mode l-
~1o~~----~-~~.,~----+-----r---------~ ~10 :...:..:.._ •.
ti9 t~.
~9~-- --- 4-~'.r-,--+ ---------_r.:. '~
~.1,---------+---,-~~~-+-----t--------~ 81-------- ---j---------"--- -:.~o-.
:7~---+---- k~~~~~~~~~--~ w 7~--------~--~~~~~~~~~---1
.,
~6~----+------4----+-------~ ~ 61--------i-----i--+---------~
<(1930 1935 HMO1945 1950 1955 1960 19&5 1970 1975 1980 191551990 1995 2000
Cohort(year) ~ ,i1935 1940ts1960 1965,9SO 1sas 1990 1995 2000
Cohort(year)
_ rR.;;ec:::.;:s.::;.f.::f:o.,--c--a-:,::::.::::;:s.:.:e:...'stock'Reference-case'
0 6 0.5 -
0.45 Jl l\
- 0.4 yr
1-------rlJL!.-=-.:....:. s0.35dI-----t-------l v
!i0.3f
1---t:...._-t-------tt:----+-------.0.25 '1..
1::---+-------l-.loT- §::.-t-;l't;~"""7'1r--l ~ ... ..N:..
.,0 .15
~-----4-------+--...::: a:0.F---L..lL....::....:..!!l --- _t.cL
0 0.05
t930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1Sl601960,930 t935 1940 1945 t9Se~tse s t990 1995 2000
Year Year
Recruitmentforock'reference-case'
2 ,000,------=-r--------r-----r---------,
q9J19t~1o~tit95!toot97o tar 1~tm2000985 q931~tO55195019551901 9751980 fg&5fgg() 19!152000
Year Year ·
1.2f/Kf for 1-stock 'reference-case' 1.4 Nf/Kf-for P stock 'reference-case'
1.2 ~
-...... 1/ - - /
!;20.8 L_ ~ 0.6
~ 0.6 ....... 1\ v
~ z0.6
0.4 0.4 ...... L
0.2 0.2
0,930 1935 t940 t94s 1975 tseo t2000t990~9m130wo19451950 195S 1960 19651970 18751980 1945 1990 1995 2000
Year Year
Notes
Blubberthickness (em} - Upper2 figures aretakenfrom documentSC/D06/J16.
(regressionline from SC/D06/J19) -Middle 6 figures are takenfrom document
4.4 -Blub ber th--------==---=::::1 Nf Isdefinedas mature(7+} females.
3.5 Kfisefinedas carryingcapacityof the mature
(7+)females.
2.5f-------------------....________ -1-The left figureis taken from documentSC/D06/J19.
2r-------~-------------------~
1.5f---------------- -------- -- -l
1t-----------------------------~
0.5+----- -- ---------------------1
o,.~., .:-..;-,:,:.o.r=::-:::.:,-::,,:.:0:0-.~-,,
Year
213214 Annex 114
114. Donovan G and Hammond P, “Scientific Committee Handbook” (2009) p. 2
<http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/handbook/SciComHandbook.pdf >
accessed 14 February 2012
DRAFT SCIENTIFICCOMMITTEEHANDBOOK October 2009
2 INTRODUCTION
The Scientific Committ ee was established by the Commission in 1950. This in part is a reflection of Article IV of
the Convention that refers to scientific research and the publication of results, statistics and reports and in
part a reflection of Article V2 of the Convention that states inter aliSchedule amendments '...shall be
based on scientific findings....'.' It has met each year since then (Appendix 1}.
The Scientific Committ ee was established in accordance with the Commission's Rule of Procedure M1 and its
general termsof referenceare given in Rule M4•
The Rules of Procedure (ROP) of the Scientific Committ ee are decided by the Commission and published each
year inthe Annual Report of the Commission aswell as being available on the Commission's website'.
This document has been developed to provide a relatively simple explanation of the work of the Scientific
Commi tt ee and its procedures and to be of value for scientists and non-scientists alike. It is intended to be a
living document, regularly updated and incorporated into the IWC websit e.
3 PLACE IN THE COMMISSION SYSTEM
The Scientific Committ ee is one of four Committ ees established by the Commission, the others being the
Finance and Administration Committ ee, the Technical Committ ee and the Conservation Committee (see Fig.
1). Forma lly, the Scientific Committ ee reports directly to the Commission (which considers the Committ ee's
report under appropriate items under its plenary agenda) but in practice, some relevant sections of its report
are first reported to otliler bodies of the Commission, depending on their Agendas (seeTable 1}. The Technical
Committ ee hasnot met for several years but when it did meet the Scientific Committ ee usedto provide advice
on inter alicommercial whaling catch limit s. The broad Scientific Committ ee agenda is determined each year
by the Commi ssion when it discussesa work plan proposed by the Scientific Committ ee. If other Commission
bodies require the advice of the Scientific Committee then they may request this via the Commission.
Occasionally, individual Commissioners ask the Committee for advice and this is dealt with if time permits;
howeve r, priority isgiven to it ems agreed by the full Commission.
Table 1
Recent examplesof the Scientific Committee first reportingto other bodiesof the Commission
Commission body Scientific Committee items
Aboriginal subsistence whaling sub-committee Aboriginal subsistence whaling management procedur(AWMP),
adviceon aboriginal subsistence whalingcatch limits
Budgetarysub-committee Researchfund proposals
Conservation Committee Shipstrikes
FinanCland Administration Committee Rulesof Procedure changes
1
The Full Conventiontext can be found at http://www .iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convention
2http://www .iwcoffice.org/commission/procedure.htm
3
http://www .iwcoffice.org/commission/procedure.htm#scientific
2
215216 Annex 115
115. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.), 2009,
p. 64
64 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITIEE
Table6
Workshopsandintersessionalmeetingsplannedfor2008/09.
Subject Agendaitem Venue SteeringGroup
Dates
SOWERcruise:planningmeetingandfuture AnnexG,App.2 Tokyo 26-29Sep.2008 Ql2
SOWERabundanceestimatesWorkshop AnnexG,Item I0.1 St.Andrews Apr.2009 QJ3
IWC/CCAMLRWorkshopon ecosystemmodelling Annex KI, Item 1.2 Tasmania Aug.2008 Q28
Pollution2000+ PhaseIIseeping groupmeeting AnnexK,App.4 TBA Feb.2009 Q25
ClimatechangeWorkshop AnnexK,App.3 Siena Q23
WorkshoponGreenlandfisheries AnnexE,Item3.3 Copenhagen Spring2009 Ql
Spring2009
TechnicalAWMPmeeting AnnexE,Item3.3 TBA Late2008 Ql
SecondNorthAtlanticfinwhaleImplementationWorkshop AtwexD, Item4 TBA Spring2009 Q2
MSYR reviewWorkshop Annex D,ltem 4 TBA Spring2009 Q3
Pre-meetingRMP(earlystart) AnnexD Madeira 2 day pre-meeting Q
Pre-rneetingAWMP(earlystart) AnnexE Madeira 2day pre-meeting Ql
Meetingof Large-ScaleWhalewatching(LaWE)SteeringGroup AnnexM,ltem21 Aberdeen lntersessionally Q30
Workshopon humpbackwhale populationmodelling AnnexH,App.4 TBA lntersessionally Q7
JARPNII ReviewWorkshop AnnexP,Item 17.2 Spring2009 Spring2009 Q34
MPAWorkshop RaisedinPlenary Hawaii Mar. 2009 NIA
the new Committee procedure for such reviews (see Item ICRW Article VITI.In addition, the Committee agrees that
17.4 and Annex P). According to the agreed procedure, the it would not discuss ongoing permit results in the years
Committee Chair shall at an Annual Meeting establish a between periodic reviews; rather itwould merely note short
Standing Steering Group (SSG). The main Terms of annual reports provided by those undertaking the permit
Reference (ToR) for the SSG is to give advice to the Chair research.
regarding independent experts to the specialist review
workshop. The Committee discussed different approaches
18. WHALE SANCTUARIES
to nomination of the SSG. After considerable discussion No newproposals for sanctuaries.were received.
and recognition of the importance of fairness and
experience, the Committee agrees that the SSG should be
composed of the four most recent chairs of the Committee.
19. RESEARCH AND WORKSHOP PROPOSALS
This will ensure that SSG members have the respect of the AND RESULTS
full Committee and that they have a broad oversight of the
work of the Committee. . Table 6 lists the proposed intersessional meetings and
workshops. Financial implications and further details are
dealt with under Item 22.
17.3 Improving the Committee's procedure for
reviewing scientific permit proposals Results from IWC funded projects are dealt with under
the relevant Agenda Items.
Last year, the Committee agreed on a process for reviewing
new proposals and, in principle, to periodic and final
reviews of existing proposals (IWC, 2008m, pp.351-52). 19.1 Review proposals for 2008/09
The Committee was informed about an upcoming
The Committee also agreed to discuss further details on the conference· on Marine Protected Areas and marine
latter aspect at this year's meeting.
An intersessional correspondence group chaired by mammals being held in March 2009. It will address a
number of issues relevant to the Committee's work and is
·DeMaster discussed necessary additions to Annex P to discussed further under Item 22.
make it applicable to periodic and fmal reviews. The
intersessional correspondence !iroup amended Annex P.
20. COMMITI'EE PRIORITIES AND INITIAL
However, some diverging views were noted, e.g. regarding
the schedule for submission of documents and holding the AGENDA FOR THE 2009 MEETING
expert Workshop. Therefore, it was left to this meeting of At this year's Scientific Committee meeting, 13 sub
the Committee to develop a time schedule of events and committees (including Standing Working Groups) were
agree on the final wording. A small group developed a established. The number of available sessions for sub
schedule of events and a draft text for review of special committee deliberations was 84 over a seven-day p eri.od,
permit research results. The schedule of events is now based on three concurrent sub-committee meetings for each
incorporated as table 1 in the revised Annex P. of four work sessions per day, starting at approximately
T!J.eCommittee agrees the new procedure for the review 08:30 and ending typically at 18:00. Iri addition, this
of Scientific Permit Proposals and Research Results from allowed for several ad hoc working groups to meet in the
Existing and Completed Permits (see Annex P) and evening, typically from 18:15 to approximately 21:00, and
recommends this to the Commission. The Committee for occasional longer sessions of sub-committees beyond
agrees that the forthcoming review of JARPN II will be the the scheduled 18:00 fmish time. However, because of the
first testof this procedure, and that the text may be inability to schedule certain sub-committees opposite other
adjusted based on the experience gained by that review. sub-committees only 79 of the possible sessions could be
The Committee is aware of the ongoing process in the scheduled. This meeting schedule was only possible due to
Commission regarding the future of the IWC. It notes that the seventh day for sub-committees this year, and this
the agreed procedure might therefore be subject to changes schedule proved efficientas it allowed for rapporteurs and
subsequent to any Commission decision on the use of ad hoc working groups to work during the evening. The
217218 Annex 116
116. “Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from
Existing and Completed Permits”, Annex P, Report of the Scientific Committee,
J. Cetacean. Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl.), 2009, pp. 398-401
398 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMI'ITEB, ANNEX P
Annex P
Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and
Research Results from Existing and Completed Permits
1. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS (2) Methods2 to address objectives:
New proposals should be submitted to the Chair of the (a) Field methods, including:
Scientific Committee at least sixmonths prior to theAnnual (i) species, number (and see (c) below), time-frame,
Meeting at which they are to be discussed, following a pro area;
fonna supplied by the Secretariat Proposers may request (ii) sampling protocol for lethal aspects of the
that the proposal remains confidential. The proposal shall be proposal; and
structured in the manner given below. (iii) an assessmentof why non-lethal methods, methods
associated with any ongoing commercial whaling,
(1) Objectives of the study: or·analyses of past data have been considered to be
insufficient;
The objectives should: (b) laboratory methods;
(a) be quantified to the extent possible;
(b) be arranged into two or three categories, if appropriate: (c) analytical methods, including estimates of statistical
power where appropriate;
'Primary', 'Secondary' and 'Ancillary'; (d) time frame with intermediary targets.
(c) include a statement for each primary proposal as to
whether it requires lethal sampling, non-lethal methods (3) Assessment of potential effects of catches on the
or a combination of both; stocks involved:
(d) include a brief statement of the value of at least each (a) Asummary of what is known concerning stock structure
primary objective in the context of the three following
broad categories objectives in the area concerned;
(b) the estimated abundance of the species or species,
(i) improve the conservation and management of including methods used and an assessment of
whale stocks, uncertainty, with a note as to whether the estimates have
(ii) improve the conservation and management of previously been considered by the Scientific
other living marine resources or the ecosystem of Committee;
(c) provision of the results of a simulation study on the
which the whale stocks are an integral part and/or,
(iii) test hypotheses not directly related to the effects of the permit takes on t)le stock that takes into
management of living marii\e resources; account uncertainty and projects (1) for the expected
lifeof the permit (i.e. n years); (2) for situations where
(e) include, in piuticular for d(i) and d(ii), at least for each the proposal is assumed to continue for (a) a furthern
primary objective, thecontribution it makes tointer alia years, (b) a further 2n years; and (c) some longer period
(i) past recommendations of the Scientific of years since the start of the proposal.
Committee,
(ii) completion of the Comprehensive Assessment or (4) A note on the provisions for co-operative research:
in-depth assessments in progress or expected to (a) Field studies;
occur in the future, (b) analytical studies.
(iii) the carrying out 'of Implementations or
Implementat ion Reviews of the RMP or AWMP, (5) A list of the scientists they propose to send to the
(iy) improved understanding of other priority issues as intersessional review workshop.
identified in the Scientific Committee Rules of
Procedure (IWC, 2006, p.180 ),
(v) recommendations of other intergovernmental 2. THE REVIEW PROCESS
organisations. Intersessional specialist workshop
The initial review of a new proposal, or interim and final
reviews, shall take placeat a small specialist workshop with
a limited but adequate number of invited experts (who may
Therearetwoexistingongoingpermits.ForJARPNIIthereview will
takeplace in 2009. JARPA ll started in 2005/06 and the frrst six2year
period will be finished in 2011/12. The periodic review will take pWhere novel or non-standard Jt?Cthodsre proposed. sufficient
shortlyafter,for exampleWithni 1-2 years. informationmustbe given to a11owthesebeoproperlyexamined.
219Annex 116
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 11 (SUPPL.), 2009
399
or may not be present members of t(4) The Chair,Vice-Chair and Head of Science will agree a
Committee). A limited number of sciefinal list (with reserves); the proposal (with a note
theproposal should attend the workshconcerning any restrictions) will be sent to the selected
primarily to present the proposal anexperts and reserves - the process thus far will have
clarification. It is important that taken about 6 weeks since the proposal has been
specialist group is considered balanreceived.air.The choice
of experts shall be made by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head
The Workshop will take place days before the
of Science in conjunction with a SAnnual Meeting.ition to the selected experts it will
(SSG) established by the Chair at include at least oneair, Vice-Chair and Head of
special emphasis on the field and Science, one of whom shall chair the workshop.
provided in the proposal and estimation
catches on the stocks(s). The SSG shall be selected by the
Chair, Vice-Chair and Heade, such that it
represents an appropriate rangeand expertiseeference of the specialist workshop for review
within thentific Committee. The selection process for
the specialist group shall occur in the manner describedof the specialist workshop will be to
below.Ascheduleents for the review process is shownal in the light .of the stated objectives
in Table 1. following the guidelinesforma provided by the
Secretariat. In particular, the Workshop shall:
Procedure review of new proposals (1) comment briefly on the perceived importance of the
The Chair shall 'circulate the proposal to the Vice-Chair,ves from a scientific perspective
Headof Science and SSG, normally within 1 week ofurposes of conservation and management,
receipt. noting particularly its relevance to the work
Scientific Committee;
(I) The SSG shall examine the proposal and in particular suggestions on components of the
the field and analytical methods and, normally within 2be achieved using non-lethal
weeks, suggest names for consideration for theing, where appropriate, power analyses
specialist group (if these expertsthe time-frames;
Committee they shall include a rationale for theirher the proposed field and analytical
choice) and the suggestions will bmethods are likely to achieve the stated quantified
members. objectives within the proposed time-frame, where
(2) The Chair,Vice-Chairand Head of appropriate,commenting on sample size andtime-frame
a proposed final list (with reserves) for consideration by
theSSG within 2 weeks and beofn the process advice on the likely effects
establishing the time and venue of the Workshoptakingolved under various scenarios of
into account the availabilityd experts andf the programme - this will include inter alia
the scientists associated with the proposal.n of abundance estimates provided and may
(3) TheG will send final comments within 1 week.fferent analysis to that provided in the
Table I
Schematicscheduleof eventrcso(a)reviewingSpecialPermitproposals;and(b) periodicreviewsof resultsfrom
ongoingSpecialPennitresearchandfinalresultsfromcompletedSpecialPermitresearch.Thedates showninthe tablesareforillustrativepurposesonly
assuminganAnnualMeetingbeginningon 1June.
(a)ReviewofSpeoiaiPermit proposals Scheduleofevents
ReceiptofSpecialPermitproP<>sal ?.§~~P!~it<it._I!~ )!S~(M~.t!d!J!g~
DistributeproposaltoViceChair.Headof ScieI weekSSG
SSGsuggestnamesforthe SpecialistWorkshop weeks
FinalcommentsfromSSGadofSciencedeveloplisi weekscialistsandreserves
InvitationanddocumentstoSpecialists I week
HoldWorkshop ~!~[~.iY iP!iiii[LMJ.~Bf~iT~:-F~)
FinalWorkshopReportmadeavailabletoPropon> 80daytAnnualMeeting
DistrotheProposal,WorkshopReporttotheCommitteemProponents
Discussionandsubmissionof documentstothe~~~~issii&1~~~it~i=~sE~tK.~f
(b) Perfireviews Scheduleof events
Inforinationonlikelyanalyticalmethodstob)J)!i""@.:.@!if~(~j>:_'!]Jrkshop
Distributedocumentsto ViceChair,Headof ScI weekndSSG
Chair,ViceChairandHeadofSciencedevelopJistofSpecialistsandreserves
FinalcommentsfromSSG 1week
InvitationanddocumentstoSpecialists week
Receiptandcirculationof results/reviewdocuments fromSpecialPennitresearch
HoldWorkshop ~~~!:~~;: ~ ' ~1~1~t!;;b~3
FinalWorkshopReportmadeavailabletoProP<>nentsayspriortoAnnualMeeting
Distributionofre,shopR:eporatndcomttheSCromProponents
Discussionandsubmissionof documentstothe~~~>·ssi:r ~2f~t~ ~ 1l~
220 Annex 116
400 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX P
original proposal, including assumptions that shan: Committee andother participants at the Specialist Workshop
permit proposals may be projected further into the should be considered promptly and normally accepted
future; within two weeks of the application.
(5) review the proposed futermediary targets and suggest
when an intermediate review or reviews should take Terms of reference of the Specialist Workshop for
place. periodic and fmal reviews
The primary objective of the specialist workshop will be to
review the scientific aspects of the research under Special
Procedure for periodic and fmal reviews Permits in the light of the stated objectives following the
For ongoing research without a defmed fmal year, a periodic guideline:>in the pro forma provided by the Secretariat. In
particular, the Specialist Workshop shall evaluate:
review shall take place in·accordancewith either the advice
provided under Item (5) of the workshop to review new 1 (1) how well the initial, or revised, objectives of the
proposals or on the advice of a periodical review workshop research have been met;
and taking into account the availability of the proponents. (2) other contributions to important research needs;
The fmal review shall take place no later than three years (3) the relationship of the research to relevant IWC
after the final take under Special Permits. The periodic and resolutions and discussions, including those dealing
final reviews shall be based on documents provided by the with the respective marine ecosystem, environmental
proposers and other members of the Scientific Committee changes and the ir impact on cetaceans and Committee
six months before the Annual Meeting at which the reviews of special permit research;
Workshop report is to be presented. Information on the (4) the utilitof the lethal techniques used by the Special
analytical methods likely to be used in documents presented Permit Programme compared to non-lethal techniques;
to the Worksop that might assist with the selection of and
appropriate experts shall be circulated nine months before (5) in case of periodic review, provide advice on:
the Annual Meeting. (i) practical and analytical methods, includi ng non
The Chair shall circulate the information on the analytical lethal methods, that can improve research relative
methods to the Vice-Chair, Head of Science and SSG, to stated objectives;
normally within 1 week of receipt.
(ii) appropriate sample sizes to meet the stated
(1) The SSG shall examine the information available on the objectives, especially if new methods are
field and analytical methods and, normally within 2 suggested under item (i);
weeks, suggest names for consideration for the (iii) effects on stocks in light of new knowledge on
status of stocks;
Specialist Workshop (if these experts are not members (iv) wh~ innte case of ongoing programmes, a further
of the Committee they shall include a rationale for their
choice) and the suggestions will be available to all SSG review should occur.
members.
(2) The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will develop Reports of Workshops. (applies to new proposals,
a proposed fmallist (with reserves) for consideration by periodic reviews and final reviews)
The Chair is responsible for the level and nature of
the SSG within 2 weeks and begin the process of participation of the scientists involved in the proposal,
establishing the time and venue of the Workshop taking
into account the availability of the proposed experts and which should be limited to (1) providing information to the
experts associated with the proposal. invited experts in addition to that contained in the proposal
(3) The SSG will send final comments within 1 week. or research results and (2) answering questions posedby the
(4) The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will agree a invited experts. The specialist group should attempt to reach
consensus on the individual issues referred to above, but
fmal list (with reserves); the proposal (with a note where this is not possible, the rationale behind the
concerning any restrictions) will be sent to the selected
experts and reserves - the process thus far will have disagreement should be clearly stated in the Workshop
taken about 6 weeks since the information on analytical report. The final report of the Workshop shall be completed
methods has been received. at least 80 days prior to the Annual Meeting and will be
(5) The full documents shall be circulated no later than 6 .made available to the proponents.
months before the Annual Meeting.
(6) Responses to those documents shall be submitted no Circulation to the Scientific Committee
later than I month before the Workshop. The original special perinit proposal, or the original result
documents from ongoing or completed special permit
The Workshop will take place at least 100 days before the research, the report of the specialist workshop, and any
Annual Meeting. In addition to the selected experts it will revised permit proposal (following the agreed protocol), or
include at least one of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of any revised results, from the Contracting Government shall
Science, one of whom shall chair the workshop.
be submitted to Scientific Committee members no later than
40 days before the Annual Meeting. The revised proposal,
or revised results, will also be submitted tothe members of
Availability of data relevant to the periodic or final the specialist group and they will be invited to submit joint
or individual comments on that revision to the Annual
review Meeting.
Applications for the access to data for the purpose of
periodic or fmal review, should follow the recommended
approach of Procedure B of the IWC SC Data Availability Discussion at the Scientific Committee
Agreement (IWC, 2004).For data provided under the DAA, The report of the specialist workshop willl:ldiscussed but
the conditions for data recipients are outlined in the not amended by the Scientific Committee. The comments of
the Scientific Committee will be included in the Scientific
agreement. Applications made by members of the Scientific
221Annex 116
J. CErACEAN RES. MANAGE. 11 (SUPPL.), 2009 401
Committee report. The original proposal ·and any revised REFERENCES
proposal, the specialist workshop report (and subsequent International Whaling Commission. 2004. Report of the Scientific
comments on any revised proposal), and the Scientific Committee. Annex.Report of the data availability working group.
Committee report will then be submitted to the Commission . J.Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 6:406-08.
and become publicly available at the opening of therwc International Whaling Commission. 2006. Rulescedure of the
Annual Meeting. Scientific Committee.. Rep. Inr. Whaling Comm. 2005:180-83.
222 Annex 117
117. “Report of the Intersessional Workshop on MSYR for Baleen Whales”,J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. 11 (Suppl. 2), 2010, p. 502
502 REPORTOF THEMSYRWORKSHOP
from estimates of r0given the bound MSYR,+ ~ ro/2.This 'medium' reliability and those for the other as·'high'
view arises from the assumptions that the relationship reliability in terms of the data used and the appropriateness
between the per capita growth rate and population size is of the assumptions underlying the assessment. Catch-at-age
smooth and convex so that MSYL 1+> 0.5, as suggested by, data formed a key basis for estimates of MSYR for two
for example, Fowler and Baker (1991) that most large stocks (minke whales in the Indian and PaCific Oceans);
mammals exhibit density-dependence at high fractions of both of these estimates were assigned 'low' reliability (see
their carrying capacities. The counter view is based on the Table 1). ·
arguments that: (a) the per capita growth rate maye high at
low population size, but drop quickly thereafter (the 'basin
6.3 Changes in biological parameters
model' and 'supercompensation' arguments- (Holt, 1985)); The Workshop agreed that the changes in biological
(b) the data analysed by Fowler and Baker (1991) do not parameters could not be used to define the range of values
enable any conclusions to be drawn that recruitment surveys
of MSYR for use in RMP simulation trials.
have negative second derivative (de Ia Mare, 1994); and (c)
the impact of stochasticity in the population dynamics
6.4 Maxima inferred from demographics
which leads to positively biased estimates of r 0 (e.g. The major aim of the -MSYR review is to define a lower
SC!F091MSYR3) and higher realised growth rates at low
stock size than the average such growth rate, will reduce (or bound for MSYR for use in RMP simulation trials. The
Workshop agreed that maximum rates of increase based on
eliminate) the difference between MSYR 1+and r 0or some demographics do not provide any information which could
stocks.
be used to estimate such lower bounds.
The Workshop agreed that while both views remained,
the fact that there is no evidence for a reduction in the
growth rates for the right (and particularly) humpback 6.5 General limitations affecting more than one method
The November 2007 Workshop discussed the impact of
whales that have been monitored regularly over the past two
decades (some humpback stocks are now in the region of environmental variation on the ability to estimate MSYR
0.3K) implies that the 'supercompensation'/'basin model' and MSYL under this item. This topic was discussed at the
present Workshop under Items 4 and 5 above.
argument is not as plausible as it was in the past.
6.2 Population dynamics models and catch-at-age data 7. PROGRESS FOR REVIEWING PROPOSALS TO
The November 2007 Workshop discussed the use of
population dynamics models and catch-at-age data when AMEND THE RMP
IWC (1994, p.47) specified the protocol for evaluating
estimating MSYR. The current Workshop did not identify
further issues pertinent to the estimation of MSYR. proposed amendmenis to the RMP. In reviewing the
protocol in 2006, the Committee agreed (IWC, 2007) that
However, it noted that estimates of MSYR had been
obtained using population models for four stocks (North three factors needed to be considered futther:
Atlantic fin whales, North Atlantic minke whales, Eastern (I) the appropriate range ofMSYRs to be used in trials;
(2) development of an appropriate set of simulation trials;
North Pacific gray whales, and Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort
Seas bowhead whales). The Workshop assigned the (3) defmition of an appropriate set of performance
estimates of MSYR for the first three of these stocks as statistics.
Table 3
AsforTable1,exceptthatthetableis restrictedtocasesforwhichinfonnationisavailableon MSYR.
Reliability of available
Species: 'Slack' MSYRv alues Dataavailableincl.timeperiods estimates (see key to Tableferences
Fin whale
Nol'lhAtlantic
East Greenland-Icelan1.7(1.0 V-erco. picled•depends on model specifications, (M) Branch and Butterworth
(MSYR,.) including mulliple stocks.ervals approximate; (2006)
highMSYR values from earlier single-slock models
Seiwhale
SouthernHemisphere 3.0(no Cl) 1926/27-1977n8 (R) Horwood and Millward
(1987)
Antarctic minke whale
Indian 5.5;5.4(SE 0.5) 1978n9-2004/05 Possibly confounded bMori eta/(2007); Punt
Pacific 3.6; 2.6 1978n9-2004105 changing K and uncertaiand Polachec(2007)
about CAA data (L)
Commonminke whale
NorthAtlantic
Northeastern 1.90 (<0.10-3.84) 1953-2005 Uses CPUE data (M) Butterworet a/(2007) .
Gray whale
North Pacific
Eastern gray whale 7.0 1967/68-2001102 (DS) No process error accounPunt eta/(2901)
(90% 4.8·9.2) for.Impactofpriorson
MSYR and K (M)
Bowhead whale
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort 3.3"A1.9- 1978-2005census+calches) (H) BrandonandWade
- 4.8) (2006)
*Cis inferred by proportionalily lo Cis for growth r.le par.meter
223224 Annex 118
118. “Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from the
Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission”, Annex E, Chair’s Report of the 62nd
Annual Meeting, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 2010 ,
pp. 56-60
56 SJXlY-SEC0:-10 ANNUAL MEEII:-IG . ANNEX E
Ann ex E
1
Proposed Consensus Deci sion to Improve the Conser vation of
Whales from the Chair and Vice-C hair of the Commis sion
Th"TROD uC TIO~ last 7-8 months ; particip ation in the group has requireda
buge commitment. However , while significant progres s has
Backg t·ound been made ,s•venthe verychallengingissuesbeingdealtwith
At last year·s meeting , the Commission re\~ewe pdogress and the strongly-held aod differing views among member
go\·.,mment s on a number of issues , it was not possibl., , at
v.'itdiS<:USSIOUS 00 the future of rwc. Recogwsmg that
the work was not complete , the Commission agreed by least m the time available , to reach full consensusamong
consensus to extend the time allocated to the Small Working the Support Group members. Therefore th" Chair and Vice
Charr were requested by the Support Group to produce a
Group (SWG) on the Future of the rwc until IWC/6 2 m
2010 . The SWG , that was opened up to observers , was comproUllSe text to sen·e as a basis for further negotiations .
tasked with intensifYing its efforts to conclude a package TbtS 'proposed Consensus Decision ' is that compromise
text.
or packages by 2010 that should allow the Commission to
reach a consensus solution to th€'major problems it faces , w., empha sise that the proposed Consensus Decision
building upon the concept of a two-phase process and the contawed in the following pages does .!!!!represent an
progress reported by the SWG in its report to IW061. The agreed approach of the Support Group or the SWG . In fact.
Commission also agreed that the Chair . in consultation netther does it necessarily represent our own vi"ws regardin g
wtth the Advisory Committee , should establish a Support the content of a finally agreed document . Rather it is betn g
Group contallling equitable geographic and socio-economic put forward to facilitatthe necessary further discus sions
representationand range of views to assist him in providing lea<hng up to IWC /62 in Agadir and as a practical way
direction to the process and in the preparation of material to meet formal deadlines (60 days notice is required for
for submiss ion to the SW G. Th€'Support Group compnsed proposed Schedule amendinents)~
In addit ion to the Commiss ion 's plen ary session , tune
Antigua and Barbuda , Australia , Brazil , Cameroon ,
Germany , Iceland , Japan, Mexico , New Zealand , St. Kitts bas also been set aside at IWC /62 for these discussions
and Nevis . Sweden and the USA :-lorway was invited by the on 16 and I7 June and during the private meeting of
Comnu ss10ners on Sunday 20 June 2010. TbtS allocation of
Chait to participate and attended the last two meetings of the
Support Group as an observer. tune mdicates how important we believe that this proce ss
On the basis of discussions in three meeting s of the ISfor the future of the IWC - we strongly believe tl1at all
governments should strive towards reaching consensus . A
Support Group (in Santiago , Chile in September 2009 ; m
Seattle , USA in December 2009 and in Honolulu , USA m vttally in1portant compo nen t of the philosophybehmd the
January 2010), the Chait of the Commission subnutted a effort of recent years has been respect for all Vtews and the
need to step awa y from the di\~\· eoting of the past . We
report to the March 2010 meeting of the SWG m Florida
that con tamed a set of ideas (a draft Consensus Decision to are finnly of the view that this is the way forward for the
Improve the Conservation of Whales) as to how the IWC good of conservation and management.
could function in the future ' It was discussed thoroughly . Like the earlier ,-ersion (IWCIM10 1SWG4 ), the
The Support Group met again in Washington, USA in Apnl proposed Consensus Decision contained here include s a
to consider commen ts on the draft Consensus Deciston made VIS IOn Statement for the rwc and an approach to how the
at the SWG meeting' and subsequently in writing' . very different \·iews among member governments regarding
whale s and whaling might be reconciled. It would estabhs h
Tb~ propo•ed Conseu. us Decision to Imp ron the a 10-year interim period of stability within which intens i,·e
dialogue will occur on the major long-tenn issues at the
Co n•e n·ationof "·ba les
We have developed this proposed Consensus Decis ion IWC with the objective of reso lving those issue s durin g that
to Improve the Conservation of Whales on the basi s of penod. The document includes a number of Appendice s,
mcl udmg proposed Schedule amendments . which would
dtScusstons of the Support Group and SWG described above .
The Support Group worked extremely hard towards S!Ve effect to the approach put forw:.rd. Some of the
building consensus , while working on the firm understanding proposals , should they be accepted , would also require
ameudinents to the Comm ission 's Rules of Procedure and
that 'norhi11gis agreed unlil eve>ything is agreed '. We are
very apprec iative of its dedicatioand hard work over the Fina nClal Regulations. We have reque sted the Secreta riat
to develop proposed revisions and these are provided m a
1 separa te document , i.e. IWC /6?18.
IIXtudingproposeaJllt1ldnlmtstheSchedule to Convention. Durin g the discussions of the Support Group and the
'SeeI\VCIM10/SWG4: awr·s Report to the SmaU Working Group oo the
Futureo:th~I\\C. SWG , two issues have proven to be particularly diffi.cu.It
'SeeIWC 62/6rev: Report of the founb meeting of the SmaU \\'Ot1tinto find a consensus way forward : those rela ted to Tab le 4,
Group oo the futuc< of the IWC. Appendix A (catch limi ts) and those related to intemallooal
'See1\VO AI OISGI : Comments received on the Dr.tft Cooseosus Deasioo
to Improve the Conscrv3tion of Whales.. trade .
225Annex 118
~'C>ol JEPORTOFTHEIl'.'TERNATIONAW LHALDIGCOMMISSION2010 57
W1th res~t to Table 4, some of the important issues conservahon and management of whale populations and
wcluded: whether 10 inc01porate both a reduction and a stocks on a sc1entific basis and through agreed policy
downward trend in catches in the Southern Hemisphere; measures. By unproVlllg our knowledge of whales, their
how to deal with stocks for which scientific advice from environment, and the multiple threats that can affect their
established management procedures was not available at the welfare, the Comnlission will striveto ensure that whale
startof the interim period; whether to include catch limits
populations are bealthy and resilient components of the
for West Greenland humpback whales given that there was marine environment.
not a quorum at the recent intersessional meeting in Florida. The long history of overexploitation by industrial
For the purposes of allowing for continued discussion, we whaling in the past left whale populations in many areas in
have put in some example munbers in Table 4. You will a severely depleted state. TI1isled to the implementation of
see thatar this srage we have included a two-step decliue various management measures by the Commission over the
in Antarctic minke whale catches over the period - thisis years, including the commercial whaill1g moratorium. As
neither a continuous decline nor a stablenut and (like any a result, we have seeu a recovery in some stocks although
numbers in Table 4) is without prejudice to what might be others remain severely depleted. Furtl1ennore, previously
agreed for thepost-2020 period. We have included a catch unforeseeu threatstowhale populations have emerged. There
liuut for humpback whales off West Greenland at this has also been an increase in whaling outside the control of
stage.And we have increased the annual strike linllt for the the International Whaling Conunission (IWC).
ind1genous subsistence take of gray whales from the eastern Very different views exist among the members regarding
stock in the North Pacific by five whales in recognition of whales and whaling. For example, some seek to eliulinate
the issue of the 'stinl-y' whale issue (five whales being the
all whaling other than indigenous subsistence whaling,
average nwnber of 'stinl-y'whales reported per year over the and some support whaling provided it is sustainable. This
last fiveyears).The only inevitable result of the example difference has come to donlinate the time and resources
nwnbers we have included in Table 4 is that as a package of the Commission at the expense of effective whale
they \vill dishked by all for one reason or another,including
ourselves. They aremerely there to stimulate the necessary conservatiOnand management. The prevalent atmosphere of
confrontabon and mistrust among member governments has
wtense discusSions and negotiationprior to Agadir. led to little progress being made on key practical matters of
W1th res~t to th.equestion of international trade,thishasconservation and mana.~te snce the early 1990s despite
long been a point of contention within the IWC, particularly advances at a sc1eottfic level This has cr;.ated conc~rns
w1th res~t to competence; thiswas also the case w-ithinthe
among some members over the possible collapse of the
Support Group. We have taken the decision at this stage to IWC.
bracket the paragraph linllting the usof meat or products The Starns quo tS not an option for an effective
from whales to domestic use since no compromise proposal multilateral organisation. To overcome the present impasse,
could be made on this issue- once again intense discussions
and negohahons are needed on this matter before Agadir to the IWC has in recent years rec.ognised the need to create
a non-confrontational environment \vithin which issues of
detem1ine what, if any, text is included. fundamental difference amongst members can be discussed
Clearly agreat deal more work is required. We wish to witl1a view to thetr resolution. Reconciliation of differences
stress that tlus process has been long and difficult and it wilin views about whales and whaling will strengthen actions
contume to be so. There bas been much discussion within
and outside the Support Group concerning the balance of related to thecommon goal of maintaming healthy whale
populations and maximising the likelihood of the recovery
the Consensus Decision - the docwnent itself talks of a of depleted populations.
'delicate' balance and the need to preserve tllis. The text in This conseusus decision and its appendices represent
the present document on these and other matters represent a
starting point for further discussions and negotiations rather a delicate balance of concessions by alrwc members. It
establishes a ten-year interim period of stability within
than a fim1 proposal. Ahnost inevitably, there is a tendency which intens1vedialogue will occur on the major long-term
for Governments of all persuasions to take the position that issues facing thrwc. with the objective of resolving those
'we· have g1ven up more than 'them'. This is inevitable issues during that period.
and natural. Evaluation also depends on whether one, for
example, examines the Consensus Decision against one·s Under this consensus decision, no governments are
changwg thetr fundamental positionsn matters ofprinciple
own strongly-held long-term principles or against the status or prejudicing thetr furure rights with respect to, among
quo. It 15our VIewthat the proposed Consensus Decision, other things, research by special pemlit, the collllllercial
provided that 11can be adopted by consensus, represents a
major step forward forwhale conservation and management, whaling moratorium, and whaling Ullder objection and
and thus for the International Whaliugommission_ reservation. The moratoriun1 remains in place. All whaling
will be under full IWC control. Overall catch lim\\'-ibe
We therefore look forward to engaging further with both significantly below current limits and scientifically
Commissioners and Contracting Governments in the coming detemlined to be sustainable over the period. During
penod and at the Annual Meeting in JWle.We strongly urge
all concerned to work with us to find a consensus solution this interim penod many new, positive conservation and
management benefits willbe introduced. No one can be said
to our problems . to have wou or lost, but all member governments have made
accoJIUnodat1onsfor the period of the interin1arrangement
CO:KSENSCS DECISlO:\" TO DIP ROVE THE
COXSERYATION OF WILU.E S This arrangemeut wtll expire after ten years. The intent is
to resolve our key differences during this interim period,
VISION STATEMENT: The International Whaling resulting in a new way forward by that tin1e. Member
Commiss1on will work cooperatively to improve the governments agree that the resuof the arrangement will be
a good starting point for further negotiations.
'The Scientific Committe< \\ill beasked to check this increase against theort represents a paradigm shift in the way the
grnywhaleSLI at IWCf62. Conunission operates, creating a cooperative environment
226 Annex 118
58 SIX1Y-SECONDANNUALMEETING.ANNEXE
and revised framework for addressing issues related to IO(e) of the Schedule) will remain in place during the
whales. The focus is on a shared vision for the Conunission 's
arrangement. Nothing i.nthis consensus dec.ision prejudices
future. the fimdamental legal positious of member governments.
This way forward will improve theconservat ionofwhales TI1e IWC will strengthen its capac.ity as atl effective
worldwide. The Commission will address conservation multilateral orgatlisation with a strategic focus that reflects
issues as a priority since whales face new threats to their tl1e interests of its membership. The Coll11llissionwill re
existence in comparison to when the Commission was prioritisetswork on science and conservation and reorgatlise
established in 1946. Envirotunental and htunan-induced its Conunittees .Itrecognises that ensuring healthy whale
threats ru·e increasing and demand a new approach and populations requires respons ile collective actioM~mbers
therefore new effotis by the Conunission . In this regard, will work together to enable the Conmlission to effectively
every member governmen t is coll11llittedto the conservatio n address the full range of contemporary and emerging
of whales. threats facing whale populations and to inlprove their
Fundamenta l components ofthisconsensus decision are conservation and maxinlise the likelihood of the recovery
to: of depleted populations atld stocks. The Coi1Ullission will
base conservation and management measures on the best
retain te moratorium on co1lllllercialwhaling; available scientific advice, incorporating precautionarynd
suspend iuunediate ly for the I0-year period unilaterally
determined whaling under special perulit, objections, ecosystem approaches .
TI1eCommission recognises that there will be increased
and reservations; expenses and increased work for the Secretariat as a result
bring all whaling authorised by member govenunents ofthis arrangement. The preferred method of finru1cingthese
under the control of the IWC;
• linlit whaling to those members who currently take measures is through the.fi.na11cialcontributions scheme. The
whales; Coll11llission will make a detailed assessment of how to
apportion these costs runongst Contracting Governments.
ensure that no new non-indigenous whaling takes place Proposed budgets will be drafted prior to the 20 I0 Annual
on whale species or populations not currently htmted; Meeting.
establish caps for the next ten years that are significru1tly
less than current catches and witllin sustainable levels, Chapter VII as a whole represents a delicate balance of
elements that the member governments are able to accept
determined using the best available scientific advice; as a compromise. Thus, members pledge to refrain from
introduce modem , effective IWC monitoring , control exercising their rights under Artide V of the Convention to
and surveillance measures for non-indigenous whaling file objections to the Schedtile antendmen ts arising from this
operations ;
create a South Atlantic Sancmary; consensus decision or in any other way to exemptthemselves
from these provisions. As a restilt, member govenm1ents
recognise the non-lethal value and uses of whales, such consider that a rejection of a11yparticular provision , while
as whalewatc.hing, as a management option for coastal accepting the benefits of other aspects of this Chapter, would
states and address related scientific, conservation and
managemen t issues of such uses; be inconsistent with the objeel and ptupose of the new
provide a mechatlism for entetprise and capacity building amendinents and the philosophy oftl1e consensus decision.
for developing comutries; For conservation
• focus on the recovery of depleted whale stocks and take The Conunission will inunediately focus on the recovery of
actions on key conservation issues, including byc.atch,
clitnate change and other environmental threa ~ts depleted populations and stocks and take practical actions
• set a decisive directio n to the future work of the IWC on key tssues, mcludmg bycatch, clunate change and
other environmental ilireats to whales through tools such
including measures to reform the governance of the as conservation management plans. The detemlination of
Conmliss ion; and which conservation manag ement plans to develop will be
establish a timetable and mechatlism for addressing
the fundan1ental differences of view amongst member based upon inunedia te conservation needs and likelihood
of success. In addition., a South Atlantic sanctuary will be
govenmtents in order to provide for the effective established.
fimctioning of tl1eConuniss ion over the longer term. To facilitate this, the Coi1Ullission will establi sh a
Members agree not to authorise whaling outside IWC Conservation Progranune Committee. Member govenunents
control and not to exceed the prescribed catch liulits agree to participate fiilly on this Collllnittee and in its
(Appendix A).The Commissio n will now refer to aboriginal associated bodies.The Conservation Programme Committee
subsistence whaling as indigenous subsistence whaling. will, a111ongother things , address new and emerging threats
Indigenous subsistence whaling operations that were to cetaceans, including clinlate change , marine pollution,
previously approved by the Commission will continue under bycatch and entanglement by fishing activities , ship strikes
existing management measures . and habitat degradation including noise pollution ; as
The catch linlits outlined in thisarrangeme nt reflect well as reconunend an agreed fra111eworkto broaden the
scientificand policy evaluations of proposals made by the management tools availab le to fue Conunission to address
non-constunptive uses of whales.
whaling cotmtries for the ten-year period. The scientific
evaluation has ensured that the catch linlits are consistent
witl1 the principleof sustainability and the precautionary For managetnent
approach. The policy evaluation has ensured that the For this ten-year period , the Conmlission agrees to a cap
catch liulits, except for indigenous subsistence whaling, on whaling based on the presct~ bachd limits (Table 4
result in a significant reduction below existing catch of Appendix A) that will be precautionruy and set below
levels. Whaling by special perulit atld by objection or long-tern1 maximmn sustainable linlits. For indigenous
reservation will be suspended for the ten-year period and subsistence whaling , c.atc.h liulits will continue to be
notwithstanding Appendix A, the moratoritml (paragrap h established tmder existing arrangements. For all other
227Annex 118
ANNUALREPORTOFTilE INTERNATIONALWll<\LINGCOMMISSION2010 59
whaling operations , the reduced catch limits will be less conse:rvation management plans and marine protected areas_
than or equal to advic.e provided during the period under Results from cooperative research progranunes amongst
the Scientific Committee 's Revised Management Procedure member goverrm.1entswill help to fill in1portant knowledge
(RMP). In those cases for which an RMP Implementation gaps required for whale conservation_
has not yet been completed, or is not current at the start of
the period, interim limits have been set on the advice of the For g~o,e-ruance
IWC Scientific Committee , such that these limits do not risk The Commiss ion will remain the goveming body of the
causing long-tenn depletion of the populations or stocks organisation and will meet every two years from 2011.
concerned_The Scientific Committee shall give high priority Fom Co1lllllittees will support the Conunission: a Scientific
to completing RMP Implementations and Implementarion Comll!littee; a Conservation Progrannne Committee ; a
Reviews (see Appendix B)_If the results of this work indicate Management and Compliance Conunittee ; and a Finance,
that a catch lin1itshoulde lower than the hmit in Table 4 of Administration and Communication s Co1lllllittee (see
Appendix A, or if there is a significant event that negatively Appendix C). Each Co1lllllittee Chair and Vice-Chair, along
affects the status of a population or stock, the Commission with Chait· and Vice-Chair of the Connnission , will serve
will lwer the catch limit prior to the next whaling season four-year terrllS.The Committees will elect their own Chairs
based on the advice of the Scientific Co1lllllittee. and Vice-Chairs_
The Commission will establish a Management and
A Bmeau will be established to support the Chair of
Compliance Colll.11littee.Amendments to the Schedule to the Commission. In addition to the Chair, the Bttreau will
the Convention for monitoring, control and surveillance comp1rise the Vice-Chair of the Commission, the four
mechanisms will include provisions for national inspectors , Committee Chairs and two additional Commissioners.
international observers, a Vessel Monitoring System, a These two additional Commissioners will be nominated by
DNA registry and market san1pling scheme, infrac.tions the Chair for approval by the Conunission ,in order to ellSttre
and sanctions , and whale killing methods and associated that the Bureau as a whole is representative of the regions
welfare issues. These measures are intended to provide and imterests within the Commission .
strong assurance that member govemments abide by The Commission will afford greater participation to
the rules of the Co1lllllission, including catch limits.In
it1tergovenune ntal and non-govemmental organisations _
particular, the DNA registry and market san1pling scheme Representatives from these organisations will be allowed
provides substantial advantages over a catch docmnentation to speak during the meeting following the guidelines and
scheme due to its ability to link any whale meat sample Rules given in Appendix D. In accord with guidelines to be
in the market with a harvested whale and therefore detect developed by the Cormnission before 2011, the Secretariat
and deter any illegal, unreported and unregulated whaling_ shall make available contributions from intergoverrm.1ental
Further, the Management and Compliance Committee will and non -governmental organisations relevant to the agenda
review the effectiveness of these measures and reconunend of the meetit1gs of the Commission and its subsidiary
inlprovements as needed_ In the case of indigenous bodies via the Commission 's website_The Co1lllllission will
subsistence whaling that is done, often in remote parts of the
contimueto support the right to legitimate and peaceful forms
world, monitoring and control must necessarily be different of pro<test and demonstration and urge its members to have
and appropriate to those particular circmnstances. Complete regard for the inlportance of protectit1g the environment , and
and accm·ate data conceming whaling activities will be in particular the fragile Antarctic envirolllllent.
reported to the Commission in a tin1ely manner. With regard to safety at sea, the Conunission and its
The Co1lllllissionrecognises thenon-lethal use of whales, members reiterate that they do not condone, and in fact
>uch a> whal ewalchiug , a> rnanag~m epuilu fur cua>lal condellUl, any actions that are a risk to human life and
States and will address all related scientific, conservation, prope:rt:yin relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and
and management aspects of such uses_ ttrge tl1at persons and entities refrain from such acts.
Member Govenunents , including flag States and port States
For science forvessels engaged it1such acts, will continue to cooperate
The provision of sound sc.ientific advice is essential to the and to'take concrete and effective action, in accordance witll
functioning of the Commission. The work of the Scientific relevant mles of intemational law and respective national
Conunittee is intemationall y recognised asproviding thebest laws and regulations and tltrough competent intema tional
available knowledge on the consetvation and management organisat ions,o deter,suppress and prevent actions that risk
of whales. This strong tradition will continue. hmmm hfe and property at sea.
In developing priorities for the Scientific Committee,the The IWC remains the pre-eminent organisation with
Connnission will take into account the collServation status responsibility for the consetvation and management
of whale populations and the threats they face and focus on of whales worldwide_ It recognises that there are other
work that will lead toeffective collServation and management agreements and organisatiollS that are relevant to whale
measttres_The Commiss ion is committed to comprehensive conse:rvation.These include, an10ngstothers,the Convention
and frequently reviewed research progranunes that follow on Intemational Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
rigorous scientific principles and that are in accord \vith and Filora(CITES), the Convention on Biological Diversity,
or establish best practice_ The Conunission will continue the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) and the United
to publish the results of research and make publicly Nati 1~osConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)_
available the data collected under its auspices to encourage The IWC agrees to strengthen further co-operation witll
trallSparency and to promote additional research and relevant agreements and organisations and the IWC member
analyses_ The Scientific Co1lllllittee will also continue to govemments agree not to take actions that may undermine
incorporate into its work ecosystem and precautionary the eflrrcacynd pttrpose of tl1is decision in other agreements
c.onsiderations and will maintain and expand its range and organisatio ns_ For example, no an1endment of the
of tools to help identify, quantify and mitigate threats to Schedu le arising from this collSellStts decision supersedes
whale stocks and populations. These tools may include or invalidates prior IWC Resolutions relating to CITES and
228 Annex 118
60 SIX1Y-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING,ANNEX E
international trade, including Resolution 2007/4 on CITES. that point the Co11111lissiownill identify work that needs to
The Conunission shall notify the CITES Secretariat of tins be lUldertaken to enable any necessary refotms to be in place
decision. prior to expiry of this Consensus Decision.
Timeline Timetab le for Commission meetings
Starting after the Annual Meeting in 2010, these new 2010 (IWC/62)
measures desc•"ibed above will be in1plemented for a ten The Schedule an1endments in Appendix A will go into effect
year period with a review in five years. from 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2020, except tllat
for the Southern Hemisphere the effective dates shall be 1
Future work plan to addnss diffuences of views on key November 2010 through 31 March 2020.
issues 2011 (IWC/63} and 2013 (IWC/64}
While tllis paradign1 sh ift represents significant progress The Comnlission will continue its work on the critical issues
in strengthening whale conservation and management , the
members of tile IWC recognise tllat more work is needed related to its reforn1. Further work will also be undertaken
regarding , runong other tllings, animal welfare , bycatch,
to resolve the fundamental differences of views amongst developments in oceans governance , an IWC Cooperation
them if tile Co11111lissiois to function effectively over tile
longer tem1. As stated earlier, this consensus decision to Programme (Appendix E), etiucs and socio-economic
improve whale conservation and bring tile management of in1plic.ations.Further discussions will also take plac.e
concerning small cetaceans , intemational trade, and the
all whaling , at significantly reduced levels, under tile control sharing of benefits derived from tile utilisation of whales.
of the IWC, is intended to provide tile Commission with
tile opportmlity to address tllose fundan1ental difference s 2015 (IWC/65} - 'TheFive-Year Review'
of view in order to complete the ref01m of the Comnlission The Bureau will review progress in addressing work on key
and effectively address new and emerging environment al issues and tile implementation of this Consensus Decision,
challenges . identify further work that needs to be undertaken to put in
The Commission will maintain momentum in addressing place refonllS prior to its expiration, and prepare a rep011for
outstanding elements in the reform agenda. From 2011, tile consideration by the fhll Comnlission atiWC /65 in 2015.
Commission will meet biemlially while the Bureau and
the four Co1llllliltees will meet as frequently as required, 2017 (IWC/66) and 2019 (IWC/67)
possibly annually.The Comnlission will continue to address The Comnlission will begin to consider new an1endments to
the Schedule to replace Chapter VIL
the different views that exist an10ngst the members on key
issues regarding whales and whaling and proposals will 2020 (IWC/68) - Extraordinmy Meeting of the Commission
be developed to address these for consideration during tile The Schedule amendments in Appendix A will expire.
initial five years of ti1earrangement.
To facilitate fuis, tile Conunission will establish a
Working Group at IWC/62, representing a broad cross LIST OF APPENDICES
section of tile membership , to continue to exanline refom1
Appendix A Amendments to the Schedule
of tile Commission , including governance issues, the role of Annex {LIS} Licensing, infractionsandsanctions
science in decision malcing, sanctuaries , research conducted
by specialpermit ,whaling under objections and resetvations , .<\.nnxlOS} Internationlaobserverscheme
the commercial whaling moratorium , international trade, Anne.x{VMS} Vessel monitoring scheme
Annex {DNA} DNA registty and market sampling scheme
byc.atc.h and small cetaceans. Annex {WKM } Whale killinmethods and associated welfare issues
The Working Group shall report on its progress to tile Anne.x{Sl} Scientific information
Co11111lissionby 2013, including any recolll11lendations it Anne.x(0!} Operational information
may have. The Conunission shall at its next meeting and Appendi.xB Work plan for the Scien1ific Committee's assessment
work on non-indigenous whaling for the period up
each meeting thereafter lllltil these issues ru·e resolved , to 2020
discuss tile reconunendations of the Working Group.
The Commission will conduct a comprehensive five-year Appendi.xC Bureau and COilllllinee roles
Appendi.xD lunendment s to the Rules of Debate and NGO Code
review in 2015, to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Conduct
of the implemen tation and operation of the anangement. At Appendi.xE 1\VC Co-operation Progranune
229230 Annex 119
119. “The Future of the International Whaling Commission: An Australian Proposal”,
IWC/M10/SWG 5
IWC/M l O/SWG 5
Th(' Fuhll '('of th('Int('rnational Whaling Commission: An Austmlian Proposal
Imroduction
Australia supports the Intemational Whaling Conmlission (IWC) as the body with primary responsibility for the
conservation and management of cetaceans globally. Cetac.eans are a global conc.em demanding a responsible
collective approach.
Australia has been an active participant in the 'Future of the IWC' process from its inception at the March 2008
intersessional meeting in the United Kingdom. At IWC61, Australia joined the consensus agreeing to fi.uther
intensify efforts on the fi.1tureof the Conmlission, participating in the three rotmds of discussion of the twelve
member IWC Suppoti Group. The Support Group was established to assist IWC Chair, Ambassador Cristian
Maquieira, to prepare material for subnlission to the Small Working Group and ultimately to the next annual
meeting of the Conmlission.
Members of the Support Group have worked diligently to explore a range of options without prejudice to principles
held by individual IWC member nations. Australia has engaged constructively and intensively in these efforts. The
Support Group talks, whilst robust, were frank, friendly and constructive.We would like to acknowledge the
leadership of the Chair and the positive efforts of all members of the Support Group.
It is Australia's view that the approach that has been tmder discussion in the Suppot1 Group, as it stands, demands
too many first order concessions from those who are conmlitted to an end to conuuercial and special penuit
(mtilateral so-called 'scientific') whaling, and does not do enough to conserve and protec.t whale populations.
The Australian Govenuuent remains resolutely opposed to conuuercial whaling and tmilateral 'sc.ientiftc' whaling,
and strongly suppmts the global moratorium on conuuercia l whaling. The primary objective of the Australian
Govenuuent remains the refonu of the Intemational Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) 1946 to bring
about an effective, penuanent intemational ban on both conm1ercial and mtilateral 'scientific'whaling.
Australia will continue to argue vigorously that whaling should be phased down to zero, with total and permanent
d iuriualiuu uf all whaliug (other thau cmreut auurigiual "'u'i'teuce whaling), re~uuaul e linuillmue .
However, the Govemment recognises the significant difficulties to be overcome to meet this outcome and
acknowledges that it may not be possible to achieve these goals inuuediately .
From Australia's perspective there are four major priorities.
First, Australia needs toe an inunediate end to tmilateral so-called 'scientific' whaling pmportedly conducted m1der
A11icleVIII of the ICRW. From the outset, Australia has been clear that we consider any new approach must ind ude an
agreement to bring an inunediate end to tllis fonu of whaling and must put in place a mechanism and timetable to
address the refonu of Article VIII of the ICRW to penuanently end tilis prac.tice.
Second, cetacean species or populations not cmrently hm1ted should not be available for whaling and no new
whaling should be allowed; ti1etake for vuhlerable species and populations will be reduced inunediately to zero.
Tllird, we wish to see sanctuaries operating as genuine sanctuaries. No whaling should take place within them.
Fomih, ti1ere should be a decisive setting of tile direction of the fi.lfurework for the IWC to bring it into the 21"
Centmy, ind uding measures to refonn the govemance of the Comnlission. A new way forward should uphold the
central role of science, particularly to address the gaps in the science to enable the Conmlission to effectively
conserve whale populations. It should also contain a medmnism to address oti1er contentious issues including, inter
alia, ti1erefonu of the use of reservations and objections, bycatch and small cetaceans .
Australia has engaged in the disc.ussions on the future of the IWC creatively and has demonstrated flexib ility. We
have provided a muuber of papers and statements in the Conmlission over the past two years setting out our views
2/03/10
231Annex 119
IWC/M lO/SWG 5
on the possible options for a new direction to help reform the IWC into a truly modem 21''century multilateral
conservation organisation. Australia has also provided significant fi.mding and htmlllll resources for new
collaborative programs.
In thesame spirit, and against the backgrotmd summarised above, Australia now submits a proposal which has been
developed as a fi.uthercontribution to the ongoing discussionsn the Future of the IWC. We hope that our proposal
will be considePed carefi.lllyby all members. Australia believes that all IWC countries can work together in a
cmmnon effort to adlieve the conservation and the recovery of cetaeeans globally. We look fmward to c.ontinuing
to work together at the IWC Small Working Group meeting to eontinue to seek a solution acceptable to all parties.
The Futue ofH1eIntemational " 'haling Commission: An Australian Proposal
Australia will present and elaborate this approach at the upcoming meeting of the Small Working Group on the
futureof the IWC on 2 to 4March.
Austra lia proposes that the IWC should build upon the work done so far to ensure that any new
arrangement embod y the foUo"~n kgey points:
1. All whaling should be under the control of the IWC. Unilateral so-called 'scientific' whaling purpmiedly
conducted under Article VIII and whaling under objection or reservation should be brought to an
i.Imnediate end. An agreed mechatlism and ti.Inetable to address the reform of Article VIII atld the use of
objections andreservations should be established.
2. Whaling (other thatl current aborigii1alsubsistence whaling) should be phased down withill a reasonable
tin1eframe, includii1gthe phasing down md out of whahng ii1the Southem Oceatl withii1fiveyears.
3. No new whaling on eetaceatl species or populations not ctUTetly hunted should be allowed.
4. Recognising the threats to reeoveryof whale species atldpopulations, including new at1demergii1gthreats
associated witl1 eliinate chrge, the take for vuhlerable species and populations should be reduced
i.Imnediately to zero.
5. Paragraph IO(e)(moratorimn on eonunercial whaling) of the schedule to tl1eIntemational Convention on
the Regt!lation of Whalii1gwill remain ii1place.
6. All whalii1g should be prohibited ii1all IWC-reeognised whale sanctuaries - ii1eludii1gthe Southem Ocean
Whale Sanctuary and the Indiatl Ocean Whale Sanc.tuaty at1d the proposed Soutl1Atlantic. Whale
Sat1ctuary.
7. An agreed mechanism and a strategy for implementation to ensure a robust atld properly fi.mded
monitoring, complianee and enforeement fratnework for whaling during the phase-out period should be
established.
8. An agreed meehatlism should be established to address new and emerging threats to cetaeeans, includii1g
climate ehange,marii1epollution, fishii1g activities, poorly regt!latedwhale watchillgindustries, sllip strikes
atld habitat disturbance; as well as an agreed framework to broaden the management tools available to the
Cmmnissi on to address non-consumptive uses of whales.
9. An agreed eonsensual atld principle-based approach, as previously outlii1ed by Australia (IWC/61/9),
should be followed for all scientific researd1 conducted tmder the authority of the Conllllission. Deeisions
should be based onIWC-approved sc.ientilficprocedures.
2 2/03/10
232 Annex 120
120. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (Suppl.), 2011,
pp. 25-26, 57
J. CETACEANRES.MANAGE.1.2 (SUPPL.),20II 25
10. WHALE STOCKS need for further investigation); and (3) that the difference
between the two models was not due to the data used and
10.1 Antarctic minke whales (IA) was probably not due to differences in mean school size. The
Committee questioned whether sufficient progress had been
The Committee is currently continuing an in-depth made todetermine whether further investigation was likely to
assessment of the Antarctic minke whale. To complete this
assessment, agreed abundance estimates from CPII and determine the reason for the difference between the models.
CPIII' are needed. Two different abundance estimation It agrees that if the Work Plan, including an intersessional
methods have been developed during the last few years, and workshop, is accomplished, there is a reasonable chance
that this will be the case. It therefore agrees to proceed with
·althoughthey give quite different point estimates, both are these investigations until the 2011 Annual Meeting. The
consistent inthatthey show an appreciable decline from CPII Committee also agrees a number of technical points related
toCPIII.During the JARPAreview in 2009, thequality of the
Japanese ageing methods was questioned with implications to this intersessional work (Annex G, item 5.1.8).
for the catch-at-age analyses. During the present meeting, However, contingency plans (e.g. producing model
averaged estimates of abundance) will also need to be
the priority topics discussed included: the two abundance considered if it does not prove possible to resolve the
estimation methods; the reasons for the differences between difference in the estimates. Skaug compared estimates
CPII and CPIII; age reading and the catch-at-age assessment
models. from OK, SPLINTR and a model-averaged estimate on the
simulated data and found that the model-averaged estimator
I0.1.1 Produce agreed abundance estimates ofAntarctic had smaller bias than either of the two individual models.
mirike whales using IDCRISOWER data There was some discussion on the appropriateness of
Skaug reported on work conducted by the Abundance using model-averaged estimates on the real data. However,
as noted above, given the progress made this year, it is
Estimation Intersessional Working Gro11p. Tasks to be
considered by the group were directed towards elucidating anticipated that the best outcome would be a resolution of
possible causes for the difference inabundance estimates for the issue as a result of the intersessional work.
Antarctic minke whales from the IOCR/SOWER data from SC/62/IA3 and SC/62/IA 12 presented the following
the recentOK (Okamura and Kitakado, 2009) and SPLINTR 'survey-once' estimates (see Branch and Butterworth,
(Bravington and Hedley, 2009) models. In completing most 2001b) of abundance for the CPII and CPIII surveys from
the OK and SPLINTR models respectively, as summarised
of these tasks, substantial progress had been rriade towards
this in two regards: (i) development of a reference dataset in Table 4.
for model comparisons; and (ii) Bravington had completed a The Committee thanked bothsetsofauthors forproducing
non-spatial version of the SPLINTR model.For (i),a number estimates and for the substantial amount of intersessional
ofintemal inconsistencies inthe 'standardised' dataset were work, much of it collaborative. As last year, the issue is
not that either set of diagnostics suggests not accepting
identified; as noted in IWC(2010f), it is essential that when the estimates, but rather that the estimates themselves are
comparing modi:Is, the data are identical. Since the purpose
of this dataset is to allow appropriate comparisons between so different. This leadsto the need to consider three - not
the models, the Committee agrees that thisdataset is suitable necessarily unrelated- issues for next year: (I) pursuing the
for this purpose. work to explain the differences; (2) the implications, if any,
for future surveys; and (3) the procedural questionof what
SC/62/IA14 provided results from applying the IWC the Committee should do if (I) does not succeed. As part
'standard' method (Branch, 2006), and the OK and ofiWC/6217rev, the Committee isexpected to undertake an
SPLINTR models to simulated data, focussing on the latter
two. In general, both models performed well, although when RMP Implementation for Antarctic minke whales in 2015
bias did occur, it tended to be positive for the OK model and (and see Item 20). There is thus a pressing need for agreed
negative for SPLINTR. The Committee thanked Palka for absolute abundance estimates for the past surveys and an
agreed method for analysing data from future surveys.
co-ordinating this extensive study. The simulated datasets The Committee strongly recommends that the work
have proved valuable in helping to develop and refine the
models and for examining the differences between them. No plan and timeline set out in Annex G, Appendix 3 to finalise
simulated scenarios show the level of difference between estimates be followed and completed. A workshop, to be
the OK and SPLINTR estimates that the real data analyses held by February 2011 at the latest (see Item 21), is an
essential component of this.
reveal. This suggests either that the magnitudes of factors
currentlyin the simulations do not cover the ranges found in 10.1.2 Conduct an analysis of aging errors that could be
the real data (either singly or in 'combination),or that there used in catch-at-age analyses
are additional fctors not currently in the simulations that Lockyer presented the results of the Antarctic minke whale
are important for modelling the real data. ageing exercise (SC/62/IA11) which she had carried out
During the pre-meetin g and using the reference dataset, intersessionally following the 'blind' experimental design
the OK and non-spatial SPLINTR outputs were compared. agreed by the Scientific Committee (IWC, 2009e, p.209).
Estimated mean school sizes, effective strip half-widths, The study was assisted by staff from the laboratory at the
and encounter rates were combined using the simple line Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, under
transect formula for estimating abundance. The resulting the supervision of Kitakado. This had involved reading
examination revealed that: (I) these estimated quantities 250 earplugs from 1974/75-2005/06, i.e. including both
from each model were being combined correctly to estimate Antarctic commercial and JARPAsamples. The primary aim
abundance; (2) the effective strip half-widths for OK ofthe workwasto determinewhetherevidence existsof a drift
were about half of those of SPLINTR (i.e. the estimated in reader performance, and, if so, to quantify it. A secondary
abundances were approximately doubled, highlighting a aimwas to quantify age-reading errorvariability.
The CommitteethanksLockyer andtheJapanesegraduate
'CPIIandCPIII refer to the second and third setof!WC cruises,referringnts who had assisted her, and for the professional
to1985/86·19991and 1991/92-2003/04,respectively. manner in which they conducted the experiment. It also
233Annex 120
26 REPORTOF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Table4
Comparison of 'survey-once' estimates of abundance, by Management Area, from the OK and SPLINTR
models. Estimates shown have been extracted from the papers SC/62/IA3 and SC/62/IA12 and rounded,
with CVs incorporating additional variance given inparentheses.
Areal Area II Area III AreaN Area V. Area VI Total
CPU
OK 209,000 261,000 187,000 104,000 635,000 90,000 1,486,000
(0.35) (0.38) (0.42) (0.37) (0.29) (0.39) (0.17)
SPLINTR 117,000 141,000, 87,000 61,000 282,000 59,000 747,000
(0.38) (0.39) (0.55) (0.36) (0.34) (0.40) (0.19)
CPIII
OK 65,000 93,000 126,000 79,000 244,000 105,000 712,000
(0.34) (0.37) (0.33) (0.45) (0.33) (0.34) (0.17)
SPLINTR 35,000 56,000 59,000 36,000 140,000 57,000 382,000
(0.33) (0.35) (0.31) (0.33) (0.31) (0.33) (0.17)
endorses the recommendation by Lockyer that a standard SC/621IA2. Time-trajectories of total (I+) population size
reference set of minke earplugs be maintained for age and recruitment were qualitatively the same, irrespective of
reading training purposes. how age-reading error was modelled.
SC/621IA2explored the impact of period/reader on age In discussion, it was noted that while estimates from
determination by comparing age-estimates for the above recent years of recruitment and abundance for the three
250 earplugs for the control reader (Lockyer) and three different assessments were close, absolute values showed
Japanese readers (Masaki, Kato and Zenitani). Overall, relatively large differences until the 1960s, and estimation
the results demonstrated that the Japanese readers and the variance would be expected to be much higher over this
control reader differed in terms of both expected age given period.
true age and variance in age-estimates. The results also Though the Committee agrees that no further
suggested that the expected age and random uncertainty in experiments or analyses on age reading errors are necessary.
age-estimates differed among the Japanese readers although This decision did not, however, imply that other issues
the differences were not severe. This work will assist in associated with the data and analyses, such as reasons for
determining how catch-at-age data are used in the statistical the different length distributions at age for younger-aged
catch-at-age analyses and in future virtual population commercial and JARPA,had been resolved.
analyses. Completion of the work on investigation of catch-at
The Committee welcomes this study as an important age based assessments requires undertaking the tasks as
advance. It was noted that: (a) Lockyer tended to report detailed in Annex G, item 5.2.4. These investigations will
greater ages than the Japanese readers; (b) differences require an extension of permission from Japan for use of
amongst the Japanese readers were slight; and (c) that there theirAntarctic minke whale catch-at-age data, and would be
was no indication of a trend in bias in Japanese readings improved if data from the most recent JARPAcruises could
over the period examined (i.e. from commercial whaling to also be made available. The Committee recommends that
special permit whaling). It was also noted that SC/62/IAll such an approach be madeto Japan under Procedure B ofthe
does not provide any information about the accuracy of the DAA. Kato indicated that corpora count data were available,
age readings in absolute terms, given theabsence of known and that these data would be provided if necessary. An
ag ed individuals. The absence of known-aged individuals intersessional steering group under Punt was established to
is also the general norm for fish populations although for co-ordinate this work (seeAnnex Q).
a number of these there are indications that layers were 10. 1.4 Continue to examine the difference between
formed seasonally. Similarly, studies of fin whales, as well
as corpora counts and information from animals with known abundance estimatesfrom CPII and CPIII
histories, all indicate that the growth layers groups used to Estimates from the OK, SPLINTR and standard methods
(Branch, 2006) were consistent in that they showed a
estimate whale ages a re laid down annually. decline from CPII to CPIIL Conclusions reached about
In conclusion, the Committee agrees that no further
experiments or analyses on age reading errors are needed the reasons for these changes should integrate information
·from other sources such as changes in ice coverage during
to resolve ageing related problems raised in e.g. the JARPA the survey periods concerned. Until recently, there was
review. little quantitative information on the number of Antarctic
The Committee also recommends that, where they do
not already, national or other guidelines for dealing with rninke whales that might be present within the pack ice. This
year the Committee was pleased to receive several papers
stranded animals include encouragement to obtain samples reporting on, and analysing data from,.surveys of whales
which could provide information on the animal'sage. within the pack-ice.
10.1.3 Continue development of the catch-at-age models SC/621IA4investigated trends of sea ice in the period of
SC/621IA6examined the impact of allowingfor ageing error IWC IDCRISOWERcircumpolarsurveys from CPIto CPIII
basedonthe analyses of the above (Item 10.1.2)age-reading (1978-2004).Thesea ice trendsare fundamental information
experiment when conducting assessments for Antarctic to understand the year-to-year sea ice variability. The
minke whales inAreas III-E, rv,V andV-W using statistical authorsconcludedthat the difference in abundanceestimates
catch-at-age analysis by means of sensitivity tests. These between the CPII and CPIII surveys can be partly explained
sensitivity tests explored three scenarios: (a) no ageing by the change in the amount of open sea areas within the
error; (b) ageing error is modelled as in previous base sea ice field. The Committee agrees that further region
models; a nd (c) ageing error is _based on the results from specific investigation is necessary to examine the extent
234 Annex 120
J. CETACEANRES.MANAGE.12(SUPPL.),20II
57
17.1.2 JARPA II the Committee's guidelines (IWC, 2009j) provided the
SC/62/03 presented the results of the third full-scale survey appropriate deadlines bad been met. He reported that most
of the Japanese Whale Research Program under the Special of the laboratory analyses are either completed or in a final
Permit in theAntarctic-Second Phase (JARPAII), which was stage (see SC/62/ProgReplceland). There had been changes
conducted during the 2009/10 austral summer season. Two and delaysin some components, particularly those involving
dedicated sighting vessels(SVs), two sighting and sampling outsourced chemical analyses that requiredCITES permits.
vessels (SSVs) and one research base ship were engaged in In addition, the serious economic difficultiesxperienced
theresearch for 97 days from 14December 2009 to20 March by Iceland in recent years have affected the programme
20I0inAreas IIIEast (35°E-70°E), IV(70°E-130°E), VWest and delayed completion of some analyses. Nonetheless, the
(130°E-165°E) and part of Area V East (165°E-175°E). The necessary adjustments bad been made to the workplan and
total searching distance was 8,232n.miles. Eleven species he remained optimistic that the work would be completed
including six baleen whales (Antarctic minke, blue, fin, on schedule.
sei, humpback and southern right whales) and two toothed In discussion, Vikingsson clarified that some of the
whales (sperm and southern bottlenose whales) were analyses indicated in SC/62/ProgRep Iceland concerned
identified during the research period. A total of 986 groups species and speciniens other than the 200 minke whales
(2,242 animals) of Antarctic minke whales were sighted. It caught and sampled under Special Permit. Iceland'sSpecial
was the dominant species in the research area followed by Permitprogramme had ended when the last of the 200 minke
the humpback whales (603 groups, 1,187 animals), and fin whales was taken in2007.
whales (56 groups, 186 animals). The number of sightings In summary, an update on progress will be provided at
of the Antarctic minke whales was about 1.9 times higher the next Annual Meeting and approximately three months
than that of humpback whales in this survey. A total of 506 later a document will be submitted by Iceland that initiates
Antarctic minke whales and one fin whale were caught. All the process leading to external review of the final results of
whales caught were examined on board the research base this programme.
vessel.Atotal of 55 kinds of samples and data were obtained
from each whale sampled. A total of 8 blue, 110 humpback 17.2 Review of new or continuing proposals
and two southern right whales was photographed for natural The Chair noted that both JARPA II and JARPN II are
marks. Atotal of 86skin biopsy samples were collected from continuing on the basis of plans already submitted and
fin (1), humpbacks (84) and southern right (1) whales. To reviewed in the Scientific Committee. There was no further
investigate vertical sea temperature profiles oceanographic discussion of this item. However, a statement in relation to
surveys were conducted at 57 points using TDR. The main this Agerida Item was received and can be found in Annex
resultsof this survey were as follows: (1) whale composition U. This statement reflects the view of many members. The
in the research area was stable compared to previous JARPA response to this statement cabe found inAnnex U.
II surveys in this area; (2) the ice-free extent of the research.
area was substantially larger than in past seasons and high 17.3 Procedures for reviewing ScientificPermit proposals
density areas of Antarctic minke whales were observed near The Chair recalled that thecientific Committee had spent
the continental shelf; (3) mature females of Antarctic minke considerable time in the past discussing this matter, and
whale were dominant in Prydz Bay; and (4) humpback agreement on a process had been reached in 2009 (IWC,
whales were widely distributed in the research area and its 2009j, colloquially known as 'Annex P') that had been
density index was higher than that of the Antarctic minke used for the review of results of JARPN II. He noted that
whales in Areas IV West and V East. The 1994/95 IWC/ criticism by some members following the JARPN II review
SOWER cruise was conducted in similar areas and periods centred on how the procedures in 'Annex P' had been
as in the present survey. In 1994/95 Antarctic minke whales implemented rather than on the adequacy of the procedures
were the most dominant species. The number of sightings themselves. Specifically, concerns had been expressed
of Antarctic minke whales in 1994/95 was about five about the 'independ ~efntceespecialists who served on
times higher than that of humpback whales. According to the review panel, the Chair's decision not to request panel
the authors of SC/62/03, comparison of whale abundance members to submit a conflict-of-interest declaration and the
between these two surveys suggests that humpback whales Chair's decision not to allow additional observers to attend
were increasing and expanding into the research area. the specialist workshop. The Chair noted in that regard that
17.1.2.1 POINTS OF CLARIFICATION he also had not allowed scientists affiliated with the JARPN
Inresponse toaquestion oninformation onwhether vomiting II programme to attend the deliberations of the expert panel.
Last year, it had been agreed to revisit at this meeting
and faecal observations (SC/62/03 table 7) referred to the question as to whether changes are needed to 'Annex
'natural' events or were due to harpooning, the proponents P'. However, the Chair identified two factors weighing
explained that the recording of such observations was for the
purpose of helping to evaluate the relative merits of lethal against the idea of having a full discussion at this time. First,
versus non-lethal sampling, and thus that there was no value given the ongoing discussions of the 'consensus package'
prepared by the Commission Chair and Vice-Chair, itwould
in including observations of vomiting due to harpooning. be sensible to wait for outcome of those discussions before
further discussionof 'Annex P'. Secondly, he believed that
17.1.3 Planning for final review ofresultsfrom Iceland 's
scientific take of North Atlantic common minke whales the dissatisfaction of some with the performance of the
Vikingsson summarised the status of Iceland's analytical procedures for reviewing JARPN IIwas related to how these
work on the 200 common minke whales taken as part of were implemented, rather than the wording of procedures
its scientific research programme between 2003 and 2007; themselves. In any event, Bjerge stressed that if the
annual reports had been provided while the programme was Committee decides to open 'Annex P'to revision, inhis view
still active. Last year ithad been expected that most analyses such revision shoul<Ibe limited to only those aspects that.
would be completed and available in 2011; this would have have been controversial, i.e. the selection of experts to the
allowed aformal review ofthe programme in2012 following review panel and the admission of observers.In discussion,
235236 Annex 121
121. “Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations” (As amended by the Commission at
the63rdAnnualMeeting,July2011)<http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/
rules2011.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
Rules of Procedure
and
Financial Regulations
As amended by the Commission at 63rdAnnu al Mee ting, 2011
(ammdments are si/OIV/1in bold itali cs)
RULE S OF PROCE DURE ...................................................................................................................................2
FINAl'C IAL RE GULATI ONS ............................................................................................................................9
RULE S OF DEBATE ................................................................................... ............................... .......................13
RULES OF PROC EDURE OF TH E TE CHNICAL CO i\ILVIITT EE .......................... ............ .............. ......... 15
RULES OF PROCE DURE OF TH E SCIEl'TI FIC CO:VIMITTEE ........................... ................................ ...16
January 2012
237Annex 121
RULES OF PROCEDURE
A. Representation
1. A Govenuuent paliy to the Intemational Convention for the Regulation of Whal1946 (hereafter refetTed
to as the Convention) shall have t11e right to appoint one Conuuissioner and shall fi.unish the Secretary of the
Conunission with t11e name of its Conuuissioner and his/her designation and notify the Secretary promptly of
any changes in t11e appointment. The Secretary shall infonu other Conuuissioners of such appointment.
2. In addition to the Commissioner; each Contracting Government is invited to establish an additional means
of communication beflVeenthe Chair and Secretar:vof the Commission and that Government by designating
an Aliernate Commissioner or by creating a focal or contact point (which could be an e-mail address). The
details shall be communicated to the Secretary through recognised diplomatic channels. Contact details of
the Commissioner, Alternate Commissioner or the focal or contact point shall also be posted on the
Commission'spublic web sire.
B. Meetings
1. The Conuuission shall hold a regular Annual Meeting in such place as the Conuuission may detemline. Any
Contracting Govenuuent desiring to extend an invitation to the Conunission to meet in that country shall give
fom1alnotice two years in advance. A fom1aloffer should include:
(a) which meetings it covers, i.e. Scientific Conuuittee, Conuuissionups, Aruma! Conuuissionmee ting;
(b) a proposed time window within which the meeting will take place; and
(c) a timetable for fmalising details of the exact tinling and location of the meeting.
Attendance by a majorityf the members of the Conuuission shall constitute a quomm. Special Meetings of the
Conunission may be c.alled at the direction of t11e Chair after consultation with the Contracting Govemments
and Conunissioners.
'1..Before tl1e end of each Atmual Meeting, the Conuuission shall decide (1) the length of the Aruma!
Conunission Meeting and associated meetings the followi year; and (2) which of the Conuuission's sub
groups need to meet.
C. Observers
l. (a) Any Govenuuent not a party to the Convention or any intergovernmental organisation may be represented
at meetings of the Conuuission by an observer or observers, if such non-party govenuuent or intergovenuuental
orgamsation has previously attended any meeting the Conunission, or isumbit~its request in writing to the
Conunission 60 days prior to the start of the meeting, or ifthe Conmlission issues an invitation to attend.
(b) Any non-govenuuental organiation which expresses an interest in matters covered by the Convention, may
be accredited as an observer. Requests for accreditation must be submitted in writing to the Conmlission 60 days
prior to the stali of t11e meeting and the Conmlission may issue an invitation with respect to such request. Such
sum bi~isns shall include the standard application fonu for non-govenuuental organisations which will be
provided by the Secretariat. These applications shall remain available for review by Contracting Govenm1ents.
Once a non-govermuental organistion has been accredited through the application process above, it will remain
accredited until the Conmlission decides otherwise.
Obsetvers from each non-govemmental organisation will be allowed seating in the meeting. However, seating
linlitations may require that the number of observers from each non-govenuuental organisation be linlited. The
Secretariat will notify accredited non-govenm1ental organisations of any seating linlitations in advance of the
meeting.
(c) The Conmli ssion shall levy a registration fee and detemline rules of conduct, and may defme other
coni tiot flrthe attendance of observers accredited in accordance with Rule C.l.(a) and (b). The registration
fee will be treated as an annual fee covering attendance at the Ammal Meeting to which it relates and any other
meeting of t11e Conmlission or its subsidiary groups as provided in Rule C.2 in the interval before t11e next
Ammal Meeting
2. Observers accredited in accordance wit11Rule C.L(a) and (b) are adnlitted to all meetings of the Conmlission
and the Tedulic.al Conmlittee, and to any meetings of subsidiary groups of the Conmlission and the Technical
Conmlittee, except the Conmlissioners-only meetings and the meetings of t11e Finance and Adnlinistration
Conmlittee.
2
238 Annex 121
D. Cr~den ils
l.(a) The names of all representatives of member and non-member governments and observer organisations to
any meeting of tl1e Conunission or conunittees, as specified in the Rules of Procedure of the Conunission,
Teclmic.al and Scientific Conunittee s, shall be notified to the Seciting before their paliicipation
ami/or attendance at each meeting. For member governments , the notification shall indicate the Conunissioner,
his/her alternate(s) and advisers, and the head of the national delegation to the Scientific Conunittee and any
alternate(s) as appropriate.
The WTittennotification shall be made by govenunents or the heads of organisations as the case may be. In this
context, 'govenunents ' means the Head of State, t11eHead of Govenunen t, the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(indud ing: on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs), the Mresp0ir1l1~for whaling or whale
cmt~erva (icludnng: on behalf of tllis Minister), the Head of the Diplomatic Mission accredited to the seat of
the Conunission or to the host cotmtry of the meeting in question, or the Conunissioner appointed tmder Rule
A.l.
(b) Credentials for a Conunissioner appointed for the duration of a meeting must be issued as in D.l(a)
Thereafter, Ulltil the end of the meeting in question, that Conunissioner assumes all the powers of a
Conunissioner appointed undA.I., including that of issuing credentials for his/her delegation.
(c) In the case of membersdelegatio w1howill attend the Annual Conunission Meeting t~associated
meetings, the notificationbe made en bloc by submitt.ing a list of t11emembers who will attend any of these
meetings.
(d)The Secretary, or his/her representa tive, shall repoli on thnotifetioc11tthe begilllling of a
meeting.
(e) In c.ase of any doubt as to the authenticity of notification or in case of apparent delay in their delivery, the
Chair of the meeting shall convene an ad hoc group of no more than one representative from any Contracting
Govenunent present to decide upon the question of participation in the meeting.
E.Decision-ma king
A decision of the Commission taken at a meeting, w!let!ler by consensus or by ''ore, is nor deemed adopted
until the text !las either been provided to all Members of the Commission, or presented to them by electronic
means, and then approved by r!le Commission. T!le twilalso be made simulraneouszv available to all
other accreditedparricipanrs. T!le text shall normalZv be distributed orpresemed in English and conveyed in
t!le other working languages by oral interpretation. This mle a!Ito decisions of t!le kinds specified
in RuleJ,and to other decisions of the Commission, except those relating onzv to t!le conduct of t!le current
meeting. If the text of a proposed decision is amended, t!le revised text shall be distributed or presented in
accordance wi!Ithis rule. T!le aur!le:nrictext of any such decision shall be t!le English version.
The Conunission shall make every effoli to t~adecsio1 1y~consensus. If all efforts to reach consensus
have been exhaustednd no agreemen.t reached, the folRules of Procedure shall apply:
l. Each Conunissioner shall have tlte right to vote at Plenary Meetings of the Conunission and in his/her
absence his/her deputy or alternate shall have such right. Experts and advisers may address Plenary Meetings of
the Conunission but shall not be entitled to vote. They may vote at the meetings of any conunittee to which tl1ey
have been appointed, provided that when such vote is taken, representatives of any Contracting Govenunent
shall only exercise one vote.
2. (a) The right to vote of representa tives of any Contracting Govenunen t shall be suspended automatically
when the annual payment of a Contracting Govenunen t induding any interest due has not been received by the
Conunission by the earliest of these dates:
• 3 months following the due date prescribed in Regulation E.2nancial Regulations; or
• the day before the first day of the next Annual or Special Meeting of the Conunission if such a
meeting is held within 3 months following the due date; or
• in the case a vote by postal or other means, tl1e date upon which votes must be received if tllis falls
within 3 months following t11e due date.
Tllis suspem ion of voting rights applies until payment is received by t11IIH.'e-55tl1e-C9'11mi55i9H
deeide-59lhe-m·i5e
3
239Annex 121
(b) The Conun issioner of a new Contracting Govemment shall not exercise the right to vote either at meetings
or by postal or other means: (i) tmtil 30 days after the date of adherence, although they may participate fhlly in
discussions of the Conunission; and (ii) unless t11eConunission has received t11eGovermnent 's financial
contributionor part contribut ion for the year prescribed in FinaReg~l iolnEt3. the day before the first day
of the Annual or Special l'l/eeting concerned.
3. (a) Wl1ere a vote is taken on any matter before the Conunis sion, a simple majority of tlwse casting an
affinnat ive or negative vote shall be decisive, except t11ata three-fourths majority oftlwse casting an affirmative
or negative vote shall be required for action in pursuance of Article V of the Convention.
(b)Action in pursuance of Article V shall contain the text of the regulations proposed to amend t11eSchedule. A
proposal that does not contain such reg11latory text does not constitute an amendment to the Schedule and
therefore requires only a simple majority vote. A proposal that does not contain such reg11latorytext to revise t11e
Schedule but would conunit the Conunission to amend the Schedule in t11efhture c.an neither be put to a vote
nor adopted.
(c) At meetings of conunittees appointed by t11eConunission , a simple majority of those c.asting an afflnnative
or negative vote shall also be decisive. The conunittee shall report to the Conunission if the decision has been
arrived at as a result of the vote.
(d) Votes shall be taken by show of hands, or by roll call, as in t11eopinion of t11eChair, appears to be most
suitable. The election of t11eChair, Vice-Chair, the appointment of t11eSecretary of the Conunission, and the
selection ofiWC Annual Meeting venues shall, upon request by a Conunissioner, all proceed by secret ballot .
4.Behveen meetings oftl1e Conunission or in t11ecase of emergency, a vote of the Conuniss ioners may be taken
by post or other meam of conununic.ation in which c.ase t11enecessary simple, or where required tlrree-fourths
majority, shall be of the total number of Contracting Uovenunents whose right to vote has not been suspended
under paragraph 2.
F. Chair
l. The Chair of the Conuni ssion shall be elected from time to time from among the Conun issioners and shall
take office at t11econclusion of the Annual Meeting at which he/she is elected.The Chair shall serve for a period
of tlrree years and shall not be eligible for re-election as Chair until a further period of three years has elapsed.
The Chair shall, however , remain in office tmtil a successor is elected.
2. The duties of t11eChair shall be:
(a) to preside at all meetings ofthe Conunission;
(b) to decide all questions of order raised at meetings of the Conunission, subject to t11e right of any
Conuni ssioner to appeal against any mling of t11eChair.
(c) to call for votes and to atmounce the result of the vote to t11eConmtission;
(d) to develop,wit11appropriate consultation , draft agenda for meetings of the Conmtission.
(i) for AtmualMeetings:
• in consultation with the Secretary , to develop a draft agenda based on decis ions and recon unendat ions
made at t11e previous Annual Meeting for circulation to all Contracting Govenm1ents and
Conmtissioners for review and conunent not less t11anI00 days in advance of the meeting ;
• on t11ebasis of conunents and proposals received from Contracting Govenm1ents and Conmtissioners
tu!der d(i) above, to develop with the Secretary, an annotated provisional agenda for circulation to all
Contracting Govemmen ts not less t11an60 days in advance of tiremeeting;
(ii) for Special Meetings ,t11etwo-stage procedure described in (i) above will be followed whenever
practicable, recognisingt11atRule of Procedure J.l still applies with respect to any item of btl n~ess
involving amendment of t11eSchedule or reconunendat ions tmder Article VI of the Convention.
(e) to sign, on behalf of the Conmtiss ion, a report of t11eproceedings of each atmual or other meeting of the
Conmtission, for tramntiss ion to Contracting Govermnents and others concemed as an authoritative record of
what transpired ;
4
240 Annex 121
(f)generally, to make such decisions and give such directions to the Secretary as will ensure, especially in the
interval between the meetings of the Conunission, that tl1e business of the Conunission is carried out efficiently
and in accordance with its decision.
G. Vice-Chair
1. The Vice-Chair of the Conunission shall be elected from time to time from among the Conunissioners and
shall presideat meetings of tl1eConunission, or beh111eetni1em, in tl1e absence or in the event of the Chair being
unable to act. He/she shall on those occasions exerc.isetl1e powers and duties prescribed for the Chair. The Vice
Chair shallbe elected for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for re-election as Vice-Chair until a
further period of three years has elapsed. He/she shall, however, remain in office until a successor is elected.
H. Secretary
l. The Conunission shall appoint a Secretary and shall designate staff positions to be filled through
appointments made by the Secretary. The Conunission shall fix the tenus of employment, rate of remuneration
inc.ludingtax assessment and superannuation and travellg expenses for the members of ti1eSecretariat.
2. The Secretary is tl1e executive officerhe Conunission and shall:
(a) be responsibleto the Conunission for the control and supervision of the staff and management of its office
and for ti1ereceipt and disbursement of all monies received by the Conunission;
(b) make arrangements for all meetingsof the Conunission and its conunittees and provide necessary secretarial
assistance;
(c) prepare and submit to the Chair a draft of the Conunission's budget for each year and shall subsequently
submit the budget to all Contracting Govenunents and Conunissioners as early as possible before the Annual
Meeting;
(d) despatch by the most expeditious means available:
(i) a draft agenda for the Ammal Conunission Meeting to all Contracting Govenunents and Conunissioners
100 days in advance of the meeting for conunent and anyadidtio 1 th~a1motations they wish to propose;
(ii) an annotated provisional agenda to all Contracting Govenunents and Conunissioners not less t60ndays in
advance of tl1eAnnual Conunission Meeting. Included in tl1eannotations should be a brief description of each
item, and in so far as possible, documentation relevant to agenda items should be referred to in the annotation
and sent to member nations at the earliest possible date;
(e) receive, tabulate and publish notifications and other infonnation required by the Convention in such fonn
and manner as may be prescribed by the Conunission;
(f)perfonn such other fi.mctions as may be assigned to him/her by the Conunission or its Chair;
(g) where appropriate, provide copiesr availability to a copy of reports of the Conunission inclurepo r t~
Observers under ti1eInternational Observer Scheme, upon request after such reports have been considered by
the Conunission.
(II) maintain tile Commission 's public web site, wllicll shall be continuous(v accessible to tile extent possible
subject to maintenance requirements and technical constraints.
I. Chair of Scientific Committee
l.The Chair of the Scientific Conunittee may attend meetings of the Conunission and Teclmical Conunittee in
an ex officio capacity without vote, at the invitation of the Chair of the Conunission or Teclmical Conunittee
respectively in order to represent the views of the Scientific Conunittee.
J Schedule amendments, recommendations under Article VI and Resolutions
l.No item of business which involves amendment of the Schedule to the Convention, reconunendations under
Article VI of the Convention, or Resolutions of the Conunission, shall be the subject of dec.isiveaction by the
Conunission tuliess ti1e full draft text has been circulated to the Conunissioners at60edays in advance of
the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed.
2. Notwithstanding the advance notice requirements for draft Resolutions in RuJ.1,at the reconunendation of
the Chair in consultation with the Advisory Conunittee, the Commission may decide to consider urgent draft
241Annex 121
Resolutions which arise after the 60 day deadline where t11erehave been important developments t11atwarrant
actionin the Conunission. Tfilidraft text of any such Resolution mnst be circulated to all Conunissioners
prior to the openingt11emeeting at which the draft ResolutionC.Oitllr~.d
3. Notwithstanding Rules J.1 and J.2, the Conunission may adopt Resolutions on any matter that may arise
during a meeti only whenCOil~s ensschieved.
K. Financia l
1.The fmanc.ial year of the Conunission shall be from 1stSeptember to 31st August.
2. Any request to ContractGovernme fotfmanc.iacont brtiio hal~be accompanied by a statement of
the Conuniss:ion's expenditure for the appropriate year, actual or estimated.
3. Annual payments and other financial contributions by Contracting Governments shall be made payable to t11e
Conunission and shall be in polllldssterling.
L. Offices
1.The seatof t11eConunission shall be located in t11eUnited Kingdom.
M. Committees
l. The Commission shall establish a Scientific. Conunittee, a Technical Conunittee and a Finance and
Administration Conuuittee. Conuuiioners shall notify their desire to be represented on the Sc.ieutific,
Technicaland Finance and Administration Conunittees 28 days prior to the meetings, and shall designate the
approximate size of their delegations.
2. The Chair may constitute such ad hoc conunittees as may be necessary from time to time, with similar
arrangementsfor notification of the numbers of participants as in paragJraph 1 above where appropriate. Each
conunittee shall elec.tits Chair. Tbe Secretaryshall fimlish appropriate secretarial services to each conmlittee.
3. Sub-conunittees and working groups may be designated by the ConunissC.O lelredulical issues as
appropriate, and each will report to the Tecbnic.al Conmlittee or the plenary session of the Conmlission as the
Conmlission may decide.
4. (a)The Scientific Conmlittee shall review t11ec.tuTentscientific.and statistical infonnation with respect to
whales and whaling, shall review c.urrentscientific research progranunesunents, otber international
organisations or private organisations, shall review tl1escientific pennits and scientific progranunes for which
Contracting Governments plantoissue scientific.pernlits,COiail~rsuch additional matters as may be
referred to it by the Conmlission or by the Chair of the Conunission, and shall subnlit reports and
reconunendations to the Conunission.
(b) Any ad hoc commirree, sub-committee or working group established to provide scientific advice shall
report to the Scientific Commirree, which shall re11iew the report of such commirree, sub-commirree or
working group, and, as appropriate, make its own recommendations on the subject matter.
5. The report of the Scientific Conunittee should be completed and made available to all Conmlissioners and
postedon the Commission's public wesireby t11eopening date of the Annual Conunission Meeting or within
14 days of the conclusion of the Scientific Commirreemeeting, whichever is the sooner.
6.The Secretary shall be an ex officio member of the Scientific Conunittee witbout vote.
7. The Tec.hn:ic.al Conmlittee shall, as directed by the Conunission or tl1e Cbair of the Conunission, prepare
reports and make reconunendations
(a) Management principles, categories, criteria and definitions, taking into account the rec.onunendations of the
Scientific.Conunittee, as a means of helping the Conunission to deal with management issues as they arise;
(b) technical and practical options for implementation of conservation measures based on Scientific.Conmlittee
advice;
6
242 Annex 121
(c) the implementation of decisions taken by the Conunission tllfough resolutions and through Schedule
provisions;
(d) Conunission agenda items assigned to it;
(e) any other matters.
8. The Financeand Administration Conunittee shall advise the Conunission on expenditure, budgets, sc.ale of
contributions, financial regulations, staff questions, and such other matters as the Conunission may refer to it
from time to time.
9. The Conunission shall establish an Advisorynunittee. Tllis Conmlittee shall comprise the Chair, Vice
Chair, Chair of the Finance and Administration Conmlittee, Secretary and two Conmlissioners to broadly
represent the interests witl1in the IWC fomm. The appointment of the Conunissioners shall be for two years on
altemative years.
The role of the Conmlittee shall be to assist and advise the Secretariat on adnli1listrative matters upon request by
the Secretariat or agreement in the Conunission. The Conmlittee is not a decision-making fonun and shall not
deal with policy matters or adnlinistrative matters that are within the scope of the Finance and Administration
Conmlittee other than making reconunendations to tllisConmlittee.
N. Languages of th~Commission
1. English shall be the official language of the Conmlission. English, French and Spanish shall be t11eworking
languages of the Conmlission. Conunissioners may speak in any other language, if desired, it being tmderstood
that Conmlissioners doing so will provide their own interpreters. All official publications and conununications
1
of tl1e Conmlission shall be in English. Agreed publications shall be available in English, Frenc• and Spanish
0 . Records ofM e~iusg
1. The proceedings of the meetings of the Conmlission and those of its conmlittees shall be recorded in
summary fonn.
2. The textf each Commission decision adopted at a meeting in accordance with Rule E, or by post, shall be
placed on the Commission 's public web site in all working languages within 14 days of the conclusion of the
meeting or adoption of the decision by post.
P. Repo rts and communications
1. Conmlissioners should arrange for reports on t11esubject of whaling published in their own countries to be
sent to the Conunission for record purposes.
2. The Chair's Report of t11emost recent Annual Conunission Meeting shall be posted on the Commission's
public web site in English within two months of the end of the meeting and in the other working languages as
soon as possible thereafter. It shall be published in the AlmualReport of t11eyear just completed.
3. All individual and circular communications from the Chair or Secretmy to Contracting Governments shall
be sent to both the Commissioner appointed under Rule A.I. and to his/TierAlternate designated or to the
focal or contact point created under Rule A.2. They should also be sent to all accredited intergovernmental
obse1,,ers. All circular communications from the Chairr Secretmy to Contracting Governments shall be
posted on the Commission's public web site on despatch, unless the Chair, after consulting with the Advisory
Committee, deems that a confidential communication is warranted (applicable 01~1 f1r staff issues,
infraction cases and information provided by contracting Govemments with a request that it remain
confidemialj , in ,vl1icl1case the communication should be sent to the Contracting Governments alone. A list
of dates and subject titles of such confidential communications shall be presented to the next Annual
lV/eeting.
Q. Commission Documents
l. Reports of meetings of all conmlittees, sub-conunittees and working groups of t11eConunission are
confidential (i.e. reporting of discussions, conclusions ecn uned nato11 ~ade during a meeting is
prohibited) until the opening plenary session of the Conunission meeting to which they are subnlitted, or in the
c.ase of intersessional meetings, until after they have been dispatched by t11eSecretary to Contracting
1As agreedat IWC59 inAnchoragein2007: i.e.sinmltaneousinterpretation inFrenchandSpanishinIWCPlenaryandprivate meetingsof
Commissioners, andtranslationinto FrenchandSpanishof: (I) Resolutionsand Scheduleamendments;(2)theChair'ssuuunaryreports of
annual meetings; (3) Auuotated ProvisionalAgendas; and(4) sumutatiesofthe ScientificCommittAnn.Rep.kinggroup reports.
Int.WhalingConun.2007: 56-57.
7
243Annex 121
Governments and Conuuissioners. Tllis applies equally to member govenuuents and observers. Such reports,
with the exception of the report of the Finance and Adnlinistration Conuuittee, shall be distributed to
Conmlissioners, Contracting Govenuuents and accredited observers at the same time. Procedures applying to
the Scientific Conunittee are contained in its Rules of Procedure E.5.(a) and E.5.(b).
2. Any document suibnlittedto the Conmlission for distribution to Conmlissioners, Contracting Govenuuents or
members of the Scientific Conmlittee is considered to be in the public domain unless it is designated by the
2
author or govenuuent submitting it to be restricSuch restriction is automatically lifted when the report of
the meeting to which it is subnlitted becomes public.ly availa1.above.er
3.Observers adnlitted under Rule of Procedure C.l.(a) and (b) may subnlit Opening Statements which will be
included in11eofficial documentation of the Allllual or other Meeting concerned. They shall be presented in the
fonuat and the quantities detemlined by tcretariat for meeting documentation.
The contentof t11eOpeningStateme shatlbe relevant to matters under consideration by the Conmlission, and
shall bein the fonn of views and conuuents made to the Conmlission in general rather than directed to any
individual or group of Contracting Govenunents.
4. All meeting documents shall be included in the Conmlission's arcllives in the fonn in which they were
CO! ile~re dt the meeting. All such documems dating from 2011 onwards, and also earlier years where
feasible, shall be archived on the Commission's public website in an accessiblefashion byyear and category
ofdocumen.t
R. Amendm~nt ofRul ~s
R.l. These Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Debate may be amended from time to time by a simple majority
of the Conmlissioners voting, but the full draft text of any proposed amendment shall be circulated to the
Conmlissioners at least 60 days in advance of the meeting at which the matter is to be discussed.
1ThisdoesnotpreventContractingGovernmentsfromconsultingas theyseefitonsuchdocumentsp10'vidingconfidentialityis maintained
asdescribinRuleofProcedure Q.l.
3
[Thereis nointentionthattheSecretariatshouldconductadvanceorex-antereviewsofsuchstaten1ents.]
8
244 Annex 121
FINA1'>CH .L REGU LATIOJ"S
A. Applicability
l.These regulations shall govem the fmancial administration of the Intemational Whaling Conunission.
2. They shall become effective as from tl1e date decided by the Conuuission and shall be read witl1 and in
addition to t Rules of Procedure. They may be amended in the same way as provided under Rule R.l of the
Rules of Procedure in respect of those Rules.
3. In case of doubt as to the inte1pretation and application of any of these regulations, the Chair is authorised to
give a mling.
B. Fina ncial Year
l. The financial year of the Conuuission shall be from lst September to 31st August (Rules of Procedure,
Rule K.l ).
C. Genera l Financial Arra ngements
1.There shall be established a Research Fund and a General Fund, and a Vo[lllltary Flllldfor Small Cetaceans.
(a) The Research Fund shall be credited with voluntacontrbuito1 1nd any such monies as the Conuuission
may allocate for research and scientific investigation and charged with specific expenditure of this nature.
(b) The General Ftmd shall, subject to the establisluuent of any other fhnds that the Conuuissionmay detenuine,
be credited or charged with all other income and expenditure.
(c) The details of the Vohmtary Ftmd for Small Cetaceans are given in Appel.ix
The General Fund shall be credited or debited with the balance on the Conuuission's Income and Expenditure
Accotmt at the end of each fmanialyear.
2. Subject to the restrictions and limitations of the following paragraphs, the Conuuission may accept funds
from outside the regular contributions of ContraGovenuuent~.
(a) The Conuuission may accept suc.h funds to carry out progranuues or activities decided upon by the
Conuuission and/or to advance progranuues and activities which are CO!i stent with the objectives and
provisions of the Convention.
(b) The Conuuission shall not accept extemal funds from any of the following:
(i) Sources that are known, tlllough evidence available to the Conuuission, to have been involved in illegal
activities, or activities contrary to the provisions of the Convention;
(ii) Individual compani directly involved in legal conuuerc.ial whaling under the Convention;
(iii) Organisations which have deliberately brought the Conuuission into public disrepute.
3. Monies in any of the Ftmds that are not expected to be required for disbursement within a reasonable period
may be invested in appropriate Govenm1entor similar loans by the Secretary in consultation with t11e Chair.
4. The Secretary shall:
(a) establish detailed fmancial procedmes and accounting records as are necessary to ensure effective flnanc.ial
admin istra tion and control and the exercise of economy;
(b) deposit and maintain the funds of the Conuuission in an accotmt in the name ofth e Conuuission in a bank to
be approved by the Chair;
(c) cause all payments to be made on the basis of supporting vouchers and other doctuuents which ensure tl1at
the services or goods have been received, and that payment has not previousn made;
(d) designate the officers of the Secretariat who may receive monies, incur obligations and make payments on
behalf of the Conuuission;
9
245Annex 121
(e) authorise the writing off of losses of c.ash, stores and ot11erassets and submit a statement of such amounts
written off to the Conunission and the auditors with the anuual accounts.
5. The accounts of t11e Conuuission shall be audited arumally by a firm of qualified accountants selected by the
Conuuission. The auditors shall certify that the fmancial statements are in accord with the books and records of
the Conunission, that t11e financial transactions reflected in them have been in accordance with the mles and
regulations and that the monies on deposit and in hand have been verified. The most recent audited finnncinl
statements and the audit report shall be submitted to the Annual lv/eeting anrlposted on the Commission's
public website by the opening of the Annual Meeting.
D.Year ly Statements
1.At each Anuual Meeting, there shall be laid before the Conunission two fmancEalstatements:
(a) a provisional statement dealing with the actual and estimated expenditure and income in respect of the
current financial year;
(b) the budget estimate of expenditure and income for the ensuing year including the estimated amotmt of the
individual arumal payment to be requested of each Contracting Govenuuent.
Expenditure and income shall be shown under appropriate sub-heads accompanied by such explanations as the
Conuuission may dete nuine.
2. The two financial statements identified in Regulation D1shall be despatc.hedby the most expeditious means
available to each Contracting Govenunent and each Conunissioner not less than 60 days in advance of the
Ammal Conunission Meeting. They shall require t11e Conuuission's approval after having been referred to the
Finance and Administration Conunittee for consideration and reconunendations. A copy of the final accounts
shall be sent to all Contracting Govenunent s after they have been audited.
3. Supplementary estimates may be submitted to t11e Conuuission, as and when may be deemed necessary, in a
fonn consistent with the Alllmal Estimates. Any supplementary estimate shall require the approval of t11e
Conuuission after being referred to the Finance and Administration Conuuittee for consideration and
reconunendation.
E. Contribution s
1.As soon as t11e Conuuission has approved the budget for any year, the Secretary shall send a copy thereof to
each Contracting Govenunent (in compliance with Rules of Procedure, Rule K.2), and shall request it to remit
its anuual payment.
2. Payment shall be in pounds sterling, drafts being made payable to11e International W11alingConuuission and
shallbe payable within 90 days of t11e said request from t11e Secretaty or by t11efollowing 28 Febmary, t11e"due
date" whichever is the late. Itshall be open to any Contracting Govennuent to postpone the payment of any
increased portion of the amount which shall be payable in fhll by the following 1AUgllSt, which t11en becomes
the "due date".Payment shall be by bank transfer from an account belonging to the Contracting Govemment
or to a state institution of that Government.
3. New Contracting Govenunents whose adherence to the Convention becomes effective during the first six
montl oLfany financ.ial year shall be liable to pay the full amount of tl1eannual payment for that year, but only
half that amount ift11eir adherence falls within t11e second half of t11efmancial year. The due date for t11e first
payment by new Contracting Govennuents shall be defmed as 6 months from t11e date of adherence to the
Convention or before the first day of its parti£ipatiea in any Annual or Special Meeting of the Conuuission in
which itparticipates, whichever is the earlier.
Subsequent ammal payments shall be paid in accordance with Financial Reg11lationE.2.
4.The Secretary shall reportat each Ammal Meeting the position as regards the collection of ammal payments.
5. For the purpose of application of Rule of Procedure E.2, payments of membership dues shall on(v count as
having been receh,ed by the Commission when the funds h011e been credited to the Commission 's account
unless the payment has been made and the Commission is satisfied that the delay in receipt is due to
circumstances beyond the control of the Contracting Government.
10
246 Annex 121
F. Arr~r asof Contributi ons
l. If a Contracting Govenunent's allllualpayments have not been received by the Conunission within 12 months
of the due date referred to under Regulation E.2 compound interest shall be added on the anniversary of that
day and each subsequent alllliversary t11ereaftr at the rate of 2% above the base rate quoted by the
Conunission 's bankers on the day. The interest, calculated to the nearesmd, shall by payable in respect of
complete years and continue to be payable in respect of any outstanding balance until such time as the amount in
arrears, including interest, is settled in full.
2. If a Contracting Govenunent'sallllual payments, including any interest duhave not been received by the
Conunission by the earliest of these dates:
• 3 months following the due date; or
• the day before the first day of the next Annual or Special Meeting of tl1e Conunission if such a
meeting is held witin 3 months following the due date; or,
• in the case of a vote by postal or other means, t11edate upon which votes must be received if tllis falls
within 3 months following the due date,
the right to vote of t11eContracting Govenunent concerned shall be suspended as provided tmder Rule E.2 of the
Rules of Procedure.
3.Ally interest paid by a Contracting Government to the Conunission in respect of late aruma!payments shall be
credited to the General Fund.
4. Any payment to the Conmlission by a Contracting Govenunent in aJTearswith a1mualpayments shall be used
to pay off debts to the Conunission, including interest due, in the order in which they were incurred.
5. If a Contracting Govenunent's arumal payments, inc.ludingany interest due, have not been received by the
Conunission in respect of a period of 3 fmancial years;
(a) no further a1mualcontribution will be charged;
(b) interest will continue to be applied ammally in accordance with Financial Regulation F.l.;
(c) the provisions of tllis Regulation apply to the Contracting Govel'Jllnent for as long as the
provisiom of FinancialReg ulatio F.l.~nd F.2. remain in effect for t11atGovenunent;
(d) the ConilTacitng Govenunent concerned will be entitled to attend meetings on payment of a fee per
delegate at the same level as Non-Member Govenunent observers;
(e) t11eprovisions ofthis Regulation and of Financial Regulations F.l. and F.2. will cease to have effect for
a Contracting Govenunent if it makes a payment of 2 years outstandingcont burtiio an1 ~rovides an
tmdertaking to pay the balance of arrears and the interest within a further 2 years;
(f) interest applied to aJTearsin accordance with this Regulation will accrue indefmitely except t11a,tif a
Govemment withdraws from the Convention, no further charges shall accme after t11edate upon which
t11ewitl1drawal takes effect.
6. Unless the Conmlission decides othenll'ise, a Govenunenthich adheres to the Convention without having
paid to t11eConmlission any financial obligations incurred prior to its adherence shall, with effect from the date
of adherence, be subject to all the penalties prescribed by the Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations
relating to arrears of fmancial contributions and interest thereon. The penalties shall remain in force until the
arrears, including any newly-charged interest, have been paid in full.
4
Ashort-termconcession of up to 500poundsstebeigiven toanyContractingGovernment to takeaccotmt of renlinancessent to
coverannual payments, includinganyinterest due, that fallshortof the balanceowingbThisconcessiistoallowfor
variations in bankchargesand exchangerate that alight otherwise reduce the vah1e of the remittanceto a lower vah1e than intended in
potmdssterlingand so leave a ContractingGov'At~a balanceof annual payments, includingany interest due Thistanding.
short term concession will enable a Contracting Government to maintainlillContracting Government with a balance
outstandingabove 500potmdsste\\~nIoIbeentitled totheshort-termconcessionandits right tovoteshallbe suspended. Theshortfall
ofup to500poundssterlingallowed by the concession shallthen be carriedforward to the next fmancial year as part of the balanceof
annual payments, indludingany interestduetotheCommission.
II
247Annex 121
Append ix 1
VOLUNTARY FUI'D FOR SMALL CETACEANS
Purpose
The Commission decided at its46th Aruma! Meeting in 1994 to establish an IWC voluntary fund to allow for
the participation from developing countries in fi.1turesmall cetacean work and requested the Secretary to make
arrangements for the creation of such a fi.md whereby contributions in cash and in kind can be registered and
utilised by the Conunission.
Contributions
The Conunission has called on Contracting Govenunents and non-contracting Govenunents, intergovenunental
organisations and other entities as appropriate, in particular those most interested in scientific research on small
cetaceans, to contribute to the IWC voluntary fi.mdfor small cetaceam.
Acceptance of contributions from entities other than Govenunents will be subject to the Conunission's
procedures for voltmtary contributions. Where fi.mds or support in kind are to be made available through the
Voluntary Ftmd, the donation will registered and administered by the Secretariat in accordance with
Conunission procedures.
The Secretariat will notify all members of the Conunission on receipt of such voluntary contributiom.
Where expenditure is incurred using t11esevoluntary funds the Secretariat will infonn t11edonors of their
utilisation.
Distriblltion of Funds
1. Recognising that there are differences of view on tl1e legal competence of the Conunission in relation to small
cetaceans, but aware of the need to promote the development of increased paliicipation by developing countries,
the following primary fonns of disbursement will be suppolied in accordance with the purpose of the Voluntary
Fund:
(a) provision of support for attendance of invited participants at meetings of the Scientific Conunittee;
(b) provision of support for research in areas, species or populations or research methodology in small cetacean
work identified as of direct interest or priority in the advice provided by the Scientific Conunittee to the
Conunission;
(c) ot11re small cetacean work in developing countries that may be identified from time to time by the
Conunission and in consultation with illtergovenunental agencies as requiring, or likely to benefit from support
through the Ftmd.
2. Where expenditure is proposed ill support of invited participants, the following will apply:
(a) invited participants will be selected through consultation between the Chair of the Scientific Conunittee, the
Convenor ofthe appropriate sub-conun:itteeand the Secretary;
(b) the govemment of the co untry where the scientists work will be advised of the invitation and asked if it can
provide fillancial support.
3. Where expenditure involves research activity, tl1e following will appl
(a) the nonnal procedures for review of proposals and reconunendations by the Scientific Conunittee will be
followed;
(b) appropriate procedures for reporting of progress and outcomes will be applied and the work reviewed;
(c) the Secretariat shall solicit the illvolvement, as appropriate, of govenunents ill t11eregions where the research
activity is undeliaken.
12
248 Annex 121
RULES OF DEBATE
A. Right to Speak
1.The Chair shall c.allupon speakers in t11eorder in which they signify their desire to speak.
2. A Conunissioner or ObseiVer may speak only if called upon by the Chair, who may c.alla speaker to order if
his/her remarks are not relevant to the subject under discussion.
3. A speaker shall not be intem1pted except on a point of order. He/she may, however, witl1the pennission of
the Chair, give way during his/her speech to allow any other Conunissioner to request elucidation on a particular
point in that speech.
4. The Chair of a conunittee or working group may be accorded precedence for the purpose of explaining the
conclusion arrived at by !lis/her conmlittee or group.
B. Submission of Motions
l. Proposals and amendments shall nonnally be introduced in writing in the working language of the meeting
and shall be subnlitted to the Secretariat which shall circulate copies to all delegations in the session. As a
general mle, no proposal shall be discussed at any plenary session unless copies of it have been circulated to all
delegations nonnally no later than 6pm, or earlier if so detemlined by t11eChair iCO!l~ult wittite n
Conllllissioners, on the day precedingl1eplenary session. The presiding officer may, however, pemlit the
discussion and consideration of amendments, or motions, as to procedure, even though such amendments, or
motions have not been circulated previously.
C. Proced ural Motions
l.During the discussion of any matter, a Conmlissioner may rise to a point of order, and the point of order shall
be inunediately decided by t11eChair in accordance with these Rules of Procedure. A Conllllissioner may appeal
against any mling of t11eChair. The appeal shall be inunediately put to the vote and the question voted upon
shall be stated as: Shall the decision of the Chair be overturned? The Chair'smling shall stand unless a majority
of tl1eConllllissioners present and voting otherwise decide. A Conllllissioner rising to a point of order may not
speak on the substance of the matter under discussion.
2. The following motions shall have precedence in the following order over all other proposals or motions
before the Conmlission:
(a) to adjotun the session;
(b) to adjourn the debate on the particular subject or question under discussion;
(c) to close the debate on the particular subject or question under discussion.
3. Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Chair may suspend t11emeeting for a brief period at any time in
order to allow infonnal discussions aimed at reaching consen sonsi~tent with Rule E of the Rules of
Procedure.
D.Arra ngements for Debate
l.The Conmlission may, in a proposal by the Chair or by a Conmlissioner, linlit the time to be allowed to each
speaker and the number of times the members of a delegation may speak on any question. When the debate is
subject to such linlits, and a speaker has spoken for !lis allotted time, the Chair shall call him/her to order
without delay.
2. During the course of a debate the Chair may annotmce tl1elist of speakers, and with the consent of the
Conllllission, declare the list closed. The Chair may, however, accord the right of reply to any Conu1lissioner if
a speech delivered after he/she has declared the list closed makes this desirable.
3. During the discussion of any matter, a Conllllissioner may move the adjotunment of the debate on the
particular subject or question under discussInnaddition to the proposer of the motion, a Conmlissioner may
speak in favour of, and two Conmlissioners may speak against t11emotion, after which the motion shall
inunediately be put to the vote. The Chair may linlit the time to be allowed to speakers tmder this mle.
4. A Conllllissioner may at any time move the closure of the debate on the particular subject or question under
discussion, whether or not any otl1erConllllissioner has signified the wish to speak. Pernlission to speak on the
motion for the closure of the debate shall be accorded only to two Conmlissioners wishing to speak against the
13
249Annex 121
motion, after which the motion shall immediately be put to the vote. The Chair may limit the time to be allowed
ftospeakers under this mle.
E. Procedure for Voting on Motions and Amendmen ts
1. A Conuuissioner may move that parts of a proposal or of an amendment shall be voted on separately. If
objection is made to the request of such division, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Penuission to
speak on the motion for division shall be accorded only to two Conuuissioners wishing to speak in favour of,
and tvw Conuuissioners wishing to speak against, the motion. If the motion for division is carried, those parts of
the proposal or amendments which are subsequently a.pproved shall be put to the vote as a whole. If all operative
parts of the proposal orf the amendment have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall be
C.Qildere dohave been rejected as a whole.
2. When the amendment is moved to a proposal, the amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more
amendments are moved to a proposal, tlteConuuission shall first vote on the last amendment moved and then on
the next to last, and so on tmtil all amendments have been put to the vote. When, however, the adoption of one
amendment necessarily implies the rejection of anotlter amendment, tl1elatter amendment shall not be put to the
vote.If one or more amendments are adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted upon. A motion is
C.Qildere dn amendment to a proposal if it merely adds to, deletes from or revises part of that proposal.
3. If two or more proposals relate to the same question, the Conuuission shall, unless it otherwise decides, vote
on tl1e proposals in the order in which they have been submitted. The Conuuission may, after voting on a
proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposaL
14
250 Annex 121
RULE S OF PROCEDURE OF THE TECH NICAL COMM ITTEE
A. Participation
l.Membership shall consist of those member nations that elect to be represented on the Tec.lulic.alConunittee.
Delegations sha consist of Conmlissioners, or their nonlinees, who may be accompanied by technical experts.
2. TheSecretry of the Conunission or a deputy shall be an ex officio non-voting member of the Conmlittee.
3. Observers my attend Conu1litteemeetings in accordance with the Rules of the Conmlission.
B. Organi sation
1.Nonnally the Vice-Chair of the Conmlission is the Chair of the Tec.lmic.a] Conunittee. Otherwise the Chair
shall be elected from among the members of tl1e Comnlittee.
2. A provisional agenda for the Technical Conmlittee and each sub-conunittee and working group shall be
prepared by the Tec.lulical Conmlittee Chair witi1the assistance of the Secretary. After agreement by the Chair
of ti1eComnlission ti1eyshall be distributed to Conunissioners 30 days in advance of the Annual Meeting.
C. :Meetings
1. The Annual Meeting shall be held between the Scientific Conunittee and Commission meetings with
reasonable overlap of meetings as appropriate to agenda requirements. Special meetings may be held as agreed
by the Conmlission or the Chair ofConunission.
2. Rules of conduct for observers shall confonn with mles established by the Conunission for meetings of all
conmlittees and plenasesiso11~.
D. Reports
1. Repor and~reconunendations shall, as far as possible, be developed on tCO!l~sis.Hfowever, if a
CO!l~s eisnout achievable, the conmlittee, sub-conunittee or working group shall report the different views
expressed. The Chair or any national delegation may request a vote on any Essue. Resulting reconunendations
shall be based on a simple majority of those nations casting an affmnative or negative vote.
2. Documents on which reconendations are based should be available on demand inunediately following each
conmlittee, sub-nunittee or working group meeting.
3. Tec.lulic.al papers produced for the Conmlission may be reviewed byunittee for publication by the
Conmlission.
15
251Annex 121
RULE S OF PROCEDURE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMM ITTEE
The Scientific Conunittee , established in accordance with tile Conuuission's Rule of Procedure M.1, has the
general tenus of reference defined in Rule of Procedure M.4.
In this regard, the DUTIES of the Scientific Conuuittee, can be seen as a progression from the scientific
investigationof whales and their enviroruuent, leading to assessment of t11estatus of t11ewhale stocks and the
impact of catches upon them, and then to provision of management advice on the regulation of whaling. This
c.anbe defined in tl1efollowing tenus for the Scientific Conunittee to:
Encourage, reconuuend , or if necessary, organise studies and investigations related to whales and whaling
[Convention Artic.leIV1(a )]
Collect and analyse statistical infonuation concerning the current condition and trend whale stocks and the
effects of whaling activities on t11em[Article IV.1(b)]
Study, appraise, and disseminate infonuation concerning methods of maintaining and increasing the population
of whale stocks [Article IV.1 (c)]
Provide scientific findings on which amendments to the Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of
the Convention and to provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilization of the whale
resources [AliicleV.2 (a) and (b)]
Publish reports of its .activities and findings [Artic.leIV.2]
In addition, specific FUNCTIONS of the Scientific Conunittee are to:
Receive, review and conuuent on Special Penuits issued for scientific research [Article VIII.3 and Schedule
paragraph 30]
Review research progranuues of Contracting Govenuuents and ot11erbodies [Rule of Procedure M.4]
SPECIFIC TOPICS of current concern to the Conunission include:
Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks [Rep. int. Whal. Commn.34:30]
Implementation of the Revised Management Procedure [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43]
Asse ssment of stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling [Schedule paragraph 13(b)]
Development of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure [Rep. int.Whal. Commn 45:42-3]
Effects of enviroruuental change on cetaceans [Rep. in.t.What. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49]
Scientific aspectsf whale sanctuaries [Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45 63]
Scientific aspects of small cetaceans [Rep. int. Whal. Com.mn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41]
Scientific aspects ofwhalewatching [Rep. in.t. Whal. Commn.45:49-50]
A. :Membership all(l Observers
1. The Scientific Conunittee shall be composed of scientists nominated by the Conunissioner of each
Contracting Govenunen t which indicates that it wishes to be represented on that Conunittee. Commissioners
shall identify the headf delegation and any alternate(s) when making nominations to the Scientific Committee.
The Secretary of the Conunission and relevant members of t11eSecretariat shall be ex-officio non-voting
members of t11eScientific Conunittee.
2. The Scientific Conunittee recognises t11atrepresentatives ofln ter-Govemmental Organisations with particular
relevance to the work of t11eScientific Conunittee may also participate as non-voting members, subject to the
agreement of t11eChair of t11eConunittee acting according to such policy as the Conunission may decide.
16
252 Annex 121
3. Ftuiher to paragraph 2 above the World Conservation Union (IUCN) shall have similar status in the Scientific
Conuuittee.
4. Non-member govermuents may be represented by observers at meetings of the Scientific Conuuittee, subject
to the arrangements given in Rule C.l(a) of the Conuuission's Rules of Procedure.
5. Any non-govermuental organisation sending an accredited observer to a meeting of tl1eConuuission may
nominate a scientifically qualified observer to be present at meetings of the Scientific Conuuittee. Any such
nomination must reach the Secretary not Jess tl1an 60 days before the start of the meeting in question and must
specify the scientific qualificatiollS and relevant experience of the nominee. The Chair of the Scientific
Conuuittee shall decide upon the acceptability of any nomination but may reject it only after consultation witi1
the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Conuuission. Observers admitted under this mle shall not participate in
discussions but the papers and docmuents of the Scientific Conuuittee shall be made available to ti1emat the
same time as to members of the Conuuittee.
6. The Chair of the Conuuittee, acting according to such policy as the Conuuission or the Scientific Conuuittee
may decide, may invite qualified scientists not nominated by a Conuuissioner to participate by invitation or
othenll'isein committee meetings as non-voting contributors. They may present and discuss documents and
papers for collSideration by the Scientific Conuuittee, participate on sub-committees, and they shall receive all
Conuuittee documents and papers.
(a) Convenors will submit suggestions for Invited Participants (inc.Judingthe period of time ti1eywould like
them to attend) to ti1eChair (copied to ti1eSecretariat) not Jess than four months before the meeting in question.
The Convenors will base tl1eir suggestions on tl1epriorities and initial agenda identified by the Conuuittee and
Conuuission at the previous meeting. The Chair may also consider offers from suitably qualified scientists to
contribute to priority items on the Conuuittee's agenda if ti1eysubmit such an offer to the Secretariat not Jess
than four monti1s before the meeting in question, providing infonuation on the contribution they believe that
they can make. Within two weeks of this, the Chair, in consultation with the Convenors and Secretariat, will
develop a list of invitees.
(b) The Secretary will then promptly issue a Jetterf invitation to those potential Invited Participants suggested
by the Chair and Convenors.That Jetter will state that there may be financ.ial support available, although invitees
will be encouraged to find tl1eirown support.. Invitees who wish to be considered for travel and subsistence will
be asked to submit an estimated airfare (incl. travel to and from the airp01i) to the Secretariat, within 2 weeks.
Under certain c.ircumstances (e.g. ti1eabsence of a potential participant from their illStitute), the Secretariat will
detenuine the likely airfare.
At the same time as (b) a Jetter will be sent to the govemment of the country where the scientists is domiciled
for the primary pmpose of enquiring whether that Govermuent would be prepared to pay for the scientist's
participation. If it is, the scientist is no longer an Invited Participant but becomes a national delegate.
(c) At least three months before the meeting, the Secretariat will supply the Chair with a list of participants and
the estimated expenditure for each, based on (1) ti1eestimated airfare, (2) the period of time the Chair has
indicated the IP should be present and (1) a daily subsistence rate based on the actual cost of ti1ehotel deemed
most suitable by the Secretary and Chair plus an appropriate daily allowance_
At the same time as (c) a provisional list of the proposed Invited Participants will be circulated to
Conuuissioners, with a final list attached to the Report of the Scientific Conuu.ittee.
(d) The Chair will review the estimated total cost for all suggested participants against the money available in
the Conuuission's budget. Should there be insufficient funds, ti1eChair, in consultation with the Secretariat and
Convenors where necessary, will decide on the basis of the identified priorities, which paliicipants should be
offered fmanc.ial support and the period of the meeting for which that supp01i will be provided. Invited
Paliicipants without IWC supp01i, and those not supported for the full period, may attend the remainder of the
meeting at their 0\1111pense.
(e) At least two months before the meeting, the Secretary will send out fonual confmuation of the invitations to
all the selectedscienistt,~in accordance with the Conuuission 's Guidelines, indicating where appropriate that
financial support will be given and the nature of that supp01i.
1
[nvitedparticipants whochooseto stayat acheaperhotelv.<lilreceive theactualrate fortheirhotel plusthesantedailyallowance.)
17
253Annex 121
(f) In exceptional circumstances, the ChaiCOitnl~atio with the Convenors and Secretariat, may waive the
above time restrictions.
(g)The letter of invitation to Invited Participants will include tltefollowing ideas:
Under the Conuuittee's Rules of Procedure, Invited Participants may present and discuss papers, and
participate in meetings (including thosef subgroups). They are entitled to receive all Conuuittee
documents and papers. They may participate fhlly in discussions pertaining to tlteir area of expertise.
However, discussions of Scientific Conuuittee procedures and policies are in principle limited to
Conuuittee members nominated by member governments. Such issues will be identified by tile Chair of
the Conuuittee during discussions. Invited Participants are also urged to use their discretion as regards
their involvement in t fonuulation of potentially controversecn ouuendati to1t1eConuuission;
the Chair may at his/her discretion mle them out of order.
(h) After an Invited Participant has his/her participation confinued through the procedures setve, a
Contracting Govenuuent may grant this person national delegate status, thereby entitling him/her to full
paliicipationn Conuuittee proceedings, witltout prejudice to fhnding arrangements previously agreed upon to
support the attendance of the scientist in question.
7. A small number of interested local scientists may be penuitted to observe at meetings of the Scientific
Conuuittee on application to, and at the discretion of, tlte Chair. Such scientists should be connected with the
local Universities, other scientific institutionsisations, and should provide the Chair with a note of their
scientific qualifications and relevant experience at the time of their application.
B. Agenda
l.The initial agenda for the Conuuittee meeting of the following year shall be developed by the Conuuittee
prior to adjournment each year. The agenda should identify,ar as possible, key issues to be disc.ussed at the
next meeting and specific papers on issues should be requested by the Conuuittee as appropriate.
2. The provisional agenda for the Conuuittee meeting shall be circulated for conuuent 60 days prior to the
Annual Meeting of the Conuuittee. Conuuents will nonually be considered for incmporation into tl1e draft
agenda presented to the opening plenary only if received by the Chair 21 days prior to the beginning of the
Annual Meeting.
C. Organ isation
1.The Scientific Conuuittee shall include standing sub-conuuittees and working groups by area or species, or
otller subject, and a standing sub-conuuittee on small cetaceans. The Conuuittee shall decide at each meeting on
sub-conuuittees for the coming year.
2. The sub-conuuittees and working groups shall prepare the basic documents on the identification, status and
trends of stocks, induding biological parameters, and related matters as necessary, for the early consideration of
the full Conuuittee.
3. The sub-conuuittees, except for the sub-conuuittee on small cetaceans, shall concentrate their effolis on
stocks of large cetaceans, particularly tltose which are currently exploited or for which exploitation is under
consideration, or for which there isncern over theistatu ,~ut they may examine matters relevant to all
cetaceans where appropriate.
4. The Chair may appoint other sub-conuuittees as appropriate.
5. The Conuuittee shall elect from among its members a Chair and Vice-Chair who will nonually serve for a
periodof three years. They shall take office at the conclusion of the annual meeting at which they are elected.
The Vice-Chair shall act for the Chair in his/her absence.
The election process shall be undeliaken by the heads of national delegations who shall consult widely before
nominating candidate/. The Vice-Chair will become Chair at the end of his/her tenu (unless he/she ded ines),
and a new Vice-Chair will then be elected. the Vice-Chair declines to become Chair, then a new Chair must
also be elected. If tl1e election of the Chair or Vice-Chair is not by consensus, a vote shall be conducted by the
Secretary and verified by the current Chair. A simple majority shall be decisive. In cases where a vote is tied,
the Chair shall have the casting vote. requested by a head of delegation, the vote shall proceed by secret
1The Conunission's Rule of Procedureonvotingrigalsappliestothe Scientific Conunittee.
IS
254 Annex 121
ballot. In these circumstances, the results shall only be reported in tenus of which nominee received the most
votes, and the vote counts shall not be reported or retained.
D. Meetings
l. Meetings of the Scientific Conunittee as used in these mles include all meetings of subgroups of the
Conunittee, e.g.sub-conunittees,working groups, wohops, etc..
2.The Scientific Conunittee shall meet prior to the Aruma!Meeting of the Conunission. Special meetings of the
Scientific Conunittee oritssubgroups may be held as agreed by the Conunission or the Chair of the
Conunission.
3. The Scientific Conunittee will organise its work in accordance with a schedule detennined by the Chair with
the advice of a group comprising sub-conunittee/working group chairs and relevant members of the Secretariat.
E. Scientific Papers and Documents
The following documents and papers will be COi ile~re by the Scientific Conunittee for discussion and
inc.lusionin its report to the Conunission:
l.Progress Reports. Each nation having infonnation on the biology of cetaceans, cetacean research, the taking
of cetaceans, or other matters it deems appropriate should prepare a brief progress report following in the fonnat
agreed bytl1eConunittee.
2. Special Reports. The Conunittee may request spec.ialreports as necessaryers to be considered by the
Conunittee for thefollowingar.
3. Sub-conunittee Reports.epo~ rtf the sub-conunittees or working groups shall be inc.luded as annexes to
the Report to the Conunission. Reconunendations contained therein shall be subjec.tto modification by the full
Conunittee before inclusion in its Report.
4. Scientific and Working Papers.
(a) Any scientist may submit a scientific papco1fd1~rat byotne Conunittee. The fonnat and submission
procedure shall be in accordance with guidelines established by the Secretariat with the concurrence of the
Conunittee. Papers published elsewhere may be distributed to Conunittee members for infonnation as relevant
to specific topics under consideration.
(b)Scientific papers ll be considered for discussion and inc.lusion in the papers of tl1e Conunittee only if the
paper is received byt11eSecretariat on or by the first day of the ammal Conunittee meeting, intersessional
meeting or any sub-group. Exceptions to tllis mle can be granted by t11eChairof the Conmlittee where there are
exceptional extenuating circumstances.
(c) Working papers will be distributed for discussion only if prior pemlission is given by the Chair of the
conmlittee or relevant sub-group.They will be archived only if they are appended to tl1e meeting report.
(d) The Scientific Conmlittee may receive and consider unpublished scientific documents from non-members of
the Conmlittee (including observers) and may invite them to introduce their documents at a meeting of t11e
Conmlittee provided that they are received under t11esame conditions (with regard to tinling etc..) that apply to
members.
5.PublicationofScientific Papers and Reports.
(a) Scientific papers and reports considered by the Conmlittee t11atare not already published shall be inc.ludedin
the Conmlission's archives in the fonn in which they were considered by t11eConmlittee or its sub-conmlittees.
Papers subnlitted to meetings shabe available on request at t11esame time as the report of the meeting
concerned (see (b) below).
(b) The report of the Annual Meeting of t11eScientific Conmlittee shall be distributed to t11eConmlission no
later t11anthe begimling of t11eopening plenary of the ArumalConmlission Meeting and is confidential until this
time.
Reports of intersessional Workshops or Special Conunittee Meetings are confidential until they have been
dispatc.hedby tl1eSecretary to the full Conmlittee, Conunissioners and Contracting Govenunents.
19
255Annex 121
Reports of intersessional Steering Groups or Sub-conunittees are confidential until they have been discussed by
the Scientific Conunittee, nonnally at an Aruma!Meeting.
In this context, 'confidential' means that reporting of discussions, conclusions and recommendations is
prohibited. This applies equally to Scientific Conunittee members, invited participants and observers. Reports
shall be distributed to Commissioners, Contracting Govenunents and accredited observers at the same time.
The Scientific Conunittee should identify the category of any intersessional meetings at the time t11eyare
reconunended.
(c) Scientific papers and reports (revised as necessary) may be considered for publication by the Conunission.
Papers shall be subject to peer review before publication. Papers submitted shall follow the Guidelines for
Authors published by the Conunissi.on.
F. Review of Scientific Permits
1. When proposed scientifpeni t~ are sent to the Secretariat before they are issued by national govenunents
theScientific Conunittee shall revi·ew tl1e scientifiof the proposed research at its annual meeting, or
during a special meeting called for t11atpurpose and conunent on them to the Commission.
2. The reviewprocess shall take into account guidelines issued bynission.
3. The proposedpennits and supporting documents should include specifics as to tl1e objectives of the research,
number, sex, size, and stock of the animals to be taken, opportunities for participation in the research by
scientists of other nations, and the possible effcott~er ofatt1isonk resulting from granting the
pennit~.
4. Preliminary results of any research resulting from the pennits should be made available for the next meeting
of the Scientific Conunittee as part of t11enational progress report or as a special report., paper or series of
papers.
G. Financial Suppor t for Researcll Proposals
1.The Scientific Conunittee shall identify research needs.
2.It shall consider unsolicited research proposals seeking financial supp01i from the Conunission to address
these needs. A sub-conunittee shall be established to review and rank research proposals received 4 months in
advance of the Atmual Meeting and shall mrecu onnendati tottel~ll Conunittee.
3. The Scientific Conunittee shall reconunend in priority order those research proposals for Conunission
financial support as it judges best meet its objectives.
H.Availability of data
The Scientific Conunittee shall work with tl1e Secretariett~u tret catch and scientific data t11att11e
Conunission holds are archived and accessible using modem computer data handling tedmiques . Access to such
data shall be subject to the following mles.
1. Infonnation identified in Section VI of t11eSchedule that shall be notified or forwarded to the IWC or other
body designated under Artic.leVII ofthe Convention.
Tllis infonnation is available on request through the Secretariat to any interested persons with a legitimate claim
relative to the aims and purpof t11eConvention.
2. Infonnation and reports provided where possible under Section VI of the Schedule.
When such infonnation is forv<ardedto t11eIWC a covering letter should make it dear t11atthe infonnation or
report is being made available, and it should identify the pertinent Schedule paragraph tmder which the
infonnation or report is being submitted.
Infonnation made available to the under this provision is accessible to accrpersod as l~fined tmder
3(TheGovernmentofNorwaynotesthatforreasonsofdomestic leionlyable toagreethatdatait provithiparagraph
arell3davailableto accreditedpersons.]
20
256 Annex 121
4. below, and additionally to other interested persons subject to the agreement oftl1e govenuuent submitting the
infonuation or report.
Such infonuation already held by the Conuuission is not regarded as having been forwarded until such
c.larific.ationof its status is received from the govenuuent concerned.
3. Infonuation neither required nor requested under the Schedule but which has been or might be made available
to the Conuuission on a voluntary basis.
Tllis infonuation is a substantially different status from the previous two Itcan be further divided into
two categories:
(a) Infonuation collected under International Schemes.
(i) Data from the IWC sponsored projects.
(ii) Data from the Internationalking Scheme.
(ii) Data obtained from international collaborative activities which are offered by the sponsors and accepted as
contributions to tComprehi eveA1ssessment, or proposed by the Scientific Conmlittee itself.
Infonuation collected as the resultf IWC sponsored activities and/or on a collaborative basis with other
organisations, govenuuents, institutions or individuals is available within those contributing bodies either
inuuediately, or, .aftermutual agreement beh111eetnhe IWC and the relevant body/person, after a suitable time
interval to allow 'fitl'~rghts to t11eprimary contributors.
(b) Infonuation collected under national progranuues, or other t11anin (a).
Infonuation in tllis category is likely to be provided by govenuuents under special conditions and would hence
be subject to some degree of restriction of access. This infonuation c.an only be held under the following
conditions:
(i) A minimum level of access should be that such data could be used by accredited persons during the Scientific
Conmlittee meetings using validated tec.luliques or methods agreed by t11eScientific Conmlittee. After t11e
meeting, at the request of t11eScientific Conmlittee, such data could be accessed by the Secretariat for use with
previously specified teclmiques or validated programs. Infonuation thus made available to accredited persons
should not be passed on to third parties but govenuuents nlight be asked to consider making such records more
widely available or accessible.
(ii)The restrictions should be specified at the time the infonnation is provided and these should be t11eonly
restrictions.
(ii) Restrictions on access should not discrinlinate amongst accredited persons.
(iv) All infonuation held shoulde documented (i.e. described) so that accredited persons know what is held,
along with stated restrictions on the access to it and tl1e procedures needed to obtain pemlission for access.
4. Accredited persons
Accredited persons are those scientists defmed under sections, 2, 3 and 6 of the Rules of Procedure of t11e
Scientific Conunittee. Invited participants are also considered as 'accredited' during the intersessional period
following the meeting which they attend.
21
257258 Annex 122
122. “Report of the Scientific Committee”, IWC/63/Rep1, pp. 3, 14, 24-26 <http://
iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/63-Rep1-with%20covers.
pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFlC COMMITTEE 2011 IWC/63 'R.tpI
Rt'port of tht'Scit'ntific Committt't'
Tbt mtellngwas ~ld at~Radis.sonBlu Hotel Tromsa from 30 :'<larll Iune2011 and was cbalredby Debra Palka.A listof
panicipanaisgi\-.oas~" A.
l.1:\"TRODUT CORVIIT:\IS lA Establish ment of sub~ommht• eeand \\"orlclng
1.1 Chair's wtlto mt and optning rf'marks groups
Tbt OWt w~lcOi heipM1icipants to the beautiful city of As intimated la>l year (IWC. 20l le. p.65) inch~ in
Tromso. insldt tht Arctic Circle, and thanked the the draft agenda, ttpre-me~ precededdlestan of the
GovOI"Wiltnt of Norw ay. indpattirulaLat•Wallae, Aroe ScientificColllllliiteethe Work:ing Group on the
BJorge aod S1dsd Groovik for their \\•orl: in assisting the hnplementafJofJ A.sse.ssmcmotf westetu North Pacific
commonminke whales ~ t to considtt progrtss otasks
Seetek1tiato &1':1:ge the excellent facilities and Einar
Talloktien of the Norwegian Ministty of Foreign Affairs, specified m SC/63/Rep3 .WMP met to clisctl$sprogress on
who M$1Stedgreatlywithobtainingcu~tm oclearancefor all the development ofSL~• for the Greet1laud htwts and the
of the equipmen t. working group oo the assess111ent of hlllllflba.cli: wha le
Breeding St<>ck B nltt to con'lplete the OSI"<!,.mnIn.
On behalf of the Sci entific Committee, the Ohair expressed addition,the intet...ss ioomoeetwg for \be Southetn
dtep condoteuees to our Japauese coUeagues and Hemispheremin1ce whale abuudnnee eostul.lcont.iuuedits
cotlll~On\"tr the b"agic eartbquakie antsunrullthat
business. A mllllber sub-conwut >td s orlciog Group s
occtund on I I March 2011 and caused such widespread were established. Their repor\\"eftithtt111. aW1lexes
dtvnst~otnt'Jllos.of life. (see belowor subsumed intoIbireport.
Tbt Collllllinee ah.o paused in silence to rememberRobert Sub-CollWltnee on theRevised Maoag.,.,.nt
Clora who cliedUlPem after a long illness on 8 May 2011. Anne:tD
Procedure(Rl'.t:P):
atdle age of 92. Robert was well-l:rurwn for his worl: on Working Group on~ Impkm•marlo11Rel'isw
sperm whale$ and whaling hi!tory. His seminal Discovery for Wes"= North Paci1io COOllllOnmiolte
~n 'Sperm \Vbliog 1.1the Azores ', describing the relict
wt.ale(NPM):
open boat whalingi.ndus.-there, was recentl y reprinted in AnnexE Standl.llg Worlci.ng Group on an Aboriginal
Portugal1.recogni tion of,historicai.mponaoce.He also
\\'Otltas a biologist on Antarctic factor<hipsand on Wllaling "'lanagtmenl Procedure(A\VMP );
Annexf Sub-Cou ~uownnBowbead. Righi!lidGr2y
wlwe matklng crwses In the late 1950s be began a long What.. (BRG):
term study of spcm and other whales off western South
Alllertcaondtr FAO. roporting to the Permanem Sub-Comt:llltteOQ InJ)eplh As
(IA);
CommisSJon forlbe South Pacific. In the late 1950s and AnnexH Su~>-Comt;m0n 11ee 0\ber Sot.uhnn
early 1960s, and apiin~ 1970. , beaaeoded meetings of
lbeSoenti.fioComminte, particularly special meetings on Hemisphere Whale Stocks (SH),
Annex! Working Group 01Stocl::Defici11on(SD) ;
sperm ""haiH. and most recently was speciag)lesof the Anne:<I Working Group on Es11111311oofnB).:au:b and
Comminee at itsmee<ing in Santiago,Chi~ lenJune 2009.
There be was aeeomparu.d bY hi5 wife, Obla Paliza. also a other Human-Induced Monality (BC);
AnoexK Staoding Woda.ng Group on En'-ironnl011fal
biologist.. with whom be was still workinsperm \\"hale CODCetns(EC):
dala froo11be1960s.
AnnexK I Working Group to Addre>s Mulri..SJ'<"i"" and
R.obettwas a oolourful charact er with wide interests; hi5 Ecosys ~mdellulg Approache (EM);
research indudtd not owy -..nales. e;pecspermywhales. AnnexL Standing Sub-Conmunee oo Smoll Cetaceans
but whaling, wbaling bi>loty, whale consen'lltion, squid and (SC);
dtep sea fishes. H\\'lthe tecbnic.al cons ultant to the 1956 AJllle-x}-f Sub-ColllWitteen Whalowatching ~lW);
fihnof 'Moby.Dicl<', and retained a strong scholarly interestAnnexN Working Group on DNA (DNA).
in wh.•liog matters, includin.g atm>;,rgri; and .sctim;haw,
uutilery lotin tife. 1.5 Compu ting ;unmgfmtut s
Brockingtoninformed the pattiet.paots of the amngenJen ts
1.2 Appoinuntnt Ctfl':tpporreu\r
Dooovnn was appointed rapporteur \\~t asistauce from fordelegates con1puting.
\"OriOUmombtrS of the Committeea•.appropriate . Chairs of 2. .-I.DOPTIOXOF AGE..'\DA
sub-eouunine e.sand \Votlcing Groups appointed rappotteurs
fortbtlindividualmeeti ~n.g The adopted Agenda isgiv~ an Annex BI. Statenltmts oo
the Agenda are give.o as Annex S.Tbt Agenda took into
1.31\lttrinpr( o'dur~ and rimescbe.duJe account the priority items agreed lost yoar and appro,-ed by
Broclcioglon5Utllm:trisethe meeting arrangements aod tbe Comwissio n (1\VC. 201l a. pp. 31-2). Annex Blinks
informationfor portie:ip311ts.heCorum~ itagreed to the Comnuttee ·,Agenda"~t that of the Commission.
followthe work sobedule preparebyth<!Olair.
3
259Annex 122
REPORTOF THESCIENTIFIC CO~JMIT EIE 201I IWCI631R.epl
SC/63'R.\lP7 b3d reopoodtd 10 one of lhose inappropriate to c:onsiclenwlliple combu>acions of lile
t<COWiiJtildaloonsand lbt analy.es prot<i ed b3d prot-.d t-.rioosstock SIJllCttUaspectsincluded w HypolbestS ill
brlpfbl but the Comminee agr..s that a'-.niceof Hypolbe.,. ill
that did not assume mllltiplJ S1oeks"-culdbt \'aluabl10
U .U L'"Pv-rS FORACTUAL A.PI'UCAnos OF 111£ CI.<
Tbtre wu i.nsull tm t ;n'abol~10 select lile ca1ches pn=e. The possibilityof excluding a Y $10d: ti'om
aod abuod3Jice estuna,.s fousein acmal appl.itations of dle H)polbesis illwas also raised: bo""'· "tbt Colll!Wntt
considered thai this would hkely W''Ol\-more \\uX thaJl
CL~ . The iuetsesslooa\i\'Crl:i.Qgroop ffi al:lished ucder was pos;ible m tbetimt at'ailable.
item 6.3.1.6 "ilini~ ttihscussion of !hiOnt issue which
ottds 10 bt coaside'td inthis rtsptd is bo11• 1address The Committee agr..s thatmodif}-ingtbe way Hypolbtsi s
COieS "' "1lichthe $1U of lile .,.>1n"}'"" thanges oYer ill was implemented by siwplil}-ing11did not \Wlalt !be
ti.mt. guideline that the structwe of tbt trialsshould nor bt
changed after the FU... IntenesSlonal M.. twg. The
63.1 rol'clpla11
UnfOrtunately. the Comnun.. was UW!bleto oomplete tile Committee noted that !his did not iuvohanycha.oges 10tbe
t:uks reqwre<Sot tilFu'>lAnnual M.. ting thi! yearItbad suucnu·eof the compmer programs .
not b<eu possible toIUSlgllplauubility to stock •uuc.rure An ad hoc worlcing ~rup was establi>hed tdraft dtt>ile<l
hypotbese s. prim:ullbe<ause it had not been possible to workplo n. including proposed membership of an
complete coudiuonin g of tbttrialsThis meant that the2-
intersessionalworking group and plans for A tecbnieol
year scbedtlie for the Implcmenfnlion Review has been interse.-siol work!.hop. Although it pre.ented il4 wotl<:
disny ttd and lt willnor~ pos~ ebto comp~lte it at ue:u direc.tlto Plenaryiu addition to endorsing tbe workplnn. it
year's meeting. the Committee agrt ts thatit is appt'oiate tonl:lktitau
Prev\0\1$Jmpl•me11rnlion sOder tbt Guidelines had been nppendiJ<(Appendix 11)to Annex D.
cowplet<d ou sebedule (IWC, 200Se; 2009b) but the The Cemutittee agrees that the proposed <Ulllylsi> to expl01-e
lmpl•menrarioll Reviow for wostern North Pacific minke evolutionary pathways of putative stoelcs (SC/631R.ep3,
whales iseowple:t and tbtre fore considerably more time Annex N. item C) wowd be valuable to pt~
com1llllWg. It indndes sinru13ting whaling operatduring
interse.ssionally oud end or;e se~arc hropo$01git'etllll
utigratiou, whichrtqtw-eslmplomentalionSimlllalionTrials Annex Dl, Appendi.'1<0.
to bt •tructurtdte~aly l os w•ll as spatially. The
plausible stod:•trlldU by rp•o~sinclnde those thai are 6.4 ::"orth .-\.donmink< wholes
6.4.1 Review-newabundancetmimates
•:ttremely eoruplex. As a rt$\lit,the Implenumcation Tbe Conm1ineereces.\<""Lend!OfDlolUOIlo am,IJlS)tof De\V
Simu!DrionTrlau 6et"elopedare farmore complicated thaJl
anypmiously c:onsiclerecl. sut\-.ysODdabundanee estimates focommon minke whales
iu lileNorth Atlantic.Discussi01of these canbt fotiOdut
Gn..u tbe delay 10 lileImplomenraci<» R ,.;,..schedule, Annex D (item 3.3.1). Therewasinsuffictentimt 10m<iew
oat).,.,..•~Illi tl't<:tn"elybec01Il6 a ropeu of the First
theseestimates inany detail and tbComtm- DO<edthai.
Annual M..wn1 \\\Ill tbsame list of required IIISI:sthai had full e\-aluation otbem will oca.- m tbe fonheomutg
bteu initiated !his>"- ~~'IM Commi""" discussed a Imp/emtet~J~cR io>ni•e~l<mted for 2014.
\\'Qikplan(induchngan in~! worlcshop) that sbould
6.5. Otherbusiness
~ compleciQOof tbe necessaryintersen:iooalwork The Committee noted thai abuod3JiceesiUD3tes are used w
so that altaskswould bt COtq>leted 11ne:u year's meeting.
three ways in the RMP and tbe AWMP : (I ) for use wben
'I'M"'" ou coa&tiooing tbe tN! s thai bod bten ongoing at condi1ioningImplementarionSlmulanon TrialJ. LO. wben
!his w<el1ll8willCOillinuUllerstSSionally. As>0eia1ed with estimating theparameters of tbeoperatingmode ~2) \\ben
!his .,.a nwn1:ttof techllieatm>es includil!g revisitasg,
appl}ingtheIaiP -..ith/mplertUIIttariSlmularionTrltJu;
appropriatt . tbt sptcifieatiof sa<q>les repre.enting the and(3) v.ilen applying tbe RMin acruahty.There ISau..d
be.- proxies f01· 'pure >locks'. re..:alrulatiof mi.'<ing for as1ngle list of all abundance .. timates for stof01·
proportions. ODd ched:1ng the '-atues of lhe 'gamma
which wana •ement advice is needed tbot ottds 10 bt
coeflia..,..' to tDSUte eonsi>tency withio lbe trials. In annotatedbyhow !bey can btused (including'do notuse').
additi.oa..,aiti.mpotttunibat the conditionicg "'Od::and Donovan agreed to produce an iwtW hst of ~~
restlitare cOIDlllllllicainda rtadily understandable way. estimates considerein pastRJ.iP (andAWMP) discmsio 1u .
The rt s11ts oeonchttoning arean impottllllcomponent of
including pretoious Coumtinee evaluations of tbetr status fot•
assigning plausibility to hotheses and wei!bts to tN! s. eousideratiouat ne:<t year'smeeltug. This " discus~<!
G iven the oowplexi ty of the trials. 1be reliability of the futther under Item 24.
conditioning oloritbma l$o ueeds to be carefullychecke d.
The Coumt tt did not have tUn. to review a propoSlll to
The CouUl>in.. chSCU$$edwhetber tts wotk eould be initiate a pre-Implementationas.scssmcnrof NorthAtlt'Wtic
tacilitotif addiuoon.l trials \\'ere developed following the seiwhales (SCI621RMP2)
resultsof newau.alysespt'6eU tedat thismeetingrelevantto
Hypotbeses m. It WO$ noted that Hypotbesis ill was an 6.6Work plan
The Committee•s di.scussioM oo the S\Jb.comotltiee·s
inclu>iv'e b)pothe si• tb.\1 ineorporated tbe possibility of workplon (Annex D) nre wcorpor.tted under Item 21.
multiple J stoclcs. orultr0leSloclcs and Y ;tock It wos
The Committee was coneemed o;-,r tbe feasibility o11.$
1 Foru t~D wtSC6Jfl.tp3.Alme:cJ, fhrure timetable of work partictliarly gtbetdeL'Yin tbe
14
260 Annex 122
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 201 1 IWC/63/Rep I
for this stoc.k based on a negatively biased estimate of 9.6.2 Management advice
abundance of 17,307 (95% CI 7,628 - 39,270) and the In 2007, the Commission agreed to a catch limit (for the
method for providing interim management advice whidt years 2008 -2012) of 19 ftn whales struc.k off West
was confirmed by the Commission. Suc.hadvice can be used Greenlrutd. At last year's Conmlission meeting , it was
for up to two five-year bloc.ks whilst SLAs are being agreed that this should be reduc.ed to 16 animals witb a note
developed (IWC, 2009a, p. l6). Last year, the Commission that this will be vohmtarily linlited to I 0 by Greenland
agreed to replace the number 200 to 178 as rec.onm1ended (IWC, 201 1a). The Conunittee agreed an approac.h for
by the Conunittee. Based on the application of the agree.d provid ing interin1 management advice it1 2008 ru1dtllis was
approach, and the lower 5th percentile for the 2007 estimate confirmed by the Connnission. It had agreed that such
of abundance , tbe Comirnttee repeats its advice of last year advice could be used for up to two five-year blocks whilst
that an a1111uasltrike limit of 178 will not harm the stock. SLA s were being developed (IWC, 2009a). The most recent
9.5 Comm on mink e whales off East Greenlan d <>greedabtmdance estin1ate is 4,359 (95%C I 1,897 - 10,
114). Based on the application of the agreed approach in
9.5.1 New information 2008 (IWC, 2009a) , the Co11111litteeagrees that an ruumal
Nine col111llonirnnke whales were struck (and landed) off
East Greenland in 20I 0 (no animals were struck and lost) stike linlit of 16 (and therefore also 10) whales \vill not
harm the stoc.k
(SC/63/ProgRepDemnark) . Of the landed whales, there were
two females, four males, and three whales of tmreported sex. 9.7 Hump back whales off West Gree nla nd
Catches of minke whales off East Greenland are believed to 9.7.1 New information
come from the large Central stock of minke whales . A total of inne (three males; five fema les; one umeported
sex) hmupbac.k whales was landed (none were struck and
9.5.2 Management advice
In 2007 , the Cormnission agreed to an ruumal quota of 12 lost) in West Greenland dm-ing 2010
(SC/63/ProgRepDemnark ). Genetic srunples were obtained
tninke whales from the stoc.k off East Greetiland for 2008-
2012, which the Committee stated was ac.ceptable in 2007 from five of tbese whales .
The present strike litnit represents a very small proportion of 9.7.2 Management advice
the Central Stock (see Table 4) The Committee agrees that In 2007 , the Conunittee agreed an approach for providing
the present strike litnit will not hann the stock. interim mrutagement advice and Ibis was confiruted by the
Table 4 Comirnss ion (IWC, 2008a). It had agreed that such advice
c-ouldbe used for up to two five year blocks whilst SLAs
MostrecentaboodanceestimatesforminkewhalesintheCentralNorth wexe beit1g developed (IWC, 2009a, p.l6 ). Last year the
Atlantic (see 2ifor the location SmallAreas).
Conmliss ion estabhshed ru1amntal strike linlit of 9 wltales
SmallAroo(s) Year(s) Abundance and CV for the ye.ars 2010 -2012 \vith an anmtal review by the
CM 2005 26,739(CV-<l.39)
CIC 2007 10,680(CV-<l.29) Scientific Conmlittee. The most rec.ent agreed abundance
CG 2007 L048 (CV-<l.60) estin1ate is 3,039 (CV=0.45; ammal rate of increase 0.0917
CIP 2007 1.350(CV -<l38) S.E 0.0124). Using tllis approach, the Conunittee agrees t11at
an ruumal strike linlit of 9 whales will not harm the stock.
9.8 Hump back whales off St Yincent & th e Gr enad ines
9.8.1 New information
No inforntation was provided on 2010-2011 catches by St
Vincent & The Grenadit1es. The Comirnttee strongly
.-.,com mends that catch data, it1cluding the length of
harve sted rulimals, be provided to the Sc.ientific Cormnittee .
It also strongly recommends that genetic samples by
obtained for any harvested animals as well as fluke
photographs , and that this infomtation be submitted to
appropriate catalogues and collections.
S:..2 Management advice
In recent years, the Conun ittee ltas agreed !bat the anintals
fmmd off St. Vincent and the Grenadines are part of the
large West Indies breeding population. The Conunission
Fig. SmallArea specifications (see Table 4).
adopted a total bloc.k c.atch litnit of 20 for tbe period 2008-
9.6 Fin whales off\ Vest Gr eenland 12. The Conunittee agrees tl1at this block c.atch litnit will
9.6.1 New informatio n not harm the stock
A total of four fin whales (all females) were landed, and one
10. WHALE STOCKS
additional animal was struck and lost, in West Greenland
during 2010 (SC/63/ProgRepDemnark) . An acoustic study 10.1 Antarctic minke whales (Annex G)
on fm whales in Davis Strait b<>tweenGreenland and Canada
The Conunittee is in the process of undertaking an it1-deptl1
fotmd that call frequenc ies peaked in November- December , acssessment of the Antarctic minke wltale. The printary
and continued tmtil the area was covered by ice in January abundance data are those collected fi·om the 1978179 to
(Simonet a/., 2010).
2003/04 IWC-IDCR/SOWER c.mises (e.g. Matsuoka eta/ .,
2003) that had been divided into tbree circump olar series
24
261Annex 122
REPORT OF THE SCIENTITIC COMMITTEE 2011 IWC/63/Repl
(CPI, CPIT and CPIIT).Two different methods for estimating respectively; the ice configuration in bot11of these Areas is
Antaretic minke whale abundance from these data have been particularly complex and llighly variable from year to year.
developed in recent years (see below) and although they Table 5
gave different estimates of abundance, both were consistent
Comparisonof 'Stuvey-once' estimates of abundance,by Manager:nent
in showing an appreciable decline in estimated circmnpolar
abundance behveen CPIT and CPIIL TI1e Committee has Area, fromthe adjustedOK andSPLINTRmodels. EstimatesshO\vnare
roundedand in thousands. CVs (not incorporatingadditiovariance)are
been working to resolve the differences between the giveninparentheses.
estimates for some time and last year believed that it would
Area I Areal! Area ill Area IV AreaV Area VI Total
be possible to present an agreed abundance estimate at this CPII -O K
year's meeting (IWC, 2011j, p. 195). 459 1,062
126 185 l3l 80 82
(0.20) (0.16) (0.21) (0.18) (0.17) (0.27) (0.12)
10.1.1 Progress towards producing agreed abundance CPII -SPLINTR
estimates of Antarctic minke whales 82 118 68 47 254 43 612
(0.23) (0.23) (0.51) (0.18) (0.14) (0.25) (0.13)
TI1e Conunittee reviewed progress made on the workplan CPIII - OK
developed last year to facilitate it agreeing abundance
47 70 Ill n 215 96 612
estimates of Antarctic minke whales from the (0.12) (0.19) (0.15) (0.32) (0.12) (0.15) (0.09)
IDCRISOW ER surveys, with a focus on reso lving the CPIII - SPLINTR
substantial differences between estimates from the hazard 42 56 70 36 152 66 421
(0 16) (0 16) (012) (0 23) (0 13) (0.17) (009)
probability stratified estimato r (the 'OK' model , Okamura
and Kitakado , 20IO) and those from the trackline
conditiona l independence spatial estimator ( the 'SPLINTR ' Table6
model ; (the 'SPLINTR' model , Bravington and Hedley,
RatioofCPill toCPII 'smvey-oo.ce'estimates of abtmdance(95%Cl), by
2010). As part of the intersessional process, a workshop was Area, fromthe adjusteOK and SPilNTR models.
held in January 2011 in Bergen, Norway; deliberations
Area Area Area Area Area Area Total
continued in Tromse . I II m IV v VI
Extensive new analyses for both methods were carried out CPIII:CPII - OK
and factor adjustments to each set of estinllltes were agreed. 0.37 0.38 0.85 0.90 0.47 1.18 0.58
While these adjustments brought the estimates from the two (0.23- (0.23- (0.51- (0 .44- (0.31- (0.64- (0.43-
0.58) 0.2) 1.41) 1.85) 0.71) 2.16) 0.8)
methods much closer together , they remained different
(Table 5). However , given the existing constmctive CPIII:CPII - SPL!l\"'TR
0.51 0.47 1.02 0.77 0.60 1.55 0.69
collaboration and progress, the Committee believes that it is (0.29- (0.27- (0.37- (0.43- (0.41- (0.86- (0.51-
realistic to expect that the estimates will be reconciled by
next year's meeting if an intersessional workshop is held. 0.88) 0.81) 2.85) 1.36) 087) 2.80) 0.94)
TI1e reason for this is tllllt the direction of future model
development appears clear and achievable . A hazard
probability formulation of tl1e SPLINTR model has been
developed based on a very similar hazard -probability model
to that used in tl1eOK model. The prelinlinary results from
this model have been extremely useful to the process of
understanding the difference behveen the OK and SPLINTR
estimates , and in identifying the path forward . The Fig.3
Antarctic
Committee therefore recommends that the. Working Group management
on abtmdance estimation methods be re-established Am1ex Areas I-VI
R. (see
(Donovan,
In conclusion, while the Collllnittee regrets that it has not 1991;
been able to provide reliable final estimates for the Antarctic Matsuokaer
a/., 2003)
minke populations this year, it should be possible next year.
From prelinlinary calculations , the Conmlittee agrees that
tl1e. fllilll estimates for each Area (see Fig. 3) "ill most likely
lie between tl1e numbers given by tl1e two methods in Table
5 and be probably closer to the OK estimates.
It is clear from Table 5 that while circumpoLar Antarctic
10.1.2 Reasons for differences berween estimatesfrom CPII
mitike whale abundance estin1ates llllve declined during the
period from CPIT to CPIII, there are substantia l differences and CPIII
As noted above, large declines in estimates of Antarctic
in reLative changes behveen Areas, witl1 only relatively
moderate increases or declines in some Areas, but tnirike whale abundance OCClUTedin Areas I, II and V (there
were no statistically sigrlificant changes in the other three
appreciable declines in others (Table 6). No sigrlificant
decline is seen in Areas III, IV and VI, whilst estin1ated Areas). The Committee agrees that these declines do indeed
reflect genuine changes in abundance in tbe open-water
abtmdance issubstantially lower in CPIII for Areas I, ITand
V. Areas IT and V encompass the Weddell and Ross Seas areas surveyed t!Jatneed to be explained . Such changes may
25
262 Annex 122
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 2011 IWC/63/Repl
be due to changes in distribution or reflect a tme decline (or data points. The Conmlittee noted that at least for some
some combination of both). regions (AJ·eas IV and V and more latterly adjacent parts of
Areas III and VI), abtmdance estimates from JARPA and
The IDCR/SOWER cmises could only survey a small part JARPA II provide a longer (up to 25 years) time series of
of the Antarctic in any one year, and even within that they
could not cov er the entire range of potential minke whale estitnates with which to examine these effects. Although
there are some issues to be resolv ed with the JARPA and
habitat(e.g. the vessls could not go into the pack ice). Ifthe JARPA II estill1ates (e.g. IWC, 2008c), the Conmlittee
decline in estimated abtmdance was due to whales being in nonetl1eless recommends that exploratory ru1ay lses to
tmsttrVeyed regions during CPIII but not during CPII, then
there are four possible (not mutually exclusive) investigate the relationsllip between eitnates of abundru1ce
explanations: (1) a much higher proportion of whales in the of A11tarctic nilllke whales from JARPAIJARP A IIdata and
e.nvirolllllental conditions conducted and presented next
pack ice or in open-water areas (polynyas) within the pack year.
ice in CPIII; (2) extensive east-west movements of whales
from year to year, such that CPII, by chance had higher 10.1.3 Continue development of the catch-a-age models
abtmdance than CPIII in certain areas; (3) a much higher Population dynanlics modelling provides a way to explore
proportion of animals were north of 60"S in CPIII; and ( 4) possible changes in abw1druc1e ru1dcarrying capacity within
within-year movements of whales in open water within the Areas IV and V. The data inputs are catch, length, age and
surveyed areas. Willie precise retrospective evaluation of sex data from the conunercial harvests and botl1 JARPA
each of these possibilities is difficult if not impossible, the progranunes, as well as abundance estimates from
Committee agrees that probably no analyses would be able IDCR/SOWER and both JARPA programmes. Results of a
to conclusively exclude the hypotheses that a !me decline in ftuther SCAA analysis developed for A11tarctic minke
abundance occurred inson1e Areas. whales were presented to the Comnlittee tllis year
(SC/63 /IAl ). The Conmlittee noted that the qualitative
There are two classes of explanation for possible true results on trends were now consistent across all the most
dec.lines in abtmdance. The first, quantitative approach plausible scenarios considered. The Committee agrees that
involves the population dynamics statistical catch-at-age
analyses (SCAA) from Area III East to VI West, which can botl1 sets of adjusted IDCR/SOWER abundance estill1ates
potentially accotml for the changes in overall abtmdance in (Table 5), which show sinlliar trends although different
absolute levels, should be used it1intersessional work on
terms of variations over time in mortality and recmitment SCAA. In addition, as recommended last year, tl1e
(note that tllismay explain how but not why changes Conmlittee agrees that the most recent catch-at-age data
occtUTed). The second, less quantitative approach involves
attempts to identify mechanisms whereby mortality and from JARPA II should be induded it1the SCAA; at least
rec.mitmentmay have chang ed (e.g. ecosystem effects, inter prelinilllary data from 2006 and perhaps 2007 are available;
the Collllllittee recomends that such data be provided
species competition, climate changes, etc.). tmder Data Availability Agreement Procedure B, as
previous ly.
In attempting to investigate reasons for the change in
abtmdance, a better understanding of the relationship The Committee agrees th at the SCAA development phase is
between Antarctic minke whale distribution and sea ice is
important and a number of ice-related papers were presented now complete (it has resolnd the issues related to: (a)
tllis year (Allllex G, It5.1.3). apparent differences between growth rates estill1ated from
the JARPA and conunercial data sets; and (b) the
As pru1of the discussion of these papers, a tedmical issue consistency of age readings amongst readers) and as prut of
arose with respect to the use of (and interpretation of) the analyses presented next year the Committee agrees that
infonnation from passive nlicrowave sensors for assessing the paper should inter alia include:
ice cover.The Collllllittee noted that expert advice should be (1) detailed techilical specifications of the analytical
sought on this and that a paper or papers based on that
advice w ould be welcomed next year. teciUliques;
It is also valuable to obtain information on present whale (2) a 'lay' sununary of the model and its asstunptions;
distribution in pack ice regions. The Comnlittee therefore (3) a graphical representation of results for key parameters;
welcomes the information presented tllis year a expresses (4) clear specifications for the 'base case' and the related
its gratitude to the Governments of Australia and Germany sensitivity tests.
for conducting the relevant aerial surveys. The potential
value of a system to detect whales in the pack ice using 10.2 Southern Hemisphere humpba ck whales
aerial photographs (without the need for obse1vers) is clear The report. of the sub-conmlittee on the assessment of
and the Committee welcomed infonnation on a trial project Southern Hemisphere htunpback whales is given it1Almex
to record the presence of whales beneath the aircraft and to H. This assessment has been on the agenda of the Scientific
provide information on local sea ice conditions. The Conmlittee s it1ce 1992. The Comnlittee ctUTently recognises
Comnlittee welcomes this new attempt to record whale seven breeding stocks (BS) in the Southem Hemisphere
sightings data in tl1e vicitlity of sea ice ru1dencoura ges
(labelled A to G, IWC, 1998b), which are connected to
further explorationof this techilique. feeding grounds in the Antarctic. An additional population is
fotmd only in the Arabian Sea. PrelillilllarY population
An important linlitation when examitill1g the relationship modellillg of these stoc.ks was itlitiated it1 2000 (IWC,
between nilllke whale abundance by Area ill CPII and CPIII 2001e) and in 2006 (IWC, 2007c), the Scientific Colllllliltee
and ice conditions is that for most Areas there are only two
26
263264 Annex 123
123. “List of Participants”,AnnexA, Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1,
p. 82 <http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/63-Rep1-with
%20covers.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
REPORT O F THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITT EE 2011 IWC /63/Rep 1
AnnexA
List of Participants
ARG D T INA Takashi Hakamada SLO VE~"IA Yara Berualdo de Quiros
Miguel Iniguez (H) Hiroshi Hatanaka Tilen Geuo v (H) Beth Fulton
Shinj i Hiruma Nao ko Ftutahashi
AuS TRU. IA Hitoshi Honda SPAI~ OscarGaggiotti
Nick Gales (H) Naohisa Kanda Santiago Leu> (H) Phil Hammond
Simon Childeihou>e Toshiya Kishiro Sharon Hedle y
William de Ia Mare Toshihide Kitakado RtLsHoelzel
SWIT ZERIA.t '\-r>
Mike Double Koji Matsuoka Patricia Hohu (H) Sus..1.1H1ollO\'\-oay
Gavin Hinten Tomio Miyashita Jennifer J~ckson
Natalie Kelly Hiroshi Okamura VK Mike Jenker son
Luis Pastene Beatriz Roe! (H) Toshio Kasuya
A lJSTRL<\ Tosh.inori Uoya Russell Leaper Greg Kaufw.111
Michael Stachowitsch (H) Saemi Baba (I) David Lusseau Bn1ceMate
Yoko Yamalmge (I) Chris Parson s Altdrea Mull er
BEL GIU M Hiroko Yasokmva (I) Mark Simmond s HirotoMur.ase
Fabian Ritter (H) Andre Punt
REP uB LIC OF {.;SA Randall Reeves
BRAZIL KOREA Robe n Brownell Jr (H) Naomi RoS4e
Fabia Luna (H) Seok-Gwan Choi (H) Debra Palka Mike Swindoil
Alexandr e Zerbini Yong-RockAn C. Soon Baker Jorge Urban -Ramirez
Salvatore Siciliano Jtmg-Youn Park John Bickham Hal Whitehead
Jeff Breiw ick Rob Williams
CIDL E L l!XE \'IBOL"RG Megan Ferguson John Young
B arham Galletti Veruazzani Pierre Gallego (H) John Craig George
(H) Marta Acosta GeofGiy= OBSER VER'>
AndreaCosentino Aimee Lang Vincent Ridoux
CROATIA David Mattila ACCOBAMS )
Ana Strbenac (H) MEXI CO Jeff Moore Alta Strben ac (ACCO BAMS )
Ar mando Legorreta Jaramillo Sue Moore Justin Cooke (IUCN)
DE/'U <R~K (H) Debbie Palka Mario Acqlk1.fone
Lars Witting (H) Lorenzo Rojas Bracho William Perrin (NAMMCO)
Mads Peter Heide-J0rget,.eu Jooke Robbins Christina Locl-yer
l'LT IITRLAi'm S Chery l Rosa (NAMMCO)
FlU.,'liCE Meike Scheidat (H) Howard Rosenhalllll CharlotteWit..ue~
Vincent Ridoux (H) DolfiDebrot Teri Rowles NAMMCO)
Miche l Vely PeterBos Jona.than Scardin o Hidehiro Kato (PICES)
Stephane Jeremie Roben Suydam
l'L W ZEAL<\_-'r-}/ Jacl)n Taylor LOC AL SC IE>.'TISTS
GER\ L<"\_\!Y Louise Cbilver s (H) Peter Th= Marie-Aime Blanchet
Karl -Hennann Kock (H) Paul Wade GregoireCertain
JustinCooke !'\ORWAY Robin Waples Ola FlAten
Petra Deimer -Schtitte Lars Wail0e (H) David Weiler CarlaFreitas
Alexander Liebschner Ame Bj0rge Gina Ylitalo A.tmeKirstine Frie
An10ldus Schyne Bhx ll\\ TITID PARTICIP.<\_-.rS Jacques Godfroid
ICEU .:'\-r> Lars Folkow Dee Allen Alf K'\kon Hoel
Gisli Viking<so n (H) Ke\o-ni.Glover KerimA ydin Silje-Kristin Jensen
'ThorvaldurGunnlaugsson Sidse l Gr011vik RobBa1dwin SirMartinsen
Christophe Pampoulie T01e Haug Jolm Bannister Tore Nepstad
Bjarki Thor E1varsson Kit Kovacs Jaco Barendse Virgiiue Ranlasco
Ulf Lindstr0m Peter Best Tiu Simila
ITALY Christian Lydersen Almbela Brandao Morten Tryland
Catenna Fornu1a (H) Niis0ien JohnBrando n Dag Vongraven
BnmoCozzi T01e Schweder Mark Bravi.ngton Daniele Zanoni
CristinaFossi Hans Julius Skaug Paul Brodie
Giancado Unulano Koe11Broker IWC
AdrianoMariani RUSSIA!'\FEDER Ul ON Doug Butterworth Cherry Allison
Sanch-oMazzariol Rudolf Borodin (H) Alm Cruladas Simon Brockington
Simone Panigada Valer iy Fadeev Carole Carlson Greg Donovan
Miche la Podesta Valentin Ilyasheuko Salvatore Cerclito Marion Hughe s
Olga Tytuueva Frank Cipriano
JA PA-_, Valeriy Vladimirov Tim Colli ns (I)=Inteq>reter
Hidehiro Kato (H) Almstasia Nilmlitm (I) Carryu De Moor (H)=Head of Delegation
Joji Morishita (AH) Jennifer Dupont (AH) Alternate Head
82
265266 Annex 124
124. “Report of the Sub-Committee on the Revised Management Procedure”,Annex D,
Report of the Scientific Committee, IWC/63/Rep1, pp. 1-4 <http://www.iwcoffice.
org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2011/Annex%20D%20-%20RMP.pdf >
accessed 14 February 2012
Annex D
Report of the Sub-Committee on the
Revised Management Procedure
:\1ember s: Bannister (Convenor)An ,Acquarone , Brandao , Brandon, Butterworth , Childerhouse , Cipriano, Cooke, de
Ia Mare, Donovan, Elvarsson, Gunnlaugsson, Hakamada , Hammond , Hatanaka, Hinnna , Honda, Kelly, Kishiro ,
Kitakadu , Leape r, Luck y.,r, Miyasltita , Mums., , 0i.,n , Pampouli., , Palka , Park , Paskn., , Ptwl, Rud , Scllw.,der , Skaug ,
Uoya, Vikingsson , WalliJe, Witting.
1. ThTRO DUCTORY ITE :\'IS
1.1Convenor 's opening rema rks
As Convenor , Bannister welc.omed the participants.
1.2El ection of Chair and appointment of rapp orteurs
Bannister was elected Chair. Punt acted as rapporteur.
1.3 Adoption of Agenda
The adopted Agenda is shown in Appendix I.
1.4Avail able docume nts
The docmnents considered by the sub-committee were SC/63/RMPI -6, 19-20, 24-25, 30, Pike eta/. (2010a, b) and
relevant extrts from past reports of the Conunittee .
2.RE\lSE D NL.\..."AGE:\'IE:-;T PROCEDURE CR-''IP) GEXERAL ISSUES
2.1 Re\i ew :\ISY rates
The Committee has been discussing the maximum sustainable yield rate (MSYR) issue since 2007 (IWC, 2008) in the
context of a general reconsideration of the plausible r ange to be used in population models used for testing the Catch
Limit Algori thm (CLA) of the RMP. At present, this range is 1% to 7% when expressed in terms of the mature
component of the populationAs part of the review process, infonnation on observed population growth r ates at low
population sizes is being considered. Cooke (2007) noted that in circ.umstances where variability and/or temporal
autocorrelatio n in the effects of environmental variability on population growih rates is high, sin1ple use of such
observed population growth rates could lead to incorrect inferenc.es being drawn concerning the lower end of the range
of plausible values for MSYR. Last year, the Conunittee agreed a Bayesian approac(Pun t,2010) for calculating a
probability distributio n forrate of increase for an 'unknown ' stock in the limit of zero populatro,once the
inputs needed tobe apply it (rates of increase and associated sampling CVs, and values for the extent and temporal
auto-correlation invironmentally-<iriven factors and p) on the growih rate) become available. The Committee also
identified a workplanwhich focused on estimating the latter two factors using data on calving intervals and calving
rates.
2.1.1 Progress on intersessional work
Butterworth stlllll.ll3fised the progress made by the intersess ional MSYR working group since the last Annual Meeting
and noted that Kitakado , Brandon, and Cooke had developed methods for analysing data on calving intervals and
calving rates. The results from these methods are needed to complete the MSYR review.
SC/63IRMP20 a ddressed item (1) of the sub-c.ommittee 's work plan from last year. A Bayesian meta-analysis was
conduc.ted using the time seriesf baleen whale calving rates and intervals that were supplied to the 3"' Scientific
Committee Workshop on baleen whale MSYR (JCR..I12(Supp1.):402).Ten series of calf counts or calving proportions ,
and eight seriesf calving intervals were used in the analysis . These two sets were analysed separately, because for
most stocks both types of series were availab le. TI1erest1lts were expressed as posterior probability distributions of the
process variance and serial correlation coefficient for calving rates and intervals for a generic stock (a stock without
stock-specificata). The results of the analyses calf count/calving proportion series and calving interval series each
showed that the data were consistent with almost the full possible range (-1,1) of serial correlation coefficients for a
generic stock.The results from the calf count and calving proportio n tinle series suggested that all values of inter
annual process variance in the range [0,1] were plausible , but with values near I being less likely. The c.alving interval
seriesshowed lower values of proc.ess variance, with values of a >0.4 being unlikely . To elucidate the relation between
Annex D - RMP.doc 22/06/2011
267Annex 124
calving interval variance and calving rate variance probably requires explicit modelling of the calving cycle. Variance
in mortality rates has not been considered.
SC/63/RMP30 presented two approaches for the analysis of selected data sets to estintate environmental variability and
auto-correlation in reproductive rates of baleen whales. Both approaches recognized that for a given stock, the average
calving interval is the reciprocal of the average proportion calving, and thus allow for the incorporation of both data
types in a unified estimation framework for parameters of interest. For an unknown stock of baleen whale, the extent of
environmental variability was (depending on the approach) estimated to be 0.347 and 0.396 (standard deviations in log
space), and the estimates of the auto-correlation parameter were 0.614 and 0.288.The estintates of the hyper-parameters
from this meta-analysis fran1eworkcan be used in sinmlations fo inform the lower end of the range for MSYR value1n
general, the resulting paran1eter estimates appeared to be mostly consistent with those in SC/63/RMP20, which
employed a different modelling framework and included more data on reproductive variability. Therefore, it was
concluded that these results may provide some confidence in tl1erobustness of available estimates, given different data
sets and modelling assumptions.
The sub-committee noted that tl1e approaches in SC/63/RMP20 and SC/63/RMP30 differed in several respects
(statistical estimation paradigm, how inferenc.es are drawn about the 'population ' from which cr and p are drawn,
whether the calving interval and calving rate data are analysed separately or sinmltaneously, and how observation error
is taken into account). A small group was therefore established to evaluate the three approaches. Based on analyses for
comparable data sets (Appendix 2), the sub-conunittee agreed that the three approaches lead to sinlilar estimates given
conunon assumptions and data sets. Owing to its generality, the sub-comnlittee agreed to use the estimates from the
approach of SC/63/RMP20. Appendix 2 provides more details on how these distributions for crand p are calculated and
lists the percentiles for theterior distributions for crand p from each of the stocks included in the meta-analysis of
calving rates and calf counts, as well as those for the posterior distributions for an unknown stock.
SC/63/RMP26 addressed item (2) of last year's work plan, concenling the correlation between variability in
reproductive rates and in survival rates. If the correlation is positive, these two sources of variability will c.ompOtmd
each other with regard to the variability in net rec.mitmentrate. A review of the literature found that the correlation was
often negative in mrulipulation experiments, such as when eggs are removed from birds' nests to suppress reproduction,
but that the cmTelation was usually positive when variability resulted from food linlitation. The model presented last
year was developed further to allow for both inter-annual and individual variability. For an individual, the relationsllip
between survival and reproduction can be uon-mouotonic, if reproduction shuts down when body condition drops below
a threshold,esulting in in1provedsurvivaL However, when averaged over a population that includes variation between
individuals, the relationship between survival ru1dreproduction was monotonic and positive in all tl1ecases examined.
The paper concluded that the assumption of a constant survival rate would likely result in tmderestimation of the
variability in net recmitment rate.
The sub-conmlittee thruikedCooke for providing these results, which addressed two of the three tasks identified during
last year's Aruma! Meeting related to the issue of the correlation between survival and reproductive rates. The tllird
task, direct estimation of variability in survival rates, could not be addressed ru1din ru1ycase, data would only be
available for two stocks, Southwest Atlantic right whales and eastern gray whales, and it is wilikely that inferences
based on those stocks would be sufficient to draw general conclusions regarding inter-rumual variation in survivaL
Witting questioned whether the model on wllich SC/63/RMP26 was based was sufficiently realistic to allow general
conclusions to be drawn regarding the correlation benveen survival and reproductive rates. He noted tl1attl1emodel in
SC63/RMP26 considered an annual time-step whereas the processes which would lead to these cmTelations may operate
on finer time-scales. de Ia Mare noted that one possible exan1ple of this would be females becoming pregr1ru1tin the
breeding grotmds if the conditions there were good, but failing to give birth if conditions on the feeding grounds were
poor. The model of SC/63/RMP26 includes a non-linear relationship between survival/reproductive rate and
envirotm1entalconditions. This, the sub-conmlittee noted, generally leads to a monotonic relationship beh'leen survival
and reproductive rate tmder the model of SC/63/RMP26. The exception to this occurs when individual variation is
igr10redwhen survival cru1be negatively correlated with reproductive rate. Survival can also increase moderately with
moderately poor enviromuental conditions because of lower reproductive rate.
The sub-conunittee agreed that it should take account of a potential positive correlation between survival and
reproductive rates (negative correlation beh'leen reproductiv•e ratef,and natural mortality, M). 1n the absence of
infonuation to specify the magrlitude of variation in survival , the sub-conunittee agreed that analyses should be
conducted in which (a) the correlation is zero, and (b) tl1ere is a perfect negative cotTelation benfeand M ,with
variability iM comparable with that forf
The sub-conunittee identified the steps in deriving a distribution for the ratio of expected rate of increase at low
population size to tl1emaximum possible of increase, 0!1;,_,,_a,s:
(1) Associate each stock for which a rate of increase is available witl1values for cr and p . Tllis step is needed
because the stocks included in the meta-ru1alysdiffe ~r·edthose for rates of increase are available.
Aru1exD - RMP.doc 2 22/06/2011
268 Annex 124
(2) Use an ag•e-structured population dynamics model to select the values for the standard error of the log of
fecundity and the inter-annual correlation in the log-fecundities so that the projected variation in fec.tmdity
matches the input values from step 2. This step is needed because annual fecundity is constrained to be less
than 1 in the population dynamics model and because tllis model does not allow females to give birth in
consec.utiv·e years.
(3) Use the results from step 2 to infer the variance and correlation in the rate of increase at low population size.
(4) Develop a relationship between the expected value for the rate of increase and its variance and tl1evalue for
1;,._,nd z = 1 I1;,._or each stock in the meta-analysis.
0
(5) Use Bayesian metl10ds to compute posterior distributions for the parameters of a beta distribution for
;r.= r I r""" given unifom1priors on the parameters of the beta distribution.
0
(6) Create a posterior predictive distribution for tl1evalue of ;rfor an unknown st•ock, taking into accom1t the
uncertainty of the parameters of the beta distribution as well as the selection of a stock from the beta
distribution.
Appendix 3 outlines a first application of the algoritlun above. The sub-committee noted tl1atAppendix 2 made several
assumptions (e.g. how values for cr and p were assigned to stocks) which had not been discussed. Specifically, the
approach in Appendix 3 of assigning the same values for crand p to stocks within a species suggests that consideration
should have been given to a hierarchical meta-analysis when analysing the calf count and calving rate data. The sub
committee also noted tl1ein1portanceof considering the assmuption of tl1eextent to which the stocks considered in the
various meta-analyses are interchangeable.
The sub-committee established a Steering Group (Butterworth (Convenor), Brandon, Cooke, de Ia Mare, Kitakado,
Ptmt, Schweder, Walloe, Witting) to guide the intersessional work The TOR for the Steering Group are to review
Appendix 3 and identify additional and altemative analyses, inc.luding how the correlation between M and f is to be
modelled, in preparation for c.ompleting the MSYR review at next year's Annual Meeting. Alternative approac.hes, if
fully-specified, could be presented to the Steering Group for consideration.
2.1.2 Other issues
SC/63/RMP25 explored some implications of estimating MSYR from the recovery trajectories of competing
populations using sinmlation. This is a sin1ple study to illustrate a class of issues that have not been given much
attention in the work of the sub-committee. Estin1atingMSYR from the recovery of depleted populations makes strong
assumptions about each population being isolated, stationary and recurrent. Possible cmupetition undemlines the
assumption that populations are isolated. TI1estudy used a model of intra-specific competition based on a two-species
version of the Pella-Tomlinson model to derive yield curves under various conditions. In this class of model, the yield
curves for one population depend on the abtmdance of the competing population. Both MSY and MSYR depend on the
state of the competing populations. The MSYR of interest to management is the one where botl1species are maintained
at their MSYL. Tlris value of MSYR can be less than that applying to either species alone. Fitting a single species
model to each recovery trajectory leads to estin1ates of MSYR tl1atare close to the value applicable to each population
alone. Tllis is not surprising because the effects of competition are small when both populations are at low abtmdance.
These estimates of MSYR are not estin1ates of the MS.YR required for management when both species are maintained
atlligher levels of abm1dance.The general revision ofMSYRs as contemplated by the Scientific Collllllitteewould have
the effect of using !be estimates in contexts otl1erthan iliose in winch they were estinlated.
Discussion on SCI63/RMP25 focused on two issues: (! ) the realism of the population dynanlics model on which the
analyses were based; and (2) whetl1er the RMP process would be able to appropriately use infonuation on MSYR from
syntheses of rates of increase at low population size given the possible implications of multi-species effects.
In relation to the first issue, Gunnlaugsson noted that the model on which SCI63/RMP25 was based did not account for
the possibility that two stocks which are very similar biologically should behave sinlilarly, while Witting noted there
were several cases in which single-species models are predicting responses which are too fast at low stock size
compared to an inertia model which predicts a delayed response, including gray whales (Witting, 2003; Punt et aL,
2004), Southem Henlisphere blue whales (Mori and Butterwortl1, 2004), and humpback whales (IWC, 2003). Witting
argued that the even stronger immediate response tl1at follows from the two-species model in SCI63/RMP25 occurs
because it involves a density-regulation response from two rather tl1an one species. de Ia Mare responded to these
concems, noting that the models in SCI63/RMP25 should not be c.onsidered definitive, or even necessarily very
realistic, but that tbey provided insight on the likely in1pact of multi-species dynanlics on perceptions of rates of
increase and hence MSYR for managed stocks.
In relation to the second issue, Butterworth noted that the RMP process had considered multi-species effects on the
perfommnce of tl1eCLA usli1g operating models tltrough, for example, time-varying canying capacity and MSYR. He
also emplmsized that tl1eImplementation Review process, a feature which was not envisaged during the development of
the CLA, provided a way to address situations in which new infom1ation related to multi-species effec.ts become
available. He queried whetl1er an implication of SCI63/RMP25 was a need for a 'meta-RMP' evaluation process in
wllich the process of conducting Implementation Reviews would itself be simulated. de Ia Mare responded that while it
Annex D - RMP.doc 3 2210612011
269Annex 124
was clearly necessary to eonsider the imphcations of the process for updating the range for MSYR, tllis would not
neeessarily involve simulations.
The sub-eommittee was infomted that tlte EM Working Group is plawling to consider the RMP in the eontext of multi
species operating models. The sub-committee agreed tltat tllis would be an ideal way to bring multi-speeies
considerations into its deliberations and supports the ideaf a joint session with the EM Working Group at next years'
Annual Meeting.
2.1.3 Conclusion
The sub-conuuittee noted that last year the Committee had agreed that it should complete the review this year on the
basis of ilie data and analyses available, aecepting tltat it was not appropriate to keep extending the tinte available for
the review given its intportanee to finalising the approaeh for evaluating amendments to the CLA (IWC. 2011 p. 7).
Although it was regrettable that the review had not been completed this year, it stressed that it has agreed an
intersessional workplan such that it will not only complete the review, but will also allow the sub-eonuuittee to finalise
the approaeh for evaluating amendments to ilie CLA at next year'smeeting.
2.2 Finalise the approac h for evaluating proposed amendments to the CL4
The Committee last discussed this issue in 2006. It agreed at iliat time the two steps which had to be completed were (!)
finalization of ilie MSYR review, and (2) speeification of additional trials for testing amendments to the CLA. The latter
related to modelling the effed s of possible envirownental degradation in addition to, or possibly replacing, the trials in
wh.ieh K , perhaps with MSYR, varies over time. Tlus is because the current ehanging K trials have questionable
behaviour when modelling population sizes above K The sub-eonuuittee re-established a working group under Allison
(members: Allison, Butterworth, Cooke, Donovan, Punt, Walloe) to develop and run sueh trials for consideration at next
year's meeting.
2.3 Evaluate the l'\orwegian proposal for amending the CLA
The sub-eonuuittee was tmable to complete its evaluation of the Norwegian proposal as tlte MSYR review has yet to be
completed. The sub-cotm1uttee will eomplete this task at the next Atumal Meeting if the MSYR review ean be
completed.
2.4 Relationship between phase-out rule and abundance estimates based on multi-year surveys
Last year the sub-cotmnittee reconunended a nmuber of changes to the RMP speeifleations and annotations (JCRl\1
12(SuppL):I02-103) which were endorsed by the Conmuttee and the Co1llllussion. One of these was to extend, from
five to six years, both tlte period for wlucl1eatch linuts are set, and ilie prefetTed interval between Implementation
Reviews. In this eontext, the sub-conuuittee plaeed in its work plan a reconsideration of the number of years sinee the
last survey after whieh catch linuts start to be phased out under the RMP spec.ifleati.ons.
The eight-year phaseout rule can be problematic in cases such as the Northeast Atlantic, where eac.hsurvey of the
management area is spread over a number of years. Assmuing that a Combination Area is surveyed over a six-year
period, iliat a Catch Lituit Calculation is perfomted one year after tlte endf tlte survey, and that the calc.ulated catch
linut applies to the following six years, then the catch lin1itfor a SmallArea that is surveyed only in ilie ftrst year of the
multi-year survey will start to phase out itt the third yearhe six-year block of catch linuts.
The sub-comtuiftee agreed that a change to the phaseout rule ittVolves a ehange to the RMP specifieations, and not
merely to the atlllotations. Accordittg totlte agreed protocol for changes to the RMP specifieations (RIWC 44:47), a
change requires that ilie Conllluttee'sagreed list of standard situulation trials be mn for the proposed revision. The sub
conmuttee reealled the trials that had previously been eonducted, which showed that there was no degradation itt risk
related performanc.e when the inter-survey interval was extended to 10 years (RIWC 43:58,94). The sub-comnuttee
agreed that a ehange of the start of the phaseout from eight to ten years could be reconuuended without further trials.
The sub-cotmnittee noted that !Ius would ameliorate the problem with respect to multi-year surveys. Itrecommended
that all references to eight years in section 3.4 of tlte RMP speeiflcation be amended to ten years. The subconmuttee
noted that if a larger change is sought, a revision proposal would need to be made, accompanied by results of the
requisite set of trials.
The sub-conuuittee agreed that it did not foresee any further amendments to RMP specifications in the near funu-eand
it agreed that the full RMP and its atlllotations should be published in the next supplement of the Journal and placed on
ilie IWC website, along wit11the most recent versions of the requirements and guidelines for smveys (see Item 2.6.2)
and Guidelittes for data collection and analysis tmder ilie Revised Management Sclteme (RMS) other ilian those
required as direct ittput for tlte Catch LimitAlgorithm (CLA).
2.5 J\I'odify the 'CatchLimit' program to allow variance-covariance matrices
The sub-comnuttee noted that the 'Catc.hLin1it'progran1was originally written by tlte Norwegian Computing Center,
who should be tasked with makittg tlus modification. The sub-c.onunittee noted that there would hkely be c.osts
associated with !Ius work, wlueh should be conducted itt collaboration wiili Allison.
AtllleXD - RMP.doc 4 22/06/2011
270 Annex 125
125. “Japanese Special Permits in the Southern Ocean: Clarification of suspension of
take of humpback whales”, IWC Circular Communication to Commissioners and
Contracting Governments IWC CCG 976, SB/JAC/31457 (16 December 2011)
The Red Hou se
135 Station Road
lm pingron , Cambridge
~ CB249N P, UK
International
Whaling ret +44 (0) 1223fax:+44 (Ol 1223 232876
Commissi on emaj/:secretariat@iwcIweb: iwcoffice.o rg
SB/JAC/31457
16 December 2011
CIRCUlARCOMMUNICATIONTOCOMMISSIONERS
ANDCONTRACTINGGOVERNMENTS
IWC.CCG.976
Japanese Speda l Permits In the Southern Oceof suspension of take of humpback whale s
Fuothero Orcular Communication IWC.CCG-975 of 16 December, th e Secretariat has since received a subsequent
letter from th eEmbassyof Japan in london .
The letter states that although the Special Permits circulated in IWCCCG.975 indud ecatching 50 humpback whales,
Japanwill continue to suspend catching humpbac k whales for this season, aslong asprogress isbeing madewith the
IWCnormalisation process.
Simon Brockington
Secretary to tmmission
c_cIntergovernmental Organisation observers to the IWC
SecretaDr. Simon Brockington
271272 Annex 126
126. “Work of the Economic Committee during its Thirty-Second Session” (1930)
11 League of Nations Official Journal 1346, C.353.M.146.1930.II., pp. 1353-1354
I'IOVEMBE'R lll&o Leagi.kl oj Nations - Official J ournal 1353
2. The annual report of the Institute for the year r~g-30;
3· An interim report on the Tenninol ogy of Management.
It has further received oral explanations from Mr . L. Urwick. the Director of the Institute.
It was represented by him that the Institute had been given the follO\vi.ng tasks under the
resolution of the \\·orld Economic Conference of r927 and of the Economic Consultative Committee:
r. To promote an agreement in regard to the terms, subject-matter and methods of
rati onalisation ;
2 . To study suitable methods of standardisation in the types and specifications of
manufacture;
3· To furnish the Economic Organisation with information enabling it to jud~e the
expediency of international measnres for the simplification of processes and reduction of
types of products;
4· To promote uniformity in methods of investigation into the economic situation
through Governments or institutions, so far as progress of rationalisation is concerned, so
as to allow of comparison between the results obtained;
5· To submit an annual report showing the progress made in rationalisation and
containing proposals.
It was explained that the Institute had made some progress on the first of these subjects;
that annual reports had been submitted in the last two years; that the tasks suggested under
points 2 and 3 were suitable for further work; and that the question und er 4 should, for the
moment, be postponed as not likely to furnish practical results.
After explaining its sututes, structure and administration, i twas pointed out that the
claims upon its resources for work on behalf of roe private instirutions which contribute to
its support as members and associate members, had grown so much, that the Institute could
no longer undertake to continue public work of the kind required of it under the recommendations
of the Consultative Committee, of. little or no immediate interest to such pri-vate institutions,
unless it received appropriate fmancial support for this special purpose.
The Committee has carefully examined the whole situatio n so disclosed, and has come t o
the following conclusions. It has had regard, in doing so, to the recommendati on of the Preliminary
Conference with a View to Concerted Economic Action held in February-March X930 that the
collaboration between the Economic Organisation and the Internati onal Institute of Scientific
Management should continue, as well as to the previous recommendation of the Economic
Consultative Co=ittee approved by the Council.
I. It is, in the view of the Economic Committee, right and necessary that specific work
required of the Institute by th e Economic Organisation should receive due payment, appropriate
provi sion being inserted in the budget corresponding to roe work approved for any given financial
year. (It should be noted that owing-rotheexistence of a subventio n in kind from the International
Labour Office, the accounts of th e Institute are already audited by the League auditors.)
2. The Coounittee proposes paym ent, not in respect of work done in the past or during
the current year at the request of the League but in respect of work in the future in continuation
of work already begun.
3· As regards the year X93X the Committee contempla tes asking the Institute to undertake
certain work in X93X and has appointed a Rapporteur to examine this question . In these
circumstances it is necessary that financial provision shnuld be made for the expenses that
may be incurred.
VI . RICHES OF THE SEA (PROTECTION OF WHALES).
In pursua1 ce of the decision taken by th e Economic Committee at its twenty-ninth session
(July rgzg), a Committee of Experts• m et at Berlin on AprilJTd , I930.
1 See O~i.UjO'Ur..al . !.'ovembu 1929. ~"'~ a!;<).
• M.emben of thisCommittee "'""'"':
E. R. DA.IlNLKV. Colaaia.l Office, London
J 0. BoButv. O.B. E. , FISherieAdviser.Colonial Office London
Dr. R.enlingtoo KJIU.Lf)Gr,, NationaMU5eam . Washington .
Professor Ed I.E D.u<ors.secn!tairo g61&al de Ia Colnntissian de Ia :116:1iter.ran6e , direetder 1Office
ocientifiqu.et techniquedes Pkhe.o maritimes. Paris
M. OuT A. expt>rt at:tacM~1a Sectionde Ia p&herie du Ministue de l' Agricu ltu.re et de b. FoTokio .
Professor J.JUoRT. de t•Uruveaib! . Oslo.
Dr. A..ns M.ACALHABS R..uuu.Ho.ctirecteurde l".Aqaanam Vasc:o de Guna,. Lisbon.
273Annex 126
1354 League of l'·:ations - Official ]oumal NOVEMBEB l-984
I n pursuance of the above-mentioned decision of the Economic Committee. the experts were
requested to consider more particularly " whether and in what terms, for what species and in what
areas, internationalprotection of marine fauna could be established ".
The experts unanimously agreed that it wonld be possible to help the whaling industry by
means of an international convention.
After studying the.· orwegian Law, which came into force on June zrst, I92(), a Royal Decree
dated August 2nd, rg2g, of notification by the Ministry of Commerce dated July 4th, as well as
proposals submitted by some of me experts, the experts drew up a statement oi certain principles
and of certain rules which they submitted to the Economic Committee in the form of a draft
convention.
The Committee, \\ith the assistance of the Legal Section introduced certain modifications
in the draft., particularlyin regard to the fonnal clauses. The modified text is attached herewith.
The Committee , after reviewing the position, proposes that the C.ouncil should transmit this
texl to the Yarious Governments in order to obtain their Vlews thereon.
It would seem expedient to wait until the replies have been received from the Governments
before considering the desirability of convening a conference at some future date or of simply
opening, during one of the forthcoming Assemblies , a protocol for signature by any States Vloishing
to become parties thereto.
Appendix.
PRELilliKARY DRAFf CO:l\\'ENTION FOR THE REGULATION
OF WHALING.
Article I.
The High Contracting Partie:. undertake to take , within the limits of their respective
jurisdictions.appropriate measures to ensure the application oi the provisions of the present
Convention and the punishment of infractionsof the said provisions.
Artie2! . ~
The present Convention applies only co baleens or whalebone whales.
Article 3.
The taking or killing oi right whales, which shall be deemed to inclnde Nonh Cape whales,
Greenland whales. Southern right whales, Pacific right whales and Southern Pigmy right whales,
is prohibited.
Arlule 4-
The taking or killing of calves or suckling whales, immature whales and female whales which
are accompanied by calves or suckling whales , is prohibited.
Article 5·
The iullest possible use shall be made of the carca.ses of whales taken. ln particular:
I. There shall be extracted by boiling or otherwise the oil from all blubber and from
the bead and the tongue and, in addition, from the tail as far forward as the outer opening
of the lower intestine.
The provisions of this sub-paragraph shall apply only to such carcases or parts of carcases
as are not used for human food.
2. Every factory, whether on sbore or aftoa1, u...c:edfor treating the carcases of whales
shall be equipped with adequa1:e apparatus for the e~.:tra cftiiofrom the blubber, flesh
and bones.
J. In the case of whales brought on shore adequate arrangements shall be made for
utilising the residues after the oil has been extracted.
A~hcie 6.
Gunners and crews of whaling boats shall be engaged on terms such that their remuneration
shall depend to a considerable extent upon such factors as the size, species, value and yield o£ oil
of whales taken and not merely upon the number of whales t.akeo, in so far as payment .ismade
dependent on resclts.
Arlie!<: 7-
No vessel of the High Contracting Pani.es shall engage in taking or treating whales unless a
licenceauthorisinl{ such vessel to engage therein shall have been granted in respect of such vessel
274 Annex 127
127. FAO, “Statement by the FAO Observer”, Special Meeting of the IWC (March 1982)
STATE~!EN BY THE FAO OBSERVER
This year, as in many previous years, the Commission is facing problems.
However, the nature of the problems has been changing. Some years ago a major
issue facing th e Commissi on was whether it could act in time to ensure the con
tinued existence of the whale stocks. With some exceptions - the bowhead whale
is the ~in example - this issue has been resolved. The Commission has acted
soon enou gh to preve nt an y species of whale becoming extinct in modern times.
The endangered speci es and stocks - with some excepti.ons such as the bowhead -
are now protect ed. Sever a l of those which occur close to .the coast and whose
abundance ca n be monitored, e.g., the gra y whale and some stock s of right whale,
are clearly in cre asing. It is expected, on th e basis of our current knowledge
of the dynamic s of whale populations, that th e open ocean stocks, including the
large stoc k of Antarctic whales, are also increasing, but direct evidence is
lack ing.
Indeed a major scientific problem facing the IWC is to find a method of
monitoring the changes in the abundance of Antarctic whal es t~ the absence of
commercial harvesting. This monitor ing is important in cons idering the eventual
re-opening of these s tocks to commercial harvesting, which might be possible for
some stocks in the not too distant future. It has also been r eco gni ze d by the
new Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources as being
important for its task of conserving and managing the Antarctic ecosystem as a
whole. The decline of large whales throu gh over-exploitation has been the main
change in this ecosystem during the present century, and the scientists attending
the new Commission have noted the problems it could have in fulfillin g its
responsibilities unless it can monitor the resp onse of the whales to the protection
they are now receiving.
The major issues facing the IWC now concern the continuation of whaling as an
industry. The main threat has come from the industry itself, through the depletion
of the stock from excess catches. Here the pa st re cor d of the Commission has cause<
concern, such that none of the baleen whales (other than minke) now support signifi·
cant industries. The present record is better. Where commercial whaling is still
beir.5 carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of
the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely. However this depends on having
adequate sc ientific advice. It is therefore disturbing that the Commission's
Scientific Committee seems to be finding it in cre asin gly difficult to provide such
advice as a re su lt of the failure of some countries to make all relevant data fully
available to the Committee. If there is a deterioration in the free exchange of
data the risk of wrong decisions and over-exploitation will obviously increase.
It is also disturbing that some analyses of available data, which have been requestE
by the Committee, have not been carried out even when the infor~~tio is available.
The continuation of commercial whaling can also be threatened by management
measures that are too restrictive. The most extreme example is a moratorium on all
~haling. This is a completely unselective measure. Given the differing status of
the various stocks, and the fact that virtually all thos e species or stocks that are
seriously depleted are already receiving complete protection, there seems to be no
scientific just if ication.-fo.a..globaLmora torium. .A just if icai~; ·;~-r---cacl;ecti·iep
c. ~~t:iSo:;u('w" lhg~_can. be _put ..fo~:_ woanae sthe ~- io~--;oora"i. b'~t_these ~~ds:
se~m--~.-~~d _th e__erms ..oL .reference.of ..the_ Connniss i on. . --- - -
_Another justifi cation for a moratorium i s that not enough is known about the
dynamics of whale populations, and that no catches shou ld be taken until adequate
knowledge is obtained. The objection to this is th at th e best, if not the onl y ,
way to det ermine t he sustainable yield of a whale stock is carefully monit ored
275Annex 127
harv esting. C~rta inly our knowledg1 of whale stocks is far from complete, and
there can be consi de rable a r;,;ument on ju s t how la rge a c::~t can be sustained
from individual st ock s . However, th~se doubts are no rea son for not taking
moderat e , and carefully fi nit c red ~:t:Jhes fro~ st ocks which appear to be i~ a
healthy conditi on.
Some conflict over the Conrnissi on's mea sur es is inev i ta ble give n th e
vari a ti on of interests between ~ember counlries. The Commission's ~ew ~na ge
rnent Proce dure attempts to resolve this conflict, and to provide a mech~nism
wher eby the cat ch quotas can be det ermined on an objective scientific basis.
Pro vided there is suf f ici ent s ci entific knowledge - and this is an important
proviso - this procedure can work well for stocks that are seriousl y de plet ed
(a ze ro quota), and th ose th a t are c l ose t o the optimum level (catches set a
little bel ow U1e esti:mt ed sustainable yield). However, as was po int ed out in
a note by the FAOobserver at the 1981 session of the Scientific Committee, when
the sto ck i s not close to the opti :num level, bu t is also far from bein g in danger,
ther e is no uni que pattern of management that can be defined as "best" on purely
biol ogi cal gr ounds. The i mplication of the New ~ana gement Pro cedur e i s that
s tocks should be rest ored to the opt Lmum level as fast as possible. However, it
~y be socially much more import ant to maintain, so far as pos sible, exi sti ng
fisheries rather than look towards a larger fishery at some point in the future.
This is likely to be espe c ially tru e where curr ent catches are small re l ative to
the stock, and to the sustainable yield of a stock of that magnitude. For such
sto cks the maLn task of the Scientific Committee should be to determine the impact
that current catches would have on the future trends in stock abundance and com
position compared with, say, the impact of a zero quota.
The present tLme is, t~erefor e,crisis point in determining t he trends of
the basic policies of the Commission . Should it be considering only conservation
in the narr ow, protectionist sense, or should it include also the rational utili
za tion of those stocks which can sustain commercial harvesting? It might also be
a turning point in another way. During the past couple of decad es the public
judgement of the effe c tiveness of the Commission has been la rgely based on the
degree to which the t otal number of whales harvested has been reduced fr om one
year to the next. This may seem to be an odd measure of success for a Commission
esta blished, inter alia, to maintain a healthy whaling i.n.dustry, th ough it was a
correct measure in the conditions of the whale stocks in the 1960s and 1970s.
Many of the major stocks have now been protected for some years, and should be
recovering. The Commission should therefore be looking to a period when harvest
ing of some of these stocks can be re-opened.
Management of whale stocks is, of course, a special case of management of
natural resources in general, including fish stocks. The success of management,
whether of whales, fish or other resources, must be judged not only by the state
of the resource, but also by the degree to which rational harvesting can be
maintained.
Provided future catches of whales are taken in accordance with good scien
tific knowledge -whi ch should take account of the effect on krill, fish, and
other associated species - FAOlooks forward to a tim e , possibly ·soon, when it
will be possible to increase the allowable catches. It might then be reasonable
to judge the effectiveness of th e steps taken by the Commission from the
increases in the catches that are taken.
276 Annex 128
128. Secretariat of the CITES, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of
the Parties (1984) vol. 1, pp. 140-141
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE FOURTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Gaborone, Botswana
19 to 30 April 1983
VOLUME I.
SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION
World Conservation Centre, Gland, Switzerland
1984
Publi ca tion spby the Un ited Nations
EnvironmenProg ramme
277Annex 128
particular, Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Convention makes no
distinction as to the findings required of exporting countries in
relation to the export of any specimen of a species included in
Appendix II. The delegation of Australia stated that such an
application of Article IV, paragraph 2, was essential for the
protection of Appendix II species. The observer from the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources said that
permits .for species listed . on Appendix II under· Article II, paragraph
2, sub-paragraph (b) could only be issued as long as-there was no
evidence that to issue the permits would cause detriment to the
conservation status of that particular population, and the delegation
of Norway said that there was no provision for special treatment in
Article IV of the Convention for the granting of export licences for
Appendix II species listed for look~alik reasons. To fulfill the
obligations of the Convention it was necessary to meet the clear
criteria in Article IV, paragraph 2, prior to granting a licence. In
response, the delegation of the United States noted that these concerns
were already addressed in the joint statement by the United States and
Cana'da. They then described the management and scientific basis for
determining harvest levels of wildlife that are exported, and gave
assurance they would continue to co-ordinate with biologists and
wildlife managers.of individual states so that export does not become
detrimental to the · survival of the species involved. The delegation of
the United Kingdom pointed out that the delegations of Canada and the
United States were withdrawing these proposals on .condition that their
reasons be included in the record of this meeting. They said that as
this did not involve the Parties agreeing to any changes in the
existing appendices, there was nothing further to discuss, except that
it shou~d be made c~ear that in noting this withdrawal, the Management
Authorities of those countries are not . relieved of the need to monitor
the conservation status of the species concerne ·d. The Chairman noted
the withdrawal of these eight proposals.
The Chairman reconvened the session by asking the meeting to consider
proposals ~ 3~ 4 1 and 5 which all involved transfer of cetaceans from
Appendix II to Appendix I. The delegation of Seychelles made a lengthy
statement expressing strong support for all these proposals. They noted
that the IUCN Species Survival Commission also supported the proposals
as did the m~eting of the African Regional Committee for the Ten-Year
Revi ·ew of the Appendices. They believed that some of the proposals
fully met the requirements of the Berne Criteria and noted that there
was considerable uncertainty about the biological status of whales and
that the International Whaling Commission had recognized that
commercial whaling should cease. Acknowledging that Seychelles was not
opposed to whaling, as such, they fear~d that npirate" operations would
become a threat to whale populations and be~ieved that CITES was a
suitable vehicle to counter this threat. They added that they were not
opposed to aboriginal whaling, but sought the cessation of all
commercial whaling until such time as whale populations could sustain
such utilization. The delegation of Japan, noting that the IUCN Species
Survival Commission had expressed opposition to the proposals, said
1
that transfer to Appendix I must be based on very precise and correct
data, that the best data available was that of the International
Whaling Commission, and that this did not support these p.roposals. They
referred also to the Secretariat's opinion that these proposals did not
meet the Berne Crit eria. They believed that some whale populations
could 'sustain commercial exploitation and, believing that none of the
proposals were in accordance of the provisions of CITES, they asked
that the proposals be withdrawn, rejected or deferred to the next
meeting of the Conference of the Parties.
140
278 Annex 128
The opinions of the delegation of Seychelles were supported by the
delegations of Argentina, Australia, Colombia, the Gambia, India,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Saint Lucia and the United States of
America. Several of these delegations noted that they had no objection
to aboriginal whaling and also felt that as a conservation treaty CITES
should at the least be consistent with the International Whaling
Commission.
The views expressed by the delegation of Japan received support from
the delegations of Canada, Norway, Peru and USSR. The delegation of
Norway, referring to Article II of the Convention, pointed out that
these species were not threatened with extinction and that listing them
on Appendix I violated the principles of the Convention and would
·weaken its credibility. The delegation of Colombia, noting confusion as
to the po~ition of the IUCN/Species Survival Commission, asked for
clarification on this point, and the observer from the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources stated that the
IUCN has, since 1972, supported the proposal for a moratorium on all
commercial whaling.
The Secretariat pointed out that there might be a legal problem with
respect to delayed listing of taxa. In reply the delegation of
Seychelles explained that provision for this had been made in the
proposal in accordance with the Convention . The delegation ~f Norway
called for a roll-call vote on proposal 2 (all whales protected by the
International Whaling Commission). Under Rule 14 of the Rules of
Procedure the Secretariat proceeded with this and there were 29 votes
in favour, 5 votes against, and 23 abstentions.·Proposal 2 was,
therefore, apJ2roved as amended in document Doc. 4.40.2 (Rev.).
Later in the session the delegation of Switzerland requested
clarification on the scope of this proposal and the delegation of
Seychelles· replied that the proposal applied to those decisions of the
International Whaling Commission that had already been taken at this
t,ime.
The delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany (on behalf of the
members states of the _European Economic Community) and Finland . made
statements in explanation of their votes which·are attached as Annexes
2 and 3. The delegation of Brazil stated that they voted against
proposals 2 and 3 because they go against the spirit of the decision
taken by the International Whaling Commission to establish a ban on
commercial whaling during the period 1986-1990 and to re-examine the
necessity for its continuation at the end of the above-mentioned
period. After the session, the delegation of Papua New Guinea also
submitted a statement explaining their vote and this is attached as
Annex 4.·
The Chairman then asked the meeting to consider the amendment proposal
3 (Balaenoptera edeni). The delegation of Ecuador, also representing
the delegation of Colombia, explained the background for this proposal
and said that the International Whaling Commission considered thesa
populations to · be severely depleted, there being zero catch limits for
nine of the eleven stocks. They concluded by saying that failure to
include this species on 1\.ppendix I might result in permanent loss of
this resource. The delegation of Peru expressed strong opposition to
the proposal saying that only data favourable to the proposal had been
P~esented and that the proposal was incompatible with Article II of the
Convention since the International Whaling Com:mission had set a quota
for this species which could not be considered as threatened with
141
279280 Annex 129
129. Secretariat of the CITES, Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of
the Parties (1984) vol. 2, p. 1047
CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE FOURTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Gaborone, Botswana
19 to 30 April 1983
VOLUME II
SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION
World ConservationCentre, Gland, Switzerland
1984
Publicatsponsoreby the UniNations
EnvironmenProgramme
281Annex 129
Doc. 4.40
Annex 3
Considerations of Proposals for Amendments
of Appendices I and II
RECOMMENDATION ~S OM THE SECRETARIAT
. . . .~. .
1. Lagothrix flavicauda. The Secretariat recommends that this amendment,
already proposed then withdrawn in New Delhi, to the regret of the South
American delegations, be adopted. This species.is classified as
endangered in the Red Data Book.
2. Cetaceae. None of the proposals for transfer to Appendix I appears to
meet either the Berne criteria or the provisions of the Convention. The
Secretariat Committee for the Ten-Year Review of Appendices proposed no
changes for cetaceans, and this was approved by the Central Committee.
The IUCN/SSC is of this opinion. The Secretariat recommends, therefore,
that these proposals be rejected.
3. Canis lupus. The Secretariat generally considers that, as far as is
possible, any species as a whole should have a single status.
Furthermore, the status of populations either in Canada or the United
States is not always favourable. The Secretariat, therefore, is in
favour of retaining the species in its entirety on Appendix II. For some
populations, the countries concerned could decide that they be listed
under Article·II 2(b).
4. Vulpes velox hebes. The Secretariat recommends that this proposa~ be
adopted for taxonomical .reasons.
5. Ursus arctos .. For the reasons mentioned for Canis lupus, the Secretariat
wou~d be in favour of the listing of the species as a whole on Appendix
II, in particular because the Asian population wou~d encounter some
problems and because an illegal trade in bear gall-bladders exists in
the Far East. In the absence of such a proposal, the Secretariat
rec.ommends that· the proposal from France and Switzerland (from Europe in
fact) be adopted and those from Canada and the United States be rejected.
6. Lutra canadensis. The Secretariat does not consider these proposals as
amendment proposa~s. The Conference of the Parties has expressed its
opinion several times that the distinction between paragraphs 2(a) and
2(b) of Article II is the jurisdiction of the states and not the
Conference.
7. Lynx canadensis and Lynx rufus. The .Secretariat would be concerned' about
the ~axon Felidae's not being listed as a whole on Appendices I and II
becau~e of the look-alike problem. As regards the bobcat, the comments
made on Canis lupus are also applicable to this species. The Central
Committee, in its majority, also thought that these specie s should be
kept on Appendix II.
8. Panthe r a pardus. The Secretariat recognizes that there is a problem, in
some African countries, with r eg ard to this species. However, in its
opinion, its transf er to Appendix II would open the door to the
commerc ial exploi tation of this species, which would ruin years of
effo rt in favour of the conservati on of this cat and others. A solution
1047
282 Annex 130
130. UN World Summit on Sustainable Development, “Plan of Implementation of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development” (August 2002) pp. 16, 18
28. Improve water resource management and scientific understanding of the water
cycle through coopera tion il jo int obsen--ation and resea rch, and for this purpose
encourage and promote knowledge-sharing and pro\ide capacity -building and the
transfer of techno logy. as mutually agreed. incJuding remote-sensin g and satellite
technologies. panicula.rlyto developing countries and countr ies with economies in
transition.
29. Promote effectiv e coordination among the various interna tional and
intrgo\·ernmental bodies and processes working on water -related issues. both
\\;thiu the United NatiollS system and between the United Nations and international
financial institutions. drawi on the contribut ions of other international institutions
and civil society to inform intergovernmental decision -making; closer coordination
should also be promoted t.o elabora te and suppon proposals and undertake activit ies
related to the Internatio nal Year of fr eshwater. 2003 and beyond.
•••
30. Oce.ans, seas. islands and c.oastal areas form an integrated and esse.ntial
component of the E<mh's ecosysre.m and are critical for global food security and for
sustaining economic. prosperity and the well-being of many national economies.
particularly in developing countries . Ensuring the sustainab le development of the
oceans requires effective c.oordiuation and c-ooperation, including at the global and
regional levels, betw een relevant bodi es,.and actions at all levels t.o:
(a) Invite States to ratify or accede to and implement the United Nations
Com·ention on the Law of the Sea of 1981.14 which provides the overall legal
framework for ocean activ ities;
(b) Promote the implementatio n of chapter 17 of Agenda 21, which pro\;d es
the programm e of action for achie.ving the sustainable development of oceans ,
coastal areas and seas through its programme areas of integrated management and
sus tainable deve lopment of coastal are~ asincluding exclusive economic zones;
marine end ronmental protection; sustainab le use and conservat ion of marine li\<;ng
resomces; addre-ssing critic-al uncertainti es for the management of the marine
environment and climate change; strengthening international includin g regionaL
cooperation and coordinat ion; and sustainabl e developmen t of smal l islands;
(c) Establish an effecth·e. transparent and re.gulu inter-agency coordinat ion
mechanism on ocean and coastal issues within the United Nations system~
(d) Encourag e the application by 2010 of the ecosyst em approach. noti ng the
Reykja\U Declarati on on Responsib le Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem ts and
decision V/6 of the Conference of Pan ies to the Conventio n on Biological
Diversi 1ty~
(e) Promote integrated . multidisci plinary and multisectoral coastal and ocean
management at the national level and encourage and assist coastal States in
developing ocean policies and mechani'illlSon integrat ed coasta l manage ment;
(t) Stre.ugthen regional cooperat ion and coordination between the relevant
regional organi zations andprograme s~the regional seas programme.s of the United
'" 0/ficiR.uord: cf rhE TluU1ut~d S4:io JColfjeuna o wrbeL4"ff'.of Sea,-roS. XVIJ
(\icit!!" ions publicttioSal~sNo. E.84X .3), docam eot .;\.<CONF.62/122.
1
-"Se"eFood sndA~rinhtt Oreguizatioc of 1bUn~te Ndstions doc::.ment C200/rNF 25,
apP'tn-dI.s.
•• Se"et.N E?ICBD4COP/5/23, a.eill
Pa;:e16
283Annex 130
on the Law of the Sea and the Agreeme.ut for the Implementation of the Prod sions
of the United Nations Convention on the [a w of the Sea of 10 December 1982
relating to the Conservation and Manageme.nt of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks. on the high seas and within e-xclusiveec-onomic zones;
(f) Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegaL unreporte.d and unregulated
fishing and toover<ap acity, while completing the efforts undertaken at the World
Trade Organization to dari fy and improve its disciplines on fisheries subsidies,
takinginto·ae.e.ounttheimportanceofthissector todeve.lopingcountrie.s;
(g) Strengthe.n donor coordination and partnerships between iute.rnational
financial institutions, bilateral agencies anher relevant stakeholders to enable
deve.loping cotmtries, in particular the le.ast: developed countries and small island
de.velopiug States and c.ountries with economies in transition, to develop their
national, regional and subregional capaddi es for infrastructwe and integt"ated
mana gement and the sustainable use ofihseries~
(h) Support the sustainable development of aquaculture, including small
scale aquacultme. given its growing importanc.e for food security and ec.onomic
development.
32. In acc.ordance with chapter 17 of Age,nda 21. promote the c.onse.rvatioll!-and
ma nageme.nt of the oceans through actions at all levels, giving due regard to the
relevant international instruments to:
(a) Maintain tbe productivity and biodiversity of important and vulne.rable
marineandcoastal areas,includinginareas withinandbeyondnationa l jurisdiction;
(h) Impleme.nt the work progrannne arising from the Jakarta Mandate o:n the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine.and Coastal Biological Diversity of the.
Convention on Biologic.al Diversit~22 including through the urgent mobilization of
financial r·ources and technological assistance and the development of human and
institut ional c.apaty. particularly in developing countries;
(c) Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including
the ecosystem approach. the elimi nation of destructive fishing practices,. the
establishment of marine protected areas consistent with iute.mational law and based
on scientific information. including representative networks by 20l2 and time.Jarea
closures for the protection of nurseryrounds and periods, prope-rcoastal land use
and wate.rshe.d planning and the integration of marine and coastal are.as management
into key sectors;
(d) Develop national. regional and inte.rnational programme.s for halting the
loss of marine biodiversity, including in coral reefs and wetlands;
(e) Impleme.nt the Ramsar Convention,23 including its joint work progralllDle
with the Convention on Biological Diversty~ 2 and the programme of action called
for by the. International Coral Reef Initiative to stre.ugtheu joint nnnageme.nt plans
and international networking for wetland eocosystems in coastal zone.s, including
coral reefs..mangroves, seaweed beds and tidal mud flats.
33. Advance impleme.ntation of the Global :Programme of Ac.tion for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Acti\rities 2s and the Montreal
::Se~ A/511312, aonex Il . decisio o il/10.
u JlamuJr Con\ t1HionoW~Jiand f l nttrnaiional Imporrance EspeeiaWt~ttrwlo obiuu
(Uc.ited NationTreaty Su irt'OI. P96, No. 14583).
:~See Unitl!d Nations Eori ronmenl Programme, ConvEntion on Biological Dh'u sity
(E1n•iroomeou l Lu .-ud lns;itu; ioo.P.rogramme Actil'ily Ce~~2. ). I'.tile I
u A/51/l l6, snoex II.
Pag e 18
284 Annex 131
131. FAO Fisheries Department, “The ecosystem approach to fisheries” (2003) 4
(Suppl. 2) FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, pp. 5-6
'
Execu tive summary
he broad principles and approach for effective and responsible fisheries
management are contamed m theFAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
T Fisheries, many of which relate to an ecosystem approach to fisheries
(EAF). EAF is.in effec.t,ameans ofimp lementingmany of theprovisions of the
Code and provides a way to achieve sustainable development in a fisheries
c.ontext.The principles pertaitoEAF are notnew.They are already included
in a number of internationa l agreen1ents and conference documents. including
the 1972World Conference on Human Environment; the 1982 United Nations
L aw of the Sea Convention (LOS); the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Env-ironmentandDevelopment(UNCED) and itAgenda21;the 1992 Con.-ention
on Biological Di,·ersity; the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; the
1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; the 2001 Reykja,·i.k
Declaration; andthe2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).
However, although te principles arenot new.there.has been little prior practical
experience in implementing them. The guidelines. therefore. tottranslate
these higher-level principles into operational objectives and measures capable
ofdeli\·ering EAF inabroadrangeof social andeconomic settings,particularly
in developing countries.
There have been increasing demands for a practical set of guidelines for
inlplementingEAF as a result of heightened awareness of the importance of
inte1:actionsamong fishery resources. and between fishery resources and the
ecosystems within whicllthey exist. Afurther incentive has been therecognition
ofthemultiple objectiYesandvalues of fisheryresources and maecosystem~
within the context of sustainable de\·elopmeIn.addition. it is considered
essentialtodisseminate information about the poor state of many the world's
fisheries along with recent advances in science that highlight both knowledge
and uncertainties about the functional value of ecosystems (i.e. the goods and
services they are capable of providing).
In developing the guidelines. a comparison was made between what was
needed to implement EAF with what is already required under current fisheries
management practices. Thesecomparisons focused on thedominant management
paradigm inmanymedium- tolarge-scalecommercialfisheries.nametomaintain
the target resource base by controlling the size and operations of the fishing
285Annex 131
Executtvesummmy
activity (referred toas a target-oriented approach tomanagement (TROM)).
Thisfocus does not,however,ignore thefactthatmany small-scale,multi-species
fisheries inboth developing and developed countries are often undenaken with
little intervention beyond development suppon. or Mebased on more traditional
management methods.
The guidelines recognize that dtere is a need to intprove current.fisheries
management . The interactions that.occur betwee.n fisheries and ecosystems,
and the fact that bothare affected by natural long-term variability aswell as by
other, non-fishery uses, must be more effectively taken into consideration. The
purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, therefore is to plan, develop
and managefisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires
of societies, without jeopardizing the options for fitture generations to benefit
fi·om thefull range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystem.
From thispurpose, thedefinition ofEAF follows. An ecosystemapproach to
fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives,y tahng into account
the !mow/edge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components
of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an imegrated approach to
fisheries within ecological( y meaningful boundaries .
Boththepurposeand thedefinitionrecognizethatEAF isameanstointplement
sustainable development concepts into fisheries iby addressing both human
and ecological well-being. They merge two related but potentially converging
paradigms. The fust is ecosystem management that focuses on protecting and
conserving ecosystem structure and functions by managing the biophysical
components of ecosystem (e.g. introducing marine protected areas (MPAs)),
and the second is fisheries managemen t.that foctL ses on providing food and
income/livelihoods forhumans by managing fisheries activities.EAF recognizes
the broader tLsesand users of the marine environment (including fishing) and
the need to accommodate and reconcile the many <>jbectives of these users so
that.future generations can also derive the full range of goods and services
provided by the ecosystem. This approach also recognizes that man is an
essentialcomponent of theecosystem inwhich fishing takesplace. and itfocuses
on the interactions within the system. EAF attempts tode.al with issues in a
holisticway,a fe.atureoften lacking incurrent fishery management practices that
focus on individual species or species groups.
The ecosystem is a functional unitcomprising dynamic.complexes of plants,
anintals (including humans),micro-organisms and the non-living environment.
Ecosystems exist on many scales. which are frequently defined in terms of the
286 Annex 132
132. FAO, “Report of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee on Fisheries Roma,
24–28 February 2003” (2003) 702 FAO Fisheries Report, pp. 14-15
14
llfPLDIE l\TATIO :K OF £COSYSTD1 APPRO_-\CH TO FISHERIES
l H .iGBIL "\!TTO ACHIE\'£ R£SPO!'iSIBU: FISHERIES R£SOliRC£S _-\.,'DTO
RESTOR£ FISHERIES R£SOl~C£S_-\._1\T )HE i\L-\Rll\I I.J"TROJII-1L1'\T
85. The Secretariat referred !be Committee to documents COFI/2003/10,
COFII2 003ilnf 13 and 14, the advance copy of !be FAO Technical Guidelines and the review of
!be issue to be published soon as an FAO FisheIecbnicalPaper,and describedthe progress
made in developing and implementing the approach since !be Twenty-f0111h1Session of COFl.
86. Noting,interalia,the Reykjavik Declaration on Marine Ecoystems, the Secretariat
referred to t close relationship between fishing anthe ecosystem, including the need to
consider the impact of fishingthe ecosystem and theimpact of the ecosystem on fishing. It
stressed that the ecosystem approach to fisheries w-as an extension of conventional fisheries
management as entbeddedinteralia.in !be FAO Codeof Conduct for Responsible FisheriIn.
in\ting the Comminee's views on the approach and furore activities_ the Secretariat drew
attention ithe target dates set by the WSSD. includingthe in1plementation of ecosystem
approach to fisheries (EAF) 2010.
87. Many Members complinlented FAO on the progress it bad made in adv-anc ing the
EAF concept and provided their full support to the approThe.Connnittee noted that many
M embers were already addressing several aspects of EAF. Some Mentbers noted in this conte,>o.1
that they were already addressing the inlpact on associated species, bycatch (e.g., turtles,
seabirds and sharks) andse eli\~ of fishing gear, spatial and temporal closures, marine
proteted areas, stakellolder invon·entent in fisheries management, restocking, restoring of
critical habitats and species interactions.mber cited as an exan1ple culling jelly fish in
theCaspian Sea.
88. Many .Membersnoted that the tenn "Ecosystem Approach to Hsheries", as considered
by the E'tpen Consultation. characterized the broad holistic and integrated nature of the
approach The need to adop{ effectively a more holistic and integrated approach to fisheries
management w-asindeed stressed by many Members, including the need to consider a broader
range of issues that bad impact on fisheries, including thinlpactsof polhttion, coas1al
development and other land-based practices. The linkage between integrated coastal areas and
EEZ management as well as the management of latge utarine ecosystems was also noted.
Several Members drew theConunitt ee's attention to the coral reef issue and reqFAO,ed
especially !be Conunittee, to give due consideration to the SllS!ainable management of the
world's coral refs and take them into account in the ecosystem approach to fisheries
management.
89. Inrecognizing the complexity of ecosystems. the need for fit.rther data and research on
many topics relating to E.<\Fw-asnoted by many Members. Some Members, in particular
Members from developing rotmtries, e_xpressedconcern and cautioned about the increased
complexity, costs and difficulty in implementing ecosystem considerations in fisheries
management, and re-iterated the need for technical assistance and support to avoid broadening
thegapbetween Members from developing and developed countries. It was generally agreed,
however, thatalthough ihe approach needed further clarification, many of aspectscould
already be introduced into current fisheries management practices.
90. The linkage between EAF and small-scale fisheries management was recognizecl The
Conunittee suggested that FAO. through case studies on small-scale fisheries. develop an
287Annex 132
15
adopted EAF tool box with rapid appraisal techniques, partlctpatory processes, conflict
resolution, integrated resa~essmentand management, inchtding co-management, and
capacity-building.
91. Many Men1bers rec.onfinnedtheir strong support for paragraph 39 of the report of the
Twenty-fourth Session of COFI. Researches on the subject of interactions between marine
mannnals and fisheries wedescribeMany Members supported the need for continuing
research and the further development of ecosystem models while other Members noted that
E.<\Fwas"~de tanjust predator/prelioatand possible mannnal in1pacts. Some Members
expressedtheview that low priority be givedator/prey relations,and theirimpact on fiSh
resources, as opposed to other aspects of relevance, such as reducedbycatch,habitat protection,
land-based impacts, climatic changes, etc. Some. Men1bers noted the prinJacy of the
International WhalingConllll'Athrespectto the role of whales in the marine environment
and the strongly held vie.w that discussions on whales in COFI detracted from the more.
importantisheries issuessucIUUsfishing.
92. Many Members considered the Technical Guidelines an important step in
implementing EAF while other Men1bers noted their preliminary status. Several Members
consicleredtllat the reference to various ecosystem manipulations including cUllingwas not
warranted for a range re~on~ including uucertainty in ecosystem functioning. Several
Members also expressed \~ew that the e.xtensionof the precautionary approach to include
social or economic outcomes was not consistent with internationallydefin~teition
including at the 1992 UN Conference on Envirolllllent and Development (UNCED) and
reconfinned at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and were
thereforeunacceptable intheir view.
93. The Conllllittee supported the role of FAO in facilitating the process of adoption of
the ecosystem approach as agreed during the WSSD. A range of additional activities were
suggested, including clearer definition of the terminology, evaluation of its legal implications,
in1plementation of case.studies, better analysis of social andeconomic objectives, development
of ecosystem-related indicators, reference points and decision rules and deeper analysis of
bioecologicalissue.wasstressed thatin lmdertakingthese afisheshould bseena~
integral componentof aquecost ys~,taking into acct the social and economic in1pact.
ManyMembers stressedthe needforFAO to partnerin thisende~thuotheorganiza ,tion~
espe<ialty those within the UN systc:ut to further this work and improve the guidelines . It was
also suggested that closer cooperation on the approach with regional fishery organizations
would in1provconsen and\Senerate lllOresense of ownership of the Technical Guidelines
011thepart of those in chargeof their implementation.
94. In that respec.t, the Secretariat informed the Conunittee of the ongoing cooperation
with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission-Scientific Conuuinee on Oceanic
Research (IOC-SCOR) Workiag Group on QuantitatiEco~stem Indicators for Fisheries
Management.The Secretariat also confirmedthat all conunents nJademuing this session of the
Committee would be duly comidered in the futll.reprocess ofin1proven1ent ofthe Guidelines.
RE\lEW OF ~LUOR PROGRUEIIE 2.3 FISHERIES
95. The Review of the Major Programme 2.3Fisheries was introduced by the Secretariat
which clarified concepts and terms used in the two documents COFI/2003/11 and
COFI/2003/12.as well as providing illustrative exprioritsettings in the Fisheries
288 Annex 133
133. Ordinance for Enforcement of the FisheriesAct 1950 (as amended 18 March 2009),
Article 1
(Translated from the original Japanese text for this Annex)
Ordinance for Enforcementsheries Act [excetvt]
(OrdinanceMinistry of Agriculture and Forestty No.16 of March 14. 1950)
Latest Amendment: Ordinancey of Agriculture.
Forestty and Fisheries No.92 009
In order to enforce the Fisheries Act (Act No. 267n the provisions of
the said Act, the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Fisheries Act is established as follows.
(Exemption from Application in the case of Test and Research etc.)
AtticleProvisionshe Ordinance ofMini stty of Agricultme , Forestty and Fisheries
under the Fisheries Act which concems restt·ictions or prohibition on: species. size or
quantityaquatic animals and plants: period or area of harvest or fanning of aquatic
animals and plants; fishing equipmentod to be used; or process or sales of
aquatic animals and plants (including their products) shall not apply to test and research
etc. can·iedout by any person having obtained petmission from the Minister of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the reason ofte st and research or any other special
caus.
;t~;tn m1Ht<M>)
(ll=lU:o~=J'+j~ BA**1~:M+A -i!})
ii-~5(llin+lm~5!~~ =i3A+t~)~~~"t~ f::<FfEl())~JUEI::
¥~' ;j~;t~~il Jj~(}.J~?:::@o&l:>~
(~~~~~(})~~(}))fj. )ffi~?'}
M-~ ii~;t <~1'r;tJcL'? o r::¥-:5<1H*7J<~1!:J~())m:iE-ciY.>-:>-c
JJ<~IbttM~( })*\:Ji,I<U~t,JJ<~tl:lftt t-<ret~JI~())!UJra,
~1.<ret~~ fm-t~;~~~ L-<ret;tt;t3Zret <f-(~})~~l-o)t~
())~J !<ret~~. '5(r))it=~J~3Zre~t~t():t~~~M-tf-(})ffl!.~
!:))$Er::~)**JJ<~::*\~ :~l(})~:If'EJ{~lt?~~~~l: 'C-:>
le)fj.ffil0-fJL\
289290 Annex 134
134. Government of Japan, “Government policy regarding coastal fisheries etc. to be
taken in the 1988 fiscal year”, submitted to the 112th ordinary session of the Diet of
Japan,Association ofAgriculture and Forestry Statistics [Nourin-Toukei-Kyoukai],
White Paper on Fisheries [Gyogyou Hakusho] (1987) p. 22 [excerpt]
(Translation)
- 22 - IV Securing Fishing Grounds Abroad, Trade and Development of Marine Fisheries Resources
As for whales, the Government will positively undertake the Comprehensive
Assessment for the review of total suspension of commercial whaling (Moratorium)
decided by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Also, the Government will
subsidize the Institute of Cetacean Research for carrying out research whaling in the
Antarctic Ocean or other places, in order to conduct collection/organization of scientific
data and resource analysis on whale stocks that are necessary for undertaking the review
of the IWC’s Moratorium.
291292 Annex 135
135. Government of Japan, “The Program for Research on the Southern Hemisp▯here
Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the
Antarctic”, SC/39/O4 (1987), pp. 3-4, 6-12, 16-18, 24-26, 46-51
2. Purpose of the Research
(1) Estimation of the Biological Parameters Required for
the Stock Mana ·gement of the Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale
The main subject species of this research program is
the southern hemisphere minke whale (Balaenootera
acutorostrata), the exploitable populati?n size of which has
been estimated to be at least about 260,000 · by the IWC/SC.
The main ,reason for the failure of the IWC/SC to
recommend an agreed catch limit in recent years for the
southern hemisphere minke whale stock is that the IWC/SC has
not been able to reach agreement on the value of the natural
mortality coefficient and its age-specific patterns.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this program is to
estimate the age-specific natural mortality coeff ic ient by
samples through stochastic samplings which are carried out
in combination with systematic sighting surveys . .. The
progr~ is also· designed _to estimate the stock size and its
changes required for stock management, and the reprodu _ctive
parameters and their changes based on the same samples.
(2) Elucidation of the Role of Whales in the Antarctic
Marine Ecosyst em
While global scientific int er est in the Antarctic
3
293Annex 135
eGosystem has ceen growing as ref lected in the coming into
force of the Conventio n on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the most important need is
for dat a on the prey-predator relationship among the kril l,
fish and squid, . and whal es .
To meet the purpose of this program, the stomach
contents of the sperm whal e (Physe ter catodon) will be
analyzed to iden tify t he kril l -sq uid-sperm ·· wha l e prey
predator relationship which is considered as one of the
major energy-flows in th e Antarctic marine ecosyst em~ A
further ana lys ~s of the stomach contents an~ the measurem ent
of blub ber thickness, etc., of the minke whale s taken , as
par~of the research based on (1) above, will be undertak en
in order to elucidate the · krill-minke whale energy -flow.
4
294 Annex 135
of this program are expected to be free from biases inherent
to the samples f rom the commercial whaling. For thi s reason
these parameters thus obtained will be useful for the re
evaluation of the parameters already obtained from the
commercial whaling in the past . In addition, the natural
mortality coefficien t , which is the primary purpose of this
research pro gram, will be estima t ed by ca l culating the
decreases of the re l ative frequency of a given year class
between two samples taken in a same area wi~h an qppropriate
in t ermission.
(2) Research Items
i) Age - Specific Natural Mortality Coeffic i ent:
Up to 1983, a fixed value had been used for the natural
mortality coefficient regardless of age, but if the ~ge
specific natural mortali ~y coefficient could be ob t ained,
then estimate of rep l acement yield (RY) will be remarkably
~proved. Thi s parameter ~s.also necessary as an inpu t
parameter for the cohort analysis. By us i ng the age
specif i c natural mortality coefficient, a more accurate
estimate of the recent change of RY can be made, a nd thereby
the increasing rate of the stock can be obtained .
ii ) Reproductive Parame t ers :
The estimates of neo-natal sex ratio, litter size,
pregnancy rate , age at sexual mat urity and others and their
changes ha ve to be obt ained in order to identify the
6
295Annex 135
reproductive parameters in th e s tock. Under this research
program, biological observation and co1lection of specimens
are to be undertaken with re spect to these parameters.
iii) Stock Size:
The stock size of the southern hemisphe re minke whale
has been estimated by using the data collected by the
sighting survey conducted under the International Decade of
Cetacean Research Program of the IWC ( rwC/ IDCR) .
Under the present program, systematic sighting surveys
based on the line-transect theory (an IOCR typ~) will be
continued t o est~ate the stock size. By coinciding the
Area for the whal e sight ings with that for the research take
of w·hales, both the stock size and biological parameters
such as ag e-specific natural mortality coefficient can be
obtained for the same Area and same year. Hence the sto ck
assessmen t of the southern hemisphere minke whale stock will
be made far more acc urate than before, and the repetitive
sighting surveys with in the same Area will enhance the
accuracy of the population estimates .
In addition , vario~s experiments in relation to the
sighting param eters will be conducted with the sight ing
.surveys in t he program.
iv) Distribution, Structure and Behavior of Minke Whales
in the Low Latitudes:
Dispite that the biological information of the southern
hemisphere minke whales in the breeding area (outside of the
Antarctic) is ex~remely important in order to identify the
7
296 Annex 135
stock size, reproductive parameters an d migration and other
characteristics, these information are very
sc arce .
Therefore, th e first several years of this program will
include the sighting surveys in the low l atitudinal wat er s
to collec t information on the pattern of distribut ion and
density, structure and behavior especially that of cow-calf
pairs in order to provide the basis for the
future
researches.
(3) Research Are a
Area IV (70"-130.E) and Area V (130"E-17o•w) wil l be
surveyed under th is re sea rch program. The fol~owing are the
r easons for this selection.
The cumulative numbers of the minke wha le s t aken in the
Anta rct ic by Japanese fleet from 1978/79 through 1985/86
seasons were 455 (Area I), 172 (Area II ) , 3,772 (Area III),
8,621 ( Area IV }, 7, 913 (Area V}, and 3,271 (Ar ea VI ).
During this period, the biological i nvest igation were
conducted on all whales qaught . The informati on from the
past researches, therefore, was concentrated in Area IV and
Aiea V, while very little information was obtai ned for Area
I and Area II. For th i s reason, a lot of information of the
stocks migrating in to the high latitudes of Area IV and Area
V are now avai~ab~e together with the operational knowledge
f or catching such as the sea and ice condition there. Those
information makes the research more efficient.
8
297Annex 135
It should be noted that the researches will be
conducted for the two consecutive years in a particular
Area, alternating Area IV and Ar ea V in every two years.
(4) Sample Size
Since the primary purpose of this research program is
to estimate the age - specific natural mortali t y coefficient,
the sample size must be at least the minimum number required
for t~e es t imation of this coefficie~t .
0 . 086 (95% confidence limit; 0 . 060, 0 .12 ) was the value
for the natural mortality coefficient (M) of the southern
hemisphere minke wha l e adopted by the IWC/SC in the most
~
r e cent year . Under this research program, sample size is
c a lculated so as to make detection possible of the decrease
between t wo se t s of samples taken in different years in the
relative f requency of a cohort to estimate the age-specific
natu r al mortality coefficient , usi ng M=0.086 as well as its
l ower limit of 0 . 060 .
The probability of successfully detecting the change of
relat i ve frequencies of the same coho r t over the two
consecutive ye a rs . assuming M=0. 086 (o r M=0 . 060) would be
ex treme1y low , unless a very large sample size is made
availalbe. However, if a certain period of interval could
be allowed between two sets of samples, the cumulative
number of animals dead due to natura .l mortality during such
period would gro w 1arge and thus detection of decrease can
9
298 Annex 135
be made possible with a smaller sample size. If the
i nterval between the two sampln ~gs is set lon ger, the
natura l mortality coefficient can be estimated with a
suffi ciently high precision with a small sample size, while
the re could be a de mer it f rom a prolonged sampling interv al
such as a possible noise that might occur in th e age
composition due to co ntinuo us increase of rec rui tmen t.
Under th is research program, the sampli ng in terval of f ou r
years is adop ted in consideration of the effec t of the catch
to the re pr oductivity of the stock and the practical reasons
of the log istics s uch as the steaming capacity of the
research vess els . However, actua l sampling will be made in
the two consecutive ye ars in a particular Area . Samples
l
t hus 'collected from two consecutive years are
poo l ed
togeth~ er .to make one set of age composition for compar i son
with similar set of age composition collected after four
years ! r om the same Area. Assuming no change in the stock
size, with M=0.086, dur in g two samplings, the re la t ive
frequency to t he total samples of a given yea r cl ass in the
second sampling (P2 ) must decrese to 70 . 9% of that in the
- -p - 0.086x4)
first sampling (P1 ) after four years (r 2- 1 e .
This resea~ch program is designed t o ob t ain th e sample size
;
necessary for the detection of s uch decrease in the relative
frequenc y of one certain year class in a statistica lly
significant manner~
Acc ord i ng to the data collected fr om the commercia l
whaling., the sample size must be considerably large for
10
299Annex 135
estimating the natural mortality coefficient of individual
cohort. In the case of a limited sample size below a
certain level, some handling strategy such as grouping of
the cohort will be necessary.
According to the crude age composition of the Antarctic
Area IV and Area V obtained from the commercial whaling
(Fig. 1) 1 the age at which the calculation of the natural
mortality coefficient is possible from the catch curve is
approximately the age of 20 or above, and the relative
frequency of animals above this age is 30% to 20%. If these
age groups were combined to 5 - 6 groups, then the average
relative frequency of each group amounts to 6 - 5%. If the
decrease in the age compositions of the same cohort is
detected at 5% significance level (at p=0.05) with the
research cycle of four years, the sample size is calculated
to be 1,479 to 1,794, the average of which is approximately
1,650 (from Appendix 4). Adopting the average 1,650 as the
sample size and dividing this number into the two year
sampling period, 825 samples are required in each sampling
year.
In the case where the estimate of the na'tural mortality
coefficient obtained turns out to be smaller than expected,
M=9.060 for example, the estimate with sufficient precision
cannot be achieved with the sample size of about 1,650 and
therefore, an increase of the sample size or re-grouping of
the cohort will become necessary. In this case, the
estimate of the natural mortality coefficient could be
11
300 Annex 135
obtained wi th the same precision as the case in which
M=0. 086 is adopted, by grouping the cohort into two or so
groups.
Such inefficiency in the estimation was resulted from
the lack of the data of the younger age whales . In the case
of the well designed sampling of whal es covering evenly all
the waters of distribution, such inefficiency would be
eliminated. Moreover, the estimation efficiency and its
reliability would be eoha~ced if the relationship between
the natural mortali ty coefficient and age is established.
(5} Outline ~fthe Implementation of the Research Program
\ The first stage of the program will be for four years
fro m 1987/88 to 1990/91.. The second stage wi l l be for
another four years from 1991/1992, and the third s ta ge will
be from 1995/96- The first stage will be implemented with
the research in the two Areas, Area IV and Area v , with a
rotation of research Areas by every two years as one cycle.
The research in this stag .e will include the sighting survey
for·the third round in Area IV and Area V where the sighting
surveys have already been conducted by the IWC/IDCR,
together with the assessement of the population structure
such as age composition and othe r biological aspects base d
on the whales taken un der the stochastic sampling .
The research in the second stage will be sampling of
the whales to derive, in t er alia, the age -specif ic natural
12
301Annex 135
4. Research to Elucidate the Role of Whales ~n the
Antarctic Marine Ecosyst em
(1) Research Method
Examination of the stomach contents and measurement of
nutritious charac te ristics of the sampled sperm wha l es and
minke whales (see chapter 3) will be ~mplemented.
(2) Research Items
i) Stomach Contents of the Sperm Whale:
Identification of the food species and measurement, as
far as possible, of the weight of the stomach contents as
well as examinat~on of other charac t eristics su~h as the
nutrit~ous condit~on of the whale.
iil Eiologic~l Parameter of the Spe~ Whal e:
In addition to the research on the stomach contents
described ab ov e, various biological examination~ will be
carried out wi th all s~pled whales in relat "ion to the
reproductive and growth parameters.
iii ) Stomach Contents and Amount of Fa t Reserve of the
Whale:
The food speci es from the s.tomach contents of all
sampled minke whales will be identified, and as far as
possible t he weight of the contents will be measured. Some
indecies of amount of the fat reserve suc h as thickness of
16
302 Annex 135
blubber will be al so measured.
In addition, biological measurement of length, weight,
and sex, as far as possible, of th e food species such as
krills whi ch ret ai n their origin al form, and collection of
kril ls with fresh condition or other organisms among the
stomach contents will be made.
iv) Research on the Mari ne Pollution Using Whale Tissues
and Stomach Contents:
Concerns have been exp res s ed regardi ng the mari ne
pollu t ion in a global scale today , and it is feared that the
po l lution is rea ching the Antarctic. Although it may be
-~
outs i de of the pri nci pa l purposes of this research programr
examination of heavy metals and other substances i n the
tissue of various organs and debris in the stomach of t he
sampled wha les wil l be conducted.
(3) Research Are a
i) The Sperm Whale:
The res earch inv olv ing take of sperm whales will be
implemented in t he four Divisions, Div. 4 - 7 .
ii) The Minke . Whale;
The samples collected according to the research
described in chapter 3 will be used. Therefore, the
research area will be the sam e area as described in chapter
3-(3) .
17
303Annex 135
(4) Sample Size
i) The Sperm Whale:
The research will be implemented for duration of the
first and sercond stages of the research under chapter 3,
with two years of sampling in each Division {Div. 4- 7).
The maximum sample size in each year is 50 males.
ii) The Minke Whale:
The samples collected according to the research
described in chapter 3 will be used .
. I
18
304 Annex 135
6. Expected Effects of the Catches on the Stock
(1 ) The Minke Whale
i) Sample Size Compared with RY:
The IWC/SC has recommended to the IWC every year since
1979 the catch limits of the stocks of this species based on
the RY estimates with cor~ection for the-sex .rat io in the
catch.· In the recent ·years, · .however, the IWCI SC has not
been able to reach ·agreement on the ..estimates ·. of .the RY
values. The 37th Annual Meeting of the IWC/S C in 1985 lost
the basis for the need of recommendation of the catch limits
bec~use of the moratorium for the commercial whaling.
Although an agreement was reached on the stock size, there
were four dif ferent proposals on RY at that IWC/SC Meeting
(Table 2) .
Ta ble 2: The proposals on RY of the southern
hemisphere 'minke whale 'at 37 th rwc;s c
Area IV Area v
View 1 885 921
1,381
View 2 1,328
View 3 1' 328-1' 771 1 , 381-1,842
View 4 1,498 1,119
24
305Annex 135
The planned sample size for the first stage of the
research is 1,650 animals in the Areas IV and .V.
respectively (8 25 wha les per year). Since the sampling in
each Area will be conducted for two years out of four year
period, the mean annual samp l e size during four years will
be 413. It should be noted also that the number of samples
of 825 is less than the smallest RY (View 1) recommended for
Area IV or V (Table 2) and·is between 45% and 74% of RYs ·of
other views.
As already known, the stock size of the minke whale
migrating into ~e Antarctic whaling ground estimated by the
sighting survey is considerably smal le r than that of the
total• population, so that a real RY for total popu~ation
sho~d be greater than the values expressed in all of th e
views above (Table 2): hence ·the upward correction of RY
would be necessary .
ii) Diffusib~e Effects of Sampl ing to the Reproduc~ion:
The present sampling plan does nc;t exceed the minimum
estimation of RY in any of the single year, and the mean
annual samp~e size in . each stage of the research is far
below RY. Therefore, on the premises that there is no
environmenta~ changes, the stock size of the southern
hemisphere minke whale is expected to continue to increase
under this re search program.
iii) Dif fusible Effects of Sampling t o the Ecosystem:
The IWC/ SC has no estab~ished technique with regard to
the assessment of the effects to the ecosyste m. In the case
25
306 Annex 135
where 825 whales are taken in one stage (mean annual sam l9
size of 413 whales) out of the estimated population of about
50,000 whales at least, the detection of the effects of such
catches to the ecosystem within the short term of the
research will be likely to become impossible due to their
absorption into the var i ous noises . Therefore, the
detection of the effects needs to be made in relation to
other factors in the ecosystem over ·a l ong term .
(2) The Sperm Whale
i) Sample Size Com9ared with RY:
l The s t ock assessment of the Antarctic sperm whale was
made at the Annual Meeting of the IWC/SC in 1979 for the
last time; no syste matic assessment with regard to the stock
has been made since then. It should be noted that there
have been no catches from these stocks since 1981/82 season.
At the Sperm Whale Sub-Committee in 1979 , (a) CPUE
analysis based on the La Jolla model, (b) ~~alysis by
di v i s io n · us i ng the population est!mated by sighting {of
which, an analysis of mark and mark recapture data for
Division 3 , and estimation technique of catch/fishing
morta l ity for Division 3, and estimation technique of
catch / fishing mortality for Division 9 were utilized) were
made. The estimates made by using the technique (b) were
not adopted for recommendation to the IWC after all .
The estimates by the above techdique ( a) for Di visions
26
307Annex 135
Appendix 2
Summary of the Dis scuss ion on the
Ant a rctic Marme Ec osystem
The Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959 provides for
obligation of the signatorty nations to pr es erve and
conserve t he living resources in the Antarctic . In relation
to this Treaty , ·the three separate conventions, . namely the
Convention f or th e Conservation of Antarctic ·Seals (adop~eq
.I
in 1972), the Convention for the Conservation of Antar~tic
Mar i ne Living Reso urces (signed in 1980) and the
I ntern ational Convent ion fo r the Regu lat ion of Whaling
(signed in 1946) a1most exbaustivel~ cover al l of th e marine
liv ing re~ources in the Antarctic .
Of these thr ee conventions, . the Convention on the
Conserva tion of Antarcti c Marine Living Resour ces (CCAMLR)
provides fo r the princ ip le s to .be adhered to for the harvest
of the marine livi ng. resour,.s . applied by t he CCAMLR .. These
principl .es ar e : (a) to mainta i n the ecological relationship
between the harvested, dependent a nd r elated populations of
marin e living resources, (b) to mi nim i ze the risk of changes
in the marine ecosyst~ which are not pote ntian lly
r eversible over t wo or ·three de cades .
In the Antarct ic marine e cosystem, the food -web is
structured wit h the kri l l as a principal species at the
•
46
308 Annex 135
secondary trophic l evel (primary consumer), and the baleen
whale, the crabeater seal, the penguin, the squid and the
fishes which are at the thirtiary trophic level (secondary
consumer ) feeding on the krill, and finally the killer
whale, the leopard seal and the sperm whale forming the
fourth trophic level (thirtiary consumer). In addition, the
order of food-web for the sperm whale is unique as it is t he
krill - squid - sperm whale.
Accordin g to the recent studies (Bengston, 1984; Laws,
1985) , the consumption of the krill is 400 to 470 ·million
to ns per year of which 127 to 130 million tons are consumed
..
by the crabeater seal, 115 to 130 million tons are consumed
by pefguins and other birds, 100 million tons by the squid,
34 to 40 million tons by the baleen whales and 70 million
tons by t he fishes.
The assignment for the studies of the various marine
living resources i.n the Antarc~ic as described in the
foregoing has been given to a number of intergovernmenta.l
organizations: Sub-Committee on Birds Biology of the SCAR
on birds , Group of S~eci a1ists of Seals of the SCAR on
seals, and the IWC on whales. No organization, however, has
yet been established for the studies on the interspecific
relations.
Under these social and scientific circumstances, many
attempts for variety of mathematical modelling of th e
Antarctic m.arine ecosystem have been made, · out of which the
need of verification to prove the v~idity of the models for
47
309Annex 135
the management of the population and the ecosystem by
controlled experiments has been recognized . In short, there
are views advocated recently that the pres ent environment,
if continued, would lead to the utopia for the penguins and
crabeater sea l s and would incapacitate the maintenance of
the ecological balance, which is the principle of the
resources u ti lizat ion defined by the CCAMLR.
At the Ecosystem Monitoring Workshop Meeting of the
CCAMLR he l d in Seattle in May, 1985, the dire ction of t he
scientific activities was set for (a) detection and
recording of the important changes occurring in the major
species, (b) ~ monitoring of the behavio r and the parameter
values of the indicator and harvested species. Three sea
area s were suggested as candidates for the research areas at
that meeting: they were Prydz Bay (Area I~I), Brunsfied
Strait, and around the South Georgia Island. Furt he r
s.tudies and re-exam ina t.:i.on of th ·i s proj ec-: was under"t:aken at
the Workshop Meeting hel d in Hamburg in July, 1986 .
Many areas of the biologica .l knowledge r elat ed to the
prey-predator relation be ~ween the sperm whale and the squid
are still. left unresolved, in spite of the fact that it
holds the special importance wit .hin the Antarctic marine
ecosystem.
The BIOMASS Project from its early stages recognized
the importance of the studies on the squid; in Japan, the
Oceanic Research Institute of the University of Tokyo and
the Japan Marine Fishery Research Cen t er have participated
48
310 Annex 135
in the researches, from which the importance of the
assessment of the food-web concerning the krill, the squid
and the sperm whale has been pointed out. Subsequently, the
BIOMASS Workshop Mee t ing held in September, 1983,
recommended t he need of development of the researches on the
squid based on the stomach contents and the feeding habits
of the larger predatory species for the progress of
ecological studies on the squid.
There are as many as six species centering around the
small and medium size squids collected by the test operation
of the krill fishery. Of these speci ·es, especia l ly
!
important from the biological point of view are Kondakovia
longimana and Moroteuthis knioovitchi. the length of the
head and body of these two species had been believed to be
approximately 40 em at the most. In the past, the body .
length of many of the ~ lonqimana eaten by the sperm whale
occurred to be- large with their length longer than 40 em-
Since the sperm whales feed in the deeper water, this squid
species has been assumed to make vertical segregation by
sizes for their habitat . ,-It is also noted that K. longimana
harvested by t he krill fishery feed only on the Antarctic
krill, but ~ knioovitchi feed on other fishes as well as
the krill. From these, it is suggested that the . feeding
characteristics of the squid differ by species.
For the shallow water co l lection of the samples of K.
longimana, the priority species is the Antarctic krill,
while there is no analyses made on the samples col lected in
49
311Annex 135
the deep water, leaving no knowledge available regarding the
variety and the feeding pattern of these species. The
absence of knowledge in this area is causing a great
obstacle for the assessment of the dynamics of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem.
In the meantime, the sperm whale fishery in the
Antarctic, following the moratorium for pelagic whaling of
the sperm whale, was only conducted in the coastal waters of
Chi l e and Peru since 1979/80 season. These coastal whaling,
however, has been prohibited since 1981/82 season, and no
information concerning the Antarctic sperm whale has been
,I
collected since t hen.
The Sub-Committee on the Sperm Whale of th e IWC/SC in
\
1979 pointed out eight items for the futu re studies to be
undertaken on the population of t hese stocks, and in
relation to the biological charac te ris tics, a need of
analyses on age dat:a was pointed .. out in addi t:ion to the
sighting , CPUE and the stock iden t ification. It was
suggested that without solving problems associated to these
eight items, an effecti~~ development of any new population
assessment cannot be expected.
Therefore, in addition to these principal objectives,
the rese arch by the collection of t he sperm whale for the
assessment of the food-web (krills-squids-sperm whales )
needs to be further developed for the studies on the
biological characteristics peculiar to this species in line
with the items poin~ed ou t by the Sub-Committee of the
so
312 Annex 135
IWC/SC described above .
. 51
313314 Annex 136
136. Government of Japan, “The Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on ‘The Program
for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary
Research on the Marine Ecosystem in theAntarctic’”, SC/D87/1 (1987)
The Res ear c h P 1an fo r the Fe as ib i 1i ty Study on
"The Program for Research on the
Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and
for Preliminary Research on the
Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic"
The Government of Japan
October 1987
315Annex 136
1. INTRODUCTION
The Government of Japan presented to the In tern at ional
Whaling Commission CIWC) at its 39th annual meeting "The Program
for Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke ~hale and for
Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the An tare tic"
CSC/39/04) Cto be referred to as " the original program"
hereafter) as a research to be implemented according to Article
VI I I 0 f the International Convention for the Regulation of
Wha 1 in g CICRW) for the following purposes:
(a)
Estimation of the Biological Parameters Required for the
Stock Management of the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale
(b) Elucidation of the Role of Whales in the Antarctic Marine
Ecosystem
The Scientific Committee of the IWC CIWC/SC) reviewed the
original program along its procedures and asked for the comments
of its members. Several issues were brought up regarding the
original program, which c an b e summa r i z e d in to the following
three questions:
(1) Whether determination of age-specific natural mortality
coefficient is possible by using the method 0f
analysis and sample si ze (825 samples/year) proposed in
the original program
(2) Whether collection 0 f samples f u 11 y reflecting the
population is possible by the original program
C3) Whether the results obtained by the origina l program will
contribute to the Comprehensive Assessment carried out by
the Scientific Committee of the IWC
316 Annex 136
Th e J apan es e s c i en i s t s no t e d that. from a scientific
viewpoint, answers to the above three questions have already been
provided during the Scientific Committee meeting of the 39th
annu a 1 meeting of the IWC. However, the followi~g examinations
were made to promote further understanding on the questions
raised at the meeting of the Scientific Committee.
Re ga r ding ques t i on <1) , i t was no t e d th a tr;_ s imu 1a t ion s tudy
based on the rationale outlined in Annex R2 of the Report of
the Scientific Committee <IWC/39/4) is under way_:J and that the
analyzed results will be presented to the Scientific Committee
meeting in 1988. As to question (3), it .was re-co~firmed that
the data to be newly collected by the original program will make
substantial contribution to the Comprehensive Assessment not only
because they are useful for e~aluatio nnd correction of the vast
amount of data and resultant biological parameters on the stock
accumulated by past commercial whaling operations but also
because information from sampling and sighting information on the
wh a 1e density can be acquired simultaneously from the original
program.
It was recognized that for a more intensive review on
question (2), and also because decision was made to provide for
the coming IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale Assessment
Cruise the research vessles which had been allocated to the
sighting survey in the original program, it would be necessary to
carry out a supplementary research the purpose of which is
out Uned in Section II. Consequently, a program titled' The
Research Plan for the Feasibility Study on "The Program for
Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale and for
2
317Annex 136
Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the Antarctic"
(to be referred to as "the preliminary research" hereafter) is
now new ly developed. It was decided that the sample size to be
taken for the preliminary research should not exceed 300 min k e
whales.
As outlined above, the preliminary research constitutes a
part of the original program presented to, and reviewed at, the
Scientific Committee meeting of the 39th annual meeting of th e
and it does not change, in essence , the contents 0 f the
rwc
original program. The samples to be taken are used for the
purpose of the preliminary research but maximum biological
are also collected from them along the line of the
informations
original program . These studies w i11 include preliminary
research and feasibility study on biopsy as a practical new
technique for future ceta~ean research.
The study on sperm whales included in the origina l
program will not be conducted under the preliminary r esea rch.
II. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
The preliminary research will be conducted in order to
determine whether collection of samples fu 11 y re f lecting the
southern hemisphere minke wh a I e population is possible
through implem en tation of the original program. De ta ils are as
follows.
1. The feasibility study 0 f th e ne wly refined samp li ng
scheme (refer to SC/39 /0 4 Appendix 3, ad de ndum) designed
3
318 Annex 136
stochastic sampling in the original program (e. g.
for
whether the required number of samples can be
collected by the designated method within the given
period).
2. The f e as i b i 1 y ts tu dy on the tech n i c a 1 p rob 1ems encountered
in the survey by the sampling vessels which collect sighting
data and whale samples concurrently.
3. Investigation on the extent of segregation by age,
sex,
reproductive condition, etc . in the distribution of the
southern hemisphere minke whale, from samples collected from
an area extending widely north and south.
4 . Investigation on the uniformity or non-uniformity of the
biological characteristics according to school size .
5. Sighting survey in low-latitudinal waters in order to
examine the stock identity, estimation of reproducfive
parameters, timing of migration, whale density etc. of the
southern h~misphere minke whale as shown in the original
program.
II I. ITEMS FOR THE PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
A. Research Items
For purposes and 2: Studies should be conducted on the
following items;
(1) Collection of the time budget for sampling and sighting
survey (adopting a similar type of searching effort and
recording
for the time budget as those used for the
lWC/lDCR Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale Assessment Cruise)
4
319Annex 136
<2) Examination on the relationship between sampling and sighting
survey, and weather and sea conditions
(3) Observation of whale behavior against the sampling vessels
For purpose 3: Biological charac teristics according to
latitudinal and seasonal changes,
from the samples and analyzed
data collected by the sampling scheme outlined in Section VII.
are to be obtained.
(l) Comparison among latitudes and among seasons on school size
and whale density
(2) Comparis on among latitudes and among seasons on age compo-
sion from the samples collected
(3) Comparison among latitudes and among seasons on othe r bio-
logical characteristi cs <sex, length, repro ducti ve
condition, apparent pregnancy rate and age at sexual
maturity) !rom the samples collected
For purpos e 4: In the preliminary research, two samples are
randomly collected from a 1 1 s i gh t e d s ch oo 1s (one s amp 1e in case
0f a single-whale school), as described in Sect ion VII. By
samp 1 ing regarding school
this procedure, unbiased samples
size and lati tu de can be obtained. These samples will be
used for investigating the relationship between school size and
its structure (age, sex, length , reproductive condition , etc.) ,
together with the change of these biological characteristics by
season and by latitude.
For purpose 5: Sighting survey will be carried out in the
lo w lati tudinal waters for collecting the following informa tion;
5
320 Annex 136
(1) whale density
<2> frequency and distri bution of cow-calf pairs
(3) whale behavio r
B. Other Researches
1. Preliminary Study on Biopsy
(1) Development of Biopsy Da rt and Feasibility Study on
Biopsy Sampling to the Minke Whale
(2) Basic Study for Establishing a . Standard for Analyzing
the Samples Collected by Biopsy
Basic study will be conducted for obtaining biological
information from blubber tissues and blood samples that
are expected to be collected by biopsy sampling in
future.
2. Other Biological Studies
Efforts w i11 be made to obtain maximum biological
information from samples t aken under the preliminary
resear ch. items of biological
Details on the specific
studies have been presented to the Scientific Commi ttee
meeting of the 39th annual meeting of the IWC <SHMi/WP9).
IV. RESEARCH AREA
The area between 105°- JI5°E, from the ice-ed ge to 60° S and
-60° S. <refer to Fig . 1) has been designated as the
samp ling area for the preliminary research. This area was
considered to be mos t su \ tab \ e f o r s t udyin g the north-south
6
321Annex 136
movement of the minke wha le. The area was also selected in view
of the limi te d efforts available. The sighting area in the low-
latitudinal waters has been designated as shown in F i g. 1.
The past commercial whaling ope rations have covered the
waters up to about 30 n ."miles from the ice-ed ge . However, since
emphasis is to be placed on collecting samples from wider north
south waters in the preliminary research, the waters up to 55° S
(about 600 n.miles from the ice edge) w i1 l be covered . By
carrying out the sighting survey also in the low-latitudinal
(northern) waters, collection 0 f data from a further
latitudinally extended area can be expected.
V. RESEARCH PERIOD
In view 0f the importance 0 f the changes in biological
characteristics by latitude, the sampling period has been
designated from · ea rly January to late February which coincid~s
with the · peak of migration of the southern hemisphere mink e whale
to high latitudes, Sighting survey in the low-latitudinal waters
will be carried out in early December and in Feb ruar y.
VI . VESSELS
The following vessels are assigned for the pre l iminary
research .
(1)
one factory ship (research base)
(2) two s amp 1 in g and s i gh t in g v es s e l s
(3) two sighting vess l es in the breeding ground
7
322 Annex 136
VII SAMPLINGSCHEME
In general, the southern hemisphere minke whale migrates to
its feeding ground, the Antarctic, in summer, moving mainly in
the north-south direction corresponding to the movement of the
pack-ice. The density distribution of this species in summer is
higher along the ice edge water~ and becomes lower with the
distance from the ice edge line. It is unlikely that individual
animals maintain uniformal or random spatial distribution, and it
is more realistic to suppose that it has a tendency to patchy
distribution. It is also noted that the southern hemisphere minke
whale distribute as schools and not as individual animals. By
further elucidation of these characteristics through the
preliminary research, the feasibility of the basic concept of the
line-transect sampling scheme adopted in the original program
(SC/39/04 Appendix 3 Addendum) should be tested.
As the waters north of 60° S belong to the storm zone,
the survey area is divided into two: 55° S - 60° S (northern
stratum) and south of 60° S (southern stratum). Since the survey
in the northern stratum is affected by weather condjtions,
different course lines should be adopted from those in the
southern stratum.
As is shown in Fig. 2, course lines are set in north-south
direction in the northern stratum and by the reflection method 1n
the southern stratum. The survey starts from a point randomly
selected on 55° S moving due south. When the vessel meets the 60° S
line, the course is changed to the direction at some angle
selected randomly from 0° - 180° against the line (e.g. 140°, see
323Annex 136
Fig. 2) and continues by following the re flection method.
The reflection method is described as follows: when the
vessels meet a boundary or pack ice edge, the vessels change the
course with a pre-determined angle (e . g . angle between old
course and new course is set at 70°, see Fig. 2) .
When the weather turns favorable in the northern stratum
during the operations in the southern stratum, the survey is
suspended and the vessel moves north to cover the northern
stratum . After the cruise is ended in the northern stratum, it
returns to the point where it left for the north , to continue
researches in the southern stratum on the trackline already
designated.
By these survey cruise plans, searching efforts will be
randomly distributed in terms of times and space so that it is
assured tha t whales distributing in the survey area can be
sampled with equal probability. In the area south of 55° S,
searching efforts per unit area can be distributed evenly .
The two sampling vessels will navigate on the two sub
tracklines running in parallel lines on either side of the main
t rackl i ne (6 n. miles away, respectively~ from the main
track line ) . The searching and sampling are to be conducted
independently by the two ves~els. A constant sea r ching effort is
maintained throughout the survey. Only the minke whales sighted
during the primary searching along the two sub-trackl ines (to be
defined as primary sighting) are subject to sampling . All the
schools observed by the primary sighting within 3 n. miles
perpendicular to the sub-tracklines are closed with and subJect
to sampl1ng. Schools sighted while the vessels are not engaged
9
324 Annex 136
in primary searching (i.e. confirming, chasing, handling and
towing whales or drifting) (to be defined as secondary sighting)
are not subject to sampling. Upon completing the closing,
confirming, handling and towing operations, the research vessels
are instructed to return to the original position at which they
left the trackline and resume their searching efforts .
When the vessel reaches the point where a school is
positioned at an angle of 60° from the trackline, the school is
closed with and the number of animals contained in the school is
counted. If it is a single-whale or two-whale school, all the
whales are taken. In case the school consists of more than two
animals, two samples are randomly taken. The sampled whales are
transferred to the factory ship when convenient.
The data to be collected in the preliminary research are the
same as those described in SC/39/04 Appendix 3, Addendum. The
data will be sent to the IWC after they have been validated.
VII I ACCURACYOF THE ESTIMATES FROM THE SAMPLE SIZE IN THE
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
The ssmple size for the preliminary research is 300 minke
whales. Statistical analyses were made on the magnitude of
accuracy of estimates on biological parameters obtained from this
sample size. The details are given in Appendix 1. Judging from
the results, it was noted that difference by latitude and by
season in estimates that are expressed by ratio can be
significantly detected from this sample size.
10
325Annex 136
IX OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICI PATION BY FOREIGN SCIENTISTS
Foreign scientists can participate in the preliminary
research under the same arrangements as those outlined in the
original program.
X EXPECTEDEFFECTS OF THE CATCHESON THE STOCK
It has been explained in the original program that the
annual take of 825 animals from Area IV in the original progra m
(average take of 413 animals per year, in actual terms) will
have no serious effect on the conservation of the stock.
Since the 300 animals to be taken for the preliminary
research is less than the number of animals taken in the original
program, the effect of the catches on the stock is expected to be
even smaller.
1 1
326 Annex 136
~----------------~~~-------r----------~605
AREA IV
:'ig. L Areas ~here ~~e pre1~minary research
w~11 be conduc~ed.
a.:ea wne:e t.."le s~ght:ing survey
i/,?001
L~ ~reecL~g ground w~~~ ~e conduc~ed.
area wne:e t..""l.e samp1.L-u; and si.c;ht::ing
survey •.ti.~ be conduc~ed.
105E
11SE
;~ .... I :" 1..... sss
I I :. ! !
• I I'
I:o II I:
I I ~ .. ~:
• I I I
I:I II. I I
1 ... It
I I I I ,,
:: 'I . I I
I' I I I I
4 ' .·~
I' :I ~II
'I i ( I I
0 I •II ..
I'0 i I I I
I! i I I I
I' I I I I
I I I I
., 60S
~
f
.......,
I
I
-t
I
..,,I
·t I,,
..,'\.. 14-~
\ ... --;
- -'~-=::.~.._,
c>ack. !.Ce-ec!ge Line
:i.g. 2.
Out:~Ln of e c~~se c:acx for sam~ling
and sighcinq survey .
12
327Annex 136
APPENDIX 1: ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES FROMTHE SAMPLESIZE
IN THE PRELIMINARYRESEARCH
The maximum sample size is 300 minke whales. I f the searching
effort (in terms of distance) is allocated randomly within the
research area, it is expected that samples proportiona l to the
whale density can be obtained.
A. From the past s ig hting data on the whale density by latitude
and by school size composition, j t is expected that 255
minke whales can be obtained from the southern stratum
·<south of 60°S) and 45 minke whales can be obtained from
the no r thern stratum (north of 60° S>. Table indicates the
expected accuracy (standard error) of estimates (% of one
category against others in certain biological pa r ameters)
under the assumption that samples are randomly obta in ed
from each stratum.
The difference between two estimates in the northern
stratum and southern stratum can be detected with 5%
signific ance level whe~ the two values are positioned within
the hatched area of Fig. 1. When t he r e i s a d i f f e r en c eo f
about lSY. between the estimates in the northern stratum and
the southern stratum, the difference can be significantly
detected from the data.
Furthermore, Table 2 indicates the expected standard
error of the estimates by area stratum and by period when
dividing the research period in t o the first half and the
second half.
l3
328 Annex 136
B. If the changes 0 f estimates (%) with latitude and time are
expressed by using the following mode 1:
Model (!) p (x, t) = A + B Cx - 300) / 300
Model <I D p Cx, t) A + c (t - 30) / 30
Model <IID p Cx, t) A + B Cx - 300) / 300 + c ( t - 30) / 30
=
where, x = d is tan c e f rom the i c e edge and t = nu~ m e r o f days
from the start of research, the expected standard error for
the estimates of A, B and C are obtained from the expected
values of (xi, ti)i = 1, 2, . 300 (Table 3).
The expected standard error of each estimate ranges from 0. 04
to 0. 05, and therefore the changes of parameters with
l~titude and time can be detected with 5% significance 1eve 1
when the absolute values of B, Care 0. 1 or more .
14
329Annex 136
1.0 -
.8
.
~f)
~- 0. 6
(11
(T
(T 0.2
c
3
0.0
0.0 0.2 0 . 4- 0.6 0.8 1.0
~'---- in north.rn stratum
Fig. 1. Region where the detection of difference
with 5% significance level is possible.
15
330 Annex 136
Table l. Expected standard errors of estimate in southern and northern
stratum.
·~
0.2 0.3 0 . 4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Southern
stratum 0.0250 0 . 0287 0.0307 0.0313 0 . 0307 0. 0287 0.0250
Northern
stratum 0.0596 0.0683 0.0730 0.0745 0.0730 0.0683 0.0596
Table 2. Expected standard errors of estimate in case where the research
period is divided in first and second half .
~
Southern 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 . 5 0.6 o.z o.e
stratum 0.0354 0.0405 0 . 0433 0.0442 0.0433 0.0405 0 . 0354
Northern
stratum 0.0834 0 . 0956 0.1022 0.1043 0.1022 0.0956 0.0834
Table 3- Expected standard errors of regression coefficients {symbols see text ) .
Model {I) A=0.5 A=0 . 4
Value of B Value of B
-0 .15 0.00 0.15 - 0.15 0.00 0.15
Standard error of A 0.0405 0.0412 0.0405 0.0389 0.0403 0.0404
B 0.0567 0.0582 0.0567 0.0551 0.0571 0 . 0557
Model (II) A=0.5 A=0.4
Value of c Value of C
-0 . 15 0 . 00 0.15 -0.15 0.00 0 . 15
Standard error of A 0.0286 0.0291 0 . 0286 0.0279 0.0285 0.0281
c 0.0483 0.0496 0.0483 0.0473 0.0486 0.0470
Model {III) A=0.5 A=0.4
Value of B Value of B
-0.15 0.00 0.15 -0.15 0.00 0.15
C=-0.15
Standard error of A 0.0399 0 . 0406 0.0399 0.0380 0.0397 0.0398
B 0.0559 0.0574 0.0556 0.0541 0.0562 0 . 0544
c 0.0469 0.0484 0.0470 0.0477 0.0474 0.0470
C=O.OO
Standard error of A 0.0406 0.0412 0.0406 0 . 0389 0.0404 0.0405
B 0.0568 0.0583 0.0568 0.0551 0.0571 0.0557
0.0455
c 0.0485 0.0497 0.0485 0 .0 490 0.0487
C=O.l5
Standard error of A 0.0399 0.0406 0 . 0399 0.0379 0.0397 0.0398
0.0559 0.0533 0.0559 0.0545
B 0.0556 0.0574
c 0.0470 0.0484 0 . 0469 0 . 0474 0. 0471 0.0433
16
331Annex 136
SC/39/04 Appendix 3 <Addendum)
1. BACKGROUND
The southern hemisphere minke whale principally migrates to
the low latitudinal waters (breeding ground) in winter and to the
Antarctic for feeding in summer,
but it has been recognized that
there is some extent of segregation by sex and by reproductive
condition. In order to make random sampling scheme, the patchy
distribution and segrega~io o~ thi s species should be taken into
account.
It was planned that the sighting vessels previ~usly used for
the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale Assessment Cruise
would be assigned for the sighting survey in the program
because the activities of sighting and sampling ar e inseparable.
However, continuation of the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale Assessment Cruise was recommended at the meeting o! the
Scientific Committee of the 39th annual meeting of the IWC in
June 1987. In the light of this recommendation, the Japanese
scientists discussed with other IWC scientists the possibility of
a sampling scheme which enables research vessels to conduct
sighting and sampling survey at the same time. The Government of
Japan decided to all ocate the two sighting ves s els to the
forthcoming lOth IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale
Assessment Cru i se in 1987/88 . As a resu 1 t, an alternative
sa mpl in g scheme was de ve 1oped. The rationale and operations for
the newly-devel oped sampling sc heme are outlined be lo w.
332 Annex 136
2. RATIONALE FOR SAMPLING
A systematic sampling scheme is adopted to ensure
that schools distributed throughout the r esearch area can be
evenly subject to sampring. The design of this sampling scheme is
based on the line transect sampling scheme, which means that
sighting and sampling can be conducted concurrently.
In this
s amp 1 in g s cheme , t h e s t a r t in gP.o in t o f the t rack 1 in e i s random 1y
determined and the trackline is systematically located to cover
the research area. Samples shou l d be taken !rom schools sighted
(primary sighting) by research vessels steaming along . this
t r ack line.
Segregati on by age, sex and reproductiye condition ha~ b~~~
recognized in the distribut i on of the southern hemisphere minke
Time-space stratification should
whale within the research area .
therefore be required in order to minimize the bias in s amp 1e
collection generated from these trends.
3. GUIDELINE FOR SAMPLING PROCEDURE
(1) Sampling Area and Period
The sampling area and period in each season are the same as
those described in SC/39/04.
(2) Samp 1 ing Procedure
(a) Trackl ine
is systematically allocated in sawtooth
A trackline
pattern within the research area constituting a 30° longi-
tudinal strip of the sea. The s t a r t in g p o int i s random 1 Y
determined.
2
333Annex 136
(b ) S e a r ch i ng
The two sampling vessels survey on the two sub-tracklines
running in parallel lines 6 n.miles away to the right and
1e f t, respectively, o f the p re-d e t e r min e d -ma i n t rack 1 i n e
Cthe distance between the 2 vessels will therefore be 12
n. miles). The searching and sampling are to be conducted
independently by the two vessels. A constant searching
effort (searching speed of 12 knots, number of observers)
is maintained throughout the survey. . Only the minke
whales sighted during the primary searching along the two
sub-tracklines (to be defined as primary sighting) are
subject to s amp 1 ing. Schools sighted while the vessels
are not engaged in primary searching (i.e. closing with,
confirming, handling and towing whales or drifting) (to be
defined as secondary sighting) are not subject to
sampling. Secondary sighting and schools other than
southern hemisphere minke whale are not to be closed with.
Upon co rnp 1e t in g the closing, confirming, handling and
towing operations, the research vessels are instructed to
return to the original position at which they left the
track! ine and resume their searching.
(c) Operational Procedure
When the vessel reaches the point where the primary
sighted school is positioned at an angle 0 f from
the track! ine. the school is closed with and the number
0 f animals within the school is counted. I f i t is a
s in g le -wh a 1e or two-whale school, all the animals are
taken . In case the school consists of more than two
3
334 Annex 136
animals, two samples are randomly taken.
Only the the firstly targeted whale by
random
sampling scheme is to be chased and sampled. After the
sampling of the firstly targeted whale, the remaining
individuals in the school are identified over again so as
to select randomly the secondly targeted whale. There may
be cases (although not so frequently) in which the
targeted whale cannot be sampled despite a long chasing
time. Sampling efforts may be abandoned after a pre-
determined give-up time for chasing. The sampled whales
are transferred to the factory sh-ip -when ..convenient.
4. DATA TO BE COLLECTED
a . Environmental Information
weather, wind direction, wind force, visibility, air
temper a t u r e, sea surface temper a t u r e, .ice con d l t ion, e t c.
b. Information on Effort
sighting effort, sampling effort
searching time, confirming time, chasing time, handling
time, towing time, resting time, etc .
c. Sighting Information
position sighted, species, number of animals, sighting
angle, sighting distance, behavior, etc.
These data will be coded by compter and sent to the IWC
after they have been validated .
4
335336 Annex 137
137. The Institute of Cetacean Research,Act of Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean
Research (30 October 1987) (As amended 20 October 1999) [excerpt]
(Trans lated from the original Japanese document for this Annex)
Act of Endowment of the Institute of Cetacean Research [excerpt]
(Objective)
Article 3 The objective of this research institute is to contribute to appropria te management
and use of fishery resources by conducting experiments /researches and surveys on
cetaceans and other marine mammals, as well as examinations on the intern ationa l
situa tion regarding cetaceans and other marine mammals .
<Activities)
Article 4 To accomplish the objective specified in the preceding Article , this re searc h institute
conducts the following activities:
(1) experiments /researches and surveys on cetaceans and other mar ine mammals:
(2) collection and dissem ina tion of reference materials on cetaceans and other marine
mammals:
(3) examinat ions and collect ion, as well as dissemina tion of inf orm ation on the
internationa l situat ion regarding cetaceans and other mar ine mammals: and
(4) other matters necessary to accomplish the objective of this research ins titute .
Article 5-8 (omitted)
(Spec ial Fund Property )
Article 9
1 The Special Fund Property is the property to be allocated for researches which , among the
research activities specified in Article 4 (1), the Dire ctor -General (of the ICR) specifically
designates as necessary in relat ion to international convention (s), with an approva l of the
Admin istrative Board (hereinaf ter referred to as "Special Resear ch"). The Spec ial Fund
Pr opert y is composed of the following:
(1) property donated specifically for the Special Fund Property;
(2) property which the Administrat ive Board decided to be alloca ted to the Specia l Fund
Property : and
(3) incomes genera ted by the properties specified in (1) and (2) above.
2 Implemen tation of the Specia l Research and managemen Uoperation of the Special Fund
Pr operty are set separate ly in the Code for Specia l Research Programs.
3 Approvals by the Mini ster of Agriculture , Forestry and Fisheries shall be obtained for
establishing or amending the Code (for Specia l Research Programs ).
337Annex 137
(1~)3
m3• *•~m~.~m~~-~-~~~~~~~~~~~~&~R~•v~~m~~
•~m~~~m~•~oo~~•~M~~~~·~ft =~~~~~0~*~~~~~•
~-~~~~~-·~~=~~13~~~~.
(-~)
M4~ *·~~~.ftA~I3~~~·~~~~-~~--~ft3.
(1)!'Mst~~ft!!.~i'fi~iltYiiil.F~.&t"
(2)!9:t)fl!!,O)#a~-rlljjj'~lV:~~.&
(3)~~~ O){t!!,O)#ai~am!11.~1~~::~&:i#~M)[#U!V:~lfl:
<~)-=t•.t!l.>:-PJF~m~~tt:~•.::~.!If,...t•~
第5条～第8条 省略
~.SNS~i)i
* ~ ~grJ£~MlE1.4~m1-%0)if;'!;,, IIMitt~~~iiti)S¥
~O)~lB~~~,~~=~·S!~~ji~~;9U~aw~W.r r~rJ;.."'?.)
~*~-r~~~O) .M~~)•~~~~~ 0)~~0~m•-r~.
(1)~.su~~M~ilti~~m~t.~i*fllf:t~nttM~
(2)J11!;tJf<~~.S.::~An~=.~t.1-~M~
2 ~.~8UtO)~~ .ttVZ!U~JitimO)li:~: *&.V::~7l;i.::l--:::>\ot'"'"Cii.
,Sijl~.
3 ~~::5~-0)ft;IJl.::;~1-;l:,ff7J<i!i*S[O)~~~~€fi'.tlthl'!ft
338 Annex 138
138. The Institute of Cetacean Research, Code for Special Research Programs
(24 November 1988) (As amended 28April 2009) [excerpt]
(Translated from the original Japanese text for this Annex)
Code for Special Research Programs [excerpt]
(Processing of Whales Taken)
Article 12 Whales taken under the research whaling programs shall be utilized efficiently so far as
practicable, in accordance with the objective of Paragraph 2, Article VIII of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
(Sales of Whale Products)
Article 13
1 In processing whales taken under the research whaling programs, fro▯m the perspective of
efficient use, the products can be sold exclusively within the domestic market and their
sales proceeds could be obtained as revenue (of the ICR), provided that an approval by
the Director-General of the Fisheries Agency is obtained in advance of the sale of the
whale products derived from each research whaling program.
2 In order to obtain the approval stipulated in the preceding paragra▯ph, the ICR shall make
an application using the Appended Form #1, indicating in it the yields for each and
every type of whale product. In case the ICR itself is selling the prod▯ucts, information
including planned yield of the products to be sold and methods of sellin▯g shall be
indicated in the form. In case of selling the products on consignment, ▯information
including the name(s) of consignment distributer(s) and brokerage commission
charge(s) shall be indicated in the Form.
3-5 (omitted)
(Management of Sales Proceeds)
Article 14 The sales proceeds shall be allocated to cover expenditure associated wi▯th conducting
research whaling programs, unless otherwise decided by the Administrative Board and
approved by the Director-General of the Fisheries Agency.
339Annex 138
Appended Form #1
Application for approval to selling/treating whale products
in relation to the research whaling program of the fiscal year YY
(Document number)
) e t a D (
To: Director-General of the FisheriesAgency (Name)
From:
(Address)
(Names of organization and its representative)
I hereby apply for your approvalto sell the whale products derived from the research whaling program
of the fiscal year YY under the special permit of the Directive of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries #XXX dated YY/MM/DD, as specified below, in accordance with the “guideline for treating/selling
by-products of research whaling programs” (established on January 12, 2001, and amended on July 9, 2004):
1. Number of whales taken in the research
(1) Whales taken
①Species
②Number
(2) Period of taking: From YY/MM/DD to YY/MM/DD
2. Yield of whale products produced and planned amount of products to be sol▯d
Yield produced (A) kg Planned yield of products to be sold (B) kgB/A%
Frozen products
Red meat
Others
Total
3. Period of selling: From YY/MM/DD to YY/MM/DD
4. Method of dealing with frozen whale products
(1)Method of selling: Selling on consignment etc.
(2) Consignment distributer: Address
Names of distributer(s) and its/their representative(s)
(3) Brokerage commission charge(s)
(4)Area(s) where whale products to be sold
(5) Consignment sales contract(s) (a copy/copies to be attached)
340 Annex 138
3～5 省略
341Annex 138
]JIJ~l%
f± :FJT
~1t-.&tM~;g-M
IJZP~t A f;=Jfi"lt!Jl*Mc'ki1fm%0)~J.liJ~1 IZPlt~5£'--Wm5<
g~~;:J:~~~:nt~i.5~~ rftt~~~O)iJJifg~MJlml 'i:IJ.lt131¥1
A 1 f!iUi:,IJ6;7A 9S~ lE)f;:£r-t-::O5~~~~; 1!J:"t< ,:ll\~)5"_~
T~o
1. ~ltf;~tJ:~~td-~
c1)t-m~~t.:m
~~
®"~
(2) fillUF"',IltPA l:~IJZP~X;A t3
Q
tlt~ ~A)kg -GT~)kg ·· B/ A%
~{ttfp
~~~
s~
fl
*
4. t~~d6'QO)jdl/_ti-:/5'~
(1)~~- ~~~
(2)~ {±f7f
~~-.&tM~;g-~
(3)~~;f..}
(4)t~O)~~tM
(5)~ ~ Gjlj~-;j")
342 Annex 139
139. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 63 Suikai No. 3427
(24 November 1988)
Nounnsuisanshou -Shirei-63 -SwlfDa1-3427-Gou
[Order of the Ministry ofAgriculture , Forestr y and Fisheries #63Suikai3427]
Ooshima 3-32-11, Koutou -ku, Tokyo
Institute of Cetacean Research
Director-GeneralIkuo Ikeda
I hereby approve , as applied, the estab lishmenof Tokubetsu -Chousa -Gyownu
Houhou sho [the Code for Special Research Program s], which was app lied for by
Nichigeiken -Dai-5-Gou [the applicationform] dated September 22, Shouwa 63
[1988].
November 24, Shouwa 63 [1988]
Ministe r ofAgriculture , Forestry and Fisheries . Takashi Sato
343Annex 139
. :);.·
•~fiu*~*&=~~32~114
JltEIJ?B*tt~iiJf~m
J.!!•*$ EH .fiB~
l!g6 3$9 Jf2 8ft~t tt8ii5JJyJi~'(> t~~~J7J!Jj~:.·=~Uti:h?*
:m:C?)lfi! ~Ji$E/C?":)I'"g(~t0
l!g6 3$ 1 Jf24 8 .·
.:f.;
344 Annex 140
140. Government of Japan, “The Research Plan in 1989/90 Season in Conjunction
with Note for ‘The Program for the Research on the Southern Hemispher▯e Minke
Whale and for the Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in theAntarctic
(SC/39/O4)’”, SC/41/SHMi13 (1989) pp. 1-10,A.1-A.9
SC/41/SHMil3
THE RESEARC·HPLANIN 1989/90 SEASON
IN CONJUNCTION .WITHNOTEFOR "THE PROGRAM
FOR THE RESEARCH ONTHE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
MINKEWHALE .ANDFOR THEPRELIMINARY
RESEARCHONTHE MARINEECOSYSTEM IN THE
ANTARCTIC(SC/39/04)"
GOVERNMEN OF JAPAN
May, 1989
345Annex 140
1. Background for the Japanese Research and Improvements Made
Over _ the Original Program (SC/39/04)
1. 1 Collllllents Received by the IWC on the original Program ·
The Government of Japan presented to the 39th IWC
Scientific Committee "The Program · for Research on the Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whale and for Preliminary Research on the
Antarctic Ecosystem (SC/39/04) ". . .
The main objective of this Original Program was to estimate
the biological parameters for elucidating the population
dynamics of the Southern ~emispher meinke whale. In -particular,
age composition of minke whales and estimation of the age
specific natural mortality rates based on age composition data
were recognized as principal items of the study.
The discussions carried out at the IWC Scientific Committee
on the Original Program have been summarized in _the Report of
the Scientific Committee (Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 38:55-58.) . In
regard to the researc .h methodology:- thea'i'Sc\i'S'Sions were focused ·
·o~ the following three questions ·:
a) Possibility of estimating the age specific natural ~ortality
rates using the information obtaineq fro~ the age
·composition ·
b) Collection of samples fully representing the migrating
population to the Antarctic.
c) . Reliability of the estimates on the natural mortality
rates.
1.2 Japan's Responce to the Collllltents
At ·the 39th IWC Scientific CoJ;D.mittee, the Japanese
scientists explained -the · scientific grounds for the validity and ·
appropriateness of the Japanese research program. At the 40th
IWC Scientific Committee in 1988, possibility of estimating
natural mortality rate was shown oh the basis of cohort analysis
(Nakamura: SC/40/025) and the predicted accuracy of the
estimated mortality rate was figured out (.Tanaka and Sakuramoto:
SC/40/023), so that · the -natural mortality rates effective· for ·
elucidating the population dynamics can be obtained.
Although a theoretically sound design was adopted in the
Original Program -for collecting samples that fully represent the
population, it was impossible to know for certain whether the
plan could be put into actual practice under the severe - natural
environment of the Antarctic. Consequently, it was decided that
a feasibility study be conducted in advance of "the ·
implementation of the Original Program . ·
The Research Plan for the Feasibility study (SC/087/1) was
discussed at the special meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee
held in December 1987. Japan, taking into consideration
effective suggestions derived from the discussion, carried out
the feasibility study in a part of Area IV during the period
December 1987 to April 1988.
Feasibility study for 1988/89 were carried out in a part of
- 1 -
346 Annex 140
Area v from December 1988 to April 1989, in accordance with the
research plan djstributed to members of .the iWC Scientific
Committee from the secretariat on S~ptembe 26, 1988.
1.3 Results from the Feasibility Studies.
Results from the 1987/88 survey were reported in two ·
·documents submitted . at the 40th IWC Scientific Committee:
preliminary analysis of biological aspects by Kato, Hirayama,
Fujise, and Qno (SC/40/Mil .S), and analysis of sighting for
various species of whales in .lower latitudinal waters by
Kasamatsu (SC/40/022). In responce to the requests for detail
analysis, ·. four docUllle.nts were submitted·to facilitate
discussions at the 41th IWCScientific Committee ; estimation of
abundance of mirike whales by Kasamatsu,and Kishino .
(SC/41/SHMi1), age composition and segregation of minke whales
by Kato, Kishino and l?ujise (SC/41/SHMi2) , biological parameters
by Klshino, Kato, Kasamatsu and Fujise <SC/41/SHMi3>, and
oceanograp~ic analysis on the southern mlnke whale distribution
by Naganobu, Shimamoto and Kato <SC/41/SHMllS) .
out ·of the various informat 'ion obtained from. the
feasibility study in 1987/88 , the following four points have
been 'recognized as .significant results contributive to the
design and implementation of the future researches.
(i) It is possible to collect samples that represent the
population : .Minke whales sighted along the
systemat~call designed trackline were sampled almost
coapletely in accordance with t~e designed plan, so that
it would be possible to estimate abundance of whales and
biological parameters of the population without bias ;
However, the relatively low sampling efficiency from small
scnools has presente~ another problem to be resolved in the
future surveys.
(ii) The characteristics of the .geographical distribution and
the blological features by school size have been
.edge and :in smalloungersc.hoolsle, while . older· sfemalesff neark pack
ice and in larger schools. · Males do not show such
segregation .
(iii) A larger difference of the age _composition exists between
the samples collected by commercial whaling and that
collected by the teasi61lity study: . Because the .
commercial whaling selectively took larger size animals,
the samples collected by comm reci~l whaling consisted .
more of the animals of ages 15 to 20 and less of the
animals o"t the younger ages. The most numerous of the
·animals sampled by the research, in comparison, are the
individuals of ages 1 to 5, and the less number of animals
as the age grows higher, as the result of the randomness
of the sampling free ._from the size selectivity . .Tl)e age
composition estimated from-the research sampl ing showed
greater improvement than had been expected by many
scientists. ·This .:improvement has si .gnificantly helped to
- 2 -
347Annex 140
enhance the val i dity of the age composition used for
the esti~ati oofnparameter values such as the natural
mortality rates.
(iv) For a higher accuracy of the estimation of the b-iological
parameter: such as the age specific natural l!lortality
rate, an lncreased nu~ber of the samples will be required :
The estimation Wlth h1gher accuracy of biological
parameter values such as the age specific n~tural
mortality rates is difficult to ·achieve with age data
based on the sample size of approximately 300 whales taken
according to the rule in the current ·f.easibi li ty study.
Kato et al. (SC/41/SHMil4), an·d Kasamatsu and Shige~une
(SC/41/SHMIT5-)-9ubmitted preliminary reports in relation to the
·feasibility . tudy 1988/89 to the 41st IWC Scientific CoiiUDittee
for discussion. ·. As in the case of the previous feasibility
study in 1987/88 , the salllples collected -by the current research
in 1988/89 show the length -composition, which show higher ·
proportion of smaller :ani•als than those in coiiUDercial catches,
suggesting such samples are representative -at the whales
migrati'g .o the Anta,ctic.
1.4 Improvements Made Over 'the Original Program
As outlined in _the foregoing paragraphs 1.2 , theoretically
valid explanation has already been given by the Japanese ·
scientists to the qt,testion raised against the objectives of the
Original Program asserting that "it is theoretic!!lly impossil;>.le
to estimate natural mortality rate. by separating natural
mortality rate from recruitment rate on the basis of age
composition (Rep. Int. Whal. Coma. 38:56 . ) "· A recent paper by
Tanak'a. (SC/41/015) proviaes-Iurther . evidence that it is possible
to ·separate natural mortality rate from recruitment rate, and to
estimate natural mortality rate.
In the light at these progresses, and taking into account
the actual circumstances encountered duri~g the two feasibility
studies carr i ed out in the past, we have decided to improve the
Original Program in the following three aspects:
(i} ' To include monitoring recruitments among the principal
subjects ot the study: The flow chart of data and
information originated fro• the survey and analysis on
the Antarctic minke whale stock is given in Annex to the
Research Plan for the Feasibility Study in 1988/89 . The
chart has been repeated as Annex 1 t? this document ". .
Estimation and continued aonitoring of the number of·
recruitments by year (N1y} is an essential factor tor
efut~reng trendse . in thet populationand dynamics .ig The the ·
feasibility study in Area IV brought about even more ·
valuable results than had been anticipated, for it
revealed that the age composition yield simple decreasing
pattern sta r ting with the largest group from age 1. ·
- 3 -
348 Annex 140
As the number of recruitment of 1-year-old minke
whales are possibly estimated with less biases, the
monitoring of recruitments is now enlisted to as one of
the principal subj~cts o~ the _study .
(ii) Shorter interval between the sampling years :According to
the original plan; age composition data are to be
collected ·over two consecutive years in a given area -.
Thereafter, researches are continued for the ensuing two
years (third and fourth yea~) in ~nother area. Repeating
the samplings in this ma11ner, age compos:! t ion data thus
obtained in separate -years are compared to estimate
natural mortality rates . Recent development in age
composit~a ona~ysi since the orginal plan reveals that
estimated mo~tality rates from age compos~tion data in
single research year are much improved in accuracy
because of no .nois .e generated ·by integration of ·two years
data. ·
According to the feasibility study in Area IV, it is
indigated that coefficients ot variation in estimated
nlimber of animals (Z Nat) are 0:26-0.65 (different by
research ve~sels and standard error · in pooled age
composition ·by five years of age are 0. 053, where Pis
0.33, 'in 1-5 years old group and 0.023 ., where P=0.10, in
21-25 years old group. ·
: Tanaka's method for estimating natural mortality
rates (SC/41/015) indicates that more effective estimates
can be expected from improved accuracy of sighting
results ( 2: ·Nat) rather than increase of samples for
age composition data.
For the reasons mentioned above, the interval
between research years are to be shortened 'from two years
to one . year and Areas IV and V are covered alternately.
(iii ·)Survey by line transect method : In the original plan, ·
sampling was designed to collect whales in ne~rest
distance from a designated station selected at random,
while sighting for abundance estimate_ we~e .to be made by
other research vessel exclusively assig~ed for sighting.
·However, it was iearned ~hat sampling by nearest distance
method may not theoretically yeild unbi 'ased . age
composition of the population, and that cost for its
implementation is high. Since Japan had to provide
research vessels for IDCR, remaining facilities available
for the national scienti:t'ic research we~e limited. T~ .
overcome these problems, the two· feasibility studies
carried out in the past were designed in such a way that
sighting and samp~ing of whales by the line t~ansect
method are conducted concurrently by the same vessel.
The plan was put into practice with little difficulty and
the various r ·equired studies such as the ·estimation of
biological parameters were carried out with relative
ease , as sUlll.l!iarized in the "Results of the Feasibility
Study II Hence, for the ·future researches, the neare~t
- 4 -
349Annex 140
distance method as planned in t .he Original Progru was
replaced by a scheme in which ' sighting and sampling are
carried out concurrently by a single vessel steaming
along a systematically designed trackline.
2. Research Plan in 1989/90
2.1 Objectives
The item 1. 4 (i) exp 1ained above is to be added to
the objectives given in the Original Progriul (SC/39/04).
2.2 Number, · Sex and Stock of the Whales ·to be Sampled
Sample size amounting to more than 30'0 whales would be
desirable to ensure the statistical accuracy of estimated
natural mortality rate. On the other hand, there are no
facility such as research vessels for 1989/90 season to
implement sampl~ng of 825 whales in a year. Therefore ·,
number of samples would be decided later after careful
consideration of the balance between expected accuracy and
research capacity. ·
Samples are to be collected without predetermination
of sexes .
Samplings are to be made in Area IV.
2. 3 Oppotuni tes for Participation by For·eign Scientists
Refer to item 6-1 of the Original Progru (Annex 2).
2.4 Expected Effects of ~he Catches on the Stock
.The 40th IWC Scientific ·co~ittee was agreed that the
total population of 72,357 (cv: o.i56 ) in Area IV
south of 60° 5 and the takable population of 47,611 (CV:
0 .1610) are · to be adopt .ed as the best estimates. The
Scientific Committee. also estimated the total population
and takable population for the western half of Area IV
(70"- 100°E) as 19,980 (cv: 0.181) and 13,147 .(cv: 0.185),
respectively. ·
·The Sub-Committee on the' Southern Hemisphere Minke
Whale in the same yearmade a trial calculation on the RY
adopting Pella-Tomlinson model under the MSY rate of 1-4%.
The replacement yield (RY) for 1988, obtained from the
recruited population of the animals aged 6 or more, was
314-872 . The RY was 161-377 when the assumption was
adopted that the recruited population in the western half
of Area IV constitute a single stock. ·
With these calculations in·mind, the Sub-Committee
- 5 -
350 Annex 140
noted, as a most pessimistic assumption, that the take of
300 whales may exceed the RY if the samplipg of all of 3()0
samples were concentrat·ed in the area of 70"- 100" B.
such concerns as expressed by some members of the Sub
Committee will be totally unwarranted, since the plan for
the sampling scheme is designed so as to avoid
concentration of sampling within any specific waters of
Area IV and to make collection of samples in proportion to
the density distribution throughout all the waters of Area
IV. In addition, the result of the feasibility study has
revealed that the age at re .cruitment of ·research take is
age. 1, instead of age 6 which was believed by the data of
·commercial whaling in the pas~. For this reason, it is
opvious that RY should not be calculated at age 6.
2.5 Research Method
(i) The Waters to be surveyed and the composition of the
research fleet
. Sampling and sighting surveys will be conducted in the
waters south of 60PS in principle . In addition, sampling
and sighti 'ng surveys will ·be carried out also in the waters
55°~60~5 in Area IV at least during the leg to and from
the waters described ab.ove. Further, independent sighting
surveys w111 be c·onduc.ted in the mid-to-low latitudinal
waters.
The research fleet will be qf six vessels in total,
consisted of 1 mothership, .3 sampling vessels to be used
for sampling and sighting and 2 sighting vessels to be used
for sigh_ting in the mid-to-low latitudinal waters.
(ii)Stratification of the designated waters of the survey
Research efforts are to be distributed throughout Area
IV south of 60°5 stratified latitudinally into two strata .
(iii)Consideration for analysing the seasonal and ar ·eal factors
· for b~ologlca parameters
The survey wi11 follow the cruise trackline in the
prede~ermined order shown in Fig. 1 in order to collect
·samples that are effective ··for elucidating the
segregation of the whales in relation to their migration
pattern and biological parameters. As a result, sampling
wil ·l be .carried out twice in the same waters at different
times, making it possibl.e to analyse the changes by season
and ar.ea .
It will be necessary to steam -to the next starting
point of the survey without research operations during the
night to ensure that the cruise trackline .is distributed as
widely as possible within the designated waters for the
survey. .The schematic diagram for the trackline is, in
- 6 -
351Annex 140
survey. · The schematic diagram for the trackline is, in
principle, given · in F~g. 2.
(iv)Trackline for the survey
Refer to Fig. ·1. Fig. ·1 shows the basic trackline.
Three sampling vessels will operate independently on the
basic trackline with given intership distance away from
each otQer to cc;mduct sig~ti: nand sampling •
.(v) Collection of samples within ·the schools
As in the case of the previous two feasibility
studies, trials are to be made to sample all of animals of
single-animal-schools and two from two-and-more-animal
schools.
(vi)Collection of samples .·of cetaceans other than ininke whales
I
This is not planned . for 1989/90.
(vii )Acqu'racy of estimation of .natural mortality rates
One of the most outstanding features of -the Japanese
research program is in . its ·design of making it possible to
evaluate the accuracy of estimation and to improve the
accuracy by repeating surveys. Whi·le the detailed analyses
·are conducted by Tanaka (SC/41/015), at least the following
expression is possible. For reference, coefficients of
variation of the estimated stock size (N) and age
composition (p) achieved by the feasibility study in
1987/88 are shown in 1.4 (ii) . In addition, Tanaka
(SC/41/015) demonstrates that the estima~e of natural
mortality rates (M) in its accuracy is largely dependent on
the accuracy of estimated N.
The expected coefficient of variation of the estima~ed
age composi ·tion based on the sample size, say, amounting to
400 is approximately 0.5 when pis 1%. If this value . is
assumed, the error at around 0.15 of the deviation of age
specific natural mortality coefficient (Ma) from the
average (~i w)ould be obtained when surveys are repeated
every two years for 6 ·- a times. With this magnitude of
error, changing rate of ·Ma larger than 0.006/year could be
detected.
(viii) Other Matters
The relationship between the Japanese Research Program
- 7 -
352 Annex 140
and the Comp~ehensiv e ssessment is given in Annex 3.
The general ·applicability of non-lethal methods for the
. subjects of study of the Japanese resear,ch plan is
itemized in Annex 4. The lethal method heretofore adopted
pursuant to Schedule III will continue to be employed in
1989/90 .
- 8
353Annex 140
,
-
60°S ·?0°S .
~
0
130°£ JQI withstratum
£ I;
60°5 °
130I¥1 each
I plan
1 in
1
I
00°E
1 I research
I
tracklines
110°£. 70oE 89/90
·9 of
·w·~~~~EI
IV the
.t..
of example
ARE IJiJ._e-=: an
jJ. area
A~BtCiO;A;B;C;I and
~~
goo£ 1 90
: sghtsngta
l
Operation I of
I and
I
J#,
1 Sampbreakdown
]h~~ 1.
70°E
Fig.
<£)
354 Annex 140
1 3 4
)
Ch'~sN?mH C)mM~rml 0
b -1
1; Start point on ith day
2; Strat point on (i+I)day
a; Trackline with effort
b; Trackline without effort
(Top-down steaming or night steaming)
Although a arid b are variable according to weather
and whale density (a+b) is constant.
Fig. 2. Illustration of .trackline with effort and
without effort. ·
- 10•-
355Annex 140
ANNEX 1. F.lowchart of data andinformationoriginated froll! the surveyand
analysis on the Antarctic HinkeStock .
I
'
NOTE:Theitem .s boxedwith bold-type Iines are materials andestimatesdirectly
obtainable from the sampling and sighting survey. Theitemsboxedwith
fine Iines are the informationobtainedby theanalyses or the foregoing• r
es.timatesandma ter.iaIs.
Notation for the suffix
a;age t;year
·j;age at juvenile ·y;ye.r cl.ss
- A.l -
356 Annex 140
ANNEX 2. Extrac·t- from SC/39/04,· the programmefor research on
the southern hemisphere minke whale and preliminary
resea_ rch on the·marine ecosystem in the Antarct_ic.
(5) Oppor~unitie tr Par~icipati byn Yoreigh Scientists
Oppor1:uni ties !or particip" tion in the research cruises
under this program _will be· given to any scienti3: ;o the
e:xte:ne allowed 'by accomodation and . other log is tic·
consideration. provided that such participation does not
c:ause. inconveniences !.1~hei~np' len:tation of the proqram.
The 3election ol the part icipants. however, '-'ill.be
!in~~~:ed by the Whale aesearc:~ Coordinatinq Commitee vno
vi~l conside~ the v~rious conditions such a~ accommodaCion
and others.for dete~ination.
( 6) Condi:ions !or ?ar:icipation
Costs !o: partlcipation. t~avel eX?enses ~o and !:om
: he pOr~ o£ ~oar~lng the rese4:~ ~essel. meals on boa:d ~~e
reseGrch ve~sel. ~nd any specia /~nst:umen :esu+:ed by the
ii) Indemt1i£.ic-1tion · bnd insurt.nc:e !or C4SU4J.ty or
persona.l. injury on board the resea~chvesse~ss
The WhQle ~esearch lns:!.tute 4nd the crew of ~he
research ve:sse.l or :-ese~rch tC41!1 will /lOt be held
responsible !or any cas ualty or .pe:son"'l injury to the
par~icipa re:uling £ro10 the participant ··snegligence 'or
force majo~e ...
iiil CanceLLation of part~cipatr ion
~ny po:i c~p~nC vho a~e~ountd o have intent~ona~ly
s4bo~aged in the cou:~e of implemen~ation of the =csearc hes
and the=eby impai:ed the execucion of such resea=c~es sha~!
be cancell.ed of his /her participation in this pro9ram ..
- A.2 -
357Annex 140
ot i
119 ·
87/00
19
collected recaptured (cont.)
malessampling
from conducted
· the
(154 ot newly
.d be
that
the
collect,ll
analyses on·
individuals
beenpected.he
Programme is level
Assessment73 ·Ol!Jmenc'e. data
It
from .e ot
Research will
similar ()
between
Sanlplesearchimultaneously, Fillings.
ciomJapan1.eve 2.
·
and
relationship ononon
on andy theon the
The
J. progA.mme samplei'tissues markingin by
studyed
c. studies genetic
. collectod whale re-captureerrecoveries
ANNEX on tissue
rejearch cetaceanhe and of the
structure. on maink )
IWC/SC contract of s~mples minke heterogeneityhort (
- of ·aqistration
Japanese for_choolxisting on ship
. tbt~ of means. marking
and Workshop naturaldata
the exchange of llemispherehe
at pioposed instiIWCions.er immortalityion
coding .he effects . the
ot and estimates,-ts
funidentity of thebetween
analysis Southern of.
Genetics: of sheddinganese
discussion stock scientific of experime
Secretariat. sa~pling is the
of for mark
the :
Alloca~ioncommeFacilitationnJnendation AnalysbabiRecommendationletionariat
Biochemical . Andatai~
Summary i) iv) 2 i) ii)
1. ii) iii) iii)
·
)>o
358 Annex 140
by
tin, will .
. ~aters
1988/89. (cont.)
sighted the whales
in researcll
humpbacic, provided avaiiable.
.ere minke
of '
re9arding onmade
scheduled 1987/88 will'be be
whale
schools is in
115"E will
71 sperm
Programme information
information
and research tho
.o.d.cted -
Researchseiesearch. 105'E information ( ·.......
ndividuals, iing
i similar offer relevant
138ri198The6 Material Thebetwein .rBasic
Japanese . bt
3. 4 iii) 5.
.
.
the with been size
Groupof whaCruise paper other where
detailedsouthernach
non-minke the thhave and· and
C.l\. prey
on of of most ~he
Workingspecies.Sightinq whale of
items on locality,
the the species
IWC/SC by whale lDCR 'oint-workshop . and
Hemisphere cohputerization ininke value
t the preparation prey
40th the the for . year
of following possible ve
the of of ppoposed cruises infoandtion
at Southern conclusion during the
·
the records Hemisphere threview inmonthnqri
the fundin~funding abundbreakdown
of taken to available
for the of and
(contdiscussiona: fomarking workshop, from ofwhales .
Sout)lerncologyand
of
3 the re-lation:
photographs s Esspeciesraphi~alnullnessle
Analysesng Photo-identification;posal FeediIn forrai
1\NNESummary i) CCIIMLR, a) b)
3 4. ii) iiiJ 5.
)>..,.
359Annex 140
.
will IOCR
s
provided. detbyled
{cont.)
be whale
more
will minke obtained
on obtone
whales
to the
available.
Progr~mme minke
on information thmaae
available. possible
above.
Reseasch re~ent is can ()
made
/
Same InformatioThee It inThisation
c) h) i) k)
Japanese
I
. ·
in in ·; to
from sea
' whalesd- krill
feeding diurnal fishing divin
of thickness, edge,
C.llthe reproductive relatc.).
on summer krill yiAntarctic.ice.
and adaptationsen and ·n
onincluding Antarctic.een the of
in (blubber oil
\ IWC/SCet . the in schoo~ ()
o~ ·ic, growth in' whales
40th feeding implications commercial wh~ics. on abundance,
of ·lity.n
knowl~dgeviorithin content) ndnkesimity
_he strategies -\ntarc condition data wpale
at balee·ationstioot
the availabends {e.g.
information energetic catcheslipid var
whales. inswarming body IDCR
new lllorphological available .and food annual ofwhaling
of . ana distribofionto ~ntarctic of befactors
{contdisqussionkeof whales. of of carcass of al temperature,
;f
3 of of trementsn
leen .sv
Ana·ysisReview Reviewticularlywo Reviewv1\girth,stiorates1\nalysisciysisurtace
1\NtiEX i) j) k)
Summary 'l) e) f) g) h)
?>lJ'l
360 Annex 140
.
about
IOCR
importantch importanthrch
(cont.)
the
qubyity
most most
original originalo. ~he
the the
preliminary of
of of provided
·me
Japanese Japanes~
one one that
P~:ogi:a Japaneseation
is the isthe information
The
of of useful the
level
) Resea~:ch
subject subject
same
Thi·objectivese. Thisjpr.gramme.s Providing
JaEanese 8 9.
6.
.
in
net andnext year
group aerial
the .tudies proceed at studies coasts
The . management etc.the
C./I. of to
on thesenducted participating importan~e previous ot
be howof N/ISS, /lfrican
meeting the
) for the its monandring (-·
IWC/SC esti1nawiil consideration to South
of up~f
_mo~tality. m~eting. noted off
40th make Committee cruise
to proresult evaluation has continuation
the . further
natharal considerationding IDCRthewhale
at the workshop of
formed of· for tor continuati6n
Scientific the need right
further CommiMeeting. recommendation
warate to Parameters: oftheAntarctice
agree Procedures: the Survey:
(cont~iscussion toanalysesl t the of
of curves:oup Annual
3
metth~ext cientists Scientific
small l~anagemenendations.endBiological Sightingeaincludingnrnendat,ion
/INNEX Cat~h/1rehasitment Th~reyognize. i)
Summa6. 7. i) ii) B. 9 ii)
I :»0"1
361Annex 140
is the
the
of it
to
importantch progrumme
list
terns,
mqst i
'he
original reseaJ:'Ch
the .ng
contfibution
of provide t.
foregof
Japanese to
one Japanese
the deal
Programme is the inventr·.o 1\ssessmen
.
of prepared
'ec'\: data frthagreat
is '\ensiv
Research sub for ~ ...
Thisoteogramlme. Ja~ata JuobvioComp?
Japan~se 4
1. 13. 1
andwere
bean allow llnnualdata, minl<e
several dealing adequate
.\. toprogr11ss work.
C dual to for impornexte _he und-orway.
on a this thpapers existi-ng is
-roup: funding the compurisons llemi.sphera
future. of on the _
IWC/SC ofin funding that.or collecting ...ck
telemetry of anal_y:z;ing _
wo~ki~g tor
40th ot agreed Sutthis'n
adequate for on
the satelite nations. p~epared tho
mountin~ use continuous ·nter-stock
at sensin~the more · recbemended design to >~ork
of and Workshop: ·e-analysis
on (or membero·eeial·requirement Coandttee for for
remote s rate: and
the CPUE ·hould p'rocedures given
the to .SY work
{continued)sion by Groups/Stacks:
for up this and . l;y wassubstantial
3 of development Scthisitic Invontries:ty as
th i:a
Recommendationapidlytionmendation Thef w Meeting.considerationedion
Telemetry FollowEstimating Data PrioJ:'i
1\1'1Summary i) i) ii) . PrioJ:'i
10. ii) iii) 11. 12. 13. 11
)> '-I
362 Annex 140
ty
te)
(cont.)
ye·sno yesyes yes no yes no
Generaln-lethal ·ccura ·
(in
apofical>ili ·
lethal
in
+. (exact)/
plan lethal
lethal lethal
Programme Methodsnon-lethaln::.-leth!lln-lethal
lethal
·(approximately) lethal/non-lethal
non-lethal
research
weight
Japanese and gland
,ength)
the llge
+ Bulla cohor·nflEpididymis
in lengthum plate
length weight Lactation
data
Haterials BodoetaEaTympanicex,eMilk:rianneTestis,dals,nu~ber
ot SightinghSightingingdy .
generation sureffective
size
The and
.
4 (•) sigtitinq
school [•)
age
~NNEX thesighting
at (•)
study forof Stat~s
size width
for growth
Size studies
searand
Probability
SubjecStockPopulation 1\ge Reproductive
> (X)
363Annex 140
lethal illl•
n thocl o
cability no yeso no )'8J: yos nono no n no no
Oene.ca.le almoatpo•.s
apot
t\a.l
ln l illl
pllln hal hal ha h
t lotbal lelathol let lethal6thal lt.
th• lD lethfl.lethal l•t.tull
Hothocb
lthal/non-le ino.
l I
wb•
al
tus) cocaorci
e d
Po by
Ut!content• Boo hools r
h tila sc
ac a t.u• l
ludin9 e e:t:ivit
Katu:iala inckn O o
Photooraphsetorrl•,Liv•r.Ueart,otc. Tias:ua, saal --. t•l
Si&
toa .ql
I
School catohi
by ot
rtcognition y
•Hiciency
) iatlo• stod
ed lint tion
lya1• tar e9• the
Individual rac s&n.pr q
ano aaly.sts •o
(continu su4y r ot: l Cha ot S
a hy tinq of
4 r gicalic rap •P •ent Incl'"-din
to ntilit:y e~G ion qicalo :
Xdo sa n •ton
~MHEX tion olo alysis ()
Poa•1bi Dio-ch Ocoano9ol.lut R Enha An Sk.al
Subjecttock ·Mocpholo "'*tri fhc;rratlon••nt Rando• Oh•r•
S
364 Annex 141
141. Kato H, Hiroyama H, Fujise Y and Ono K, “Preliminary Report of the 1987/88
Japanese Feasibility Study of the Special Permit Proposal for Southern H▯emisphere
Minke Whales”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 39, 1989, pp. 235-236
REP. INT. WHAL.COMMN39, 1989 235
SC/40/Mi18
Preliminary Report of the 1987/88 Japanese Feasibility
Study of the Special Permit Proposal for
Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales
Hidehiro Katoi, Hisashi Hiroyama2, Yoshihiro Fujise3and Kiyoshi Ono•
ABSTRACT
minkewhalestook placefrom17January- 26March1988. It covered a laJitudinalyl wider range(from 55CS)to the ice edge) than
commercialwhaling,etween105'Eand115'E.Thecruiseincludedasystematicsightingsurveyandaresearchtakeofminkewhales
based on a random sampling scheme. A total of 421 minke whale schools (1,350 individuals)comprising227 primaryand 194
se<:ondarysightingswassightedduring8.482.4n.milessearching.Searchingwasevenlyallocatedbetweenthe northernandsouthern
strata.Onlyrimarysightedschoolsweresampled.Employingthisstrategy,273whales (154males,119females) werecollected.The
bodylengthdistributionofthesedifferedconsidfromthatforcommerciawl halin, ithahigherproportionofsmalleranimals.
Preliminaryanalyses suggest:(1) minke whale density andschool sizeincreases sharplyinthe watersclose to packice; (2) sexually
maturefemalesten~oconcentrateinthe packice area,immatureanimalsinoffshorewaters,whilesexuallymaturemales arefound
inbothareas;(3)thesmallor immatureanimalstendtobe solitary,whilethe largerormaturemales usuallyfonnlargerschoolswith
similarsized females. Moredetailed analysesof all the datacollectedduring thecruise willbe presented in future studies.
1. INTRODUCTION collection of sightings data and sampling could be
In October 1987,the Government of Japan (Government technically achieved; (3) investigation of the extent of
of Japan , 1987a) put forward a research plan for a. segregation by age, sex and reproductive condition; (4) an
investigation on the uniformity or non-uniformity of
feasibility study of an earlier proposal (Government of biological characters with respect to school size.
Japan, 1987b) for a programme of research on the This report describes the cruise conducted from 23
Southern Hemisphere minke whale.and for preliminary December 1987to 20 Apri11988 under the above plan and
research on the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic. These presents some preliminary analyses of the data obtained.
were discussed at the 1987 Scientific Committee and
Commission Meetings (IWC, 1988a and b) and a Special The total research plan also included a sightings survey
Meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee (IWC, 1989). for minke whales in lower latitudes (about 10'-40'8)
The Government of Japan subsequently gave permission between 100•-uo 'E. The cruise report of that sightings
survey is given in Kasamatsu (1988).
forthe feasibility study to proceed under the direction of
the newly established Institute of Cetacean Research . The
study also included the takingf up to 300 minke whales.
Three major factors can be identified in the plan: 2. OUTLINE OF THE CRillSE
(1)it incorporates a random sampling strategyfor schools Detailsof the research tleet and personnel
sighted during a systematic sighting survey based on Two catcher boats, Kyomaru No.1 (KOl; 812.08GT.) and
the IWCIIDCR southern minke whale assessment Toshimaru No.25 (1'25; 739.92GT. ), carried out the
cruises (e;g. Joyce, Kasamatsu, Rowlett andTsunoda, sightings and samplingwork.The factory ship Nisshinmaru
In Press); No.3 (N03 ; 23,107.85GT.) provided the research base
(2)it covers a greater latitudi nal range (from 55°S to the from which general matters, including consideration of
ice edge) than commercial whaling, which had
research strategy, weather forecasting and receiving of ice
concentrated operations near the ice edge (Shimadzu information, were dealt with. The processing of whale
and Kasamatsu, 1981; 1983; 1984); . carcasses, the taking of biological samples and the
(3) it scheduled as much scientificinformation as possible collection of data took place on the deck of N03.
to be collected from each sampled whale. The research personnel involved and their assignments
are summarised in Table 1. ·
The four major purposes of the cruise (Government of
Japan, 1987a) were: (1) a feasibility study of the stochastic
sampling scheme asmodified since the original programme Research area and cruise track design
(e.g. whether the required number of samples could be Within the area of 105'-US'E, the research area was
collected by the designated method within the given divided into two strata: a southern stratum (from the pack
period); (2) a feasibility study on whether concurrent ice edge to 60S) and a northern stratum (from 55'-60'S).
The cruise track comprised a main trackline and two
sub-tracklines, six miles vertically from ei side of the
'tInstituteof CetaceanResearch (Present address:FarSeasFisheiies
Research Laboratory; Japan Fisheries Agency, 5-7-1.Orido, main trackline, along which the sampling vessels cruised
Shimizu,Shizuoka424,Japan). (occasionally switching tracks). The main track was
2Japan Fis~erisAgency, l:-2- 1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokydetermined differently for the two strata: in the northern
100,Japan. stratum the fleet followed eight pre-determined systematic
3 Institute of CetaceanResearch, TokyoSisan Buld., 4-18, Toyomnorth/south legs; whereas in the southern stratum the track
4hFaculty of Fisheries, Nagasaki University, 1-2, Bukyo-cho, was randomly establishedfollowingthe 'reflection'method
Nagasaki852,Japan. (Anon., 1987). The cruise tracks are shown in Fig. 1.
365Annex 141
236 KATO eta/.: 1987188JAPANESE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table 1
Detailsof researchpersonnel andtheirassignments
17)
PersoMel Situation Ship Assignment 21M
Hidehiro rato Cruise leader ?«>3 General manageaent of
overall research;
biologicaldata and 17M
sa:tple collection.
Yoshihiro Fujise Researcher N03 Biological data and
samplecollection. 3F
Hisashi Hirayama Researcher IDl Deterndnation of target
whale;.collectioof
sightingandS~Wpling 5F
data.
Xiyoshi Ono Researcher T25 Determination of
target whale; collection
of sighting and sampling 1M 23M
data; oc:eanographieel
research.
Hasacitsu YBIII:BResearchassistant KOl Recordingeffortand
weather data.
ThmeoRyono Research assistant'125 Recording efforand
weather data.
Shigeo Tabata Research assistantN03 Biological date end
samplecollection.
Yut.akallguch1 Researchassistant N03 Biological d<!tand
sample collection.
The followingfour points should be noted.
(1) The starting point of the cruise (55°00'S,108"18'E)in
the research area wasrandomly chosenfrom one ofthe
northern ends of the eight north/south legs.
(2YThe compass direction of 230° was randomly chosen
prior to the start of the cruise as the initial penetration
direction of the cruisein the southern stratum from the
southern end of the selected north/south leg.
(3) The angle of reflection at the boundaries of the
research area in the southern stratum e.g. the pack ice
edge, 60°S,105°Eand l15°E waschosen as70°prior to
the start ofthe cruise. When two 70°reflection courses
could be taken at a boundary point, the choice of
direction was randomly selected.
(4) The timing of the change from the southern to the
northern stratum was determined by weather
conditions in the latter, regardless of the location of
the fleet in the southern stratum. The fleet suspended
research and moved to the southern end of the nearest
unsurveyed northern leg and cruised north on this leg.
After reaching the northern end of the leg (set at
55°09'Sto avoidsampling whalesfound nor!h of55°S),
the fleet cruised to the northern end of the nearest
unsurveyed leg, and moved south. It then returned to
the 'suspended'·position in the southern stratum after
Fig. 1.·cruise track of the present cruise showing noon positions by
completing that leg. day.
Searching was carried out at 12 knots during daytime,
i.e. either between 0600and 2000hrsor from 30mins after Narrative of the cruise
sunrise to 30 minsbefore sunset. The fleet stopped at night The fleet left Japan between 23 and 25 December 1987.
and resumed searching at the same position the next After a pre-cruise meeting at 13°52'S, l14°32'E on 5
morning. Sampling was only carried out on primary January1988,the vesselscruisedsouth towards the starting
sightingsmade within3n.miles (vertical distance) from the point in the research area (55°S, 108°18'E). During this
sub-track line. In principle, under unsuitable weather/sea time the sampling vessels cruised in searching mode at 12
conditions for searching, the fleet was drifting, waitingfor knots during the day and steamed at night. ·A similar
an improvement. After confirming, sampling and towing procedure was adopted on the return journey from the end
etc., the sampling vesselsreturned to the positions on the point of the research area to 200 n.miles south of the
sub-track lines they had left to confirm the sightings a nd Lombok Strait.
resumed searching from there.All activitieswere classified The vesselsoperated in the research area for the 70days
and recorded on effort data sheets similar to those used from 17 January to 26 March 1988. The cruise can be
during the IWCIIDCR Southern Hemisphere minke whale ·divided into three periods based on the nature of the
assessment cruises (Joyce eta/., In press). research (Fig. 1 and Table 2).
366 Annex 142
142. Kato H, Fujise Y, Yoshida H, Nakagawa S, Ishida M and Tanifuji S, “Cruise Report
and PreliminaryAnalysis of the 1988/89 Japanese Feasibility Study of the Special
Permit Proposal for Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales”, Rep. int. Whal. Commn
40, 1990, pp. 289-290
REP. INT. WHAL. COMMN 40, 1990 289
SC/41/SHMi14
Cruise Report and Preliminary Analysis of the 1988/89 Japanese
Feasibility Study of the Special Permit Proposal
for Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales
Hidehiro Katol, Yoshihiro Fujise 2,Hideyoshi Yoshida3;Susumu Nakagawa•,
Mitsuhiro IshidaS and Shigeru Tanifuji6
ABSTRACT
The second feasibility study for the Japanese proposal to issue a scientific permit fo take southern minke whales took place from
January to March 1989 in an area boubye53°S, TF30'Sl~E and 1800. Thlatitudinarange, reaching the southern end of the
parallel tracklines which were 12 n.miles apart, one by two sampling vessels (0.3 n.miles apart) and the other by a single vessel. A
factory ship cruised between the tracklines behind the sampling vessels.
The three sampling vesselssurveyed a total of 9614.2n.miles and made 340primary (743animals) and 290secondary (856animals)
sightingsf minke whales. A total of 236 (85 males and 151 females) ordinary form and five (a male and four females) dwarf form
minke whales were caught from the primary sightings. The paired vessel procedure introduced in thiscruise increased the efficiency of
sampling from large schools(> 3individuals), but only about 50% of the targeted sightingsfrom the smaller schools were successfully
caught.
Preliminary analyses the catch revealed that: (1) the mean body length of sampled animals was about O.<Hl.8mlower for both
sexes than for previous commercial catches; (2) mature males and immature individuals of both sexes dominated in the northern area
while mature females, almost always pregnant, dominated in the southern hiareaea~d (3) in general, mature males and
immature individuals of both sexes tendebetsolitary while matur;e females usually formed schools - however this tendency
appeared to vary with latitude. · ·
\
1. INTRODUCTION presents some preliminary analyses of the biological data
obtained. Sightings cruises in lower and middle latitudinal
In 1987, Japan put forward a research plan for southern waters carried out under the same research plan are
minke whales (BalaenopteraacutorostrataLacepede, 1807)
which required a take of whales under a scientific permit reported elsewhere.
(Government of Japan, 1987a). Subsequently a feasibility
study was carried out in 1987/88ina part of Area IV;w here
the geographica l and ice conditions were generally 2. AN OUTLINE OF THE CRUISE AND RESEARCH
believed to be simple (Government of Japan, 1987b;Kato, METHOD
Hiroyama, Fujise and Ono, 1989). That study provided
better information on the age distribution of the 2.1 Detail of the research fleet and personnel
population than that from the commercial catches, and · Three sampling vessels, Kyomaru No.1 (K01;812 .08GT),
Toshimaru No.25 (T25;739.92GT) and Toshimaru No.l8
indicated a distinct sexualnd reproduc tive segregation of
southern minke whales (Kato, Kishino and Fujise, 1989; (T18;739.92GT), carried out sighting and sampling
K.ishino,Kato, Kasamatsu and Fujise, 1989). surveys. The factory ship, Nisshinmaru No.3
However, the need to further improve the sampling · (N03;23,107 .85GT) acted as the research base from which
procedure, for example the low sampling rate of animals general matters including the planning of the daily research
strategy, the setting of the cruising course and the
from smaller school sizes, was noted (IWC, 1989). arrangement of the sampling vessels were dealt with. The
Therefore a further feasibility cruise, using an additional
sampling vessel (bringing the total numbe r of sampling coliection of biological materials and the processing of
vessels to three) took place in the 1988/89'season with the whale carcasses took place on the deck of N03.
aims of trying to (1) improve the sampling efficiency for The research personnel involved and their assignments
small schools, (2) obtain a more sophisticated .estimate of are given in Appendix 1.
the probability of seeing an animal on the trackline and (3) 2.2 Research area and cruise track
examine whether the sampling scheme proposed in the
original progra mme could be incorporated in The research area (Fig. 1) was established as part of Area
geographica lly and oceanographically complex waters such V and outside the New Zealand 200 n.mile EEZ; i.e .
as Area V, which includes the Ross Sea (Government of waters between 52°Sand the ice edge and between 180°and
Japan , 1988). 168°E. It was divided into three strata; north ern
(52°S-60°S), middle (60"S-69"S) and southern (69°S-ice
This report describe sthe 1988/89cruise which took place edge). Each zone was surveyed twice.
in Area V from 17 December 1988 to 24 April 1989 and
As in the previous season, the cruise course comprised of
2Nat!. Res. Inst. Far Seas Fish., Shimizu, Shizuoka 424, Japan·.a main trackline and two sub-tracklines for the sampling
Inst. Cetacean Res ., Chuo·ku, Tokyo 104, Japan. vessels, six milesapart on either side of the main course.
>4acul. Fish. Nagasaki Univ., Nagasaki 852, Japan. The left and right sub-tracklines were defined as
Facul. Mar. Sci. Tokai Univ ., Shimizu , Shizuok a 424, Japan. 'sub-trackline A' and 'sub-trackline B', respectively. This
•'Nippon Kyodo SenpakuiCo. Ltd., Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103, Japan. naming remained throughout the research period within a
367Annex 142
290 KATO eta/.: 1988189JAPANESE FEASIBILITY STUDY
North
First period· Second period One north/south leg between 52°Sand 60°Swas surveyed
13 Jan.- 22 Feb. 1989 23 Feb. - 31 Mar. in each period.he starting points were chosen randomly
12/Jan. from23pointsplaced at each 30'longitude at 52°Sand60os
·in the first and second periods, respectively.
Middle
The starting point corresponded. to the end point of the
main trackline in the northern zone at 60"S. The direction
of the main trackline was determined by ·using the
1&/J 'reflection' method (Anon., 1987) as applied in the
\{) I""
co 4/F I U/ M previous season (Kato et al., 1989). The initial directi
was chosen randomly from 17 directions divided by 10°
between compass directions 900 and 270°. The angle of
reflection at the boundaries e.g. the ice edge, 60°S,69°S,
16SOS and 180°S,was chosen as 700prior to the start of the
cruise. When two70°reflection coursescould be taken at a
boundary point , the choice of direction was randomly
selected.The starting point of the survey in the second
period was the end point in the first.
' \ South
'\\ The starting point was randomly chosen from 10 points
placed at equal intervals at 69°Sbetween the expected ice
edge point based on the best available information and
180°. The initial direction and cruising course . were
15/M randomly chosen as for the middle ze.
~~ Searching was carried out at 12 knots during daytime,
~ i.e. either between 0600 and 2000 hrsor between 30
CapeAdare minutesafter sunrise and before sunset, whichever was
Cape AdarJ "'"""' shorter.he fleet stopped at night, and resumed searching
5 at the same position the followingmorning. Sampling was
0 carried out on primary sightings of minke whales made
JJ "" within three miles (perpendicular distance) from the
sub-trackline. When one of the paired vessels made a
); . primary sighting of minke whales, the other vessel
suspended searching and followed it. Therefore, the two
vesse wl~re always in parallel during searching.
26/P After confirming or sampling whales, the vessels
returned to the sub-trackline verticallyfrom the position of
ROSS SEA the sighting and resumed searching. All activities were
recorded on an effort data sheet similar to that used in the
IWOIDCR cruises.
Narrative of the cruise
The fleet left Japan between 17 and 18 December 1988.
After a pre-cruise meeting on 31 December, the fleet
cruised south towards t starting point (53°10'S, 178°E)
175°E 175°E on the northern boundary of the north zone. During this
period the samplingvesselscruised insearchingmode at 12
FigI.Cruise tracks ofth e present cruiseshownseparatelyknots during the day and steamed at night, when in waters
a.nd second periods. The solidline and the broken lineoutside the.00 mile zoneof Australia and New Zealand.
respectively. The dotted line shows the steaming course of N03eet arrived at the starting point on 12January and
during January 24-28. · , operated in the research area for 79 days until 31 March
1989. The main trackline is shown in Fig. 1.
research zone even when the relative positions of the two
sub-tracklineswere swapped by the 'reflection'of the main.3 Sampling scheme
course at boundaries. Sampling was attempted only on·primary minke whale
The three sampling vessels were grouped into two sightings made within three miles of the sub-tracklines. It
·vessels ('pair') and one vessel ('single'), which w was originally decided that sampling would only occur on
allocated to each sub-trackline. Of the paired vessels,oneeryother primary sightinginthe middleand south zones.
vesselsearchedon the sub-trackline and the other searchedowever thiswasn ot found to be practical, and all primary
along a course 0.3 n.miles outside the sub-trackline of herhtings were targeted for sampling except in the middle
partner. The arrangement of the three vessels rotated zone for the first week of the first period. It was also
daily. decided to take two individuals from each school (school
The main trackline for the three zoneswasdetermined insize> 2), following the same random sampling scheme
the followingmanner. described in detail by Kato et al. (1989).
368 Annex 143
143. Government of Japan, “The 1992/93 Research Plan of whale Resources in▯ the
Antarctic”, SC/44/SHB14 (1992)
SC/44/SHB14
The 1992/93
Research Plan of whale Resources
in
the Antarctic
The Government of Japan
June, 1992
369Annex 143
INTRODUCTION
Japan·implemented the feasibility studies in two successive years
in 1987/88 and 1988/89 on the basis of the plan revised from
"Program for the Research on the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale
and for the Preliminary Research on the Marine Ecosystem in the
Antarctic" submitted to the IWC in 1987. After the feasibility
studies conducted for two years, Japan commenced the research
program in Area IV in 1989/90 and 1991/92, and in Area v in
1990/91.
The research for 1992/93 is the fourth year of the program
with no major changes from the long-term program made in 1987
(which was amended in 1989).
The research plan for 1992/93, as clearly described in the
objectives of th~ plan, aims at the estimation of biological
parameters necessary for the management of minke whale stocks in
the Antarctic, and the ascertainment of the role of the whales in
the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic. In particular, through
continuous monitoring by the research over a long period, it aims
at the collection of information relating to the stock size,
segregation by sex and age, natality, mortality and the change in
stock size, which are indispensable for the management of the
Antarctic minke whale stocks.
The research is expected to improve the knowledge useful for
practical solutions on the various problems associated with the
utilization of the whale resources arising from uncertainties of
the existing biological knowledge.
The research will be conducted based on the results of
reconsideration in this season in a manner similar to that taken
in the previous season.
OBJECTIVES
No change from the initial plan.
1
370 Annex 143
1. Estimation of the Biological Parameters Required for the Stock
Management of the Southern Hemisphere Minke Whale
The primary objective of the program is to estimate the age
specific natural mortality rate by samples through stochastic
sampling carried out in combination with systematic sighting
surveys. The program is also designed to estimate the stock size
and its changes, including the monitoring of the recruitment,
required for stock management, and the reproductive parameters
and their changes based on the same samples.
2. Elucidation of the Role of Whales in the Antarctic Marine
Ecosystem
The program includes, as its another objective, the elucida
tion of the roles of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
The most important component for this objective is the collection
and analysis of'data on the prey-predator relationships among
krills, fishes, squids and whales.
The description above has been based on the original research
plan (SC/39/04) with some amendment made in the research plan in
1989/90 season (SC/41/SHMi13). It is the same with the descrip
tion made in the communication to the IWC from the Government of
Japan in October 1989 for circulation, entitled 'Japanese re
sponse and reconsideration on Japanese scientific research pro
posal for special permits.'
RECONSIDERATIONOF THE RESEARCHPLAN
The research plan for 1991/92 was presented to the IWC/SC last
year (SC/43/Mi19), on which comments were received from the mem
bers. At the 43rd Annual Meeting of the IWC, a resolution on
reconsideration of the research plan (IWC/43/35) was adopted.
In light of the views expressed by some members of the SC
and the resolution, Japan introduced certain modifications to the
performance of the programme. The result of the reconsideration
was circulated from the IWC as the Circular Communication
RG/JAC/23165 to the contracting governments and members of the
SC. The following is the summary of the results of reconsidera
tion:
2
371Annex 143
Reassessment of Research Objectives
The estimation of age-specific natural mortality is one of
the major long-term objectives of the Japanese research program .
However, for the time being the research will focus on the esti
mation of average natural mortality. The estimation of recruit
ment is also an important objective of the research, since this
value, combined with natural mortality rate, will enable estima
tion of the net recruitment rate. The estimation of net recruit
ment thus obtained will contribute to the rationalization of
stock management. The usefulness of the data collected through
the preceding years of research already gained recognition by the
SC. The analyses of the data for this area of studies merits
further encouragement as they are highly contributive to our
knowledge of the Antarctic ecosystem.
Reassessment of Sample Size
In pursuit of the estimation of average natural mortality,
it is calculated theoretically that a sample size of between 200
and 400 will attain the level of precision similar to that esti
mated previously. In reality, however, allowances are needed for
some factors affecting the sampling and the data analysis. Minke
whales are known to segregate by sex and age at different times
and in different waters. A research area in which samples are to
be collected must be stratified, and a certain number of samples
must be taken per stratum in order to obtain necessary biological
and ecological information. Furthermore, sample collection must
be as extensive as possible in terms of both space and time. In
addition, the rate of readability of the age also requires rea
sonable allowance in the sample size. Taking these factors into
account, it is not considered necessary to change the sample size
from the 300 ~ 10% proposed to the SC this year (SC/43/Mi19),
while the number of samples to be taken per stratum will be
carefully considered, and efforts will be further continued to
improve age readability.
Improvement of Sighting Survey
Regarding the trade-off between sighting and sampling, an
3
372 Annex 143
attempt will be made to enhance the precision of the estimation
of abundance by increasing sighting effort. In 1991/92, one of
the three sampling vessels will be assigned exclusively to sight
ing in the southern sub-area where minke whale density is high.
The t~tal sighting distance will be increased by 40%, and the
accuracy will increase by 15% in terms of CV compared with that
in 1989/90. Sighting effort will be increased by minimizing the
steaming without surveying on the predetermined track-line.
Japan carried out the research in Area IV in 1991/92 season
based on the above modification. The research in 1992/93 will be
conducted with the same manner as the previous season.
NUMBER, SEX, SIZE AND STOCK OF THE ANIMALS TO BE TAKEN
No change from ~he previous plan except the sampling area.
Three hundred (300) minke whales with allowance !10%, the
same as in the proposal of the last year, will be sampled. Sam
ples are to be collected without predetermination of sexes.
Samplings are to be made in Area V.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH
BY SCIENTISTS OF OTHER NATIONS
No change from the previous plan.
Opportunities for participation in the research by foreign
scientists are available as described in the research proposal
presented to the IWC in the previous years. The followings are
the particulars for participation by foreign scientists:
Opportunities for participation by Foreign Scientists
Opportunities for participation in the research under this
program will be given to any scientists to the extent allowed by
accommodation and other logistic consideration, provided that
such participation does not cause inconveniences in the implemen
tation of the program. The selection of the participants are to
be finalized by the Whale Research Coordinating Committee, which
4
373Annex 143
will consider the various conditions such as accommodation and
others for determination.
Conditions for Participation
1. Costs
Costs for participation, such as travel expenses to and from
the port of embarking on and disembarking from the research
vessel, meals on board the research vessel, and any special
instruments required by the participant are to be borne by the
participant.
2. Indemnification and insurance for casualty or personal injury
on board the research vessels
The Institute of Cetacean Research and the crew of the re
search vessel or research team will not be able to take responsi
bility for any casualty or personal injury that might be inflict
ed upon the for~ign participants resulting from their negligence
or force majeure.
3. Cancellation of the participation
Any participants who are found to have intentionally sabotaged
in the course of implementation of the researches and thereby
impaired the execution of such researches shall be canceled of
their participation in this program.
POSSIBLE EFFECT ON CONSERVATION OF THE STOCK
The IWC Scientific Committee at its 42nd Annual Meeting agreed in
the course of Comprehensive Assessment of the stocks that the
estimated stock size of the minke whales in Area V was 294,610
(IWC/42/4;p.13). At the same meeting, a conservative interim
catch limit of 1,746 for Area V was calculated by the Scientific
Committee (IWC/42/4;p.18). As the research in Area Vis conducted
in every other year, the proposed sample size of 300 to be taken
in Area V for 1992/93 would be synonymous to the catch of 150 per
year on the basis of the average take over the two years. It is
clear that the take of this sample size would not affect the
conservation of the stock in any way.
5
374 Annex 143
OUTLINEOF THE 1992/93 SURVEY
Number of vessels
Gne factory ship (research base),
Three sighting-sampling vessels, and
Two sighting vessels*.
Survey period
From November 1992 to April 1993.
Survey area
Area V including all region of the Ross Sea.
Stratification of the research area and research
Cruise-tracks are same as in the surveys in the previous
years.
Sighting survey
One of the three sighting-sampling vessels is assigned
exclusively to sighting in Southern sub-areas.
Samples/data to be collected
1. Sighting data (including other whale species than minke
whales)
2. Biological samples/data
Stock identity, age, maturity, breeding, nutrition, distribu
tion of heavy metal, hormone, parasites and others.
3. Weather, oceanography, and environment
Environmental factors such as weather, sea ice, water tempera
ture, marine debris.
* These two vessels are used for this program after the end
of IDCR survey. The area for sighting survey by the Japanese
research program will be determined following the finalization
of the IDCR cruise plan for 1992/93 season.
6
375Annex 143
4. Biopsy and satellite telemetry (as feasibility studies)
Shooting test for attachment of the satellite telemetry trans
mitter to the whale body is planned on the shipboard.
7
376 Annex 144
144. Government of Japan, “The 1995/96 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in theAntarctic”, SC/47/SH3 (1995)
SC/47/SH3
Strictly confidential until after the discussion of the Scientific Committee
of the 47th IWC
The 1995/96 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
The Government of Japan
March 1995
INTRODUCTION
Japan has been conducting the research on minke whales under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA) every year since the 1987/88 season in compliance with Anicle V[l[ of
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Objectives of the research include
"estimation of biological parametets on minke whales" and "elucidation of Antarctic
ecosystem" which reasonably require a long-term continuous survey. The research
incorporates collecting biological data for the whainsparticular age data, which are of vital
importance to achieve these objectives and thus improve efficiency of the RMP when
implemented for this minke whale resource. The value of age data for fisheries assessment
is widely recognized by fisheries management agencies throughout the world; for example,
statements by the--highly respected International Council for the Exploration SeaK(lCES)
demonstrate its preference for having such data available as a basis for providing management
advice for a marine resource.
Since the beginning of the research, a number of practical modifications have been made on
the research in response to the comments made by the Scientific Committee (SC). In the
Committee, although "several members commented on the high quality of certain aspect of
the work" (IWC 1994, p61), the statistical precision with which it will be possible to estimate
certain biological parameters has been in dispute.
Basically this estimation will be made at theinal stage of the program, of which the entire
duration is scheduled to cover sixteen years. Although the statistical performance of the
estimation will improve as research is continued,data from JARP A surveys so far are not
sufficient to conclude this dispute because the observation period to date is too short (Tanaka
et aL, 1995 in prep).
Also, concernwas expressed in the SC last year that "despite efforts to obtain a representative
sample -of the-age distributions", "the sampled age distributions do not appear to be
representative of the population's age structure" (IWC 1994b). This point is reasonable at this
moment, because so ·far there is almost no information about attributes and age distribution
of animals which occur beyond the existing research areas. Therefore, it can be reasonably
concluded that conducting feasibility study on the minke whale stock identification adjacent
to the existing research area is a good starting point to address this concern.
377Annex 144
~'~t~i\i oan,ber of questions (for example, the implications of possible interactions
·~'V~iewhnle species and between whales and their prey species) were raised with regard
~;ttheestablishment of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS) in the past several IWC meetings
~:antdranswers to these questions remain in dispute. Study of the Antarctic marine ecosystem
.,._.is required to resolve these questions, and this relates directly to the second objective of the
:· program, "ecosystem". Aside from thertance of independent monitoring for
collecting fuOIcetacean species, including associated environmental variables, ·was
_also underlinede SC on the basis of several papers presented on this matter (i.e. Swartz
1994, Smith et al 1994).
To cope with these situation, JARPA was fully reviewed this year and the Govenunent of
Japan proposes a modified JARPA in this document. These modifications include pollution
studies and stock structure studies basedion of the survey area and increase
of minke whale samples.
MODIFIED RESEARCH OBJECTIVES THEIR MANAGEMENT NEEDS
The researchthe followingobjectives:
·(I) Estimation of biologicto contribtoward improved stock
management the Southern Hemisphere minke whales
(ll)Elucidatione role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem
(HI)Elucidatione effect of environmental changes on cetaceans
The first two objCC!_iveasre essentially what was specified by the GovemmenLw.llen JARPA
was initially planned (Government of Japan, 191:i7.)The third objective is a new addition this
year, and has been added in response to Commission resolutions regarding the environment
and pollution (Resolution on research on the environmental and whale stocks in 1994 and
Resolution on promotion of research related to conservation of large baleen whales in the
Southerneans 1994). These three objectives and their management needs can be
explained as follows:
(1) Biological Parameters
Estimationbiological parameters is still important even after adoption of the RMP. For
example, knowledge on natural mortality rates and recruitment rates contributes toward
estimating maximum net recruitment rates which arc the base for calculation of sustainable
yields. Earlier, the shortness of the time series of age data from the population has cauSed the
major difficultyieving this, and also in interpretover time. in age-at-maturity
The additional data provided by the continuation of JARPA can solve that problem. The RMP
has been designed to be robust over_a wide range of possible values of the maximum
sustainable yield rate (MSYR). Refinementfor the Southern Hemisphere min.ke
whale would allow even sounder managementlation under such a management
procedure.
2
378 Annex 144
In addition to the monality rate, verification or otherwise of the sciereleva on~the
RMP's small management area can lead to a better management under the RMP. Although
the :;mall area under theRMP is presently set up with a 10 degree longitude sector,
contin·Jous research on the differentiation of stocks, and seasonal migration patterns, will
allow for an improved choice.As "stock" definition is considered to be one of biological
parameters, improving the knowledge on the stock with continuationof the special permit
program can contribute .towards improved implementationof the RMP.
.(2) Marine Ecosystem and (3) Environmental Changes
The second and the third objectives are interrelated and discussed simultaneously here. These
objectives become more important as the establishmentof Southern Ocean Sanctuary was
passed by the Commission last year. Japan considers that the arguments advanced for
establishing the Southern Ocean Sanctuary are incorrect;it hopes to settle many of the
associated disputes raised at previous IWC meetings through scientific research.
At tbe Sanctuary Working Group in Norfolk Islandn 1994 some delegations argued that "the
San.-.tuarycould be used as a 'safety net' in case of the RMP, if applied, should proved to be
flawed" and suggested that "the RMP had not been fully evaluated with regard to
environmental impacts."Abiotic data on the environmental impacts along with biological data
provided by JARPA can address the issueof environmental effects to reproductive capability
of whales and achieve better management. Therefore, these objectives are relevant to the
management under the RMP.
Further, study on inter-species interactions with regard to habitat and prey species is an
essential step for a possible multi-species management. For example, the continued collection
of age data in cogjunction with sightings estimates of abundance (as iJ~A) has the
potentialto throw light on the hypothesized competition between blue and minke whales, by
clarifying whether the minke whale population increased at a time when blue whale numbers
declined considerablyas a result of unsustainable harvest levels.
Also, in general, the research has to be continued so as to avoid the situation that the
SanctUaf)' would render the Antarctic to be the Dark (Unknown) Oci:an for a future
management of this area.
NUMBER, SEX, SIZE, SITE OF MINKE WHALES TO BE TAKEN
(1) Number, Sex, Size, and Site
ln Area IV, three hundred (300) ordinary fonn minke whales with 10% allowances will be
sampled . Sampling design within therea [V remains unchanged to obtain data compatible
to the past JARPA surveys, and the sample size is also retained to ensure maintenance of
present levels of precision. All samples will be randomly sampled, using the: same
methodology as in the past.
In additionto this and for one year only at this stage, the existing survey area is to be
expanded to take:one hundred (100), with 10% allowances, ordinary form minke whales in
3
379Annex 144
the area between 35 and 70 degree E (the easrem half of Area III).
(2) Necessity of the Area Expans ion
The primary objective of the expansion is a feasibility study on stock identity. The study on
stock identity using JARPA samples has been largely based on mtDNA analysis. Such
analysis (Pastenc et 1994) hassupported the hypothesis of the occurrence of more than one
stock inAreas IV and V. MtDNA data also suggest that these hypothesized stocks could be
distributed under complex geographical and temporal patterns. A recent analysis of mtDNA
(Pastcne and Goto, 1995 in prep) suggests the possibility of temporal arid geographical
interaction of stocks in the western part of Area IV. Another analysis, which used body
proportion of minke whales obtained from JARPA, supported the above findings of the DNA
analysis (Fujise1995 in prep).These hypothesized stocks could be distributed beyond the
western boundary of the Area IV.
Independent analysis will play an important role to corroborate the hypothesis derived from
the DNA analysis . For example, Wada (1984) examined the movement of marked minke
whales in the Antarctic based on 64 recaptured animals and suggested that because movement
across80 degree East (western part of AreaIV) are less frequent than in adjacent longitude,
this line may represent a real biological stock boundary. Further studies about this
hypothetical boundary (i.e. seasonal changes) is desirable. The relationship berween the
finding of Wada (1984) and those derived from rotDNA analysis willbe examined in more
detail.
Through DNA analysis provide .important information to identify stocks, there are some cases
where DNA analysis alone has not been able to differentiate separate stocks, so that other
information -with UJc potential to do this must be collected. A comprehensivstudy will be
conducted with regard to stock identity based on existing samples from Area IV and V and
from samples obtained during the feasibility survey in the extended area (Area III EastIn
addition to mtDNA , analysis on isozyme, morphometry, morphology, pollutants will be
conducted. While DNA studies could be conducted using biopsy samples theoretically
(although the feasibility for obtaining an adequate number of samples in the Antarctic minke
whale is indispute), the other approaches such as isozym e, morphomca-y and morphology,
pollutants requires intcmal tissues. Parasites, which can be used as ecological marker,beill
also coUected to explore possible use for stock identification purpose ._At the same time
samples collected from Area m East will be examined for funber studies on stock structure
such as age composition , sexual and age segregation , etc. Stomach contents will be also
collected for ecological studies.
(3) Sample Size and Need for Lethal Sampling in the Expanded Area
With regard to the sample number for DNA research, the Workshop on the Genetic Analysis
of ~tacea nopulations "rec:omme.nds samp le sized of 20-50 from each population are
desirable and that these should be taken throughout the geological range" because cetacean
populations are often structured into groups of closely related animals (p.8, Hoelzel( ed.)l991).
Since ~o populations are to be analyzed, the recommended size comes to be 40-100. In the
past practice of JARPA, analysis of mtDNA variation used a total of 1,800 samples, and
4
380 Annex 144
pairwise comparisons have used over 100 samples from each group of rninke whales (with
one exception for the Area V cast in early season) to ensure reliability of the results.
Pollution analysis, which isanother study for stock structure, reasonably requires 20-30
samples from one sex of a single population group for statistical evaluations such as analysis
on pollutant accumulation by age. Since the both sex of two populations arc to be analyzed,
80-120 samples are necessary.
Further, sample number of 100 are expected to provide a reasonable amount of infonnation
on age distributions, .since analysis of existing JARPA data from Area IV suggests that
migration patterns are related to age.
Information cannot be obtained by non-lethal research methods such as biopsy sampling.
Comprehensive study on stock identity requires combined results of DNA analysis, allozime
analysis, morphological analysis, age dependent pollution analysis, parasite analysis,and
sexual/age segregation analysis. Many of the analyses use internal organs which carmot be
collected by any of existing non-lethal methods.
The analysis of samples from this expanded research area also will include comparison with
existing samples from Areas IV and V by JARPA.
(4) Availability of Existing Samples iArea Ill
Past samples, which were collected through commercial whaling in the Area m, do exist.
However, these samples arc limited to whales from ihe pack ice edge, anso do not represent
population components which do not migrate so far south. It is concluded that these past
samples are not sufficient to detect stock distribution and· its structure due to the limited
geographical rang ef the sampling site. In addition, the age data from The=commercial
samples arc biased due to the selective nature of the operation and, therefore, are not suitable
to qualitative analysis of stock structure such as segregation by age, etc.
(5) Environmental Studies -
The Commission passed a Resolution on research on the effect of environmental changes on·
cetaceans (IWC, 1994, Resolution 13). The factors of environmental changes include: (1)
wanning of the Earth; (2) depletion of ozone layers; (3) pollution; (4) direct and indirect
effect of fisheries; (5) noise. Studies on these factors require to take whales and analyze their
body structures, panicularly, internal organs in parallel to physical, chemical and biological
research on the environment.
Chemical analyses on tissues requires age data to identify the age dependent accumulation of
pollutants. Also it is necessary to study reproductive organs to understand the changes in
reproduction rates caused by environmental changes ancarry out a pathological examination
on the function of various organs. Analysis on accumulation of heavy metals such as
cadmium requires a long period monitoring.Interms of sea pollution analysis, whale samples
arc complement those available from otherspecies such as sealsor penguins. The particular
advantage of whales is that they arc not restricted by land based breeding sites, and so
5
381Annex 144
integrate infonnation over wide ranges, whereas these other predators may refleo only
localized effects. Minke whales are recognized as an indicator species for the Antarctic by
CCAMLR. The Scientific Committee of CCAMLR "noted that the minke whale was one of
the original indicator species" under CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Programme (Report
of the 11th meeting of the CCAMLR).
(6) Considerations on the Research on the Existing Area
Data con1parability from the past JARPA surveys will be fully considered in the existing
research area. ln order to at least maintain searching effort in per unit area, one additional
sighting-sampling vessel will be employed.
Sighting data will be collected along with the biological samples. Major objective of the
sighting survey is to provide infonnationon the trend in abundance to improve the usefulness
of the age data in analyses. The same searching method will be employed year by year to
keep data compatibility .The level of searching effort which will maximize this usefulness
(within overall operational constraints) will be investigated, and adaptations made in the
future, if necessary, provided that this can be done without jeopardizing other important
components of the research.
RESEARCH NEEDS ON TOOTI1ED WHAlES
To strengthen the:"ecological" and "environmental" objectives of JARPA, potential usefulness
on analyzing toothed whales, such as beaked whales, wiLl be examined prior to a possible
research take of this species in the later years.
Stomach contents-Ofstranded animals (Sekiguchi et al., 1992) have shown that..h;.akcd whales
are in the higher trophic level than baleen whales.An estimate of abundance of the beaked
whales, most of which are Southern bottlenose whales, was at least several hundred thousand
animals (Ohsurni et al., 1994). ln the Area IV, Kasamatsu (1993) estimated abundance of
beaked whales (mostly Southern bottlenose whales) that was obtained by the IDCR sighting
survey in tbe Antarctic is 115,100. These indicate beaked wHales play a significant role in the
Antarctic ecosystem.
These whales have not been much utilized in the past and little knowledge has been obtained
on their biology. Due to the lack of past sampling experience, the degree of difficulty in
obtaining specific samples is unknown. To include at least one sample from various sex and
sexual stages from the animals which might be segregated by age or sex, an appropriate
sampling methods will be considered . Also, further studies will be madeinorder to look into
feasibilityof using this species to elucidate Antarctic ecosystem and environment.
EFFECf ON STOCK
On the last occasion that calculations wc:recarried. ointhe SC to evaluate the effect of such
catches on stocks (lWC 1989), the Sub-Committee on Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales
applied the HITTER procedure, together with the best estimate of abundance for the research
Area in question, for a number of MSY rates.
382 Annex 144
This process has been updated (Butterworth and Geromont, 1995), using value of biological
parameters as agreed in the Comprehensive Assessment of Southern Hemisphere minke
whales (IWC 1991). The population estimates used were those selected at the time by the SC
for assessments : the 1987/88 IDCR survey result for Area III, and the 1988189 suiVey result
forArea IV. For Area IV, the future catch scenario examined is a take of 300 animals every
alternate year untile planned end of the program in 2002. Even for MSYR(maturc) = 1%,
which seems unrealistically low given the obseiVed growth rates of other baleen whale
populations, the population is projectedincrease slightly under the level of catch proposed .
.his indicates no harmful effects on stocks.
For Area III, the proposal involves a take of 100 animals in the 1995/96 season onlyAn
increase occurs even if MSYR(mature) = 1% only. However, since this take is proposed for
the easternhalf of Area III, it may be more appropriate to perform calculations for the
population estimateand historic catches for that region only. Again, increases occur also if
MSYR(mature)is only 1%. Once more, therefore, no harmful effect on stocks is.indicated.
1995/96 SURVEY PlAN
Based upon the above considerations, the suiVey for 1995/96 will be carried out as follows:
(1) Number of vessels
One factory ship (research base), Four sighting/samplivessels (one vessel is newly added
to increase sighting and sampling efficiency).
(2) Survey period
From November 1995 to April 1996.
(3)S~rv cra
35-130 degree E (eastern part of Area III and entire Area IV), the area south of 60 degree
S.
(4) Stratification of the research area
The entire research area is divided into six . sub- areas . The
sub-areas of IIIEN and ITIES arc feasibility areas, while other sub-areas arc designated as
main research areas.
(5) Sigbtings SuiVey method
Survey will be conducted as in Lliepast, except that the previous practice of 1 sighting-only
and 2 sighting-and sampling vessels will be charged to l sightings - onlyand 3
sighting-sampling vessels.
(6) Sampling method
When suiVey vessels engaging in a sampling operation find a school of ordinary fonn minke
whales , one such whale is taken from the school randomly according to the previous method
.to attempt to secure the fair representativee samples.
7
383Annex 144
(7) Survey items and samples to be collected
a.Resc:arcb on minke whalcs;(see survey and sampling items of tbe previous cruises)
b.Ncw research items on tbe effect of environmental changes;
l.New items for oceanographic srudies
2.New studies on sampled animals
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN TiiE RESEARCH BY SCIENTISTS OF
OTiiER NATIONS
No change from the previous plan. ·
REFERENCES
Butterworth and Geromont, 1995 in prep
On the.provision of advice on the effect on stock(s) of scientific pennit catches with
particular reference to the proposed research catches minke whales from Antarctic
Areas III and IV.
Fujise. Y., Zenitani, R., Kato. H. and KishiDo, H. 1994.
Age distributions of .nllnke whales in the Antarctic Areas IV and Vin1991/92 and
1992/93 Seasons. SC/46/SH20 :
Fujise 1995, in prep;
Results on preliminary analysis on body proponions of minke whales inthe Antarctic
Area rv.
Government of France. 1992:
A Southern Ocean Sanctuary. IWC/44/19. 15pp.
Government of Japan. 1987:
The program for research on the Southern Hemisphere minke whale and for
. preliminary research on the marine ecosystemin the Antarctic SC/39/04 . 57pp.
Hoelzel (ed). 1991.
Generic ecology of whales and dolphins. Rep. Int. Whal Commn (Special Issue 13)
: 311pp.
I.W.C. 1989.
Repon of the Scientific Committee, Rep. Int.WhaL Comrnn 39:76-77 .
I.W.C. 1991.
Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. Int. What. Commn 41:41-201.
I.W.C. 1994.
Report of the Scientific Committee, Rep. Int. What. Commn 44:41-201 , 69.
I.W.C. 1994b
Report of the Scientific Committee (Mexico), i.oprim
Kasamatsu. F. 1993:
Studies on distribution, migration and abundance of cetacean populalions in the
Antarctic waters. Doctoral Thesis Paper. 262pp.
Ohsumi. S., Kawasaki, M. and Nishiwaki. S. 1994.
8
384 Annex 144
Biological Results of beaked whales surveyed by Japanese whale Research programme
under sp~ia pennit in the Antarctic and the need of their research take.
S0'46/SM15:24pp.
Pastene.LA. , Goto. M., Fujise. Y. and Numachi. K 1994.
Further analysis on the spatial and temporal heterogeneitymitochondrial DNA
haplotype distributionin minke whales from Antarctic Areas rv and v.
SC/46/SH13:25p,p.
Pastcne.•A. and Goto, M. 1995 in prep.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis in the Antarctic minke whale:summary of the RELP
analysis of the whole MtDNA. SC/47/SH -
Sekiguchi.K, Klages, N., Findlay. K and Best. P. 1992.
Feeding habits and possible movementsf Southern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon
planifrons). Proc. NIPR Symp. polar Bioi.,:
Smith. T., Polacheck. T. and Swartz. S. 1994.
The roleof Science in resource management: The international Whaling Commission's
revised management procedure. SC/46/Mg9:
Swartz, S.L 1994.
The role of independent monitoring of living marine resources and the RMP.
SC/46/MgS.
Tanaka et a! 1995
The resultofmonality analysis of Antarctic minke whales, in print
Wada. S. 1984.
Movements of marked minke whales in the Antarctic Rep. Int. Whale commn 34 :
349-55
9
385386 Annex 145
145. Government of Japan, “Some Counter Comments on the Past IWC Resolution”,
IWC/48/36 (1996)
IWC/48/36
Agenda item 14
SOMECOUNTERCOMMENTS ONTHE PAST'IWCRESOLUTION
Submitted 'by Japan
'
INTRODUCTION
The IWC in-•1995 adothe Resolution on Whaling under Spec(IWCPermit
Resolutio1995-9) . AlthotheIWC Resolutioare.notlegally 'binding
instrumentspecial attenshouldbe given to some ·parts of the Resolution,
'which have legal i'mplications, to avoid similar mistakes this year or in the future.
LEGALANALY ASNDNTERPRETATIONS·'·
1. Conflicts with the A:i-ticle VIII of the Convention
Many parts of this Resoare in conflict with 'the Convention .<The preambl e
of thresolu 'reiadns -~, ~,._···:·. \-..,
WHEREAS. ContractG~er~in ennxrcS,g theirrights
under"ArticVIII, should ' NEVERTHELESS rfull y the
Commission's arrangetecntsser whealaesdensurthat
killing, taking .anof.whales for scientificis onlych
' undertakein•a1mannercbn.'~stisih the'rovisionand
.· ' ,, :·,, :.: ,-.
principof the Convention .·<e,mphasis a,dded)
.,! •
The Resolution admits, . b"NEVERTHELESS". in its text , that the stated
arrangem ent s have conflicwith Article VIII:'from th is, special
consideratishouldbe given to the position as to: howtreathisld
particulResolution ln ;to avoadpotential infringof other legally
binding prov'si.-hConve nn...•1hedU:le.
·{'
2. Conflict with the Report of the Scientific Committee
Also, it be arguethat the Resolutiori does nreflect the debate at
the Scientific Committee at ~:hathprrambleparagra<reads ·:
WHEREA:with thdeevlr~itpfmddl'rri scient 'ific teehnlques ·it
is no~ecess takllwh.aies to o·theiriformationishat
1
387Annex 145
needed for initial implementation of the Revised Management
.Procedure for a particularwhale stock;
This description directly contradictthe Report of the Scientific Committee in 1995
(IWC/ 47/4) which st~ "Thee Commi 'rcotnzede that there are a number of
ways toestimate mixing rates (e.g. from marking data; from telemetry data; from
data on biological markers)." Thus the Scientific Committee recognizes that lethal
sampling provides important information on mixing rates, which is essential for the
simulation trials for initial implementation of the RMP.
The possibility cannot be excluded that this .incorrepreamble paragraph could
have misled the Commissioners' 'debate before the voting. ;Therefore,special
attention should also "be requirein applying some of the requests contained in
this Resolution.
3. Conflict with the Schedule of the Convention
One operative paragraph of Resolution -1995-9 states:
RECOMMENDSthat scientificresearch intended to assist the
comprehensive assessment of whale stocks and the implementation
of the Revised Management Procedure shall be undertaken by
non-lethal means;
And another operative paragraph of the Resolutionst<;~tes:
AGREESthat this -Resolution replaces the ,Resolutions adopted in
1986 and 1987 on Special Permit whaling (Report of IWC,37;38).
The Resolution in 1987 stipulates that "the research address a question or
questions that should be answered in order to conduct the comprehensive
assessment or to meet other critically important research need "
(Rep.int.Whal.Commn 38:27-8).
In 1995, without any explicit scientifiarguments, this .criteriowas suddenly
altered .It is extremely difficultto find a good faith interpretation for this
alteration.Itcan be argued that Contracting GOvernments and /or the Scientific
Committee, if ~cti asnrgcommended 'in 1995, may face a danger that the action
might violate the condition stipulatin Paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule of the
Convention, which is legally qinding and reads "this provision ,will be kept under
review, based on the best scientific advise", because any exclusion of the potential
of particular research from the scientific discussions cannot lead to the best
388 Annex 145
scientific advice.
Similar problems arise from the 'following recommendation :
RECOMMENDSthatifwhalea~ kell ~n~ddherprovisioof
Article VIII of the Cothis shoube done in a manner
consistwith the provisofoSe~~IIIf theiSchedule;
.The provisions of the Section III of the Schedule are not applicable tothe research
under the Sp:- -l :P'ro.i. and, therefore,..t'is r·ecoinmendation violates the right of
contractGovernments to exercise the pof Article VIII.
In this regard, .the other Resolin .1995 (IWCResolution on Whaling
UnderSpec Pie~ln·StctuarieRes~l u9t-) lnohaexa~ tteame
problem.
3
389390 Annex 146
146. Government of Japan, “The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in theAntarctic”, SC/48/SH3 (1996)
SC/48/SH3
Strictlyconfidential until after the discussion of the Scientific Committee of the 48trwc
The 1996!97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
Government of Japan
April 1996
CONTENTS
I. lntroduction
ll. Objectives of the research
l!L Number, sex, size and stock of minke whales to be taken
lV. Research needs in the existing area
V. Research needs in the expanded area
VI. Possible effect on stock
Vll. Opportunity for participation by foreign scientists
VIII. Outline of 1996!97 Research
lX. References
I. INTRODUCITON
The Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) has
been conducted every year since the 1987/88 season in compliance with Article VIII of the
lnternational Conventii>n for the Regulation of Wbaling. After two seasons of feasibility
research in 1987/88 and 1988189, full-scale research started in the 1989/90 season
(Government of Japan, 1989).
JARPA is designed to repeat surveys in the Antarctic Areas lV and V in every alternate year
during the sixteen year research period. "Estimat!onf biological paiametcrs of minke whale
stock" .and "elucidationf the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem", which are the major
objectives of JARPA, reasonably require a long-term continuous survey (Government of
Japan, 1987). The statistical performance .of the estimation will improve as research is
continued .
Various research papers derived from JARPA have been annually reported to the IWC. ln
1990 some of these contributed to the Comprehensive Assessment of the Southern
Hemisphere Minke Whales carried out by the IWC Scientific Committee (IWC, 1991). ln the
recent Scientific Committee reports, it was noted that "several members commended on the
high quality of certain aspect of the work" {lWC, 1995), and that "Several members
commented on the high quality of much of the work that had been presented over the years
of this proposal" {!WC, 19.96) and also that "Other members believed that the proposal
adequately fulfill the Commitiee's guidelines" (lWC, 1996).
Since the beginning of the research, a number of practical modifications have been made on
the research in response to the comments made by the S.cientific Committee. At the 1994
391Annex 146
annual. meeting of the Scientific Committee, a comment was made that "age distribution
samples does not represent age composition of the group of whales "; suggesting the
possibility that the research area does not cover the entire stock.
[t was concluded that conducting feasibility study onthe identification of minkc whale stock
adjacent to the existing research areaisa good starting point to address this concern.In the
1995!96 season, the conventional survey area was expanded to the west (into the eastern half
of Area III) and sampling of 100 (+-10%) minke whales was planned in the new feasibility
area (Government of Japan, 1995). The existing researchin the Area IV has kept unchanged
with a sample size of 300 (+-10%) to maintain a long-teim consistency of survey in this
area.
. .
·In the 1996/97 season, a similar adjustment to the conventional survey area will be made to
encompass the western half of Area VI for a limited period as a feasibility study. The
research in Area V will be maintained in order to achieve consistent data accumulation in
this conventional survey area.
II. OBJECTIVES OF JARPA
The research has the following four objectives:
(1) Elucidation of the stock structure of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales to
improve the stock management
(2) Estimation of biological parameters of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales to
improve the stock management
(3) Elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem tluough whale
feeding ecology
(4) Elucidation of the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans
The first three objectives are essentially as established by the Government of Japan when
JARPA was initiall.y planned (Government of Japan, 1987). The last objective was added from
the 1995!96 season inresponse to the three resolutions below (lWC, 1995c, 1995d):
o Resolution on research on the environment and whale stocks (IWC
Resolution 1994-13) ·
o Resolution on promotion of research related to conservation of large
baleen whales in the Southern Oceans (IWC Resolution 1994-12)
o Resolution on research on the environment and whale stocks (IWC
Resolution 1995-10)
UL NUMBER, SEX, SlZE AND SAMPLING AREA OF MlNK.EWHALES TO BE TAKEN
ln Area V (130E - 170W), three hundred (300) ordinary form minke whales with 10%
allowances (+- 10%) will be sampled. ln order to obtain samples that can be comparable to
the existing samples, the previous JARPA sampling method will be retained. The number of
.;. SaJ11plcswithin Area V will be kept unchanged in order to maintain the precision of various
2
392 Annex 146
estimations. All samples will be collected randomly as in the previous research and no
selection will be madein tenns of sex and length.
Jp addition to this, and for only one or two research seasons at this stage, 100 animals
(+-1 0%) of the ordinary-type minke whale will be sampled inthe western part of Area VI
(170W- 14SW).
IV. RESEARCH NEEDS IN TilE EXI:STING AREA
Detailed discussions regarding the research needs in the conventional JARPA survey areas
in Areas IV and V has presented in the originaJ research proposal (Government of Japan,
1987). The following are some up-to-date supplements on this topic.
(1) Stock identification
Information on stock identification is of fundamental importance to the efficient application
of the RMP. Comprehensive information on stock structure will make possible the accurate
establishment of smaU areas for the purpose of the RMP application. JARPA can collect the
comprehensive informatiC?D on stock structure incorporating genetic morphology,
n:torphometric, pollution accumulation and parasite infection for a multi factor analysis
approach.
(2) Biological parameters
Estimation of biological parameters is importanteven after the initial application of the
Revised Management Procedure (RMP). The RMP has been designed to be robust over a
range of possible values of the maximum sustainable yield rate (MSYR). Refinement of this
range for the Southern Hemisphere minke whale would allow even sounder management of
the population under such a management procedu~e.
Natural mortality rates and recruitment rates arc useful parameters for the estimation of the
maximum sustainable yield rate (MSYR) which defines MSY. If a good estimate of MSYR
can be obtained, more rational utilization and management of stocks under the RMP will be
made possible. The JARPA surveys collect age data of whales which are vitally important for
this purpose. Also, in general, the high value of age data for fisheries assessment is widely
recognized for fisheries assessment throughout the world.
ln addition, clarification of possible trenin age at maturity contributes to deepening
understanding of species interactions in the Antarc(~<l and Sakuramoto 1991).
(3) Antarctic ecosystem (feeding ecology)
Study on inter- species interactions with regard to habitat and prey species is an essential step
for future multi-species management. The concept of multi- species management has drawn
a worldwide attention at various recent meetings related to fisheries management. For
example, the 95 States, meetinin December last year at the [ntcmational Conference on the
Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security, adopted the Kyoto Declaration and
3
393Annex 146
::~dert toootkdy the effectiveness of multi species management. In response to these new
developments , JARPA will strengthen studies in this area.
Feeding ecology studies on minke whales by analyzing stomach contents and blubber volume
obtained through JARPA is expected to elucidate the role of minke whales in the Antarctic
marine ecosystem. Main food of minke whales is Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) in the
seasonal pack-ice zone, while E.crystallorophias and nototheniid fish Pleuragramma
antarcticum are partly substituting E.supcrba in the high-Antarctic Zone in the Ross Sea and
Pryzc Bay. Changes in these prey availability and their possible effects on minkc whales arc
expected to be detected by monitoring the feeding conditions and consequential fat storage
of minke whales.
Recently, changes in the Antarctic food web have been increasingly documented on a regional
scale such as a recent dramatic increase of Adelie penguin population in the Ross Sea of
Area V (Blackburn et al., 1991). Continuous study of stomach contents and blubber volume
is, therefore, expected to make contributions for the elucidation of the interaction of minkc
whales with other key factors (i.e. other top predators, prey species, and ocean environment)
in the Antarctic food web.
(4) Antarctic environment .
lt is considered that, as a result of the establislunent of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (IWC,
1995c), needs for research on the ecosystem and the environment inthis ocean region have
increased further. Legal and scientific justifications arc quite far from sufficient for the
establishment of Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the Government of Japan has iodged ihe
objection pursuant to the provision of the Convention. In this respect, too, JARPA will further
amplify its importance as a continuous monitoring tool toward a review of the sanctuary.
At the Sanctuary Working Group in Norfolk Island in 1994, some delegations argued that "the
RMP had not been fully evaluated with regard to environmental impacts". If this is the case,
abiotic data on the environmental impacts along with biological data provided by JARPA can
address the issue of environmental effects on the reproductive capability of whales and, thus,
JARPA can make a major contribution toward the improved management and conservation
of the whale resources.
Recent JARPA results show that an organochlorine compound "polychlorinated biphenylcs
(PCBs)" has been accumulated, although in smaUamount, in the Antarctic minkc whale, and
shows an increasing trend annually (fanabc et al., 1995). This indicates that PCBs, released
into the environment from countries in the Northern Hemisphere, have extended to the
Antarctic via atmospheric movement, suggesting that environmental contamination is
advancing on a global scale. It is necessary to take appropriate actions to ensure continuous
monitoring through international cooperation.
As pollutants arc accumulated in the whale body year by year, information not only on their
accumulation level but also on the age of individual animals will become useful to understand
the trendof the contamination. Effects of pOllutants on the whale body will be mainly in the
form of cancer and metabolic disorder, the data on which can be obtained only through lethal
researches.
4
394 Annex 146
(5) Research needs on toothed whales
Stomach contents of stranded animals (Sckiguchi et al., 1992) have shown that beaked whales
are in a higher trophic level than baleen whales. The estimated abundance of the beaked
whales, most of which arc Southern bottlenose whales, is at least several hundred thousand
animals (Ohsumi et al., 1994). This indicates beaked whales play an important role in the
Antarctic ecosystem. To strengthen the ecological and environmental objectives of JARPA,
the potential usefulness on analyzing beaked whales will be examined.
The initial research will be feasibility studies to examine the practicality of obtaining samples
of Southern bottlenose whales (as this has not been attempted) and very limited number of
research sampling will be planned (though not immediately, i.e. DOtin 1996/97) in a manner
which ensures that the catch are well spread over the entire research area.
These initial samples will allow analyses on morphology, sex, age (if possible), reproductive
status, stomach contents, andpollutants. After examining the results of this feasibility study,
further studies to elucidate Antarctic ecosystem and environment will be planned.
V. RESEARCH NEEDS I:N TilE EXPANDED AREA
(1) Objective
The main objective of the expansion is a feasibility study to further elucidate stock identity,
strucrure, and distribution cf mL,Xewhales.
Although IWC had used six areas for management of baleen whales (except Bryde's whale)
in the Southern Hemisphere, it has been suggested that different stock migrates into these
areas during the austral summer season (IWC, 1991). A large scale mtDNA survey that used
minke whale samples taken by JARPA in Area IV and V, has demonst:Iated that the stock
structure of minke whales in the Antarctic is more complex than was.thought initially, and
involves both spatial and temporal components. Based on the results of the mtDNA analysis,
Pastene ct. al.(l995) hypothesized that a large group ("core stock") migrate into Area V and
eastern part of Area [V in most of the years, and that a different group ("western stockn),
i probably originating from Area III, is distributed in the western part of Area IV during the
early period of the feeding season.
Also, analyses of poUutant using past commercial samples from Antarctic Areas IV, V, and
VI suggested some level of variations of PCB and DDE concentration (nglg wet wt.) in
Soutbem Hemisphere minke whal=s at different localities (fatekawa ct. al., 1990).
ln addition, the examination of age composition of min.kewhales in the Ross Sea has shown
a lack of young individuals (Fujise and Kishino, 1994). A possibility is that the young
component of the population is distributed in offshore area of the eastern part of Area V
and/or in Area VI.
ln the 1995/96 season, research catches were made in the eastern part o.fArea lil in order to
compare the mtDNA of these whales with those of the "western" and "core" stocks and to
5
395Annex 146
corroborate results of mtDNA analysis using other approaches (morphometric, poUutants, etc).
ln the 1996/97 season, the eastward expansion of the "core stock"·will be examined. For this
purpose, efforts will be made to sample animals from offshore areas of the eastern part of
Area V (where past whale sample size still small) and from the western part of Area VI. A
total of 100 animals (+/-10%) will be taken in the latter sector.
(2) Discussion on the proposed sample size
With regard the genetic approach, Pastene and Kishino (in prep.) estimated that a sample size
of approaching 200 individuals is necessary to detect significant differences in mtDNA
between putative stocks of Antarctic minke whale with a Type I error 5% and a Type II error
25%. The simulation study was based in the degree of difference between the hypothesized
"western" and "core" stocks in Area IV and V, as determined using RFLP analysis.
The decision to sample 100 whales from the western part of Area VI is based on the
presumption that this sample size should besufficient to detect a difference between the "core
stock" and a possible separate stock in !he east. If the genetic difference between these two
is somewhat larger than that between the two stocks found in the west, a sample size smaUcr
than 200 would be sufficient. If, however, the 100 samples proves too small to detect a
genetic difference, a larger overall sample size will be needed. ln this case, a further scientific
take from Area VI will be scheduled in a later year.
Pollution analysis, which is another subject of study for stock identity, reasonably requires
20-30 samples from each sex of a single population group for statistical evaluations such as
analysis on pollutant accumulation by age. Since two age groups arc to be analyzed by sex,
80-120 samples are necessary.
Also, sample size of 100 is expected to provide a reasonable amount of information on age
distributions. Analysis of the past JARPA data suggests that migration patterns are related to
·age and, therefore, age data is useful to comprehend a stock distribution or age specific
segregation.
(3) Applicability of non-lethal methods
Although samples for DNA analysis can be collected through biopsy, lclhal means is
necessary irithis proposed survey. As was mentioned above, stock identification should be
investigated using a multi-factor analysis approach, and most of these factors require lethal
methods.
Comprehensive information for stock analysis using multi-factors cannot be obtained by
non- lethal research methods such as biopsy sampling. A in depth study on stock identity
requires combined results of DNA analysis, allozymc analysis, morphometric analysis, age
dependent pollution analysis, parasite analysis, and sexual/age segregation analysis. Many of
such analyses usc internal organs which cannot be collected by any of the existing non-lethal
methods.
The analyses of samples from this expanded research area also include comparison with
6
396 Annex 146
existing samples from Areas rv and V by JARPA. In depth comparison can be achieved when
the same level of information is collected in the new research area. Apan from the mtDNA
analysis other methods are being used to examine material already collected from Area IV
~~ .
Also, research can be undertaken more efficiently in many lethal methods than non-lethal
methods. Collecting 100 samples from biopsy alone in one season would be almost
impossible. Past JARPA cruises attempted to collect biopsy samples, and proved that biopsy
attempts in the rough seacondition in the Antarctic have markedly low success rate (Fujise
et. al., 1995).
(4) Availability of existing samples inArea VI
Past samples, which were collected through commercial whaling in the Area VI, do exist.
However, these samples arc limited to whales from the pack ice edge, and so do not represent
population components which do not migrate so far south.
)The accumulation level of pollutants, such as heavy metals and PCBs which are a valuable
indicator for stock identification, changes year by years. Materials in the same or near-by
years arc most appropriate to assure reliable comparisons.
In addition, the age data from the commercial samples are biased due to the selective nature
of the operation and, therefore, are not suitable for in depth analysis of stock structure such
as segregation by age.
It is concluded that these past samples are not sufficient to establish stock distribution and its
structure due to the limited geographical range of the past commercial sampling sites.
VI. POSSffiLE EFFECT ON TilE STOCK
ln the comprehensive assessment of the Southern Hemisphere m.inkc whales at the 42nd
meeting of the IWC Scientific Committee, the rninke whale abundance was estimated at
294,610 for Area V and 106,901 for Area VI (IWC, 1991:p.59). The precision estimates for
l these Areas yield lower5% confidence limits of 236,560 for Area V and 68,349 for Area VI.
If the standard "Hitter- Fitter" population model is applied to Area V, the current mature
female population is estimated to be over 90% of its size before commercial harvesting
started, even under the extremely conservative assumptions of MSYR=l% for the mature
component of the stock and abundance equal to the lower 5% confidence limit obtained from
the sighting survey. The mature females in Area Vl are also found to be over 90% of their
initial size under these assumptions.
The scientific program of research plans a catch of 300 whales every second year in Area V,
and calculations have also allowed for catchesof 100 whales from Area VI in both 1996/97
and 1998/99. Results from Hitter- Fitter show thatfor both Areas, under the catches planned
the mature female component of the stock will be larger at the end of the research program
in 2003 than at present (Butterworth, 1996). It is concluded therefore that such catches will
7
397Annex 146
have no adverse effect on the stocks concerned.
VII. OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION BY FOREIGN SCIENTISTS
This is thesame as in the previous research programs (participation is welcomed under the
conditions prepared by the Government of Japan).
Vlll.OUTLlNE OF 1996!97 RESEARCH
(1) Number of research vessels
One research factory ship, 3 sighting/sampling vessels, and 1 dedicated sighting vessel
(2) Research period
From November 1996 to April 1997
(3) Research area
The area from 130 degree East and 145 degree West (entire Area V and western part
of Area VI of the Antarctic), the area south of 60 degree South.
(4) Sighting method
The method of sighting survey is the same as in the past years. As last year, one
dedicated sighting vessel and three sighting-sampling vessels will be used.
(5) Sampling method
As in the sampling method employed to date, one whale is selected randomly from
a group of ordinary rninke whale which sighting-sampling vessel finds and the
representativeness of samples is ensured.
IX. REFERENCES
Blackburn, N., Tayler, R.H. and Wilson, P.R. (1991) An interpretation of the growth of the
Adelie penguin rookery at Cape Royds, 1955-1990, N.ZJ .Ecol., 15:117-121
Butterworth, D. S., 1996. The effect on stocks of proposed scientific pcnnit catches of minke
whales from Antarctic Areas V and VI and from the North Pacific. SC/48/03
Fujisc, Y., and Kishino, H. 1994. Patterns segregation of minke whales in Antarctic Areas
IV and V asrevealed by a logistic regression model. Paper SC/46/SHU presented to
the IWC Scientific Committee , May 1994 (unpublished) 23pp.
fujisc, Y., K.ishiro, T., Zcnitani., R., Matsuoka, K,. Kawasaki, M., and ShimamotK. 1995
Cruise report of the Japanese whale research program under special permit for North
Pacific rninkc whales in 1994. SC/47/NP3 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,
May 1995 (unpublish ed) 29pp.
398 Annex 146
Government of Japan. 1987. The programme for research on the Southern Hemisphere minke
whale and for preliminary research on rhe marine ecosystem in rhe Antarctic. Paper
SC/39/04 presented to rhe IWC Scientific Committee, June 1987 (unpublished). 60pp..
Government of Japan. 1989. The research plan in 1989/90 in conjunction with note for "The
programme for research on the Southern Hemisphere minke whale and for preliminary
research on the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic (SC/39/04)". Paper SC/41/SHMi13
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1989 (unpublished). 21pp.
Government of Japan. 1995. The 1995/96 research plan for the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic. Paper SC/47/SH3 presented to the
IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995 (unpublishw). 9pp.
International Whaling Commission. 1991. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Wbal.
Commn 41:51-219.
International Whaling Commission. 1995. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 45;53-221.
International Whaling Commission. 1996. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 46 (in press)
International Whaling Commission. 1995c. Chainnan's report of the 46th Annual Meeting.
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:15-52.
International Whaling Commission. 1995d. Chairman's report of the 47th Al'lnual Meeting.
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46 (in press)
Kasamatsu, F. 1993. Studies on distribution, migration and abundance of cetacean populations
in the Antarctic waters. Doctoral Thesis. University of Tokyo. 262pp.
Kato, H. and Sakurarnoto, K., 1991. Age at sexual maturity of Southern minke whales: A
review and some additional analyses. Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 41:331-337
Ohsumi, S., Kawasaki, M., and Nishiwaki, S., 1994. Biolog.ical results of beaked whales
surveyed by Japanese whale research· program under special permit in the Antarctic
and the need of their research take. SC/46/SM15:24pp.
Pastcne,L A., Goto, M. and Itoh, S. 1995. Spatial and temporal patterns of mitochondrial
DNA variation in minke whale from Antarctic Areas rv and V. Paper SC/47/SH6
presented at the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995 (unpublished). 23pp.
Pastene,LA. and Kishino, H. (in prep). Further RFLP Analysis of mitochondrial DNA in
the Antarctic minke whale including samples from Area Ill.
Sekiguchi. K., Klages, N., Findlay, K., and Best, P., 1992. Feeding habits and possible
movements of Southern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon planifrons). Proc.NlPR Symp.
polar Bioi., 5
9
399Annex 146
Tanabe, S., Aono, S., Fujisc, Y., Kato, Hand Tatsukawa, R. 1995. Persistent
organochlorine residues in the Antarctic minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata.
Paper SCJM95/P13 presented to the Workshop on Chemical Pollution and Ceta ce3.Ils,
March 1995 (unpublished). 6pp.
Tanaka, E. and Nakamura, T. 1995. Preliminary estimation of average natural mortality
coefficientf southern minke whales using JARPA data. Paper SC/47/SHS presented
.to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995 (unpublished). 10pp.
Tatckawa, R., Saito, S., Yamazaki, M., Tanabe, S., and Honda, K.,1990. Ecochemical
·approach using persistent environmental contaminants as tracers to understand the
feeding, migratory and reproductive characteristics of southern minke whale aimed at
their conservation, management and reasonable whaling, 1990; Report of the Nissan
Science Foundation Vol., 13: pp.l - 8.
10
400 Annex 146
\ib
,L--,
~~ ·Jc ?oo
/1~
lF~ . . ~ c
c·· '1
-/~. ./
-~ ~
I D
~
I
AREA IV AREA V AREA VI
I I I I I
VWN
v~l-1 mw
.~v·~~~~
~ -rrws.·..·. _·
\~~
V£.5 ~v~
DN~ . ..
I ) . .. . .
Fig. Researc fJARPAi69i.
401402 Annex 147
147. Burke W T, “The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern Ocean ▯
Sanctuary”, IWC/50/27 (1998)
IWC/50127
Item. 13
The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary
Submitted by Japan
Japanese delegation endorses the attached paper by Prof.
William T. Burke of University of Washington, USA, titled "The
Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary'" with a 3 page executive summary.
This paper summarizes previously presented arguments and
~siders two additional aspects: a critique of new arguments in a
paper published after the 49e• Meeting in 1-!onaco, which position is
to support the IWC decision to establish the Southern Ocean
Sanctuary in 1994: duties of the IWC and its member states related
to the settlement of disputes under the ICRW and its
interpretation, given the situation that UNCLOS procedures have
already come into force.
The Government of Japan has drawn the Commissioners' attention
to this issue and has contributed three papers and or.e summary
.document tabled at the last three IWC Annual Meetings. It is our
strongly held view that the Commission already has sufficient
documentation and analyses on the issue to enter substantial
discussion, and that whether the rwc considers this issue sincerely
1 in good faith or fails to do so is the measure of its
credibility as an international organization based on a formal
agreement among governments.
- 311 -
403Annex 147
EXECUTIVE SUL\'L"\IARY
The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
Earlier memoranda tabled by Japan establish that the SOS decision ..,iolatedArticle V(2)
of the ICRW in several ways, as follows: it conflicts directly with the objectives and purposes
of the ICRWas established in the preambular clauses thereof; it is unnecessary to carry out the
treaty purposes; it does not provide for optimum utilization of whale resources; it is not
supported by scientific findings; and it fails to give consideration to the consumers of whale
products or to the whaling industry. Valid decisions of the Commission must satisfy these
requirements. For these several reasons, which have never been adequately discussed by the
Commission or its members, the decision to establish the SOS is ultra vires.
This memorandum considers some new arguments published recently to support an
earlier opinion that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary decision did not violate the ICRW. In light
of thisrenewedeffort to defendthis decisiori,it is useful to reemphasize the reasons this decision
is ultravires and to respond brieflyto the new arguments. It also requires notice that the coming
into forceofthe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) now provides a
disputesettlement procedure agreed to by nearly all parties to the ICRW. With the availability
of this procedure, it is now even more evident than before that it is unacceptable that the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) continues to affirm that it is the sole judge of the
validity of its acts.
Prominent inthe new arguments are a number of conceptsand principles of recent origin
that are saido be pertinent to the ICRW. The main contention is that these new concepts and
principles - - virtually none being found in binding international agreements as opposed to
nonbinding declarations, statements of principles, action plans, other types of nonbinding
instruments, and unratified agreements- - allegedly justify a new interpretation of the term
"conservation". Under this new interpretation , the IWC would be allowed to prohibit any
commercial whaling and to establish sanctuaries without regard either to the original
understanding recorded in the ICRW or even to the new interpretation of the ICRW itself.
Despite the inability of the parties to the ICRW to agree on a common interpretation of
the ICRW, it is argued that the new concepts and principles found in other documents require
that some of the parties be burdened with new interpretations of key terms in the ICRW that
entail imposingentirely new understandings than those originally agreed. No international law
- 312 -
404 Annex 147
principle is cited to support this view. There is no such principle. Instead, the applicable
principlesof international law affirm that the instrument cannot be changed in its objectives and
purposessimply by interpretation but must be amended by the Parties. The International Whaling
Commissioners have no authority to adopt amendments to the treaty even if they seek directly
to do so. It goes without saying that they cannot do so by subterfuge, as they have attempted in
adopting the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is advanced as reflecting customary
international law on treaty interpretation which is applicable to the ICRW. But none of the
Vienna principles can be cited to justify an interpretation supporting the decision on the
Antarcticsanctuary based on events occuning decades after the original agreement. None of the
Vienna principles support the use of subsequent developments derived from other agreements
between States not party to the ICRW (or from nonbinding agreements, or vaguely worded
action plans for other activities, or agreements not in force benveen any group of states) to alter
the meaning of an agreement about which its members disagree. Most importantly, in their
applicationto thelCRW none of the Vienna principles can be used to negate the purpose of the
ICRW.
The final point in the new memoranda concerns the effect of the coming into force of
UNCLOS. The availability of its dispute settlement provisions (which e:'\""tensdpecifically to
disputes over the interpretation or application of other international agreements such as the
ICRW)raises a serious question about the Commission 's response to the Japanese objection to
the validity of the SOS decision. The Commission has refused to consider this objection on its
merits - in its discussion at the 1996 meeting, members simply reiterated that the fact that the
IWC made the decision wasenough to show that it was correct Given that a dispute settlement
procedureis now available on which 34 members of the rwc are fonnally agreed, it is no longer
appropriate for the Commission to be the sole judge of the validity of its own actions. The
absence of a dispute settlement provision in the ICRW should not longer be considered
justification for refusalo seek external review ofiWC competence under the ICRW.
In sum, the Commission's actions violate its own agreement and also the international
law applicable to the response to the charge that it has exceeded its powers. Members of the
Commissionare independently responsible for violations of their treaty obligations, which is an
additional violation of international law independent of the treatv itself
. .
-31 3-
405Annex 147
The Legal Invalidity of the IWC Designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
William T. Burke, University of Washington, Seattle , Washington .
Since its adoption by the International Whaling Commission (I\YC) in 199-t.the
designation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS) has attracted a number of legal
1
comments. most ofthem critical. Earlier memoranda tabled by Japan contend that the
SOS decision violated Article V(2) of the InternationaConvention for the Regulation of
Whaling in several ways, as follows: it directly conflicts with the objectives and
purposes of the ICRW as established in the preambular clauses thereof .it is
unnecessary to carry out the treaty'spurposes; it does not provide for the optimum
utilization of whale resources; it is not supported by scientific .findings: and it wholly
neglects consideration for the consumers ofwhale products or for the whaling industry.
Valid decisions of the IWC must satisfy these requirements . For these several reasons,
which have never been adequately addressed by the Commission or its members, the
decision to establish the SOS is ultra vires. The challenge of ultra vires has also never
been given serious consideration by the Commission as required by international law
for international organizations .
Seeking to defend the Sanctuary decision, a recent article repeats opinions first
advanced in a memorandum on behalf of the United Kingdom in 1995 and offers new
explanations for earlier conclusions.
In light of this renewt>d effortto support the I\VC decision on the SOS. and
considering possible moves to expand the Southern Ocean Sanctuary to "inually all of
the global ocean, as illustrated by the Irishpropo. sia s useful to reemphasize the
reasons for finding that the ICRW was violated by the IWC and many of its members
in the original SOS and to respond briefly to the recent arguments by Pro£ Birnie in
1See the compilation of views, almost all adverse to the SOS decision, expressed by
Canadian, United States. and Japanese legal schola1-swho had not previously
expressed an opinion on the legal issues pertaining to the SOS decision. Institute of
Cetacean Research, The Sixth Annual Whaling Symposium (1996).
2P.Birnie, Are Twentieth Century Marine Conservation Conventions Adaptable to
Twenty-first Century Goal and Principles?, 12 Int'l J. Mar. & Coastal L. 307, 488
(1997) (hereinafter cited as Birnie).
3
The proposed compromise introduced by Ireland at the Monaco meeting provides for a
sanctuary embracing the entire ocean outside a coastal area, probably the exclusive
economic zone. The full text as it then existed is in Discussion Document for the
Antigua Meeting Setting Out in Further Detail the Package of Measures for
Conservation and Management of Whales Proposed by Ireland at the IWC Meeting in
Monaco in September 1997. Australia is since reported to have announced another
proposal to be tabled at the 50'hIWC meeting in Oman toestablish a global sanctuary.
-3 14-
406 Annex 147
defense of the sanctuary decision. The fixst section below provides this renewed
emphasis and a response to new arguments.
The second and final section notes that the absence of a d.ispure settlement
provision in the ICRW has been substantially remedied by the adoption and coming
into force in 1994 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).
The availability of this dispute settlement procedure, which is applicable to the
ICRW as well as to individual states parties concerning disputes over l.7NCLOS, means
that -the decisions of the IWC on interpretation of-the ICRW or of l.'NCLOS itself
cannot beregarded as final and determinative when challenged as ultra vires. Impacts
of IWC decisions on rights under UNCLOS are also subject to challenge using the
UNCLOS treaty mechanisms .
I. Principles violated bv the IWC increati the~Southern Ocean Sancntarv
The requirements of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
were not observed by the International \Vhaling Commission (IWC) in its decision to
approve the Southern Ocean Sanctu. a~prohibiting the commercial harvest of whales
in that region irrespective of their abundance. Under the international law applicable
to public international organizations , actions by the principal organ of such an
organization which exceed the scope of its powers under its charter are invalid..
Accordingly, the fWC decision on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is void.
The question of the consequences of a invalid act by the principal organ of an
international organization is complex. In this instance , the absence of authority to
adopt the Sanctuary involves failure to comply with the absolute requirements for a
valid action established in ICRW ArticleV(2) on the power of the organizationand thus
constitutes an essential defect of the action. Because the action suffers from an
essential defect, and because the IYVCbas rejected any resort to third-party review of
the validity of its actions , a member is entitled to consider the act void rather than
7
voidable. It follows that states party to the ICRW are not obliged to comply with such
a decision and need not necessarily file an objection to justify noncompliance. While
the objection procedure applies toany actions of the IWC, and can be used to nullify
4
See Para. 7(b) of the Schedule.
~The IWC Scientific Committee has determined that the Antarctic minke whale
population numbers 760,000.
6A.mersinghe, Principles ofinstitutional Law oflnternational Organizations 166-69
(1996).
; For examination of the content of an ultra vires act see id. at 179-186.
- 3 15 -
407Annex 147
their effect. those which are in excess of power can be challenged directly and can be
the basis of other action , including withdrawal from the agreement:"
The ICRW provides for the amendment of the Schedule to the Convention in
accordance with Article V. This proposition is not disputed. 9 The critical question is
whether such action and amendment comply with the specific requirements
established in Article V.In adopting the Southern Ocean Sanctuary , the Commission
manifestly did not meet requirements that amendments shall (a) "be such as are
necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of the Convention and to provide for
the conservation, development. and optimum utilization of the whale resources" ; (b) .
"be based on scientific findings"; and (d) "take into consideration the interests of the
consumers of whale products and the whaling industry." The validity of this statemen t
is demonstrated in the following sections.
Failure to carry out the objectives and purooses of the ICRW
The essential objective and purpose of the ICRW is to provide for the
conservation of whales iri order to permit continued harvests , a goal now called
sustainable harvesting and widely considered a highly desirable goal The deliberate
adoption of an indefinite prohibition of all commercial whaling in the Southem Ocean,
irrespective of the known abundance of particular stocks, establishes beyond doubt
that the aim is not conservation but simply the prohibition of harvest and that the
decision is inconsistent with the purpose of the Convention: to conserve in order to
assure sustainable harvesting. A sanctuary which simply prevents catching whales
that can be taken without risk of depleting the stocks frustrates, rather than fulfills or
seeks, the treaty's purpose. The Commission has no authority under Article V to take
such an action.
The new argument by Pro£ Birnie for the Sanctuary proceeds by contending that
8 The challenge to the validity of the decision on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary has
never been dealt with directly by the Commission. Instead of passing a resolution
affirming its authority to designate the Sanctuary, after giving consideration to the
contentions made by the challenger, which was the appropriate response to a challenge ,
the Commission simply discussed the matter and members affirmed that the decision
to adopt the sanctuary was itself a decision for which the Commission had the
necessary authority. The Commission itself did nothing. Amersinghe notes : "Clearly
members of an organ have the right to challenge the power of the organ to make a
decision because it is unconstitutional It is then that the organ will take the decision
on the validity of its actions . There have been several instances of such challeng es to
organs with consequent decisions by the organs on the validity of their actions ." Id. at
174-75.
9
Birnie at 490.
-316 -
408 Annex 147
the basic purposes of the ICRW are t>vo-fold: conservati on and the facilitation of the
whaling industry. These are then characterized as entirely separate objectives. with
the Commission free to give precedence to conservation without regard either to
whether it is needed or whether it assists the whaling industry . But this convenient
division of the treaty objectives distorts the fundamentalmission and goal of the ICR\V
which links conservation directly and immediately with the continuation of safe
harvests of whales.
Under the ICR\Y, whales are to be conserved because they are a resource to be
used. For confirmation one need only look to the last paragraph of the Preamble of the
ICRW where the nature of this relationship is quite clearly iden tified: "Having decided
to conclude a convention to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and
thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry ." This summarizes
the objective embedded in the several preceding paragraphs of the preamble and fully
clarifies the intentioof the parties.
Defending the Sanctuary decision by separating "conservation" from safe
harvesting reverses the purpose of the ICRW as intended by the parties. Instead of
facilitatingthe accomplishment of the treaty puxpose of sustainable harvesting . the
Commission adopts the Sanctuary to deny that purpose.
A part of the rationale for advancing a newly discovered bifurcation in the
ICRW's goal is to give highly expansive meaning to conservation which enormously
restrictsthe rights of members to conduct the sustainable harvest of whales. In this
view the concept of ~coe nrsvati han"allegedly become complicated by recent events
outside the whaling context and, despite that this allegedly makes its interpretation
10
more difficult, it can be made the sole focus of the Commission. Although it is not
spelled out, the contention appears to be that because "conserva stpposndly has
some new facets now, its link to the whaling industry can legitimately be severed ,
despite clear and abundant evidence that the parties intended the Commission to
10The full flavor of the argument is best seen by reading the actual text: "The
Convention thus had two main aims: conservation .an.ddevelopment of the whaling
industry. This raises the question, in the context of its present membership,whether
both aims must always be pursued or whether the IWC can decide to give precedence
to conservation , parti cularly since development.'l in scientific and public awarenofs
the ecological complexitiesnow involved in determining both the conservation status
and measures required to restore and maintain stocks in equilibrium with their
environment has increa sed the difficulties of interpretsuch terms as 'conservation '
and the 'optimum level' of whale stock B.rie at 491. The argument appears to be
tha t the less clear the reference of the concept employed, the more urgent its
application.
- 317 -
409Annex 147
regulate for the continuation of whaling . not its termination .
Whales, in this line of reasoning . have a different standing and a different
meaning than in the past and . therefore. their treatment can differ from that called for
by the treaty. It should be no surprise . after these leaps of logic and common sense,
that the feat of changing the treaty's major purpose is sought through interpretation,
without amending the treaty. As is well known, except for changes in the Schedule the
ICRW makes no provision for amendment of the treaty . Amendments in the guise of a
disputed interpretation are clearly inconsistent with the convention. as well as with
gene ral principlesof international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Tl:eaties .
Although "conservation" is said to be much more complicated than in the past,
what it is supposed to mean is never made clear by Prof. Birnie, beyond prohibiting
any use even of abundant stocks. Nor is there an y explanation for why the ambiguity
and generality that allegedly make it a different concept are a basis for accepting that
its implementation should now be an entirely separate goal. Nor is it explained why
giving priority to ~conservat oiosto"ks that are abundant must displace the
objective of facilitatinthe whaling i.lldustry. I~conserva htaiodni"ed so far from
its meaning in 1946 that the treaty now authorizes actions completely the reverse of
those originally contemplated . the proper legal action is to seek amendment of the
basic charter .
The principal technique employ ed tojustify radically changing the meaning of
the ICRW without formal amendment as required is to invoke so-call ed liberal
interpretation, which is equated with the principle of effectiveness. This recognized
international law principle of interpretation is designed to promote fulfillment of a
tre aty 's major purpose by i.nt:e.rpreting;i<>ionsin ways that facilitate that purpose.
Several cases decided by the International Court of Justice have so employed the
principle.
However, the overwhelming tenor of the Whaling Convention, and the concise
summarization thereof inthe short paragraph from the Preamble quoted above, make
it incongruous to argue that the principle of effectiveness supports an interpr etati on of
11Article 39 and 40 of the Vienna Convention clearly assume that amendm ents are
made by express agreements of the parties . Here the Commission is not authorized to
act for the parties on this matter. Delegateto the International Whaling Commissio n
have only the authority to act as delegates , not as the Parti es themselves which have
plenary authority to determine national policy on the basic treaty. In negotiatingthe
ICRW in 1946, Commission members wer e not given the authority to amend the treaty
itself, excepting only the Schedul e.
- 318 -
410 Annex 147
the ICRW that legitimizes the choice of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary· as a means of
reaching treaty objectives. The specific description of the Sanctuary makes this
contention wholly implausible.
The purpose of the Sanctuary is to protect whales "iJ.Tespective of the
conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as may be
from time to time determined by the Commiss~ 1i oar .fom effectiveness in
implementation of the treaty's purpose, the purpose of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
is to defeat the goal of allowing for sustainablwhaling. To interpret the treaty to that
end isto defeat the treaty's fundamentalgoal None of the ICJ cases cited for the use of
the Piinciple of effectiveness are 1·elevant to interpretationwhich defeat the treaty's
purpose.
Furthermore , even if it were accepted that the ICRW aimed at whale
conservation as a goal independent of whaling , such an interpretationhardly justifies
a sanctuary which is specifically aimed at stocks which are not in need of conservation.
The only definition of conservation served by the Antarctic sanctttary is complete
prohibition of use. Such an interpretation makes a mockery of the treaty and , if
adopted, would ultimately insure the demise of the IWC and cast doubt on the
integrity of other internationaenvironmental law agreements.
It bears emphasis here that even if the new and extensive notion of conservation
were written into the whaling Convention , despite that this violates the Convention ,
and the whaling stocks in the Sanctuary met all the new requirements imposed by
such a definition , the Sanctuary would still prohibit any harvest of the stocks involved .
In other words, this argument is not only about the unauthorized introdu ction of a new
concept of conservation,but whether complete prohibition of harvesting even when it
satisfies all conservation measures or criteria is consistent with the charter of the
ICRW. It is wholly obvious that such a prohibition violates the treaty.
In the end, the purpose of the Sanctuary to displace the treaty's fundamental
purpose of sustainable harvesting is obvious also from the redundan cy of the
Sanctuary, as noted hereafter .
The sanctuary is unnecessary to carry out the treaty's purnoses
Even if the sanctuary sought to carry out the treaty's purposes, it is obviously not
necessary, for two reasons . The first is that the Commission already has in place a
temporary zero limit on the commercial harvest of whales that applies inthe Southern
12
ICRW Schedule para . 7(b).
- 319 -
411Annex 147
Ocean as well as elsewhere. The Commission's own guidelines 13 for considering a
sanctuary declare that a sanctuary should only be used when IWC regulations do not
1
otherwise accomplish the end in view. -+ While the continuance of the blanket
moratorium is itself inconsistent with the ICRW, so long as it remains applicable
another decision to prohibit harvesting is unnecessary.
The second reason is that if the moratorium were terminated, it would be
because the Commission will have already approved, and will then be implementing, a
Revised Management Procedure (RMP) that will satisfactorily protect all whale stocks
in tr..eSouthern Ocean. The R.\-IP,as is well known , is the product of several years of
intensive inquiry .and creative scientific work by the Scientific Committee. In contrast
to the scientifically deficient sanctuary proposal, which still lacked scientific support
when it was hastily adopted by the Commission, members of the Scientific Committee
declared that the R.J.viP"represented the culmination of several years of extensive
development and had been tested against uncertainty with a rigor unparalleled in the
15
management of any biological resource." In light of the availability of such a carefully
structured management procedure, the Southern Ocean Sanctuary can hardly be
considered necessary in any normal sense of the word. For this reason too, the
Commission action exceeded its powers and isvoid.
Another argument now being made is that the Sanctuary is necessary for
"conservation" when the latter is reinterpreted in light of a whole series of agreements,
statements , declarations , nonbinding agreements , and binding agreements not yet in
force.16The status of the multitude of principles , concepts and doctriries which are
mined from this melange of documents is unclear even when the y are specified,
including the precautionary approach and "common concern" which appear to be the
main concepts. 17
13See Report of the Technical Working Group on Whale Sanctuaries, IWC Doc.
IWC/34114 (1982).
I-The Technical Working Group declared that "sanctuaries should be established to
provide necessary and desirable protective measures which are not available to
conserve whales under other regulatory measures of the Convention." Report, note 13
a15ve, at 4.
43rdIWC Rep. 72 (1993) .
16Birnie at 312-319 .
17 Pro£ Birnie quotes Sands [P.Sands, Principles ofinternational Environmental Law
25-61 (1995)} as correctly observing that "...though the practice of states and
international organizations 'has given rise toa body of discrete principles which may
be of general application , their legal status. their meaning and the consequences of
their application in the particular case or activity remains open."'.
-32 0 -
412 Annex 147
The problem with all this theorizing by citing a catalogue of principles which
remain unexamined for their application in a particular context is tha t none of them
authorize interpretations that actually amend a t1·eaty'sfundamenta l purpose. It is not
permissible to change the ICRW by interpretation from the aim ofcon...<>ervinwghales to
enable safe harvesting to the goal of preventing any commercial harv est even when a
stock is abundant and would yield a sustainable harvest. In particular. it is not
permissible to change the definition of "conservation" to a definit ion that allows
creation of a sanctuary to prevent any harvest of stocks that can yield a safe harvest.
Such a transformation is especially unacceptable when the stocks would be harvested
under rigorous conservation standards already approved for implementati on.
The Sanctuarv does not provide for optimum utilization
Article V also requires that Schedule amendments must be necessary for
optimum utilization of the whale resources . It is the fundamental purpose of the ICRW
to provide a regulatory regime that facilitates sustainable harvests of whales. Since
there are stocks of whales in the Southern Ocean that could sustain such a regulated
harvest, the Commission's duty under the treaty was and is to determine a level of
harvest that would be optimum under prevailing conditions. This app1·oach to
achieving the basic goal of the ICRW is effectively aband oned when the Commission
adopts a policy that forbids any take that would be sustainable and optimum under the
ICRW.
The new argument against the invalidity of the SOS seeks to persuade that
optimum utilization is not an obstacle to the creation of the Sanctuary for the reason
that "Clearly it is not possible, if stocks are depleted and thus closed to whaling for
18
conservation purposes, simultaneously for them to be open to optimum utilization. "
Obviously this comment has no bearing on or relevance tothe decision establishing the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary. That decision was not adopted to deal with "depleted"
stocks. The Schedule amendment specifically declares that is applies to all stocks
irrespective of their conservation status. The aim of the Sanctuary is not the protection
of depleted stocks, but the perpetuation of a ban on taking whales , a goal that is wholly
foreign to the ICRW.
Lack of scientific findings to support a sanctuary
Nothing in the process of consideration of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary by the
IWC provides evidence that the sanctuary decision was based on or informed by
scientific findings ,as required by Article V(2). The records of cl:i.scussion in the
18
Birnie at 505.
- 32 1 -
413Annex 147
Commission itseli in the Technical Committee. in the Scientific Committee , in the
latter's subcommittee on Southern Hemisphere Baleen Whales , and in the Working
Group on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary are in each and every instan ce devoid of
scientific findings on which to base the establishing of a sanctuary.
This conclusion is confirmed by the discussion and action in the Technical
Committee in the final session on the sanctuary proposal The Technical Committee
recommended that the Commission instruct the Scientific Committee to pro vide
scientific advice on several issues noted in the report of the Working Group on the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary . The Technical Committee 's recommendation belies the
suggestion that needed scientific findings had previously been made on the points
identified. Such a recommendation would not have been needed if the requisite
scientific findings had already been made. Even at this juncture, when the
Committee's actions demonstrated the paucity of scientific support for the sanctuary ,
the proposed recommendation was amended to remove the condition that the advice be
provided ~ full and final action by the Commission . The Scientific Committee
after the fact did not produce the scientific advice thought necessary by the Working
Group as referred to by the Technical Committee. Such after the fact production of
scientific findings , if they actually e:cist, stillwould not constitute good faith
compliance with the requirement ofArticle v~
No effort appears to have been made in the latest expression of opinion on the
Sanctuary decision to defend its noncompliance with the requirement for scientific
19
findings. All that is said is that the requirement is undefined in Article V. But this is
hardly a justification and overlooks entirely that the kind of needed scientific findings
were specifically identified in relation to the SOS. The Working Group spelled out
clearly what was needed to be provided for assessing this element required by Article V.
The failure of the Commission, the absence of support from the Scienti.fi.c Committee,
and the failure of the Technical Committee cannot be laid to ignorance of what
scientific information was needed.
Lack of consideration for consumers of whale products and the whalin industry
A sanctuary proposal designed to prohibit the harvest of abundant whale stocks
in a particular region cannot reasonably be said to have any consideration for
consumers of whale product8 or of the whaling industry. That the IWC meeting reports
and documents contain little if any mention of consum er or industry interests is
sufficient evidence that the Com..mission failed to give due consideration to these
19Birnie at 505.
- 322 ---
414 Annex 147
interests.
The 1·ecent defense of the Sanctua ry decision dismisse s the consumer/whaling
industry requirement as "probably oflittle significance given the virtual disappearance
of industrial whaling .":;oOf course, nothing is said in the ICRW of the size of the
whaling industry that might be engaged or affected by Commission decisions at a
particular time, only that whatever the industry may be it is taken into consideration.
While it is unlikely that a large whaling industry will engage in the foreseeable future,
the Sanctuary certainly forecloses even any small commercial effort on the abundant
minke stocks in the A.ntarctic. Whether or not this effort is or is not significant is not
the criterion in Article V(2)(d). What is significant is that no consideration was given to
any possible consumer or industry interest.
Summary of Principles yiolated bv SOS decision
The several reasons summarized in this statement amply justify the conclusion
that the IWC action designating the Southern Ocean Sanctuary exceeded its powers
and is void.
The most recent commentary by Prof. Birnie mentions a large variety of
principles and concepts, much of recent origin in a wide range of instruments that are
said to be pertinent,but virtually none of this is directly discussed or applied to an
21
analysis supporting the SOS decision. while it is asserted that certain principles or
collections of principles are relevant , no effort is made actually to apply them to show
how they would or might affect the Sanctuary choice. Reference is made to
"instruments" that are not intended to be binding (such as the Rio DeClaration and
Agenda 21) or to the FAO Code of Conduct or to "inchoate" documents or to agreements
not in force, without spelling out what difference they make for particular issues,
including the Sanctuary issue . The several pages of text on this issue are completely
devoid of any analysis whatsoeverP It is left unexplained why the instruments
mentioned and the principles they contain should change the interpretation of key
provisions of the Whaling Convention pertinent to the Sanctuary decision.
Nonetheless, it is insisted that the ICRW must "respond" to the "demands" of
these future declaration, agreements, and "related instrume nvens "h~en, as is
clearly by now evident, the parties are unable to agree to change their agreement to
accommodate their differing views. Somehow, this inabilityto agree is now
:!Birnie at 505.
21Birnie at 312-19 .
22Birnie 510-14 comments directlv on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary decision.
2:Birnie at 308. -
- 323-
415Annex 147
transformed into a reouirement that some of the part ies be burdened with accepting
interpretationsof the ICRW that entail imposing entirely different understandings
than those originally agreed. No international law principle is identified which
supports this view. There are, however, principles which clearly reject such an effort to
impose a .new agreement on a dissenting party. As explained in an earlier
memorandum, the principles of ordinary meaning , subsequent conduct, conformity to
objectives and purposes confirm both that the Sanctuary decision is inconsistent with
the ICRW and that it amounts to amending the Convention by interpretation, an
action which is invalid.
The Vienna Convention on Treaties is advanced as reflecting the customary
international law on treaty interpretationwhich is applicableto theICRW. But none of
these principles can be cited to justify an interpretation supportin g the Antar ctic
sanctuary based on events occurring decades after the original agreement. In
particular , none of the Vienna principles supports the use ofsubseqtlent developments
derived from other agreements with other parties , or from nonbinding agreements, or
from vaguely worded action plans, or from agreements not in force between any group
of states, to alter the meaning of an agreement about which its members disagr ee.
Most importantly, applicationof the Vienna principles does not support interpretations
of the Convention which negate the purpose of the ICRW This is precisely what is
attempted in this instance.
II Djspute settlement under the ICRW and its int erpr etatio n
It is well-known that the ICRW contains no provisions for settlement of disputes
over its interpretation,including over disputes about the Commission's authority to
act 2~This fact has been seized upon to argue that a decision by the Commission to
amend the Schedule must be considered final and determinative as an interpretation
of the ICRW provisions on Schedule amendments. Prof. Birnie opines : "As the ICRW
makes no provision for dispute settlement by independent means, the Commission's
decision on the Sanctuary, taken through use of the normal voting procedures laid
down in Article V, is determinative, and must be regarded as having taken account of
2~The irony of this situation should not go unnoticed. While the Commission is able to
ignore its lack of authorittoamend the treaty yet effectively accomplish that end
through approval of Schedule amendments which have that effect, it is fully alertto
the ICRW'sabsence of dispute settlement arrangements, despite that almost all of its
members have accepted another agreement which provides for such a mechanism
which can be made applicable to disputes about the interpretati on or application of the
ICRW.
- 324 -
416 Annex 147
all the relevant factors . guidelines and its own rele vant practice in this field.":!3
It does not follow from the lack of a clispute settlement provision in the ICR\V
that a party tothe l:l·eatycannot challenge an IWC action on the ground that it is an
excess of power. It also does not follow that because the Commission must in the first
instance determine its authority to act that this must be taken as the final word on the
26
matter. Obviously, a treaty organ such as the IWC cannot stop functioning every time
a decision is challenged , but that does not preclude review of the basis of the challenge
and subsequent decision about it, followed by external review.
·A.snoted above, in this instance the Commission did not seek to make a separate
decision on its authority to act. Commissioners stated that taking the initial decision to
designate the Sanctuary was itself a decision on theil· authority to do so. What this
means is that the Commission negated the challenge to its authori ty without
consideration of the basis of the challenge . The notion that the principal organ of an
international agency is wholly unrestrained in making such a decision is without
support in internationallaw. 27
This conclusion is especially compelling in the present instance. Since its
adoption the member States of the International Whaling Commission have joined
with most other states in the world in negotiating an agreement (the LOS treaty now
in force for 34 of the 39 IWC members) which not only provides for the rights and
duties of states in exploitation and regulation of whale s in the global ocean, but also
specifically provides for resort to dispute settlement for diSputes arising out of other
agreements dealing with such exploitation and regul ation. s While all the eligible
parties to the ICRW joined in the negotiation of the United Nations C{)nvention on the
Law of the Sea. a few have not yet accepted it. but not because of objections to the
provisions on whaling .
25
Opinion on the Legality of the Designation of the Southern Ocean \Vbale Sanctuary
by the International Wnaling Commission ., IWC/47/61.
26 l'vfr. Amersinghe's comment is dixectly on point: "While the absence of compulsory
judicial review may in general create problems , it does not entail the consequence that
ultra vires acts cannot be committed by international orl$anizations or that there is no
doctrine of ultra vires applicable to their act. The alternative to recognizing that their
acts may beultra vires and are controlled by carte blanche for their acts and exercise of
powers which is unreasonable and contrary to the theory that their functions and
powers derive from and are limited by constitutions." Am.ersinghe, note 3 above at 166.
27Amersinghe , note 3 above passim.
28Part XV of UNCLOS and Annex VI contain these provisions on compulsory dispute
settlement. The ICRW is an agreement on a subject matter covered by the 1982 Law of
the Sea treaty.
-32 5 -
417Annex 147
Accordingly. whatever may have been the arrangements under the original ICRW.
most of the current membership has taken specific action (by accepting the UNCLOS)
to make available a dispute settlementru."l.·angementthat is broad enough to inclu de
disputes arising under either the LOS treaty or the ICRW. Moreover , this dispute
settlement provision is compulsory and binding for those disputes involving whaling
on the high seas, which certainly includes the SouthernOcean Sanctuary . In light of
these developments - which are not vague , non-binding statements or declarations
with no relevance to whaling - it cannot plausibly be argued tha t the International
Whaling Commission has no alternative but to be the judge in its own cause.
It merits emphasis that parties tothe ICRW agreed to the dispute settlement
provisions of the LOS treaty long before any dispute arose over the I\YC'.sauth ority to
designate the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. While the LOS treaty procedure cam~ into
force only a few months after the Commission initially made the SOS decision in 1994,
it was available when the Commission was later (in 1996) formally challenged on its
authority to make the decision .
In light of these considerationthe Commis sion should revisit the issue of its
authorityto adopt the Southern Ocean Sanctuary . make an independent decision on
that issue , and , upon request , agr ee to have th at decision reviewed by an outside entity.
Failure to do so could conceivably subject individual parties to the ICRW to claims of
violationof the Law of the Sea treaty , which are independently subj ect to th e
compulsory and binding procedures in Part XV and Annex vl the agreement .
Conclusion
The previous sections of this memorandum re'viewed the severa l bases for the
contention that the IWC decision on the SOS is ultra vires . It has also considered and
rejected new arguments supporting the validity of the IWC decision . Prominein the
new arguments are a number of concepts and principles derived almost entirely from
recent action by States (few of whom are parties to the ICRW) that either have no
binding effect or are not in force and deal with other marine resources. They provide no
basis for changing the meaning of the ICRW by interpretati.n
The intent in invoking new concepts and principles is to argue that the ICRW 's
purpose of conserving whales can be divorced from its concomitant and inextricably
related purpose of providing for the consumers of whale products and the whaling
industry. But the new notion o~conserva thd snn~light on the IWC's authority or
lack of authoritto adopt the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. This is because the Schedule
amendment prohibits all catch of whainsthe Sanctuary ~irrespe cfcioeeyation
~ " Obviou.sly the prohibitiohas absolutely nothing to do with conservationno
- 326 -
418 Annex 147
matter how the latter is defined.
It must therefore be completely e"ident that in adopting the SOS. the IWC had
no intent to "coooerve" whales. however this might bedone . The Schedule amendment
says this does not even matter.
Although the Commission thus explicitly provides evidence of its disregard for its
own charter, this memorandum also recapitulates that the decision also violates
Article V(2) in several different respects and is ther efore invalid .
Finally , the Commission has also failed its international law duty to respond to
the charge that it has exceeded it:.5authmity under the ICRW when it adopted the SOS.
The Commission has not , in fact , even properly addressed the challenge to its
authority as required by the international law applicable to an international
organization. Iootead some Commission members stated that of course the IWC acted
properly, citing its original decu!ion to adopt the SOS. That is not enough. The
Com.m.ission's obligation under international law is to consider the challenge to the
validity of its actions and decide as a separate matter that it has or has not this
authority, after considering the bases for the challenge. Not least in such consideration,
the Commission needs to explain how it is consistent with its basic charter to prohibit
all whaling when it serves no conservation purpose, which is what it has decided in
adopting Para. I (b) of it:.5Schedule.
In sum , the Commission's actions violate its own agreement and also the
international law applic .able to the charge that it has exceeded its powers. Members of
the Commission are also independently responsible for violations of their treaty
obligatiooo, which is an additional violation of international law, independent of the
treaty itself .
- 327-
419420 Annex 148
148. Act for Establishment of the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1999,
as amended 15 June 2011),Article 37
(Translated fiom the original Japanese text for this Annex)
Act for Establishmentinistiy of Agriculture, Forestly and Fisheries (excerpt)
(Act No.98 of July 16. 1999)
Latest Amendment: Act No.65 2011
(Mission)
A.t1icle37 The Mission of the FisheriesAgency shall be to ensure the proper conservation
and management of fisheries resources. securing of the stable supply of fisheries products.
developmentthe fishing industiy and the enhancement of the welfure of fishen11en.
.*l*~i'i~il (~J>)
<:!I-L~+~ +1\ :~tt~n +J\~ )
ff~)
m .+t ~ 7/(~ITlI;t~,jt;mi(]))itJJf7 J:<i*:ff)&l}~I~1L(])fJti*,
7)<~~(])~J11fHJI::ii~~( ~lg]t:.~ff(~])~llft
421422 Annex 149
149. Government of Japan, “Japan: Notification regarding the submission made by
Australia to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”, SC/05/039
(2005)
05/20
HEAt>f) VAR Tf, RS • r-'£W YON\'100 11
1'£L.I~lll!)6J .• FAX : I (<:11;.)4.1:17'>
K I I•I IUCLCS.03.:2004.LOS/JPN 4 Februar2005
United Nations Con••ention on the Lawof theSea
concludedat Montego Bay,Jamaica
on 10December 1982
Japan:Notificationregardingthe submissionmadebyAustralia to the
Commission on theLimitsoftheCominentalShelf
TheSecretary-Generalof the United Nations communicates the
followng:
On 25 January2005,theSecretary-General received from the
Pennanent Representativeof Japan to the UnitedNationsa notedated
19January2005,referring to the submission to theCommission on the
Limitsof the Continental ShelfbyaAustralia on 15 November2004,
pursuant toarticle76,paragraph 8, ofthe Convention.
The text ofthe note is attached forinfonnation.
y.J .
423Annex 149
PER1' 1AN£Ni. ' MISSIONOF J,\PAN
'l"O THEUN n ..EDN ATION S
SC/05/039 Nsw YonK
The Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations presents his compliments to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and, with reference to the cir ua~ CLCS.03.2004.LOS
(Continental Shelf Notification) dated IS November 2004, conceming the receipt of the submission made
by Australia to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (hereinafter referred to as "the
Commission"), has the honour to express the position of the Government of Japan with regard to the
submission made by Australia relating to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the
continent of Australia. and re(jjuests that this note verbale be circulated to the members of the Commission
and Member States of the United Nations, be posted on the web site of the Divisions for Ocean Affairs
and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) of the Secretariat of the United Nations, and be made available to the
Member States and the Commission.
Japan co nfirms the importance of keeping harmony between the Antarctic Treaty and the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and thereby ensuring the continuing peaceful cooperation.
security and stabiliin the Antarctic area.
Recalling Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, Japan docs not recognize any State's right of or
claims to territorial sovereignty in the Antarctic, and consequently does not recognize any State's rights
over or claims to the water, seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the continent of
Antarctica.
From this standpoint, Japan stresses tbat the balance of rights and obligatinthe Antarctic
Treaty should not be affected in any way in handling the infonnatton on the limits of the continental shelf,
submitted by Australia to the Commission.
Japan requests the Commission not to take any action on the portion of Australia's submission
relating to the seabed and subsoil of the submari:ne areas adjacent to the continent of Antarctica.
The Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations avails bims.elf of this opportunity
to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assur<UJcesof his highest consideration.
19January 2005 ?
424 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRALIAv. JAPAN)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF JAPAN
VOLUME IV
ANNEXES 150 - 207
9 MARCH 2012 VOLUME IV
LIST OF ANNEXES
JAPAN (continued from Volume III)
150. Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale
Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) –
Monitoring of theAntarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management
Objectives for Whale Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005) ........................ 1
151. Hakamada T, Matsuoka K and Nishiwaki S, “An update ofAntarctic minke
whales abundance estimate based on JARPA data”, SC/D06/J6 (2006)
pp. 10-11 ......................................................... 97
152. Hatanaka H et al, “Response toAppendix 2”,Appendix 3,Annex O1, Report
of the Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006 ,
pp. 259-264 ....................................................... 99
153. Government of Japan (Compiled by Fujise Y, Pastene LA, Hatanaka H,
Ohsumi S and Miyashita T) “Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility
Study of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in theAntarctic (JARPAII)” , SC/59/O3 (2007) ............. 105
154. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 21 Suikan
No. 165 (16April 2009) ............................................ 129
155. Government of Japan, “Japan’ s Opening Statement to the 62nd Annual
Meeting of the International Whaling Commission” IWC/62/OS (2010) ...... 131
156. Government of Japan, “Scientific Contributions of JARPA/JARPA II and
JARPN/JARPN II”, IWC/62/20 (2010) ................................ 133
157. “Statement by H.E. Yasue Funayama, Vice-Minister ofAgriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries, Japan, underAgenda item 3”, IWC/62/28 (2010) ............. 159
158. Government of Japan, “Statement on the Future of the IWC”,
IWC/M10/SWG7 ................................................ 161
159. Matsuoka K, Hakamada T , Kiwada H and Nishiwaki S, “Abundance estimates
and trends for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Antarctic
Areas IV and V based on JARPAsighting data”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
(forthcoming) ......................................................... 163
iiiAUSTRALIA
160. Australian AntarcticTerritory Acceptance Act 1933 (Cth) ................. 183
161. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate, Senate, 1 December 1948, p. 3695
(BillAshley, Minister for Shipping and Fuel) ........................... 189
162. Seas and Submerged LandsAct 1973 (Cth) pp. 4, 6-7 (Secs. 6, 10A, 10B, 11) .191
163. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate, House, 4April 1979, pp. 1481-1482
(Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister) .................................... 195
164. “Opening Statement by theAustralian Commissioner, 31st Annual Meeting
of the International Whaling Commission, London, July 1979”, ITEM 2,
IWC 31 ......................................................... 197
165. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
pp. 331-338 ...................................................... 201
166. Attorney-General DarylWilliams and Minister for ForeignAffairsAlexander
Downer, “Changes to International Dispute Resolution” (News Release,
25 March 2002) .................................................. 209
167. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Joint Standing Committee on
Treaties, 12 July 2002 (William Campbell) TR 45 - TR 53 ................. 211
168. Government ofAustralia, ExecutiveSummary, Continental Shelf Submission
of Australia, 2004, pp. 1, 11-13 < http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/
submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf >
accessed 14 February 2012 .......................................... 223
169. Government ofAustralia, “Note from the Permanent Mission of Australia to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement of
Australia’s submission”, Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (November 2004)<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/
submissions_files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_attachment.pdf> accessed
14 February 2012 ................................................. 229
170. Attorney-General (Cth), “Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General
of the Commonwealth as Amicus Curiae”, Submission in Humane
Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, NSD 1519/2004
(25 January 2005) ................................................. 233
171. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, FCAFC 116
(14 July 2006) pp. 1-3 ............................................. 243
172. Government of Australia, “Opening Statement, 58th Annual Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission”, IWC/58/OS (2006) .................. 247
iv173. Correspondence, dated 12 December 2007, written on behalf of the new
Attorney-General toAllsop J, quoted in Chris McGrath, “Injunction granted
in Japanese Whaling Case” (HSI Technical Bulletin)pp. 1-2 <http://www.hsi.
org.au/editor/assets/legal/HSI_Technical_Bulletin_Japanese_whaling_case.
pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ..................................... 249
174. Australian Embassy, Tokyo, “Australia Acts to Stop Whaling” (Press
Release, TK21/2007, 19 December 2007) <http://www.australia.or.jp/en/
pressrelease/?id=TK21/2007> accessed 14 February 2012 ................. 251
175. Government of Australia, Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary (2007)
<http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/pubs/sanctuary-
map.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 ................................. 253
176. Australian Embassy, Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘scientific whaling’”
(Press Release, TK01/2008, 7 January 2008) < http://www.australia.or.jp/en/
pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008> accessed 14 February 2012 ................. 255
177. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, FCA3, (15
January 2008) pp. 20-21 ............................................ 257
178. Government ofAustralia, “Addressing Special Permit Whaling and the Future
of the IWC”, IWC/61/9 (2009) ....................................... 261
179. AustralianAntarctic Division in Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Pollution and Communities, “Antarctic territorial claims” (29 June
2011) <http://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/our-treaty-
obligations/antarctic-territorial-claims> accessed 14 February 2012 ......... 263
THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
180. Special Committeeof the US Senate on Conservation of Wild Life Resources,
Report on the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, (19 September
1931), pp. 17-21, 44-45 ............................................ 265
181. The US delegation’s report to the US Secretary of State (21 June 1937),
pp. 1, 5-6, 13-15 .................................................. 273
182. Letter from US Delegates Remington Kellogg and Loyd V. Steere, to
Chairman of the International Whaling Conference, A. T. A. Dobson
(10 January 1944) ................................................ 279
183. Government of the US, “Establishment of Permanent Commission”
U.S. No. 5 (21 November 1945) ..................................... 281
184. Informal Inter-agency Committee on the Regulation of Whaling,
“Memorandum to the Commodity Problems Committee” (15 October 1946)
p. 1, 7.......................................................... 283
v185. Letter from Acting Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, to Chairman of the
US Delegation to the International Whaling Conference, Remington Kellogg
(20 November 1946) .............................................. 285
186. Hogarth W T, Written Testimony on the 60th Meeting of IWC before the
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Oceans 110th Congress (10 June 2008) ................................ 291
187. Central Intelligence Agency, the Map of the Antarctic Region: The World
Factbook 2009 (2009) <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/graphics/ref_maps/pdf/antarctic.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012 .... 297
UNITED KINGDOM
188. “Order in Council placing Territory in theAntarctic Seas under theAuthority
of the Commonwealth of Australia-Sandringham, February 7 1933” (1934)
137 British and Foreign State Papers 754, pp. 754-755 ................... 299
189. “Notes for the Minister for Whaling Luncheon, 14.6.38” (London
14 June 1938) .................................................... 301
190. HL Deb 4 March 2009, vol. 708, col. WA164 ........................... 305
191. HC Deb 18 July 2011, vol. 531, cols. 617-618W ......................... 307
NEW ZEALAND
192. The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Foreign Af fairs,
“International Whaling Commission: United States Views” (7 June 1979) ..... 309
193. The Secretary of Foreign Af fairs to the High Commissioner in London,
“International Whaling Commission: Briefing” (29 June 1979) ............. 313
194. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Brief for the New Zealand Delegation to
the 31st Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London,
9-13 July 1979” (9-13 July 1979) pp. 1-3 .............................. 319
195. The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Foreign Af fairs,
“Report of the New Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission, London, 9 to 13 July” (20 July 1979)
pp. 1-5 .......................................................... 323
SWITZERLAND
196. Conseil fédéral suisse, “Résponse aux questions déposées par M. eschbacher
Ruedi” (Conseiller national, 20 février 2002) <http://www.parlament.ch/f/
suche/pages/geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20013754> accessed 14 February
2012 ........................................................... 329
viNORWAY
197. The Committee for Whaling Statistics (ed), International Whaling Statistics
IV (1933) pp. 36-37 ............................................... 333
198. The Committee for Whaling Statistics (ed), International Whaling Statistics
XVI (1942) p. 27 .................................................. 337
BOOKS & ARTICLES
199. Allen K R, Conservation and Management of Whales (University of
Washington Press 1980) p. 96-100 .................................... 339
200. Gulland J, “The end of whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist 42, pp. 42-45 .... 345
201. Butterworth D S, “Science and sentimentality” (1992) 357 Nature 532 ....... 349
202. Foster C E, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts
and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (CUP 2011)
pp. 14-17 ........................................................ 353
203. Morishita J and Goodman D, “The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling
was not a value judgement and was not intended as a permanent prohibition”
(2011) 1(2) Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 301 ..... 359
204. Zenitani R, “Long-term Trend ofAge at Sexual Maturity inAntarctic Minke
Whales” (DPhil of Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of Marine Science
and Technology 2011) p. 16, 25 ...................................... 371
205. The Research Advisors, “Sample Size Table from the Research Advisors”
<http://research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm> accessed 14 February
2012 ........................................................... 375
MEDIAREPORTS
206. “Whaling: Dr. Ray Gambell answers your questions”, BBC (5 July 2000)
<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/817116.stm> accessed
14 February 2012 ................................................. 379
207. Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007)
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907.stm> accessed
14 February 2012 ................................................. 385
vii Annex 150
150. Government of Japan, “Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the
Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for Whale
Resources”, SC/57/O1 (2005)
<STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL THE OPENING PLENARY OF IWC/57>
SC/57/O1
Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research
Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) -
Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of
New Management Objectives for Whale Resources
GOVERNMENT O JAPAN
ABSTRACT
The Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) was
conducted between 1987/88 and 2004/05 austral summer seasons, under Article VIII of the
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The IWC Scientific Committee conducted
an interim review of JARPA results in 1997. In January 2005, a JARPA review meeting called by the
Government of Japan was held.
JARPA provided a wide variety of information on biological parameters of the Antarctic minke
whale such as the natural mortality coefficient and changes over time in the age at maturity as well
as narrowing down the parameters of relevance for sock management. JARPA also elucidated that
there are two stocks in the research area but their geographical boundaries are different from those
used by the IWC. Further, JARPA found that pollutant concentration in whale tissues, such as heavy
metals and PCBs, was extremely low. JARPA has thus successfully obtained data related to the
initially proposed objectives. The review meeting conducted in January 2005 agreed that results from
JARPA are consistent with the behaviour to be expected of baleen whale populations competing for
a dominant single food resource, krill. The meeting also agreed that the results obtained provide clear
support for the need to take species-interaction (ecosystem) effects into account in understanding the
dynamics of the baleen whale species in the Antarctic ecosystem, and predicting future trends in
their abundance and population structure.
Based on these considerations, the Government of Japan will launch a new comprehensive study
under the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA II), combining lethal and non-lethal methods, starting from the 2005/06 austral
summer season. The first two seasons (2005/06 and 2006/07) will be dedicated to feasibility studies.
The practicability and appropriateness of sighting methods in the enlarged area and sampling
procedures given the increased sample size and additional species will be examined. Methods for
catching, flensing and taking biological measurements of large body-sized whales will be tested. The
full-scale JARPA II will start from the 2007/08 season. It will be a long-term research program with
the following objectives 1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem, 2) Modelling competition among
whale species and developing future management objectives, 3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial
changes in stock structure and 4) Improving the management procedure for the Antarctic minke
whale stocks. JARPA II will focus on Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales and possibly other
species in the Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill. Annual sample sizes
for the full-scale research (lethal sampling) are 850 (with 10% of allowance) Antarctic minke whales
(Eastern Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific Stocks), 50 humpback whales (D and E-Stocks)
and 50 fin whales (Indian Ocean and the Western South Pacific Stocks). During the feasibility study,
a maximum annual sample size of 850+-10% Antarctic minke whales will be sampled. A maximum
of ten fin whales will be sampled in each season. Humpback whales will not be taken during the
feasibility study.
The research methods for the JARPA II are basically the same as the previous JARPA with some
modifications. The program involves both non-lethal research techniques such as sighting surveys,
biopsy sampling, acoustic surveys for prey species and the collection of oceanographic data as well
1
1Annex 150
as lethal sampling since collection of certain information, of vital importance to the overall study,
requires examination of internal organs such as ovaries, earplugs and stomachs.
A comprehensive review will be conducted following completion of the first 6 years of the research.
Cruise reports will be submitted annually to the IWC/SC.
2
2 Annex 150
CONTENTS
I. Introduction 5
II. Resbeaachround 6
JAr.tutsufine
2. Gelnovrlnmceatagles8
3. Necessity to improve the management procedure of Antarctic minke whale stocks 8
III. obeenetves 9
1. Resneeacsh 9
2. Resoebajrecchtives 10
1)AMntacctofsngie 10
I) Monitoring of whale abundance trends and biological parameters 10
II) Monitoring of krill abundance and the feeding ecology of whales 11
III) Monitoring of the effects of contaminants on cetaceans 11
IV) Monitoring of cetacean habitat 11
2) Modelling Competition among whale species and future management objectives 11
I) Constructing a model of competition among whale species 11
II) New management objectives including the restoration of the cetacean ecosystem 11
3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure 12
4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks 12
IV. Resmeerhod 12
1. Resaererach 12
2. Respeearodc 13
3.sehpriits 13
4. Siteveyods 14
1)AMntacctofsngie 14
I) Monitoring of whale abundance trends and biological parameters 14
II) Monitoring of krill abundance and the feeding ecology of whales 15
III) Monitoring of the effects of contaminants on cetaceans 15
IV) Mcoeacbfrntgin 15
2) Modelling competition among whale species and future management objectives 15
I) Constructing a model of competition among whale species 15
II) New management objectives including the restoration of the cetacean ecosystem 16
3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure 17
4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks 17
V. Saizple 17
1. Antmarinies 17
2. Humw phaaesk 18
3.whaies 18
VI. Feasstuilestiy 19
1. Noebjesstiitvyes 19
2. Spuerrode 19
3. Smureeyods 19
4. Ssaizple 19
VsI.ctkeonffect 19
VIII. Research vessels, research organfzatdiisation 20
1. Resveeasrscehls 20
2. Resoeragrhizations 20
3. Parfsrciaftstns 20
IX. meetclfsdssity 20
X. Utieizatgng 20
1.fromaerhcailailng 20
2.fromPaA 20
XI. Others 20
1. Pwrmcossisng 20
SIciCoifteipttoeret 20
3. Wkilileods 21
3
3 Annex 150
XII. References 21
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Composition of baleen whale species in the JARPA research area - Koji Matsuoka, Takashi
HaSkinaioshi aki 25
Appendix 2. What has happened to the Antarctic minke whale stocks? - An interpretation of results from
JARPA - Yoshihiro Fujise, Hiroshi Hatanaka and Seiji Ohsumi 37
Appendix 3 Temporal and spatial changes in stock structure of baleen whale species in the Antarctic feeding
NPaote.auio5unds
Appendix 4. Monitoring of environmental pollutants in cetaceans and the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic
Ocean and the western North Pacific Ocean. - Genta Yasunaga and Yoshihiro Fujise 57
Appendix 5. Hypotheses on the abundance changes of krill predators in the Antarctic ecosystem. - Hiroshi
Hatanaka 61
Appendix 6. Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales required for statistical examination
of yearly trend in biological parameters. - Takeharu Bando, Takashi Hakamada, Ryoko Zenitani,
Yoshihiro Fujise, Eiji Tanaka and Hidehiro Kato. 63
Appendix 7. Sample size of Antarctic minke whale for the purpose of monitoring yearly trend of blubber
thickness. - Kenji Konishi, Takashi Hakamada and Tsutomu Tamura 75
Appendix 8. Sample size required for genetic mark-recapture method to monitor population trend. - Naohisa
Kanda 77
Appendix 9. Effect on the stock of the catches by JARPA II. - Takashi Hakamada 81
4
4 Annex 150
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1982, the IWC adopted the moratorium on commercial whaling on the grounds of insufficient scientific
knowledge concerning whales. The Government of Japan lodged an objection, but withdrew it in 1985, and
the 1986/87 whaling season marked the last commercial operation in the Antarctic by Japan. Thereafter, all
commercial whaling in the Antarctic has been suspended to this day.
In order to resolve the scientific uncertainties and pave the way for the resumption of sustainable whaling,
Japan started a research program, the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA), under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The
main purpose was to elucidate biological parameters of Antarctic minke whales (GOJ, 1987). The program
was launched in the 1987/88 austral summer season as a two-year feasibility study (1987/88 and 1988/89
seasons). The full program started in the 1989/90 season and it was a long-term program over eighteen years,
including the two years of feasibility studies. Since all commercial whaling had been suspended in the
Antarctic, the world's largest source of whale resources, JARPA was in effect the only comprehensive
research program that provided a time series of useful biological and ecological information for the
management of whale stocks in the Antarctic.
The IWC Scientific Committee conducted an interim review of JARPA results in 1997 (IWC, 1998). It was
agreed that information from JARPA has the potential to improve the management of Antarctic minke
whales.
In January 2005, a review meeting of JARPA was hosted by Japan, in which scientists from various
countries participated. JARPA provided a wide variety of information on biological parameters such as the
natural mortality coefficient and changes over time in the age at maturity as well as narrowing down the
parameters of relevance for stock management. The program had also elucidated that there are two stocks in
the research area but the geographical boundaries between these stocks are different from those used by the
IWC to manage baleen whale species in the Antarctic. Further, JARPA found that pollutant concentration in
whale tissues, such as heavy metals and PCBs, was extremely low. JARPA has thus successfully obtained
data related to the initially proposed objectives. It is considered that the results will greatly contribute to the
rational management of the Antarctic minke whale stocks.
The effect of worldwide climate changes, including global warming, is becoming apparent in the Antarctic
Ocean. Elucidating the impacts of these changes requires monitoring of the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
The results of the JARPA sighting surveys indicate a rapid recovery of the once depleted humpback and fin
whales, while the increasing trend in abundance of Antarctic minke whales, that had been indicated after
other larger baleen whales were substantially decreased due to past over hunting, has been halted. These
results suggest the possibility that the composition of baleen whales in the Antarctic is starting to undergo a
major shift at the present time.
Against the backdrop of these changes in the Antarctic ecosystem, the Government of Japan will launch a
new comprehensive study under the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II), combining lethal and non-lethal methods, starting from the 2005/06
austral summer season. The first two seasons (2005/06 and 2006/07) will be dedicated to feasibility studies.
The full-scale JARPA II will start from the 2007/08 season. It is expected to be a long-term research program
focused on Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales, crabeater seals, and possibly other species in the
Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba). JARPA II intends to
monitor the quantitative and qualitative changes of important species of whales, pinnipeds and possibly sea
birds, and the environmental factors surrounding them. The goal is to construct a competition model among
whale species based on the data obtained. JARPA II thus aims to contribute to the establishment of a new
and improved management system for whales based on the ecosystem approach.
Initially, there were as many as 200,000 blue whales in the Antarctic, but their number was greatly reduced
by over-hunting, and their take was banned in 1964. After forty years, however, they still number less than
2,000 and are far from reasonably recovered (Branch et al., 2004). Certainly the humpback and possibly also
the fin whales, on the other hand, although they too had been greatly reduced in number and their take also
subsequently banned, have made appreciable recoveries in recent years. In Area IV of the Antarctic Ocean,
there have been as many sightings of the humpback as of the Antarctic minke whales (Ishikawa et al., 2004).
We should consider a management scheme that will provide for the recovery of blue whales.
5
5Annex 150
In 1992, the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) was completed by the Scientific Committee. It was
adopted by the IWC in 1994 as the procedure to be used in future commercial whaling (IWC, 1995).
However with the exception of whaling operations carried out by Norway, which has lodged an objection to
the commercial whaling moratorium, it has not been implemented after twelve years since its completion.
Some aspects of the RMP require improvements because it has become clear during the twelve years that the
current formulation of the RMP could make the implementation process almost unworkable. In JARPA II,
better estimates of the Maximum Sustainable Yield rate (MSYR), which is an important parameter for
improving the RMP, will be obtained. Also new definitions of the management areas based on stock
information will be developed. This information is important for the improvement of the RMP and its
implementation.
The Government of Norway intends to develop a management procedure based on the ecosystem approach
in an effort to control the size of marine mammal populations given their impact on fishery resources
(Ministry of Fisheries, 2004). The U.S. government implements a fishery management scheme in the Bering
Sea and the Gulf of Alaska that takes into consideration the securing of prey for marine mammals (North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2003). Japan also has been active in multi-species management
through the implementation of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the North
Pacific, Phase II (JARPN II), and is working to develop a more accurate management system for fishery
resources using data obtained from JARPN II.
Looking to the future, the IWC will need to consider a multi-species management approach in the Antarctic
Ocean, which has the world's largest whale resources, for the conservation and sustainable use of these
resources. Multi-species management also should allow for the recovery of depleted whale species. JARPA
II should make great contributions towards this goal.
II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
1. Outline of JARPA results
As mentioned earlier, JARPA was launched in the austral summer season of 1987/88. The Antarctic minke
whale was the only whale species that was still commercially harvested immediately prior to that time, but
the uncertainties of the biological parameters used in the 1980s to calculate catch quotas under the New
Management Procedure (NMP) were the target of much criticism at the IWC Scientific Committee. Thus,
the main objective of the JARPA program was to estimate biological parameters, including the natural
mortality coefficient, required for the effective management of this species. The second objective was to
elucidate the role of cetaceans in the Antarctic ecosystem, and to this end surveys were included to estimate
the abundance of each whale species and the diet of the Antarctic minke whale, which was the most
abundant and hence chosen as representative of baleen whale species. The program was to be implemented
over eighteen years (including two years as feasibility studies) and to cover Areas IV and V with a sampling
of 300±10% Antarctic minke whales from each Area in alternate years (GOJ, 1987).
The efforts of the IWC Scientific Committee then shifted to the completion of an RMP, which was finished
in 1992. The key factors of the RMP are abundance estimates and stock structure, and MSYR takes on much
of the role played previously by natural mortality. In the meantime, environmental changes such as global
warming and the ozone hole became worldwide concerns, and interest in their effects on cetaceans grew in
the IWC. In response, Japan added the elucidation of minke whale stock structure and the effects of
environmental changes on cetaceans to the research objectives of JARPA from the 1995/1996 austral
summer season (GOJ, 1995). The research area was expanded to include the eastern part of Area III and the
western portion of Area VI with an additional sampling of 100±10% whales. JARPA was thus continued
with a sample size of 400±10% and ended in March 2005.
Much has been achieved by JARPA. The IWC Scientific Committee conducted an interim review in 1997,
and evaluated the program as shown below (IWC, 1998):
i. 'JARPA has already made a major contribution to understanding certain biological parameters (e.g. direct
measures of the age at sexual maturity) pertaining to minke whales in Areas IV and V, yet such analyses
have not fully addressed potential problems related to stock structure'.
ii. 'Under the objective of elucidating the role of minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem, JARPA has
collected data on body condition that, in conjunction with the data on biological parameters, should result in
6
6 Annex 150
an improved understanding of the status of minke whales in these Areas. These data are likely to be useful in
testing various hypotheses related to aspects of the 'krill surplus' model.'
iii. 'Under the objective of elucidation of the effects of environmental change on cetaceans, there is
considerable uncertainty in how biological parameters of minke whales may vary in relation to
environmental change. Therefore, more effort is needed to develop meso-scale studies to integrate physical
and biological oceanography and prey distribution with minke whale studies'
The results of JARPA were also evaluated in the following manner:
'The results of JARPA, while not required for management under the RMP, have the potential to improve the
management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways: a) reductions in the current
set of plausible scenarios considered in Implementation Simulation Trials; and b) identification of new
scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal
component of stock structure)'.
'The results of analyses of JARPA data could be used perhaps to increase the allowed catch of minke whales
in the southern hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing
Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP for these minke whales'.
The IWC Scientific Committee will review the results of JARPA following the 2005 Annual Meeting. Prior
to this meeting, the Government of Japan has held a JARPA Review meeting in January 2005 so that the
results from JARPA can be taken into account in the plan for JARPA II. The JARPA results can be
summarized as follows.
Regarding the estimation of biological parameters, improved age data have been obtained and age
composition data that reflects the stock structure have been collected. Sighting information, collected along
with these biological data, has not shown any statistically significant change in minke whale abundance. The
natural mortality coefficient of the Antarctic minke whale has been calculated using the planned Tanaka's
method (Tanaka, 1990) and the ADAPT VPA as well, and found to be M = 0.05 for Tanaka's method
(Tanaka et al., 2005) and 0.05-0.08 for ADAPT VPA (Mori and Butterworth, 2005 and Kitakado et al.,
2005). As for the age at sexual maturity, it was found that it had changed to eight years old in the late 1970s
from eleven to twelve in the late 1940s (Kato, 1987; Cooke et al., 1997; Thomson et al., 1999). This result
would probably be an important one to elucidate the reason for the earlier likely rapid increase of minke
whales.
As for the research on the role of cetaceans in the ecosystem, quantitative analyses on the stomach content of
Antarctic minke whales were conducted by evaluating the weight of the stomach in relation to the weight of
the whale. It was found that the daily amount of krill consumed by one minke whale was 200 to 300 kg.
(corresponding to 3 to 5% of body weight). The yearly amount consumed by Antarctic minke whales in
Area IV was estimated to be 1,740,000 to 1,930,000 tons, equivalent to about 30% of the rough krill biomass
estimate in that Area (Tamura and Konishi, 2005). Also a halt, after the 1980s, in the trend of whales to
become sexually mature at younger age (Zenitani and Kato, 2005), an increase in age at physical maturity
(Bando et al., 2005) and a decrease in blubber thickness (Ohsumi et al., 1997; Konishi and Tamura, 2005)
have been reported. Australian coastal surveys as well as JARPA results have confirmed that humpback
whales are increasing surprisingly rapidly; assessments combining all the data (Johnston and Butterworth,
2005) indicate current abundance for the stocks in Areas IV and V to be approaching 20,000, with the Area
IV stock soon to reach its pre-exploitation abundance. Sighting surveys during JARPA have also found that
there are some 9,000 fin whales. Their distribution range has also expanded southwards, strongly indicating
increasing competition among the whale species for krill in that region (Appendices 1 and 2).
In the JARPA Review meeting, it was agreed that, viewed broadly, results from JARPA are consistent with
the behavior to be expected of baleen whale populations competing for a dominant single food resource, krill.
Surveys on the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans indicated that pollutant concentration such as
heavy metals and PCBs in whales can be used as indicators of global contamination. It was also found that
pollutant concentration in whales in the Antarctic was extremely low, compared with common minke whales
in the Northern Hemisphere, and that there was a declining trend in such concentration in recent years
(Fujise et al., 1997; Yasunaga et al., 2005).
With regard to stock structure of the Antarctic minke whale, results of the analyses based on mtDNA have
been reported annually to the Scientific Committee. The Committee had noted that only preliminary
7
7Annex 150
conclusions about stock structure can be drawn at this stage and that more concrete conclusions will be able
to be made following the completion of different analyses. It further supported the suggestion that additional
analyses using alternative groupings and analytical methods should be conducted (IWC, 2003).
It has been recognized that the most effective way to address questions on stock identity is to consider results
from several techniques: genetics and non-genetics (Donovan, 1991; Perrin, 2001; Rugh et al., 2003).
In response, the study on stock structure under the JARPA was extended by using several biological markers
(genetic and non-genetic) and more detailed groupings of samples. These approaches were used for
examining samples of JARPA from 1987/88 to 2003/04 and results were presented to the JARPA Review
Meeting (Pastene et al., 2005a).
Results from the different approaches showed similar patterns and were consistent in regard to the hypothesis
of two stocks in the JARPA research area. Probably these stocks are related to breeding areas in the eastern
Indian Ocean and western South Pacific Ocean, respectively. A soft boundary between stocks at 165°E has
consequently been proposed for management purposes. Names have been proposed for these two stocks: the
Eastern Indian Ocean Stock (I-Stock) and, the Western South Pacific Ocean Stock (P-Stock). It should be
noted that the pattern of stock structure found is not consistent with the traditional IWC boundary between
Areas IV and V.
2. Global environmental changes
Various phenomena caused by global warming have been observed recently worldwide, including frequent
floods, receding and diminishing glaciers, rise in seawater temperature and coral reef bleaching. There is
concern in the Arctic regarding the effect of melting ice on marine mammals, including the polar bear
(Hassol, 2004). Air and seawater temperatures have risen in the Antarctic, resulting in the major break-up of
the Larsen Ice Shelf in 2002. The rise in temperature is particularly evident in the Antarctic Peninsula,
where it has risen by as much as 5 degrees Celsius in winter, and the receding ice has caused a shift in
penguin species distribution (Croxall et al., 2004).
Further, it has been reported that Antarctic krill abundance in the south western Atlantic has been reduced by
80% from the level in 1970s due to the rise in seawater temperature (Atkinson et al., 2004). In Areas IV and
V, which are covered by JARPA, there has been no clear indication of any connection between the rise in sea
water temperature and the decrease of krill, but we cannot rule out the possibility that such a phenomenon
may occur in the entire Antarctic Ocean in the future.
Major environmental changes such as global warming may greatly affect krill reproduction in the Antarctic
Ocean and thus change the carrying capacity for cetacean species, as well as altering the behaviour and
habits of other krill predators.
It is therefore necessary to promote surveys of global marine ecosystems including the polar regions such as
the Antarctic, as well as research on and the collection of data about the effects on the marine ecosystem and
on possible future changes of ecosystems. This is because the effects of global environmental change are
unlikely to be limited to the Antarctic Ocean and will affect all the world's oceans.
In addition to global warming, it is important to monitor environmental contaminants such as mercury and
PCBs on a global scale since they are dispersed worldwide. Organochlorines, heavy metals and other highly
residual pollutants spread worldwide, once they are released into the atmosphere. To have an accurate
account of global contamination by these pollutants and to predict future contamination, it is necessary to
identify their temporal and spatial behaviour. The monitoring of contamination levels in the atmosphere and
seawater is important as a direct method, but the amount in the environment is generally extremely low.
However, certain kinds of pollutants will be highly concentrated in top predators of the food web. It is
necessary, therefore, to investigate the pattern of pollutant accumulation in the top predators themselves and
to examine how they are biologically affected in order to determine the effect of the contaminants.
3. Necessity to improve the implementation of management procedure on Antarctic minke whale
stocks
Although the IWC Scientific Committee completed the Revised Management Procedure for the regulation of
commercial whaling in 1992 (IWC, 1993), with the exception of operations carried out by Norway that has
lodged an objection, whaling based on the RMP has not been resumed to this day. The RMP is overly
concerned with the protection of whale stocks and thus too conservative in terms of rational utilization of
8
8 Annex 150
resources. Stock hypotheses, tuning levels, MSYR and other parameters are chosen unduly conservatively
because of argued uncertainties in biological understanding. One of the deficiencies of the RMP is the large
variation in catch quotas depending on such choices, and agreement is difficult to achieve as shown in the
case of RMP implementation simulation trials for North Pacific common minke whales (IWC, 2004). It is
therefore of primary importance to conduct research that will reduce the range of uncertainties in such
factors, as is the aim of JARPA II.
Furthermore, although the matter has not yet been taken up at the IWC, the necessity of a multi-species
management approach has been recognized worldwide, and some such approaches are already in place in the
U.S. and Norway (North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2002; Ministry of Fisheries, 2004). Many
baleen whales commonly consume krill in the Antarctic ecosystem, and as stated above, results from JARPA
are consistent with the behaviour to be expected of baleen whale populations competing for a dominant
single food resource, krill. Therefore, it is necessary for the IWC, as well as its member countries, to
develop a management method based on multi-species models.
III. RESEARCH NEED AND OBJECTIVES
1. Research need
The large cetacean community in the Antarctic has historically undergone extensive changes and another
major transition has been taking place in recent years, with the recovery of some whale species from past
over-hunting. In addition, significant global environmental changes that have the potential to affect whale
populations are occurring.
In view of the above, there is a need to systematically monitor changes of environmental conditions in the
Antarctic over the long-term, as well as changes of biological parameters and changes in the abundance of
cetaceans inhabiting the Antarctic Ocean. There is also a need to monitor how cetaceans adapt to global
warming and the shifts in the ecosystem structure caused by human activities so as to provide scientific basis
for the comprehensive management of whale stocks, employing control of whale populations if needs be.
More than forty years have gone by since the severe decline in the size of blue whale population, but this
species remains at a low level of abundance even though some increase has recently been confirmed. There
is a possibility that their niche has already been mostly taken over by Antarctic minke and other whale
species that have been showing an increasing trend of abundance in recent years. To deal with this situation,
which has anthropogenic roots, all management options should be considered.
As has been already mentioned, JARPA data have shown that the increase in minke whales has been halted
together with the reversal in the trend of age at maturity towards younger ages and a trend of decreasing
blubber thickness. The humpback and fin whales, on the other hand, have shown a rapid increase in
abundance. In Area IV, for instance, humpback whale biomass is now much larger than that of the Antarctic
minke whale, indicating that the balance among the whale species is in transition (Ishikawa et al., 2004;
Appendices 1 and 2). It is necessary to study and analyse these changes by conducting research that includes
not only minke whales but also humpback and fin whales. Also, the effects of global warming are becoming
apparent in the Antarctic and we need to study the effect on the cetaceans as soon as possible.
The RMP, which has been developed as a management procedure, is based on a single species management
model, although it is supposedly applicable even when carrying capacity increases twofold or declines to half.
However, the need to allow for such a wide range of uncertainty renders the RMP overly conservative in its
utilization of whale resources, and this could be improved if good multi-whale-species models were
developed as a basis upon which to create a better RMP. Also, it seems plausible that the take of one whale
species may have positive effect on the recovery of another, but such processes have not been incorporated
into the current RMP.
Since the ecosystem is undergoing a major shift, we should have a better management tool to achieve
appropriate utilization of more than one whale species with a better RMP, as the current RMP is a basically
single species management model.
To this end, there is a need to: a) to monitor cetaceans and various environmental factors in their habitats
(population trend, biological parameters such as age at maturity, krill abundance, oceanographic environment,
etc.); b) to construct a competition model among whale species, verifying various hypotheses based on the
data obtained by past JARPA and through future monitoring, and c) to establish future management
9
9Annex 150
objectives. For instance, it may be possible and desirable, through selective harvesting, to accelerate the
recovery of blue and fin whales toward the early days when the blue and fin whales were the dominant
species. Sustainable use of these resources as a management objective would be assisted by models that
investigate the effects of takes of one species of whales on another.
It is essential for the construction of such models to obtain data not only of the Antarctic minke but also
humpback and fin whales through the research programs. There is a need to build an ecosystem model,
taking due account of the competition for krill among whale species, based on the monitoring data obtained
and other information, while utilizing data from CCAMLR concerning other krill predators.
Information on stock structure of the main whale species comprising the Antarctic marine ecosystem is also
important for a better interpretation of the abundance estimates and trends, for estimation of biological
parameters and for the implementation of management procedures. The amount of information on stock
structure differs among blue, fin, humpback and minke whales.
As for fin and blue whales, there is very little information on their stock structure. The available information
is based on mark-recapture studies conducted during the period of commercial whaling. There is a need to
collect new relevant data, including genetics data, to elucidate the present stock structure in these species and
to investigate how the structure may differ from what has been postulated in the past. Both blue and fin
whales have experienced substantial changes in abundance and some changes in stock structure might be
expected with time (e.g. changes in geographical boundaries between stocks).
As a result of JARPA much more information on stock structure in the Antarctic feeding ground is now
available for Antarctic minke and humpback whales (Pastene et al., 2005a; Pastene et al., 2005b). However,
as noted above, changes in abundance with time have been observed in these two species and it is possible
that such changes have had an effect on stock distribution and boundaries for these species. Monitoring of
stock status and trends require that these changes in stock structure be investigated. This is important for
management purposes. For example catch quotas based on stocks will have to be adjusted for shifting stock
boundaries; otherwise, there is the risk of a negative impact on the stock.
The IWC has adopted the RMP for the regulation of commercial whaling, but it has yet to be applied, with
the exception of operations carried out by Norway that has lodged an objection. We need better estimation of
the MSYR in order to respond to any concerns over the implementation of the RMP and to improve its likely
deficiencies concerning inefficient utilization of whale resources. Currently, RMP Small Areas for minke
whales in the Antarctic have been established as longitudinal sectors of 10°, but at the very least, we need to
redefine appropriate Small Area according to information on stock structure. Also, another of the
deficiencies of the current RMP is the zero catch quota that it turns out when carrying capacity declines due
to competition among whale species. The decrease in abundance caused by the competition is misinterpreted
by the current RMP as an over-hunting so that catches are set unnecessarily low. That part needs also to be
improved by the use of more realistic multi-whale-species models.
2. Research objectives
The objectives of the research program can be summarized into the following four categories. The first two
years will be spent on feasibility studies, which will be described in Chapter VI.
1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem
As has been already mentioned, the Antarctic ecosystem is undergoing a major change. JARPA II will
monitor the changes over the years of various environmental variables, prey density and abundance, and
abundances and biological parameters of three baleen whales: the Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales.
The obtained data will be indicators of changes in the Antarctic ecosystem, and the observations and records
will have a great significance in themselves. Appropriate utilization and management of whale stocks will
become possible by understanding how whales respond and adapt to changes in the environment and the
ecosystem structure. The data will also be used for the construction and operation of a model of competition
among whale species, which is the second objective of the research program.
I) MONITORING OF WHALE ABUNDANCE TRENDS AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
JARPA II will monitor changes over the years in abundance by mean of sighting surveys, and changes in
recruitment, pregnancy rate, age at maturity and other biological parameters by sampling survey.
10
10 Annex 150
II) MONITORING OF KRILL ABUNDANCE AND THE FEEDING ECOLOGY OF WHALES
JARPA II will monitor the yearly amount of prey consumption and the change in blubber thickness of
whales over the years. Meso-scale surveys will be conducted, if possible, to investigate prey distribution and
abundance. Changes in the biological environment of whales will be monitored.
III) MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS ON CETACEANS
The temporal and spatial behavior of pollutants is global and they become highly concentrated through the
food web. By investigating top predators including cetaceans, JARPA II will elucidate the pattern of
contaminant accumulation and the effects of the toxins on them. Together with other data it should also give
an accurate picture of global contamination and help predict future trends.
Species unaffected by contaminants are important as the controls for wildlife studies (IWC, 1999) and
JARPA II will collect data on these species in the Antarctic Ocean. Results from JARPA II will also be
linked with those obtained by JARPN II in the western North Pacific to elucidate pollutant behavior in
cetaceans using methods of comparative biology. Concurrent analysis on prey species and environmental
samples (air and sea water) in both the North Pacific and Antarctic will also be carried out in order to
elucidate and consider pollutant behavior in the marine ecosystem and their global dynamics. Results will be
compared to those obtained in the North Atlantic if access to the data is possible. Effects of these
contaminants on whale species will also be considered using epidemiological, pathological, and toxicological
methodologies. Specific objectives are as follows:
* To elucidate the pattern of pollutant accumulation in whales in the Antarctic and the western North Pacific,
and the pattern of changes in their biological processes;
* To elucidate the pollutant behavior in the marine ecosystems of the Antarctic and the western North
Pacific; and
* To elucidate the biological effects of pollutants on cetaceans.
IV) MONITORING OF CETACEAN HABITAT
Monitoring of changes in water temperature, salinity, ice and other oceanographic and meteorological factors
will be conducted. This will make it possible to promptly note changes in the environment in connection
with the ecosystem model (the second research objective) and the management of minke whale stocks (the
fourth research objective).
2) Modelling competition among whale species and future management objectives
I) CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF COMPETITION AMONG WHALE SPECIES
There is a strong indication of competition among whale species in the research area. We need to consider
hypotheses related to this competition and clarify the mechanism of resource fluctuation to be able to
construct a model that will show the dynamics of competitive whale species to better allow the sustainable
use of resources in the future.
Several hypotheses, including the krill surplus hypothesis and the process of resource increase due to the age
at sexual maturity changing to younger ages will be tested. A model of competition among whale species
incorporating these results will be constructed. Some details of the model are discussed to in Section IV-4-2.
II) NEW MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES INCLUDING THE RESTORATION OF THE CETACEAN ECOSYSTEM
Little can be achieved by using a single species management system for monitoring the whole ecosystem
and identifying measures for the recovery of depleted cetaceans, in the context of changing cetacean
population balance. Management objectives and policies including the major whale species are necessary.
JARPA II will look into specific matters shown below and contribute to the future work of the IWC
Scientific Committee.
* Establishing future management objectives
Possible management objectives or goals would include: maintaining the present condition,
in other words,
preserving the existing relative abundances among the whale species; promoting relative abundances that
favour whale species with high economic value; or accelerating the recovering of blue and fin whales. The
advantages and disadvantages as well as the practicability of achieving alternative objectives need to be
considered.
* Estimating surplus production (and hence allowable catch) by species under some of the management
objectives.
11
11Annex 150
Surplus production (and hence allowable catch) under different suitable management objectives will be
estimated and the advantages and disadvantages examined.
* Contribute towards a multi-whale-species management
Management strategies and tactics to achieve a selected management goal and to maintain that goal once
achieved will be considered.
3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure
As shown in Appendix 3, there is not sufficient information on current stock structure of fin and blue whales
in the Antarctic. Most of the available information comes from the period of commercial whaling and is
based on non-genetic data (e.g. distribution of catches and mark-recapture). According to that information,
boundaries among IWC Areas were probably valid for blue whales (Donovan, 1991, Mackintosh, 1942). In
the case of the fin whale the information obtained in the past suggested a structure based on oceanic basin.
These species have experienced substantial changes in abundance and it is possible that the current stock
structure does not match that described in the past. The research objective here is to investigate current stock
structure and to compare it to that suggested in the past.
As indicated in Appendix 3, in the cases of humpback and Antarctic minke whales much more information
on stock structure in the Antarctic is now available for the feeding ground (Pastene et al., 2005a; Pastene et
al., 2005b). These species have also experienced changes in abundance over the years and therefore temporal
changes in the stock structure can be expected. The research objective here is to investigate shifts in stock
boundaries (or equivalently changes of the relative proportions of stocks in mixing areas) on a temporal
(yearly) basis.
In the case of the Antarctic minke whale an additional objective is to investigate the western boundary of the
East Indian Ocean Stock (Pastene et al., 2005a). This objective will be covered through surveys in an
extended research area (west of Area IIIE) to be conducted in the future.
4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks
JARPA II research objectives will ultimately lead to the improvement of the whale stock management
procedures. In other words, the first objective will provide information on biological parameters (such as
MSYR) necessary for managing the stocks more efficiently under a revised RMP, the second will lead to
examining a multi-species management model for the future and the third will supply information for
establishing management areas in the Antarctic Ocean.
An unrealistic rate of 1% of mature female population size was used as the MSYR for the implementation of
the RMP on Antarctic minke whales agreed in 1993. Also, because there was little data on stock structure at
that time, Small Areas were defined by 10° longitudinal sectors, which is also unrealistic. In view of the
above, JARPA II will attempt to provide data for the following improvements:
* Improvement of MSYR estimates for Antarctic minke whales;
* Redefinition of appropriate management Areas; and
* Incorporation of effects arising from the inter-species relationships among the whale species. For instance,
should the carrying capacity for the minke decline due to competition with other whale species, minke whale
stocks would still be at their full capacity and a robust level even if abundance decreased for this reason.
With the current RMP, the catch quota for the foregoing scenario would be heavily (but unnecessarily)
reduced, even to zero; it would fail to function as a realistic basis for management and needs to be improved.
IV. RESEARCH METHOD
1. Research area
JARPA began with surveys in Areas IV (70°-130°E) and V (130°E-170°W). From the austral summer
season 1995/96, the research area was extended to include the eastern part of Area III (35°-70°E) and the
western part of Area VI (170°-145°W). The stock structure of Antarctic minke whales was therefore
investigated in an area spanning 180 degrees in longitude. With regard to the Antarctic minke whale, it was
found that there were two independent stocks in the research area and a soft boundary at 165°E (middle of
Area V) was proposed for management purposes (Pastene et al., 2005a). To the west of this boundary line,
but especially in Area IV, humpback whales have shown a rapid increase in recent years, and have surpassed
12
12 Annex 150
the Antarctic minke whale in biomass. Fin whales have also shown a rapid increase with an abundance
estimate of about 9,000 animals in Area IV+IIIE (Appendix 1). On the other hand, there has been significant
decrease in blubber thickness of the minke whales and a reversal in the trend of age at maturity toward
younger ages (Bando et al., 2005; Konishi and Tamura, 2005; Zenitani and Kato, 2005), which strongly
indicates competition among the whale species in the area.
The eastern part of Area V, mostly made up of the Ross Sea, comprises the main area of distribution of the
West South Pacific Stock of Antarctic minke whales. This stock has a remarkably large abundance. The
level of competition in this sector might be different from that in the area west of 165°E, because some
differences in the temporal trend of some biological parameters of minke whale were found between whales
distributed west and east of this boundary (Bando et al., 2005). Comparative studies of both areas will be
useful to understand the pattern of competition among whale species.
The area to be covered by JARPA II will basically be the same as in JARPA: the eastern part of Area III,
Areas IV and V, and the western part of Area VI (35°E - 145°W). In the first year, JARPA II will survey the
East Indian Ocean Stock of Antarctic minke whales in a longitudinal span of 140° on the western side of the
research area (35°E - 175°E). In the second year, JARPA II will survey the Western South Pacific Stock in a
longitudinal span of 95° on the eastern side of the research area (130°E - 145°W). Thus, surveys repeat in the
western region and eastern region every two years (Fig. 1).
The area from 130°E to 175°E will be covered every year, and the reason is as follows. At the JARPA
Review Meeting, it was pointed out that there exists a ‘soft boundary’ between the East Indian Ocean Stock
(I-Stock) and the Western South Pacific Stock (P-Stock) of minke whales in the vicinity of 165°E and that
further survey is necessary to better establish the range over which the stocks mix. Therefore, it has been
decided to survey the area from 130°E to 175°E every year in order to elucidate the pattern of stock mixing
at that particular sector. That is to say, minke whales will be taken west of 175°E in the first year and east of
130°E in the second.
Regarding humpback whales, the stock boundary between the D and E stocks is currently placed at 130°.
The D-Stock (breeding grounds located off the west coast of Australia) occurs on the west of the boundary,
in Area IV, while the E-Stock (breeding grounds located off the east coast of Australia) is distributed to the
east in Area V (IWC, 2001). This boundary also applies to fin whale stocks: the Indian Ocean Stock occurs
on the west of 130°E and the Pacific Stock on the east. However, some mixing on the feeding grounds
between the two humpback stocks has been postulated in the past, and is supported by mark return data. The
D stock is currently estimated to return to its pristine abundance over the next 10 years (Johnston and
Butterworth, 2005), providing an ideal opportunity which should not be missed to gain understanding of the
dynamics of the population and how biological parameter values change in such circumstances, while the E
stock which is still at a relatively lower level serves as a control.
In the Ross Sea, especially, a comprehensive ecosystem survey (a meso-scale survey) might be conducted, if
possible.
2. Research period
JARPA II will start in the 2005/06 season and the first two seasons are the feasibility study, investigating the
feasibility and practicability of sighting and sampling survey methods.
Full-scale research will commence from the 2007/08 season and a period of six years (including two years of
feasibility study) has been established as the research phase. At the end of this phase, a review will be held
and revisions made to the program if required.
3. Target whale species for lethal sampling
The species to be caught for research purposes are the Antarctic minke whales of the Eastern Indian Ocean
and Western South Pacific Stocks; humpback whales of the D and E-Stocks, and fin whales of the Indian
Ocean and the Western South Pacific Stocks.
Viewed overall, sampling of the three species in two Areas provides an important opportunity to gain insight
into the dynamics of whale and inter-species competition through comparative analysis. In Area IV, minke
whales may decrease in response to competition, recovery of humpback whales may soon slow as they
approach their pristine level, and fin whales are increasing. By contrast in Area V, there is less evidence of
negative impacts on minke whales at present, humpbacks are at a relatively lesser proportion of their pristine
13
13Annex 150
abundance than in Area IV, and hence together with fin whales seem likely to continue to increase. Thus the
different comparisons possible across species and Areas provide important potential insights into whale
dynamics, and consequently appropriate management actions for sustainable utilization.
4. Survey methods and items
Sighting and sampling methods are planned as described below. Their practicability and suitability will be
examined in the feasibility studies, after which they will be improved and changed as necessary.
* Sighting survey method
As a general rule, the surveys will cover areas south of 60°S. The areas will be divided into six sectors
(eastern Area III, western Area IV, eastern Area IV, western Area V, eastern Area V and western Area VI).
As a general rule the four sectors on the west side (eastern Area III, western Area IV, eastern Area IV, and
western Area V) will be surveyed in the first year and the three sectors on the east side (western Area V,
eastern Area V and western Area VI) in the second year. After the first two years, JARPAII will cover the
survey area alternately. These sectors will be divided further into southern and northern strata, over which
surveys will be conducted using two dedicated sighting vessels, basically employing the method used in
SOWER. However, JARPA II will record sightings of seals and possibly other krill predators in additions to
whales.
* Sampling method
Three sampling/sighting vessels will be employed. Antarctic minke whales will be taken in the area south of
62°S. Density index of Antarctic minke whales based on sighting data from JARPA is low in the latitudinal
band between 60°S and 62°S (less than 10% of the whole latitudinal range). This indicates that sampling of
Antarctic minke whales in this latitudinal band has a low importance. As described in section IV-1 above, the
longitudinal sector from 35°E to 175°E will be stratified and surveyed in the first year and that from 130°E
to 145°W in the second year. Survey courses will be established by the line transect method as in JARPA.
A maximum of two minke whales per school sighted will be taken by random sampling. Humpback and fin
whales will be taken by the same method as for the Antarctic minke whale.
Analytical methods by research objective are shown below.
1) Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem
In monitoring whales and habitat conditions, it is very important to detect any changes as soon as possible,
identify the factors and predict their effects on the stocks, and to provide information necessary for the
development of appropriate management policies. Data collected by the JARPA program were for the
purpose of estimating biological parameters of minke whale stocks, but they included useful monitoring
items. Thus, in order to secure continuity with the data collected in JARPA, we will continue to monitor the
following:
I) MONITORING OF WHALE ABUNDANCE TRENDS AND BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
According to the results of JARPA the current abundance of Antarctic minke whales migrating to the
research area shows no statistically detectable trend. However, as mentioned earlier, the trend of the age at
sexual maturity toward younger ages has halted and blubber thickness has decreased, which may affect
recruitment and abundance in the future. JARPA II intends to elucidate quantitative changes in minke whale
stocks by carrying out sighting surveys and by estimating parameters, including recruitment and mortality,
with population demographic model analyses such as VPA. This will also serve to monitor possible changes
in carrying capacity.
JARPA II will monitor changes in the ages at sexual and physical maturity, pregnancy rate, blubber
thickness and other items using the whales sampled in the program. Analysis of the JARPA data has
indicated that the earlier decrease in the age at maturity of Antarctic minke whales has either now stabilized
or even reversed. Changes in this biological parameter are considered to be a key factor in understanding
minke whale stock abundance trends. JARPA II will, therefore, elucidate qualitative changes in the stocks
by focusing analyses on mature whales, which are directly involved in reproduction, through the monitoring
of changes in the age at sexual maturity, pregnancy rate, etc.
In order to monitor changes in the level of genetic diversity over time, JARPA II will examine the temporal
variation of key genetic indices: the number of mtDNA haplotypes and nucleotide diversity, the number of
14
14 Annex 150
microsatellite alleles per locus and the level of microsatellite heterozygosity. Changes in the indices of
genetic diversity will be used as a rough index for abundance variations.
II) MONITORING OF KRILL ABUNDANCE AND THE FEEDING ECOLOGY OF WHALES
As in JARPA, stomach content and weight will be examined by direct sampling. Apart from identification
of the prey species, body length and growth stage will be investigated for krill in the stomachs and for those
obtained by net sampling. In this way prey species and prey size selectivity by whales can be investigated.
JARPA II will also monitor the changes in diurnal consumption, calculated by stomach content weight and
basal metabolism rate, as was done in JARPA.
Changes in nutritional condition, including meal size, body fatness, girth and blubber thickness will be
monitored as in JARPA. Prey availability will be evaluated by comparing the nutritional condition of whales
with oceanographic conditions and information on prey.
At the mid-term review of JARPA held in 1997, the necessity of an ecosystem survey at the meso-scale level
was pointed out (IWC, 1998). In the 2004/05 JARPA, Kaiyo Maru, the research vessel of the Japanese
Fisheries Agency, conducted ecosystem surveys linked with sampling surveys by the Nisshin Maru fleet. In
Phase II, if possible, the habitat environment of whales will be monitored and also the biomass of lower
trophic level species will be surveyed once every two or three years using an echo sounder.
III) MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF CONTAMINANTS ON CETACEANS (APPENDIX 4)
The Antarctic is a remote area, far from the middle latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which is the
main source of pollutants including organochlorines. The Antarctic Ocean is considered the terminus of
global contamination, and therefore monitoring of the area is important in considering future global
contamination. The area also has significance as a control region for considering biological effects on
cetaceans in the North Pacific, which is close to the contamination sources. Monitoring will be done with
the following points in mind:
* Elucidation of changes in pollutant accumulation in cetaceans of the Antarctic Ocean and the western
North Pacific and their biological processes;
* Elucidation of pollutant behavior in the marine ecosystem of the Antarctic and the western North Pacific;
and
* Elucidation of the biological effects of pollutants on cetaceans.
In the Antarctic Ocean (a non-contaminated area), JARPA II intends to examine the distribution and
behavior of contaminants such as organochlorines and heavy metals in cetaceans that are at the top trophic
level and their prey, together with those in the marine ecosystem, including samples from the environment
such as of air and of sea water. Data will be compared to those obtained in the western North Pacific (a
contaminated area). We will also collect background readings on the biological effects of pollutants on wild
animals in the Antarctic Ocean and in the western North Pacific, and gather data on the thresholds of toxic
effects through environmental toxicological research and pathological monitoring. Also, the data obtained
will be compared with data on minke whales in the western North Atlantic, if possible.
IV) MONITORING OF CETACEAN HABITAT
Oceanographic and meteorological observations will be carried out while monitoring the environment,
including sea ice, surface temperature, sea surface height and chlorophyll α concentration over the entire
research area, using satellite data. JARPA II will investigate the relationships between oceanographic data
and species distribution, including cetaceans, by real-time or time series analysis. JARPA II also intends to
actively cooperate with international organizations and projects on oceanographic surveys.
2) Modelling competition among whale species and future management objectives
I) CONSTRUCTING A MODEL OF COMPETITION AMONG WHALE SPECIES
JARPA II will test several hypotheses explaining changes in abundance of baleen whale species in the
Antarctic ecosystem (i.e. blue, fin, humpback, and Antarctic minke whales that prey on Antarctic krill south
of 60°S) and aim to construct a model that simulates their changes. The model is called a "model of
competition among whale species". The following sets out the concepts underlying the model and related
hypotheses (Appendix 6).
CONCEPTS OF THE MODEL
Regions south of 60°S in the Antarctic have a high bio-productivity and are rich in Antarctic krill. They are
the major feeding grounds of large whales such as blue, fin, humpback and Antarctic minke whales. The
carrying capacity of whale species depends on the available biomass of krill.
15
15Annex 150
Before the start of commercial whaling in 1904, all whale stocks were at the level of full carrying capacity,
with a balance maintained among whale species (1- Hypothesis of constant overall carrying capacity).
Whaling first began on the blue whale, the largest species yielding the greatest oil production, and the
humpback whale that was a species relatively easy to catch. The level of catches on these two species
increased rapidly and the stocks were greatly diminished. Next, whaling moved on to fin whales in the mid
1930s, and the stocks of this species were also severely depleted. The substantial reduction in abundance of
these species, which are important components of the ecosystem, resulted in a substantial surplus of krill (2-
Krill surplus hypothesis).
Because of its small size and limited oil output, Antarctic minke whale was not exploited at that time. They
fed on the surplus of krill and rapidly increased their abundance, with the age at sexual maturity changing to
younger ages (2- Hypothesis of krill surplus and 3 - Hypothesis of changing carrying capacity by species).
The catch of humpback, blue and fin whales was banned in 1963, 1964 and 1976, respectively. The age at
sexual maturity shifted to younger ages in the humpback and fin whales and an increasing trend in their
abundance has become apparent in recent years. Humpback whales now surpass the Antarctic minke whales
in biomass in Area IV (4- Hypothesis of stock increase due to a declining age at sexual maturity and 5-
Hypothesis of a predominant species in the ecosystem).
Antarctic minke whale stocks would probably decrease in number if the current conditions continue (6-
Hypothesis of declining pregnancy rates and/or juvenile survival rates due to inadequate trophic conditions
and 7- Hypothesis of competition among whale species).
The current extent of recovery of blue whales is very limited despite the fact that catch of this species has
been banned since 1964. It is possible that the chance of mating is low as a consequence of the extremely
small number of animals (8- Hypothesis about the causes of slow recovery).
Extensive climatic changes, including global warming, have become apparent in the Antarctic. For instance,
the average winter temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has gone up as much as by 5°C. There is also a
possibility of a major decline in the abundance of prey species (krill) due to the rise in surface temperature.
Such changes or variations in krill abundance could consequently affect the baleen whale stocks (9-
Hypothesis about the effects of environmental changes on cetaceans).
Along with humpback and fin whales, the recovery rate of the blue would probably increase from now on
(Branch et al., 2004) and the balance among whale species in the Antarctic ecosystem will continue to
change, although the pace of such changes would likely differ by geographical areas.
JARPA II will aim to construct a multi-whale species balance model among whale species that will
reproduce the processes described above. The changes in abundance by species in the research area and the
factors affecting these changes need to be investigated. Also, further changes in the future will be predicted,
and surplus production will be estimated from abundance data for each species, so that appropriate
management objectives can be considered through use of the model.
There is an initial ecosystem model of the Antarctic Ocean developed by Mori and Butterworth (2004): a
cetacean competition model over krill. For the western North Atlantic, Scenario C（Schweder et al., 2000;
Zhu et al., 2004) and Gadget (Begley, 2004; Olafsdottir and Begley, 2004), which also take competition into
account, are being developed. JARPA II will make selections after carefully considering the advantages and
disadvantages of these models and their appropriateness to the Antarctic ecosystem.
The construction of the model will start with krill as the sole prey species and the four baleen whale species,
which will compete for the prey. Although it seems a simple ecosystem model and we expect to be able to
match population abundances and trends indicated by JARPA II. In the future, JARPA II will incorporate
pinnipeds such as crabeater seals, and seabird predators as well as cephalopods, which all prey on Antarctic
krill, to construct a more realistic ecosystem model.
II) NEW MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES INCLUDING THE RESTORATION OF THE CETACEAN ECOSYSTEM
JARPA II will consider establishing new management objectives or goals including the recovery of the blue
whale when the model of competition among whale species has been developed to a certain extent. This can
also be done by comparing the results of work to improve the minke whale management procedure with the
knowledge obtained directly from monitoring activities.
Possible management goals could be accelerating the recovery of blue and fin whales, maximization of total
production or increasing the productivity of specific whale species in relation to their economic value.
16
16 Annex 150
JARPA II will further examine the advantages and disadvantages of alternate management goals. JARPA II
will also examine the possible effects of the resumption of commercial whaling on the relative numbers of
the various species and stocks and aim to provide advice on management policies for whaling that will meet
chosen management objectives.
3) Elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structures
Genetic and biological markers will be sampled and/or observed from samples taken in the monitoring
surveys of whales. Biopsy sampling will be conducted on blue, fin and humpback whales.
Analyses of mtDNA control region sequencing and nuclear DNA microsatellites will be conducted. Other
biological markers will also be analyzed.
Further, JARPAII will develop tagging methods for data loggers (TDR) and satellite tagging transmitters,
and trace migration routes of the tagged whales in order to elucidate stock structure.
Based on the analysis, we will better elucidate fin and blue whale stock structure. Also, the spatial and
temporal variation in stock boundaries (or equivalently changes of the relative proportions of stocks in
mixing areas) of the Antarctic minke and humpback whales will be tracked.
4) Improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks
* Estimation of MSYR
Recruitments over the years are estimated by VPA based on age and abundance data. Recruitments are fit to
the Pella-Tomlinson reproduction model to estimate MSYR.
* Re-establishment of management Areas for the Antarctic minke
The management area for the East Indian Ocean Stock and West South Pacific Stock should be re-
established using the results obtained from the third research objective. That is to say, by elucidating the
degree of intermingling and changes according to year in sector VW where the Indian Ocean Stock is
expected to be mixed with the West South Pacific Stock, Small Areas would be specified. As for the other
sectors, Small Areas that have been established by a longitudinal span of 10 degrees should be abolished in
favour of more biologically realistic choices.
* Incorporation of effects due to inter-species relations among species
An examination will be made of whether or not the current RMP has functions that meet inter-specific
phenomena (for instance, decline in carrying capacity and abundance decrease) that have become apparent
from research under the first and second objectives. If not, consideration will be given as to how to
incorporate them into the calculation of catch limits under a refined RMP.
V. SAMPLE SIZES
1. Antarctic minke whales
First, the sample size necessary for the monitoring of biological parameters has been calculated. The sample
size was calculated not in relation to the precision of the parameter estimates themselves, but to detect
significant temporal changes in the estimates. Changes in the age at sexual maturity and blubber thickness
are very important since they indicate changes in abundance trends or shifts in prey conditions. A sample
size needed to detect changes in a six-year period (by applying past rate of change, that is, the slope of the
regression) has been adopted as the pertinent criterion. Required sample sizes are then calculated as follows:
Age at sexual maturity: Age at sexual maturity shifted toward younger age at an annual rate of 0.2 years
during the period of commercial whaling years, but presently it has stabilized. It is important to determine
when it starts to increase. It is not plausible that the changes of age at sexual maturity starts at the rate of 0.2
year, rather it will have a period of slower change rate, and therefore annual rate of 0.1 year was chosen.
Sample size at a detection level of yearly rate of change of 0.1 year is 1,288 animals/year (Appendix 6).
Apparent pregnancy rate: The apparent pregnancy rate of minke whales is high and is 90% or more. Sample
size necessary to detect the change of 1.0-1.5% at the initial stage when change begins is 663-1,617 animals
(Appendix 6).
17
17Annex 150
Blubber thickness: Similarly, sample size for the detection of a yearly rate of change of 0.5 mm. observed in
the past is 818 to 971 animals (Appendix 7).
The sample size necessary for pathological monitoring (effect of contaminant on whale species) is 864
animals/year at 10% of the prevalence rate, which was expected for the free-ranging whale by using data
from the feasibility observation in the JARPA surveys (Appendix 4).
The sample size necessary for detecting yearly change in mixing proportion between Antarctic minke whale
stocks in Area VW is shown in Appendix 3. The mixing rate in the 1996/97 season was different from those
of other seasons. Results obtained showed that for non-overlapping 95% credibility intervals between the
estimates of the mixing proportions over Area VW, a sample size in that region of about 300 will be required.
This sample size will provide the power to detect an annual change as big as the one that appears to have
occurred in 1996/97. The abundance in Area VW is approximately 1/3 of that in the research area of each
year. Therefore, about 300 samples are expected in Area VW under the total sample size of 900 animals.
This means that the necessary sample size in Area VW will be ensured.
Mark-recapture analysis is useful for abundance estimates and the elucidation of behavior patterns. Such
analysis has been conducted in recent years based on biopsy sampling and genetic identification of
individuals. However, this has not proved to be practical since non-lethal sampling has been involved, which
means that the numbers of samples obtained are small in relation to the amount of effort involved. Large-
scale biopsy sampling is also inefficient in offshore waters for baleen whale species.
An alternative method that offsets these deficiencies has been developed recently based on catches. Mother-
fetus pairs in the catches are examined using a set of microsatellites. Based on the genetic profiles, the
potential father of the fetus is sought among the rest of whales in the catches. Attempts are being made to
estimate the abundance and to elucidate stock structure and behavior patterns based on the positions where
the parents were taken (for example, Skaug and Oien, 2004). The method could also be useful for estimating
differences in reproductive success rates between individuals or groups of whales differing in life histories
and ages.
In Norway, a total of 288 mother-fetus pairs were examined out of 3,301 whales in the DNA register, and
five possible fathers were identified. Based on this, the abundance of male minke whales was estimated to
be 38,400, but the figure is imprecise. If this method is applied in JARPA II, at least 800-1,000 animals per
year will be necessary even if the samples are pooled for the three seasons in the six years (Appendix 8).
In summary, as the minimum number of sample size, 663 animals were calculated for apparent pregnancy
rate. However, for most of the other parameters, the sample sizes calculated were in a range of 800-1,000
animals with more than 800 being desirable. Therefore, the sample size of minke whales was set at 850 +-
10 %. The allowed range of +-10% was applied since, based on the past data on school density, there are
annual changes in school density on the line transects, which are determined in advance.
2. Humpback whales
The sample size required for the monitoring of important biological parameters in this species has been
examined. Changes in the pregnancy rate and age at sexual maturity are very important since they indicate
changes in the trend of abundance or shifts in prey conditions. A sample size needed to detect changes
observed in past years (that is, slopes of regression) has been adopted as the criterion.
The results of sample size calculations for pregnancy rate and age at sexual maturity (Appendix 6) are
outlined below. There were hardly any data on the age at sexual maturity so those for fin whales were used
instead. A sample size for a six-year period is preferable since the research program will be reviewed every
six years, but in the case of humpback whales the resulting values for this period were large so that we have
decided to use the sample size required for twelve years, as a precautionary approach.
Apparent pregnancy rate: 41 to 181 animals for a yearly rate of change of 1.5 to 3% observed in the past
(Appendix 6).
Age at sexual maturity: 131 animals for a yearly rate of change of 0.1 years (for fin whales) (Appendix 6).
Considering these results, we have decided on a sample size of 50.
3. Fin whales
Sample size was determined under the same conditions and criteria as for the humpback whale.
18
18 Annex 150
Apparent pregnancy rate: 55 to 107 animals for a yearly rate of change of 2 to 2.5% observed in the past
(Appendix 6).
Age at sexual maturity: 131 animals for a yearly rate of change of 0.1 years (Appendix 6).
For the DNA analysis, samples of 20 to 50 animals have been recommended (Hoelzel, 1991).
As with humpback whales, we have decided on a sample size of 50.
VI. FEASIBILITY STUDIES
1. Necessity and objectives
As explained earlier area will be enlarged, sample size will be increased and new species added. The
objective of the feasibility study is to examine the practicability and appropriateness of sighting methods and
sampling procedures, and improve them as necessary.
Catches of humpback and fin whales were banned in the Antarctic in 1963 and 1976, respectively. Crews
and research staff of the research fleet have no experience in catching and flensing these two large-sized
whales. Thus, it is necessary to examine the practicability of methods of hunting, hauling, flensing and
biological sampling.
If possible, detailed surveys of krill and the marine environment will be also carried out during the feasibility
studies.
2. Survey period
The first two seasons (2005/06 and 2006/07) will be allocated to the feasibility studies.
3. Survey methods
As a general rule, sighting and sampling methods will be the same as explained in Section IV-4 above.
4. Sample size
As mentioned in Section V-1, a maximum of 850+-10% Antarctic minke whales will be sampled from the
first year. The practicability and appropriateness of sighting methods in the enlarged area and sampling
procedures given the increased sample size will be examined.
A maximum of ten fin whales will be sampled in each season. These samples will be used to check the
practicability of catching, flensing and taking of biological measurements of large whale species. There is
little information for fin whales in recent years, and preliminary data on food habit and maturity will be
obtained in the feasibility study.
Humpback whales will not be taken during the feasibility study.
VII. EFFECT ON THE STOCKS
Based on the results of the Hitter-Fitter Method (Appendix 9), no adverse effect on Antarctic minke whale
stocks is expected.
As regards humpback whales, their steady recovery has been reported (Bannister and Hedley, 2001; Paterson,
Paterson and Cato, 2001; Johnston and Butterworth, 2005). Using the population dynamics model by
Johnston and Butterworth (2005), the effect of take of 50 animals on the stock was examined. The results
showed that the take of 50 animals per year hardly delays their recovery to the pristine level (Appendix 9).
The abundance estimate of fin whales (Appendix 1) does not cover their entire range and is therefore greatly
underestimated. The planned sample size is fifty animals each year, which comes to twenty-five a year from
each stock which is less than 1% of the underestimated abundance. Therefore it is considered to have no
adverse effect on the stocks. During the feasibility study the sample size is ten animals each year (effectively
only 5 a year from each stock). The effect is therefore negligible.
19
19Annex 150
VIII. RESEARCH VESSELS, RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS AND FOREIGN PARTICIPATION
1. Research vessels
The whale research fleet will be composed of two dedicated sighting vessels (Kyoshin Maru No.2 and the
other undecided vessel), three sampling vessels (Yushin Maru No.2, Yushin Maru, and Kyo Maru No.1) and
one research base vessel (Nisshin Maru). If possible, other vessel will engage in more detailed surveys on
prey and marine environment.
2. Research organizations
(1) Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR)
(2) National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries (NRIFSF) and other institutes of the Fisheries Research
Agency (FRA)
(3) Other research institutes
3. Participation of foreign scientists
Participation of foreign scientists will be welcomed, so long as they meet the qualifications established by
the Government of Japan. The required qualifications are the same as for JARPN II.
IX. NECESSITY OF LETHAL METHODS
The necessity of using lethal methods was already discussed at the 1997 JARPA Review meeting (IWC,
1998).
Parameters related to age and stomach content surveys, which are essential for the objectives of JARPA II,
cannot be obtained using non-lethal methods alone. JARPA results showed that the meal size, blubber
thickness and age at physical and sexual maturity strongly suggested inter and intra species competitions
(Tamura and Konishi, 2005; Bando et al., 2005; Zenitani and Kato, 2005; Konishi and Tamura, 2005; Fujise
et al., 20005). These parameters are essential for monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystems, and therefore lethal
sampling is necessary for JARPAII.
X. UTILIZING EXISTING DATA
1. Data from commercial whaling
Pregnancy rates and age at sexual maturity, of humpback, fin, and blue whales have been estimated based on
data from commercial whaling (Appendix 6, Lockyer, 1979). They are valuable information and will be
compared with the data obtained in JARPA II.
Biological data on Antarctic minke whales obtained from past commercial whaling and JARPA have been
already compared. They are a valuable time series of data required for connecting from past to future.
2. Data from JARPA
Data from JARPA are highly valuable from the standpoint of monitoring. In JARPA II environmental and
biological data will be collected as a continuation of JARPA.
XI. OTHERS
1. Processing of whale samples
All the whales sampled will be treated as stipulated in Paragraph 2, Article VIII of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Tissue samples will be taken from all whales and DNA data
registered for market control (individual identification).
2. Report to the IWC Scientific Committee
A report of research cruises will be submitted to the annual or other meetings of the IWC Scientific
Committee and other organizations, every time a cruise has been completed. The report of the two feasibility
cruises will be submitted to the IWC/SC after they have been completed. When the full-scale research
20
20 Annex 150
program has been launched, a comprehensive report will be submitted to the IWC/SC after each six-year
research period.
3. Whale killing methods
All whales will be taken using explosive grenades. If instantaneous death is not achieved by the primary
killing method, a suitable secondary method, such as a large caliber rifle or another explosive grenade will be
chosen, depending on whale species and the condition of the hunted animal.
XII. REFERENCES
Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E. and Rothery, P. 2004. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase
in salps within the Southern Ocean. Nature, 432: 100-103.
Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. 2005. Biological parameters of Antarctic minke whale based
on materials collected by the JARPA survey in 1987/88 to 2003/04. Paper JA/J05/JR5 presented to the
JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Bannister, J. L. and Hedley, S. L. 2001. Southern hemisphere Group IV humpback whales: their status from
recent aerial survey. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47(2):587-598.
Begley, J.2004 Gadget User Guide, available online from the Gatget web page, which is available from
http://www.hafro.is/gadget.
Branch, T.A., Matsuoka, K. and Miyashita, T. 2004. Evidence for increases in Antarctic blue whales based
on Bayesian modelling. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4): 726-754.
Cooke, J., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. 1997. An analysis of maturity stage and transition phase data from minke
whales collected during JARPA expedition in Area IV, 1987/88 through 1995/96. Paper SC/M97/22
presented to the meeting of the Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, IWC Scientific Committee, May 1997 (unpublished).
16pp.
Croxall, J.P., Trathan, P.N. and Murphy, E.J. 2002. Environmental change and Antarctic seabird populations.
Science, 297: 1510-1514.
Fujise, Y., Honda, K., Yamamoto, Y., Kato, H., Zenitani, R. and Tatsukawa, R. 1997. Changes of hepatic
mercury accumulations of Southern minke whales in past fifteen years. Paper SC/M97/20 presented to the
IWC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke
whales in the Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished). 16pp.
Fujise, Y., Hatanaka, H. and Ohsumi, S. 2005. What has happened to the Antarctic Minke Whale Stocks? - A
interpretation of results from JARPA -. Paper JA/J05/JR17 presented to the JARPA Review meeting,
January 2005.
Donovan, G. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Rep. int. Whal. Commn. (Special Issue 13): 39-68.
Government of Japan. 1987. The programme for research on the Southern Hemisphere minke whale and for
preliminary research on the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic. Paper SC/39/O4 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee, June 1987 (unpublished). 60pp.
Government of Japan. 1995. The 1995/96 research plan for the Japanese Whal e Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic. Paper SC/47/SH3 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995
(unpublished). 9pp.
Hassol, S.J., 2004. “Impacts of a Warming Arctic” Cambridge University Press, Canada, 139pp.
Hoelzel, A.R (ed.). 1991. Genetic Ecology of Whales and Dolphins. Rep. int. Whal. Commn (Special Issue
13). 311pp.
International Whaling Commission. 1993. Report of the Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn
43:55-228.
International Whaling Commission 1995. IWC, 1995. Chairman's Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting.
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:15-52.
21
21Annex 150
International Whaling Commission. 1998. Report of the Intersessional Working Group to review data and
results from special permit research on minke wh ales in the Antarctic, Tokyo, 12-16 May 1997. Rep. int.
Whal. Commn 48: 377-412.
International Whaling Commision. 1999. Report of the workshop on chemical pollution and cetaceans. J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. (special issue) 1:1-42.
International Whaling Commission 2001. Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.,
3(Suppl.): 1-82.
International Whaling Commission 2004. Report of the Scientific Committee J. Cetacean Res. Manage ,
6(Suppl.): 1-411.
Ishikawa, H., Otani, S., Kiwada, H., Isoda, T., Tohyama, D., Honjo, K., Hasegawa, A., Terao, T., Kushimoto,
T., Ohshima, K., Sugiyama, K., Sasaki, T., Itoh, S., Takamatsu, T. and Yoshida, T. 2004. Cruise Report of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area IV and Eastern
Part of Area III in 2003/2004. Paper SC/56/O12 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 2004
(unpublished). 18pp.
Johnston, S.J. and Butterworth, D., 2005. Assessment of the west and east Australian breeding populations of
southern Hemisphere humpback whales using a model that allows for mixing on the feeding grounds and
taking account of the most recent abundance estimates from JARPA. Paper JA/J05/JR19 presented to the
JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Kato, H. 1987. Density dependent changes in growth parameters of southern minke whale. Sci. Rep. Whales
Res. Inst., 38: 47-73.
Kitakado, T., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T. and Kato, H. 2005. Estimation of natural mortality
coefficients for Antarctic minke whales through VPA studies. Paper JA/J05/JR21 presented to the JARPA
Review meeting, January 2005.
Konishi, K. and Tamura, T. 2005. Yearly trend of blubber thickness in the Antarctic minke whale
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in Areas IV and V. Paper JA/J05/JR9 presented to the JARPA Review meeting,
January 2005.
Lockyer, C. 1979. Changes in a growth parameter associated with exploitation of southern fin and sei whales.
Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 29: 191-196.
Mackintosh, N.A. 1942. The southern stocks of whalebone whales. Discovery Rep. 22:197-300
Ministry of Fisheries. 2004 Report No. 27 to the Storting. Norway’s policy on marine mammals.
Mori, M and Butterworth, D.S. 2004. Consideration of multispecies interactions in the Antarctic: A
preliminary model of the minke whale – blue whale – krill interaction. Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries
in the Southern Benguela Afr. J. mar. Sci. 26:245-259.
Mori, M. and Butterworth, D.S. 2005. Progress on application of ADAPT-VPA to minke whales in Areas IV
and V given updated information from IDCR/SOWER and JARPA surveys. Paper JA/J05/JR18 presented
to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Ohsumi, S., Fujise, Y., Ishikawa, H., Hakamada, T, Zenitani, R. and Matsuoka, K. 1997. The fattyness of the
Antarctic minke whale and its yearly change. Paper SC/M97/18 presented to the IWC Intersessional
Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the
Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished). 21pp.
Olafsdottir, E.I. and Begley, J. 2004. Grey seals in Gadget. NAMMCO SC/12/IN/8 1-25.
Pastene, L.A., Goto M., Kanda, N., Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T., Otani, S. and Fujise, Y. 2005a. A
new interpretation of the stock identity in the Antarctic minke whale ( Balaenoptera bonaerensis) based on
analyses of genetics and non-genetics markers. Paper JA/J05/JR3 presented to the JARPA Review meeting,
January 2005.
Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005b. Genetic analyses on stock identification in the
Antarctic humpback and fin whales based on samples collected under the JARPA. Paper JA/J05/JR16
presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
22
22 Annex 150
Paterson, R.A, Paterson, P. and Cato, D.H. 2001. Status of humpback whales in east Australia at the end of
the 20th century. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47(2):579-586.
Perrin, W. 2001. Draft review of the utility of non-genetic data for differentiating stocks of whales. Paper
SC/53/SD2 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, July 2001 (unpublished).
Rugh, D., DeMaster, D., Rooney, A., Breiwick, J., Shelden, K. and Moore, S. 2003. A review of bowhead
whale (Balaena mysticetus) stock identity. J. Cetacean Res. Manage 5(3):267-279.
Schweder, T., Hagen, G.S. and Hatlebakk, E. 2000. pp. 120-132. In: G.A. Vikingsson, and F.O. Kapel (eds.)
Direct and indirect effects of minke whale abundance on cod and herring fisheries: A scenario experiment
for the Greater Barents Sea. [Minke whales, harp and hoodedseals: major predators in the North Atlantic
ecosystem.] NAMMCO SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS 2:132pp.
Skaug, H. and N. Øien. 2004. Genetic tagging of males in North Atlantic minke whales through comparison
of mother and fetus DNA-profiles. Paper SC/56/SD3 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May
2004 (unpublished).
Tamura, T. and Konishi, K. 2005. Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whales,
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in Areas IV and V of the Antarctic Paper JA/J05/JR8 presented to the JARPA
Review meeting, January 2005.
Tanaka, E., Zenitani, R. and Fujise, Y. 2005. A point estimate of Natural Mortality Coefficient using JARPA
data. Paper JA/J05/JR6 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Tanaka, S. 1990. Estimation of natural mortality coefficient of whales from the estimates of abundance and
age composition data obtained from research catches. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40:531-6.
Thomson, R.B., Butterworth, D.S. and Karo, H. 1999. Has the age at transition of Southern Hemisphere
minke whales declined over recent decreases? Marine Mammal Science. 15(3): 661-82.
Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Honda, K. and Kato, H. 2005. Yearly trend of trace element
accumulation in liver of Antarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis. Paper JA/J05/JR13 presented
to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Zenitani, R. and Kato, H., 2005. Long- term trend of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by
counting transition phase in earplugs. Paper JA/J05/JR7 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January
2005.
Zhu, M., Schweder, T. and Hagen, G. 2004. Scenario-C: The cod predation model. NR-Note SAMBA/09/04.
(http://publications.nr.no/SAMBA 0904.pdf)
23
23Annex 150
VIW--W
VE-E
Finwhhalee
SeccAnnarctc minke whaaele
Seecconndd yeeaar suurrveyy
Huumppback whaaele
V-EE
V-WW
Huumppback whalee
Fiirst yeearrsuurrveyy
Antacttcminkeewhhalee
Firstt yeaar suurrveyy
Fin whalee
IIEIII--E
SghSiyearg suvey southof60S,130E–145W))Seeonndsteecond
24 Annex 150
Appendix 1
Composition of baleen whale species in the JARPA research
area
KOJI MATSUOKA,TAKASHIHAKAMADAANDSHIGETOSHI NISHIWAKI
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) was designed
as a large-scaled and long-term monitoring program using line transect surveys. These have been
carried out in a consistent way during the Austral summer every other year in Areas IV and V since
the 1987/88 season . The established sighting proced ures have matched those of the IWC/ SOWER
(Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research) cruises to the extent possible. The current
research area was set in th e Antarctic Areas IIIE (35oE-70 E), IV(70 E-130 E), V (130 E-170 W)o
o o o
and VIW (170 W -145 W) in the waters south of 60 S. Major cetacean species sighted in the
research areas were Antarctic minke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis ), humpback ( Megaptera
novaeangliae), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus) and blue ( Balaenoptera musculus intermedia ) whales.
Current abundances were estimated using the most recent stock boundaries of these species. A
“shift in baleen whale dominance” from Antarctic minke to humpback whales, was observed in Area
IV since 1997/98 season. In 1989/90 season, biomas s of Antarctic minke was higher (382,000 tons)
than humpback whales (128,000 tons), and after 15 years, the biomass of humpback (841,000 tons)
increased twice than that of Antarctic minke (335,000 tons). Habitat expansion of humpback and fin
whales were also observed in Area IV from the first half (1989/90-1996/97) to the later half of
surveys (1997/98 -2002/04). At this morment, abundance of Antarctic minke whales is stable in Area
IV, however, increases of abundance and habitat expansion of humpback and fin whales, may cause
competition with Antarctic minke whales. Yearly change in some biological fetures also suggest this
“Event”. Further monitoring survey will be required for the baleen whale management in the
Antarctic Ocean.
1. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR BALEEN WHALES IN THE JARPA
RESEARCH AREA
The Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) was designed as a
large-scaled and long-term monitoring program using line transect surveys. It has been carried out in a
consistent way during the Austral summer seasons every other year in IWC Areas IV and V since the
1987/88 season. The sighting procedures have been established to match the IWC/IDCR (International
Decade for Cetacean Research) and SOWER (Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research) cruises to
the extent possible. The trackline wa s designed in order to cover the strata uniformly and all the schools
sighted were recorded (Figure 1). Sighting surveys were conducted only conditions when wind speed was 20
knot or less for the northern strata and 25 knot or less in the southern strata. The current research area was set
in the Antarctic Areas IIIE (35 E-70 E), IV(70 E-130 E), V (130 E-170 W) and VIW (170 W -145 W) in o
the waters south of 60 oS. Major cetacean species sighted in th e research Areas were Antarctic minke
(Balaenoptera bonaerensis ), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae ), fin ( Balaenoptera physalus ) and blue
(Balaenoptera musculus intermedia) whales (Nishiwaki et al,, 2003, Ishikawa et al,, 2004).
Abundance of Antarctic minke whale was estimated by Hakamada et al, (2005). Abundance of other baleen
whales were estimated by Matsuoka et al, (2005). Table 1 summarize curr ent abundance estimates of
Antarctic minke (Eastern Indian Ocean Stock (I-stock) & Western South Pacific Stock (P-stock)), humpback,
(Western Australian Stock (D-stock) & Eastern Australian Stock (E-stock), fin (Indian Ocean Stock (IO–
stock) & Western South Pacific Stock (WP-stock)) and blue whales based on the most recent stock
boundaries of these species (Pastene et al,, 2005a and 2005b) using JARPA sighting survey data.
25
25Annex 150
1.1. Antarctic minke whale
Antarctic minke whales were widely distributed in th e northern and southern strata. They also tended to
distribute in the southern strata rather than northern strata. High density areas were observed in the southern
strata, specially the Ross Sea and Prydz Bay (Figure 2). Abundance of this species between 1989/90 and
2003/04 were estimated by Hakamada et al, (2005).
o o
I-stock: 35 E-165 E
For the Indian Ocean stock (I-stock), because abundance estimates in Area IIIE are available only from the
JARPA survey in the 1995/96 season, abundance of this stock were estimated from the 1995/96 to the
2003/04 seasons. Table 2 and Figure 3 show abundance estimates of this stock in the research area (south of
o o o
60 S, 35 E-165 E). Abundance of this stock was stable between the 1995/96 and 2003/04 seasons.
o o
P-stock: 165 E-145 W
For the Western South Pacific Stock (P-stock), because abundance estimates in Area VIW are available only
from the JARPA survey in the 1996/97 season, abundance of this stock were estimated from the 1996/97 to
the 2002/03 seasons. Table 2 and Figure 3 show abundance estimates of this stock in the research area (south
of 60 S, 165 E-145 W).
1.2. Humpback whales
o o
D-stock: 70 E-130 E
Humpback whales were concentrated between 90 oand 120 E in northern and southern strata, and were
widely dispersed in the other parts of Area IV (Figure 4). Comparison of the distribution pattern between the
first half of JARPA (1989/90-1996/97) and the later half (1997/98-2003/04) shows an increase in the number
of sightings in Area IV between 90 and 120 E (Figure 5), and that the concentration area of this species was
expanded to the southern and eastern strata year by year. Average latitude of the concentration area was
60 30’S in the first half, and 62 30’S in the later half of the JARPA (Figure 6).
The catch of humpback whales in the Antarctic was banned in 1963. Bannister (1994) reported that a total
population size of some 3,000 whales off Shark Ba y, Western Australia, based on the results from
comparison of the 1991 sighting rate with those from a 1963 commercial aerial spotter. In the late 1990’s,
analyses from coastal aerial surveys, 8,000-14,000 whales was estimated (rate of increase was 10.2±4.6%)
off Western Australia (Bannister and Hedley, 2001). Abundance estimate using IWC/SOWER data for the
part of Area IV (80 o -130 oE) in 1998/99 was estimated as 17,300 (CV=0.17) whales (Matsuoka et al,.,
2003). At the start of JARPA, abundance of this stock was only 5,200 (1989/90 season), but current
abundance estimates of this stock was estimated as 31,800 (CV=0.11) in 2003/04 season (Table3 and Figure
7). Recent abundance (average of 2001/02 and 2003/04) was 32,380 (CV=0.08). Increasing rate of this stock
in the feeding ground (south of 60 oS) was estimated as 16.2±6.4%,because recent habitat extension of this
stock may cause this high estimate (Matsuoka et al,., 2005). As a results of stock assessment, near complete
recoveries to pristine levels are suggested in some 10 years for this stock (Johnston and Butterworth, 2005).
o o
E-stock: 130 E-170 W
For the E-stock in Area V, they tended to distributed in the eastern part of Area V except the Ross sea. They
were distributed clearly along the Pacific Antarctic ridge where the southern boundary of the Antarctic
Circumpolar Current was observed. Table3 shows abundance estimates for this stock. Yearly fluctuations of
abundance estimation were observed for this stock.
There are several reports on abundance estimates of humpback whales in the late 1990’s off Eastern
Australia and Antarctic Area V. Estimate of East Australian humpback whales using land-based survey was
3,185 (s.e.=208) whales in the 1996 (Brown et al,., 1997). The estimate in the Antarctic Area V in 1991/92
season using IWC/IDCR data was 2,104 whales (CV=0.52) (Brown and Butterworth, 1999). Recent JARPA
estimates (average of 2000/01 and 2002/03) are 3,728 (CV=0.15) whales which are consistent as a rate of
increasing has been assumed to be some 10 %. As a results of stock assessment, near complete recoveries to
pristine levels are suggested in some 15-20 years for the currently more depleted E-stock (Johnston and
Butterworth, 2005).
26
26 Annex 150
1.3. Fin whales
Estimate of abundance of this species in the whole Antarctic waters based on IWC/IDCR and Japanese
Scouting Vessels (JSV) was 18,000 (CV=0.47) in the south of 30 oS (Butterworth et al,., 1994). Recent
o
estimates of this species in the whole area south of 60 S based on the IWC/IDCR and SOWER data were
2,100 (1978/79-1983/84, CV=0.36), 2,100 (1985/86-1990/91, CV=0.45) and 5,500 (1991/92-1997/98: not
completed, CV=0.53) in the first, second and toird corcumpolor series, respectively (Branch and Butterworth,
2001). In half of Antarctic area (south of 60 S, 35 E -145 W), 15,000 (CV=0.20) whales was estimated using
JARPA 1989/90- 2003/04 data, and the first estimates in this area shows significant increase (Matsuoka et al,,
2005). Figure 8 shows the distribution pattern of this species by the JSV data.
IO-stock: 35 E-130 Eo
Indian Ocean Stock (IO-stock) of this species were wi dely distributed in the Areas IIIE and IV, and they
tended to be distributed in Area IIIE rather than Area IV. They were widely dispersed and also rarely found
within the Prydz Bay (Figure 9). Comparison of the distribution pattern during the first half of JARPA
(1989/90-1995/96) and the later half (1996/97-2003/04), shows that fin whales appeared more frequently in
the western part of Area IV in recent years (Figure 10).
No abundance estimation of this stock from sightings data was reported. Receno abundance (average of
2001/02 and 2003/04) was estimated as 8,621 (CV=0.19) for south of 60 S (Table 4 and Figure 11). Because
they are mainly distributed in the area north of 60 S (Kasamatsu, 1993), large yearly fluctuation in the area
o
south of 60 S in Areas IIIE and IV might be attributable to such distribution. For abundance estimation of the
whole IO-stock, it is possible to extrapolate current abundance to the north of 60 oS using Japanese scouting
vessel (JSV) data. The abundance in January and February with consideration of seasonal distribution
changes of this species were estimated to be 31, 000 whales (CV=0.26) for this stock (south of 40 oS, 35 E-
130 E), from the results of the JARPA-2003/04 data.
WP-stock : 130 E-145 W o
o
For the WP-stock of this species in the area south of 60 S, recent abundance (average of 2000/01 and
2002/03) was estimated 4,691 (CV=0.17) (Table 4 and Figure 11).
For the whole Western Pacific Stock abundance estimation, it is possible to extrapolate current abundance to
the north of 60°S using Japanese scouting vessel (JSV) data (Miyashita et al,, 1995), because this species
also distributed in areas more north of 60°S. The abundance in January and February with consideration of
seasonal distribution changes of this species were estim ated to be 16,000 whales (CV=0.29) for this stock
(south of 40°S, 130°E-145°W), from the results of the JARPA-2002/03 data.
1.4. Blue whales (35 E-145 W) o
There is no stock information of blue whales in the JA RPA research area. Initially, there were as many as
200,000 blue whales in the whole Antarctic as calculated by a logistic model, but their number was greatly
reduced by over-hunting, and their take was banned in 1964. After forty years, however, they still small
number less than 2,000 (Branch et al,, 2004).
In the JARPA research area, blue whales were rarely encountered by the surveys though they were widely
distributed in the research area. They were usually found in Area IIIE and Area VE (Figure 13). In Area IV,
the number of sightings of this species increased in the later half JARPA (Figure 14). Abundance of this
species (south of 60 S, 35 E-145 W) was 900 (CI: 500-1,600) in 1999/2000 + 2000/01 seasons and 500
whales (CI: 300-1,000) in 2001/02 + 2002/03 seasons (Table 5). They still number less than 1,000 (biomass:
less than 8,000 tons) in the JARPA research area. Also, the number of survey years is still too short to detect
any precise yearly trend. Further surveys are necessary for improving the precision of estimates of the annual
rate of increase in the feeding ground.
A “SHIFT IN BALEEN WHALE DOMINANCE” FROM ANTARCTIC MINKE TO HUMPBACK
WHALES IN AREA IV
Biomass of Antarctic minke, humpback, fin and blue whal es in Area IV are shown in Figure 15. A “Shift in
baleen whale dominance” from Antarctic minke to humpback whales was observed in this Area since
1997/98 season. In 1989/90 season, biomass of Antarctic minke was higher (382,000 tons) than humpback
whales (128,000 ton), and after 15 years in 2003/04 season, biomass of humpback (841,000 tons) was twice
than Antarctic minke (335,000 tons). Increase of fin whale was observed in Areas IIIE and IV. In 1989/90
season, biomass of fin was 5,000 tons, and after 15 years in 2003/04 season, biomass of fin was 67,000 tons
27
27Annex 150
as over 10 times (20 % of Antarctic minke biomass). Abundance of Antarctic minke whales is stable in
Areas IV and V, however, the decrease in blubber thickness in Area IV was observed (Konishi and Tamura,
2005), and the decreasing pattern in stomach content wei ghts of matured minke whales was also observed in
Area IV since 1987/88 season using JARPA biological data (Tamura and Konishi, 2005). It is also
reasonable to support a view that increase and habitat expansion of humpback and fin whales in Area IV,
may cause competition with Antarctic minke. Further monitoring survey was required in order to
understanding Antarctic ecosystem and for the baleen whale management in the Antarctic Ocean.
3. MONITORING WHALE POPULATION
In the Antarctic Ocean, catch of southern right, humpback, blue, fin and sei whales was prohibited in 1932,
1963, 1964, 1976 and 1978, respectively. Seventy years pa ssed already since southern right whale has been
protected, and more than 40 years have passed since humpback whale and blue whale have been protected.
In coastal waters of south America, South Africa and east and west coast of Australia, significant recovery of
southern right whale and humpback whales are reporte d recently in these breeding areas. On the other hand,
the information on the present status of pelagic speci es, such as blue, fin and sei whales were limited. The
IWC/IDCR-SOWER cruises, however not sufficient enough for the monitoring of ecosystem, as survey
covers the same area once in every over 6 years. In this situation, JARPA have been monitoring for baleen
whale species population by the large-scaled and long-term line transect survey for over 15 years in Areas IV
and V. The number of survey years is still too short to detect precise yearly trend for whales population.
Further monitoring survey was required for the baleen whale management in the Antarctic Ocean.
REFERENCES
Bannister, J. L., 1994. Continued increase in humpback whales off western Australia. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn 44: 309- 310.
Bannister, J. L. and Hedley, S. L. 2001. Southern hemisphere Group IV humpback whales: their status from
recent aerial survey. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47(2):587-598.
o
Branch, T. A., and Butterworth, D., S., 2001. Estimates of abundance south of 60 S for cetacean species
sighted frequently on the 1978/79 to 1997/98 IWC/IDCR-SOWER sighting surveys. J. Cetacean. Res.
Manage. 3(3):251-270.
Branch, T.A., Matsuoka, K. and Miyashita, T. , 2004. Evidence for increases in Antarctic blue whales based
on bayesian modelling. MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE 20 (4): 726-754.
Brown, R. M. Field, M., S., Clarke, E., D., Butterworth, D. S. and Bryden, M., M., 1997. Estimates of
abundance and rate of increase for east Australian humpback whales from the 1996 land-bases survey at
Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island, Queensland. Paper SC/49/SH35 submitted to the IWC Scientific
Committee, May 1997 (unpublished). 15pp.
Brown, R. M. and Butterworth, D. S., 1999. Estimates of abundance for Southern Hemisphere humpback and
blue whales from the IWC/IDCR-SOWER sighting survey cruises. Paper SC/51/CAWS35 submitted to the
IWC Scientific Committee, May 1999 (unpublished).
Butterworth, D., S. Borchers, S., Chalis, J. B., Decker, De. and Kasamatsu, F., 1994. Estimates of abundance
for southern hemisphere blue, fin, sei, humpback, sperm, killer and pilot whales from the 1978/79 to
1990/91 IWC/IDCR sighting survey cruise, with extrapolation to the area south of 30 S for the first five
species based on Japanese scouting vessel data. Paper SC/46/SH24 submitted to the IWC Scientific
Committee, 1994 (unpublished).129pp.
Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K. and Nishiwaki, S., 2005. An update of Antarctic minke whales abundance
estimate based on JARPA data including a comparison to IDCR/SOWER estimates. Paper JA/J05/JR 4
presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Ishikawa, H., Otani, S., Kiwada, H., Isoda, T. Tohyama, D., Honjo, K., Hasegawa, A., Terao, T., Kushimoto,
T., Ohshima, T., Sugiyama, K., Sasaki, T., Itoh, S., Takamatsu, T. and Yoshida, T., 2004. Cruise Report of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area IV and Eastern
Part of Area III in 2003/2004. Paper SC/56/O12 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, (unpublished).
18pp.
28
28 Annex 150
Johnston, S.J. and Butterworth, D., 2005. Assessment of the west and east Australian breeding populations of
southern Hemisphere humpback whales using a model that allows for mixing on the feeding grounds and
taking account of the most recent abundance estimates from JARPA. Paper JA/J05/JR19 presented to the
JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Kasamatsu, F. 1993. Studies on distribution, migration and abundance of cetacean populations occurring in
the Antarctic waters. PhD thesis, University of Tokyo (in Japanese).
Konishi, K. and Tamura, T., 2005. Yearly trend of blubber thickness in the Antarctic minke whale in Areas
IV and V. Paper JA/J05/JR 9 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T., Murase, H. and Nishiwaki, S., 2003. Current distribution, abundance and
density trend of humpback whales in the Antarctic Areas IV and V. Paper SC/55/SH10 submitted to the
IWC Scientific Committee, 2003 (unpublished). 15pp.
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Nishiwaki, S., 2005. Distribution and abundance of humpback, fin and blue
whales in the Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW. Paper JA/J05/JR 10 presented to the JARPA Review
meeting, January 2005.
Miyashita, T., Kato, H. and Kasuya, T., 1995. Worldwide Map of Cetacean Distribution based on Japanese
Sighting Data (Volume 1).pp43-56.
Nishiwaki, S., Tohyama, D., Mogoe, T., Murase, H., Yasunaga, G., Mori, M., Yoshida, T., Fukutome, K.,
Machida, S., Ogawa, R., Oka, R., Ito, S., Konagai, T., Isoda, T., Mori, Y, Iwayama, H. and Horii, N., 2003.
Cruise report of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA)
Area V and Western Part of Area VI in 2002/2003. Paper SC/55/O6 presented to the IWC Scientific
Committee, (unpublished). 20pp.
Nishiwaki, S., Ishikawa, H. and Fujise, Y., 2005. Review of general methodology and survey procedure
under the JARPA. Paper JA/J05/PJR1 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Pastene, L., A., 2005a. A new interpretation of the stock identity in the Antarctic minke whale based on
analyses of genetics and non-genetics markers. Paper JA/J05/PJR3 presented to the JARPA Review
meeting, January 2005.
Pastene, L., A., 2005b. Genetic analyses on stock iden tification in the Antarctic humpback and fin whales
based on samples collected under the JARPA. Paper JA/J05/JR16 presented to the JARPA Review meeting,
January 2005.
Tamura, T. and Konishi, K., 2005. Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whales, in
JARPA research area. Paper JA/J05/JR8 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
29
29Annex 150
Table 1. Recent abundance estimates (P) of Antarctic minke whale, humpback, fin and blue whales for each stock using
JARPA 2002/03 and 2003/04 data (south of 60). For humpback and fin whales, average of latest two seaosns
abundance were used. The g (0) is assumed to be 1. Avarage weights used for the biomass, were 7, 26.5, 48 and,
83 tons for Antarctic minke, humpback, fin and blue whales, respectively.
Species longitude P CV Biomass(ton) Ref.
Antarctic minke (I-stock 35E-165E 129,000 (0.25) 903,000 1
Antarctic minke (P-stock 165E-145W 95,000 (0.17) 665,000 1
Humpback ( D-stock) 70E-130E 32,400 (0.08) 858,600 2
Humpback ( E-stock 130E-170W 3,700 (0.15) 98,050 2
Fin (IO-stock) 35E-130E 8,600 (0.19) 412,800 2
Fin (WP-stock) 130E-145W 4,700 (0.17) 225,600 2
Blue 35E-145W 500 (0.29) 41,500 2
Ref. 1: Hakamada et al., 2005.
2: Matsuoka et al., 2005.
Table 2. Abundance estimatos (P) of Antarctic minke whale (I-stock and P-stock) between 1995/96 and 2003/04
seasons (south of 60 S). The g (0) is assumed to be 1 (Hakamada et al,, 2005). Avarage weight of this species
was 7 tons for the biomass.
I-ststock
Season P CV Biomass Season P CV Biomass
1995/96 82,975 0.165 580,825 1996/97 156,323 0.267 1,094,261
1997/98 124,301 0.187 870,107 1998/99 82,489 0.219 577,423
1999/2000 128,110 0.227 896,770 2000/01 179,417 0.197 1,255,919
2001/02 228,349 0.142 1,598,444 2002/03 95,116 0.168 665,812
2003/04 128,695 0.248 900,864 2004/05 - - -
o
Table 3. Abundance estimates (P) of humpback whale for the D-stock and E-stock (both south of 60 S), between
1989/90 and 2003/04 (Matsuokaet al,, 2005). Avarage weight of this species was 26.5 tons for the biomass.
D-Est-kckto
Season P CV Biomass Season P CV Biomass
1989/90 5,230 0.301 138,605 1990/91 1,354 0.196 35,891
1991/92 5,350 0.190 141,775 1992/93 3,837 0.633 101,675
1993/94 2,740 0.154 72,615 1994/95 3,567 0.306 94,538
1995/96 8,850 0.142 234,529 1996/97 1,543 0.281 40,897
1997/98 10,874 0.166 288,168 1998/99 8,301 0.308 219,973
1999/2000 16,211 0.146 429,588 2000/01 4,720 0.217 125,068
2001/02 33,010 0.112 874,758 2002/03 2,735 0.159 72,481
2003/04 31,750 0.114 841,382 2004/05 - - -
30
30 Annex 150
o
Table 4. Abundance estimates (P) of fin whale (south of 60 for the Indian Ocean stock (IO-stock)and Western South
Pacific stock (WP-stock), between 1989/90 and 2003/04 (Matsuoka et al,, 2005). Avarage weight of this
species was 48 tons for the biomass.
IO-stock WP-stock
Season P CV Biomass Season P CV Biomass
1995/96 4,305 0.197 206,629 1996/97 1,714 0.252 82,258
1997/98 715 0.307 34,326 1998/99 4,850 0.354 232,779
1999/2000 4,478 0.221 214,929 2000/01 5,876 0.211 282,051
2001/02 10,668 0.255 512,052 2002/03 3,505 0.287 168,250
2003/04 6,573 0.256 315,512 2004/05 - - -
o
Table 5. Abundance estimates (P) of blue whale (south of 60 S) between 1989/90 and 2003/04. Average weight of this
species was 83 tons for the biomass.
Blue Area Area Area Area Total
IIIE IV V VIW
Seasons P CV P CV P CV P CV P CV Biomass(ton)
1989/90 + 1990/91 - - 65 0.48 205 1.01 - - 270 0.78 22,410
1991/92+ 1992/93 - - 17 1.08 231 0.67 - - 248 0.63 20,584
1993/94+ 1994/95 - - 64 0.62 275 0.64 - - 339 0.53 28,137
1995/96+ 1996/97 293 0.43 6 0.94 7 0.75 58 0.45 364 0.35 30,212
1997/98+ 1998/99 248 0.49 153 0.61 221 2.07 0 - 622 0.78 51,626
1999/00+ 2000/01 352 0.59 218 0.40 294 0.49 0 - 864 0.31 71,712
2001/02+ 2002/03 80 0.62 295 0.4 142 0.53 28 0.94 545 0.29 45,235
2003/04+ 2004/05 540 0.34 92 0.72 - - - - - - -
Fig. 1. Distribution of the searching efforts in JARPA1987/88-2003/04 seasons. Including middle latitude
transit sighting survey.
31
31Annex 150
Fig. 2. Map of the Density Index (number of primary sightings of whales / 100 n.miles) of Antarctic
minke whales during JARPA -1987/88-2003/04 seasons by 1°×1°square.
o o o
Fig. 3. Aoundanco estimates (south of 60S) of Antarctic minke whales (Left side: I-stock: 35 E-165 E, Right side: P-
stock 165 E-145 W) in the research area.
Fig. 4. Map of the Density Index (number of primary sightings of whales / 100 n.miles) of humpback whales during
JARPA -1987/88-2003/04 seasons by 1°×1°square.
32
32 Annex 150
Fig. 5. Comparison of the distribution plot (Primary sightings) pattern between the first half of surveys (Left: 1989/90 -
1996/97) and late of surveys (Right: 1997/98-2003/04) by three vessels. Number of sightings were increased in the Area
o o
IV between 90 and 120 E.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the latitudinal density Index (number of primary sightings of whales / 100 n.miles) between the
first half of JARPA (Left: 1989/90-1996/97) and the later half of JARPA (Right: 1997/98-2003/04). Average of
the latitude was 6030’S in the half of surveys, and was 6230’S in the second half of the surveys.
45,000 14,000
40,000 Humpback whale Humpback whale
12,000 Areas V
35,000 Areas IV
Stock D Stock E
10,000
30,000
8,000
25,000
20,000 6,000
Abundance estimation Abundance estimation
4,000
10,000
5,000 2,000
0 1989/901991/92 1993/941995/96 1997/981999/2000022003/04 0
1990/91 1992/931994/951996/97 1998/992000/012002/03 2004/05
Seasons
Seasons
o
Fig. 7. Abundance estimates of humpback whales (south of 60 S) between 1989/90 and 2003/2004 seasons (over 15
years) in relation to Table 3. Vertical lines show standard errors. Left side; D-stock, Right side; E-stock.
33
33Annex 150
Fig. 8. The Japanese Scouting Vessel (JSV) data (sighting rate of 5°×5°square) for fin whales sighted in January during
1965/66 to1987/88 (Miyashita et al,, 1995).
Fig. 9. Map of the Density Index (number of primary sightings of whales / 100 n.miles ) of fin whales during JARPA -
1987/88-2003/04 seasons by 1°×1°square.
Fig. 10. Comparison of the distribution plot (Primary sightings) pattern between the first half of surveys (Left: 1989/90
-1996/97) and late of surveys (Right: 1997/98-2003/04) by three vessels. Number of sightings were increased in the
Area IV between 70 and 100 E.
34
34 Annex 150
15,000
Fin whale
Pacific ocean stock
(South of 60S, 130E-145W)
10,000
Abundance estimation
0 1996/97 1998/99 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05
Seasons
Fig. 11. Abundance estimates of fin whales (Indian Ocean stock: south of 60oS, 35 oE-130 E) between 1989/90 and
2003/2004 seasons (over 15 years) in relation to Table 4. Vertical lines show standard errors.
Fig. 12. The Japanese Scouting Vessel (JSV) data (sighting rate of 5°×5°square) for blue whales sighted in February
during 1965/66 to1987/88 (Miyashita et al,, 1995).
Fig. 13. Map of the Density Index (number of primary sightings of whales / 100 n.miles) of fin whales during JARPA -
1987/88-2003/04 seasons by 1°×1°square.
35
35Annex 150
Fig. 14. Comparison of the distribution plot (Primary sightings) pattern for blue whales between the first half of surveys
(Left: 1989/90 -1996/97) and late of surveys (Right: 1997/98-2003/04) by three vessels. Number of sightings were
increased in the Area IV.
2,000,000 Area IV
1,800,000 Blue
1,600,000
Fin
1,400,000 Humpback
1,200,000 Minke
1,000,000
800,000
Biom600,000n]
400,000
200,000
0
1989/90 1991/92 1993/94 1995/96 1997/98 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04
Seasons
o
Fig. 15. Biomass of Antarctic minke, humpback, fin and blue whales in Area IV (south of 60 S) surveyed during
January to February, between 1989/90 and 2003/2004 seasons (over 15 years). Abundance of Antarctic minke were
estimated by Hakamada et al,, (2005). A “shift in baleen whale dominance” from Antarctic minke to humpback whales
was observed since 1997/98 season (arrows).
36
36 Annex 150
Appendix 2
What has happened to the Antarctic minke whale stocks? -
A interprepation of results from JARPA -
YOSHIHIRO F UJIS, HIROSHI HATANAKA AND SEIJI OHSUMI
The Institute of Cetacean Research,4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, JAPAN.
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Historical changes in the Antarctic minke whale stocks were examined based on various results from
JARPA including age at sexual maturity, growth cu rve, blubber thickness, prey consumption, and
ADPT-VPA analysis of the stocks as well as results from research on mercury accumulation etc. It
has been assumed that feeding co nditions of the minke whale improved with the removal of large
baleen whales such as the blue whale by commercial whaling, which promoted rapid growth and
younger age at sexual maturity; however, around 1970, conditions gradually shifted unfavourably,
resulting in slower rates of change in the foregoing parameters. These changes were then arrested by
the 1980s to the 1990s. Reflecting these unfavourable changes, it was observed that blubber
thickness and stomach content weight were reduced, which indicated less prey consumption. There
was also a decrease in the accumulation of mercury resulting from less prey consumption. Also, the
distribution area of humpback and fin whales in the feeding season expanded southward in the
Antarctic from around 1990, suggesting further deterioration of feeding conditions for the Antarctic
minke whales.
KEYWORDS: ANTARCTIC MINKE WHALE; BLUE WHALE; FIN WHALE; HUMPBACK WHALE,
COMPETITION; LONG-TERM CHANGE; HEAVY METALS; AGE AT SEXUAL MATURITY;
PREGNANCY RATE
INTRODUCTION
Abundance and biological parameters of Antarctic minke whales have greatly changed over the years, and
since the late 1970s the IWC/SC has spent considerable time discussing possible reasons and trying to
understand this phenomenon (see IWC, 19xx).
Due to uncertainties related to the estimation of biol ogical parameters, there was no agreement at that time
concerning the data necessary for stock management, including natural mortality rate. This resulted in
difficulties in calculating the catch quota and we primary reason for the moratorium on commercial
whaling. The Government of Japan, therefore, launched a whale research program under the Article VIII of
the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRR), in the Antarctic in 1987/88, with the
estimation of biological parameters necessary for the management of Antarctic minke whales as the first
objective. The elucidation of the role of cetaceans in the Antarctic ecosystem was the secondary objective.
The program was called JARPA, and in 1994 and 1995, the elucidation of the effects of environmental
changes on cetaceans and, the Antarctic minke whale stock structure were added to the research objectives.
The JARPA program spanning over eighteen years will end in 2004/05. Research in various fields has been
conducted together with surveys and analyses related to the program objectives. Phenomena suggesting
qualitative and quantitative changes on the Antarctic minke whale stocks have been observed, some of which
have been reported at the IWC/SC ( e.g. IWC, 1988).
This paper rearranges the results reflecting changes in the Antarctic minke whale stocks, examines what has
happened in these stocks, and predicts possible future changes.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Examination of the changes in the Antarctic minke whale stocks since whaling began, is based on analyses
of sexual maturity age and growth curve (Kato, 1987; Zenitani et al., 2005), blubber thickness (Ohsumi et al.,
37
37Annex 150
1997; Konishi and Tamura , 2005), and estimated prey consumption (Tamura and Konishi, 2005) using
samples from commercial whaling and JARPA, ADPT-VPA analysis of the stocks (Butterworth et al.,1999),
and study of mercury accumulation in the whale body (Honda, 1985; Honda et al., 1987; Fujise et al., 1997;
Yasunaga and Fujise, 2005) and other reports.
Age at sexual maturity estimated by the transition phase of the growth layer in cetacean earplugs has been
used here.
Data for age at sexual maturity for fin and Antarctic minke whales used in this study are from Lockyer
(1972) and Kato (1987), respectively. Apparent pregnancy rates for blue and fin whales are from Gambell
(1972). Apparent pregnancy rate for humpback whales are from Bando et al. (2005) which were calculated
from the International Whaling Statistics.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Catch History and Biomass of Large Cetaceans in the Antarctic Ocean
Commercial whaling began in the Antarctic in 1904. Initially, whaling mainly targeted the blue whales that
had high commercial value and humpback whales that ar e slow swimmers. Later, the object of commercial
whaling gradually shifted to the fin, sei and Antarctic minke whales with reduction of the former target
whale stocks (Fig. 1).
Blue whales
In the 1911/12 season, more than 1,000 blue whales were taken. In 1928/29, the yearly catch exceeded
10,000, and in the 1930/31 season, 29,410 whales were taken as the largest catch on record. Annual catches
continued in the tens of thousands until the 1939/40 seas on. It temporarily decreased during World War II,
but recorded 9,192 in the 1946/47 hunting season, then declined rapidly (Fig. 1). The take of blue whales
was banned in 1964. Total catch amounted to 331,644 whales. In terms of biomass, this means that a
maximum of 2,941,000 tons in a year, and an average of 526,408 tons per year were removed from the
stocks, calculated with an average body weight of 100 tons (Fig. 2).
Fin whales
Fin whales were also hunted from the initial period. More than 10,000 were taken in the 1929/30 season,
and in 1937/38, more than 20,000, exceeding the catch of blue whales, when the fin became the major target
of commercial whaling. As with blue whales, catches temporarily decreased during World War II, but
recovered when whaling was resumed after the end of the War, and in the 1951/52 season it again exceeded
20,000. Annual catches continued in the tens of th ousands until the 1963/64 season (Fig. 1). The largest
catch on record was made in the 1960/61 season, when 28 ,761 whales were taken. Total catches came to
691,890 until the take of fin whales was banned in 1976. In terms of biomass, this means that a maximum of
1,581,855 tons in a year, and an average of 528,527 tons per year were removed from the stocks, calculated
with an average body weight of 55 tons (Fig. 2).
Sei whales
There is a record of the take of sei whales in 1905/06, but full-scale hunting began in the 1957/58 season.
Since then annual catches increased to a peak of 20, 380 in the 1964/65 season and decreased rapidly after
that (Fig. 1). Total catch till 1977/78 was 149,594 or, an average of 2,301 whales taken annually. In terms
of biomass, this means that a total of 2,917,083 tons, a maximum of 397,410 tons in a year, and an average
of 44,878 tons per year were removed from the stocks, calculated with an average body weight of 19.5 tons
(Fig. 2).
Antarctic minke whales
The take of Antarctic minke whales has been recorded in 1951/52, but it was in the 1971/72 season that full-
scale whaling for them began. About 6,000 whales were taken annually from th e 1972/73 to the 1986/87
season, when commercial whaling was suspended. Since then, 330 or less have been taken under the special
permit of the Japanese Government up till 1994/95, and 44 0 or less till 2003/04 (Fig. 1). The largest catch
on record was made in the 1976/77 season, when 7,900 were taken. Total catch came to 97,810 whales until
the 1986/87 season, when commercial whaling was suspended or, an average of 2,877 whales taken annually
(for reference, total catch is 104,165 and yearly average 2,042 whales if those taken under special permit are
included). In terms of biomass, this means that a total of 723,794 tons, a maximum of 58,460 tons in a year,
38
38 Annex 150
and an average of 21,288 tons per year were remo ved from the stocks, calculated with an average body
weight of 7.4 tons (for reference, total biomass is 770,821 tons, and annual average 15,114 if those taken
under special permit are included) (Fig. 2).
Humpback whales
Humpback whales were taken as the major target species from the 1904/05 season, when commercial
whaling began in the Antarctic Ocean, since they were easy to hunt. Their status as the major target
continued until the 1913/14 season. In the 1910/11 season, more than 8,000 whales were taken, but after the
1913/14 season, the target shifted to blue and fin whales, and catch gradually decreased until the 1916/17
season, after which it declined to 1,000 or less. From the 1934/35 to 1940/41, and from the 1949/50 to
1959/60 seasons, 1,000 to 2,000 whales were taken, but the take of humpback whales was banned in 1963
(Fig. 1). The largest catch on record was made in the 1936/37 season, when 4,477 whales were taken. Total
catch came to 68,294 or, an annual average of 1,102. In terms of biomass, this means that a total of
2,117,114 tons and an average of 33,605 tons per year were removed from the stock, calculated with an
average body weight of 31 tons (Fig. 2).
Until around 1970 while fin whales were being hunted, about 2 million tons of whales had been removed
from the stocks. Krill consumed by the whales would have amounted to 60,000 tons per day, assuming that
consumption is 3% of body weight of whales. This all became a surplus since whales were removed by the
hunts. If we assume that the blue, fin, humpback and other large whales stayed in the Antarctic Ocean for
one hundred days, as much as 3 million tons of krill would have been left over as surplus every year.
Age at sexual maturity
Age at sexual maturity of the fin and Antarctic minke whales is discussed here since biological data for these
species are comparatively abundant.
Fin whales
Fig. 3 shows the changes in the age at sexual maturity of fin whales in the Antarctic (Lockyer, 1972). Their
catch continued from 1904, when whaling began in the Antarctic, to 1976. Age at sexual maturity declined
markedly from year classes in 1920 to 1930 and this trend is observed until the 1957 year class for which
there are data.
Antarctic minke whales
Fig. 4 shows the changes in age at sexual maturity deduced from the transition ph ase in earplugs of female
Antarctic minke whales (Kato, 1987). Full-scale wha ling for the Antarctic minke whales began in the
1971/72 season, but the age at sexual maturity already began to decline before the season which full-scale
whaling was started. It seems the decline began fro m around the 1932 year class. Significant decline was
observed from the 1950 to 1977 year classes (Kato, 1987).
After the moratorium on commercial whaling was implemented in 1987, samples were collected by the
JARPA, which are shown in Fig. 5 (Zenitani and Kato, 2005). The decline tendency in the age at sexual
maturity gradually slowed down around the 1960s, and almost stopped around 1965 to 1980. In case of
females, increasing trends was observed after the 1990 year class.
Pregnancy Rate
Fig. 6 shows the changes in the pregnancy rates of the blue, fin, and humpback whales over the years. The
rates of the three whale species show the tendency to increase from the 1930s, although there are yearly
fluctuations. Pregnancy rates of blue whales incr eased from about 1930 to 1960, fin whales from around
1930 to 1970, and humpback whales from about 1930 to 1960, although the yearly fluctuation is great.
It is considered that Antarctic minke whales are capable of reproducing every year, and the apparent
pregnancy rate estimated from those migrating to the Antarctic is high and constantly in the ninetieth
percentile since 1970s. However, they are segregate d by sex and reproductive status, and the 78% (Best,
1982) estimated in their breeding ground is considered to be appropriate. No detailed reports are available
on the changes over the years.
39
39Annex 150
Growth Curve
The growth curve of Antarctic minke whales using sa mples from commercial whaling is shown in Fig. 6
(Kato, 1987). Kato (1987) reported that growth rate increased from year classes in 1940 to 1949 and for
those in 1970 to 1979, and that they matured at a younger age and became larger in size.
We compared the growth curve after the above period, using JARPA samples, and found that the growth rate
has slowed down for year classes in the 1990s, compared with those in the 1980s. The growth curve shows
that the 1990s year group tend to be below those for 1980s (Fig. 8).
VPA Analysis of Antarctic Minke Whale Stocks
Catch-at-age analysis using VPA and others have shown that recruitment of Antarctic minke whales
increased from 1944 to 1968 (Sakuramoto and Tanaka, 1985; 1986; Butterworth et al., 1999). It then
decreased until about 1980, after which the declining trend has halted. The causes for these changes have
long been the subject of discussion at the IWC (see IWC, 1989; 1990; 1991; 1992a; 1992b; 1995;
Sakuramoto and Tanaka, 1986; Butterworth et al., 1999; Butterworth and Punt, 1999).
Accumulation of Pollutants
Honda et al. (1987) analyzed heavy metals in the livers of Antarctic minke whales commercially taken in the
1980/81 season. He found that Hg concentration did not increase with age; rather it decreased after age ten.
It is well known that Hg concentration in the liv er increases with age in marine mammals including
cetaceans. However, he reported that such age-related accumulation was not detected in the minke whale
samples. Changes in Hg concentration in the prey was not a plausible explanation, since Hg in the
environment has not greatly changed, and he considered that it was a result of an increase in prey
consumption, hence the increase of Hg intake. As a factor, he pointed out that feeding conditions had
improved for the Antarctic minke, with the decrease in the abundance of larger whales (Honda et al., 1987).
Further, in order to understand the apparent decreasing pattern of Hg concentration, Honda (1985) estimated
the total mercury loads (burdens) accumulated in the whale, and examined conditions that would best fit the
mercury accumulation age curve using an accumulation model. In this simulation, he assumed that Hg
concentration in the environment (prey) has not greatly changed and used 4.6 years for the biological half-
life of mercury as determined in the striped dolphin. The assumed feeding conditions that fit the curve was
that in 1980/81, whales up to ten years old consumed prey amounting to 15% of body weight, while
consumption decreased from 15% to 5% for those from ten to thirty; and for those over thirty, it was 5% (Fig.
11). The trend was observed by analyzing samples taken during the 1980/81 to 1981/82 whaling seasons,
from which can be deduced that feeding conditions became favourable around 1950, which is thirty years
prior to these sampling dates.
Fujise et al. (1997) continued to monitor Hg accumulation in Antarctic minke whales using JARPA samples.
They clarified the process that reflects an increase in mercury intake for all ages. Examination of the
accumulation changes up to recent years, shows a rise in mercury intake due to increased consumption of
prey. This was found in all age groups. It was confir med that Hg concentration also increased in Antarctic
minke whales with age as with other cetaceans (Fig. 12).
Furthermore, Hg concentration tends to be lower in the younger age group (one to five year olds), when the
details of these accumulation curves for the most recent (2003/04) JARPA samples are examined (Fig. 13).
Blubber Thickness
Ohsumi et al. (1997) examined blubber thickness using da ta from commercial whaling which began in
1971/72 and the JARPA data from 1987/88 to 1995/96. They reported that a reduction in blubber thickness
was observed after 1978 (Fig. 14).
Konishi and Tamura (2005) analyzed blubber thickness using the JARPA data from 1987/88 to 2003/04, and
reported that the decrease in thickness found by Ohsumi et al. (1997) was still in evidence (Fig. 15).
Changes in Stomach Content Weight of Antarctic Minke Whales
Tamura and Konishi (2005) examined the stomach contents of Antarctic minke whales using data from the
JARPA 1987/88 to 2003/04 seasons. They reported that the decreasing pattern in stomach content weights of
mature minke whales was observed since the 1987/88 season in which JARPA was started (Fig. 16).
40
40 Annex 150
Competition with Larger Baleen Whales (Humpback and Fin Whales)
In recent years, it has become known that larger baleen whale stocks, including humpback whales, are
recovering. Matsuoka et al., (2005) estimated abundance of humpback and fin whales in the Antarctic Areas
III (East), IV, V and VI (West), using the whale sighting data from JARPA. They reported that the number of
humpback and fin whales migrating to Antarctic Areas IV and V have been increasing (Fig. 17) and that the
biomass of these species has become larger than that of Antarctic minke whale in recent years (Fig. 18;
Matsuoka et al., 2005). In Area IV, especially, the humpback wh ale has been seen to be encroaching on the
distribution range of Antarctic minke whales. Many minke whales were sighted in the research area south of
lat. 60°S in recent years, but it was observed in the 2003/04 surveys that they tended to be pushed back into
the pack ice (Ishikawa et al., 2004).
Humpback and fin whales used to be only sighted o ffshore until the 1990s, but in recent years, their
distribution range has become overlapped with that of the Antarctic minke whale. The overlapping of two or
more whale species in the feeding grounds of the Antarctic suggests competition among these whale species
occurs over krill, which is the key species, especially in a simple marine ecosystem structure as the Antarctic
Ocean. The reduced range of Antarctic minke whales in their feeding ground suggests that those niches have
become sub-optimal.
What Has Happened to the Antarctic Minke Whale Stocks?
The above considerations can be summarized as follows:
Changes found from 1940 to 1970:
* Increase in recruitment (VPA)
* Acceleration in growth rate (growth curve)
* Decrease in the age at sexual maturity (earplug transition phase)
* Increase in mercury intake
Changes found from 1970 to 1980:
* Decrease in recruitment (VPA)
* Halt in the decreasing trend in the age at sexual maturity (earplug transition phase)
* Mercury intake stabilizes at fixed level
Changes from 1980 onwards:
* Decreasing growth rate (growth curve)
* Decrease in blubber thickness (from 1980 to present)
* Decrease in stomach contents weight (from latter half of 1980 to present)
* Decrease in mercury intake
Examining the above phenomenon comprehensively, the following possible changes are considered to have
occurred in the Antarctic minke whale stocks.
Feeding conditions became favourable for the Antarctic minke whales around 1940, at the latest, with the
depletion in large baleen whales such as blue and other whales due to overhunting, and the nutritional status
of each minke whale individual improved. Thus, growth rate increased for the minke, and they grew to
mature body length earlier, reaching sexual maturity yo unger. The increased breeding capability resulted in
increased abundance. Declining age at sexual maturity and increasing pregnancy rates were also observed in
fin, humpback and other large baleen whales, suggesting improved feeding conditions for them as well.
Overall improvement in feeding conditions is indicate d, arising from lower population density due to the
decrease in the number of large baleen whales which consumed huge amounts of krill in the Antarctic Ocean
(Kato, 1987).
41
41Annex 150
The amount of available prey (krill) per minke whale as a consumer became restricted about 1970. Around
that time, growth rate and the declining the age at sexual maturity slowed down. By 1980 a halt in the latter
trend was observed. It seems that the growth rate of whales in year classes of the 1990s was lower than that
of those in year classes of the 1980s. The change in feeding conditions was reflected in blubber thickness.
Blubber thickness of Antarctic minke whale has shown a constant decline since 1978/88. Also, the number
of humpback and fin whales which are higher in their niches than the number of Antarctic minke whales,
migrating to the Antarctic increased from 1990. This suggests the recovery of these stocks, while indicating
a further deterioration in feeding conditions for Antarctic minke whales.
Other factors that may have contributed to the changes in feeding conditions include environmental changes
such as global warming. Melting of fast ice in th e seas around the Antarctic Peninsula has been reported,
and a decrease in the number of penguins which incubate on ice has been observed (Croxall et al., 2002).
However, Areas IV and V of the Antarctic Ocean, which are the concern of this paper,, are on the opposite
side of the Antarctic Peninsula and no major melting of fast ice has been reported to date.. Analysis of
satellite data and oceanographic observations carried out in the JARPA programs have not shown any
constant change in the marine environment, although annual fluctuations due to El Nino and La Nina have
been observed (Watanabe et al., 2005).
It is highly possible that nutritional conditions for the Antarctic minke whales have changed due to
competition with other whale species such as the humpback whale, and possibly the change in carrying
capacity, in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
For the appropriate management and sustainable use of Antarctic minke whale stocks, we would need to
collect not only data on abundance and biological parameters of major whale species, but also data on their
habitat environment and their responses to environmental changes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dr. Hidehiro Kato, National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries (NRIFSF), Ms. Ryoko
Zenitani, the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), for preparing the information on sexual maturity of whale
samples. We also thank Mr. Koji Matsuoka, ICR, Dr. Tsutomu Tamura, ICR, Mr. Takeharu Bando, ICR,
and Dr. Kenji Konishi, ICR, for providing the information in the referenced research documents. Our sincere
thanks are also due to all researchers and crews who were participated in the JARPA surveys from 1987/88
to 2003/04 seasons.
REFERENCES
Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. 2005. Biological parameters of Antarctic minke whale based
on materials collected by the JARPA survey in 1987 /88 to 2003/04. Paper JA/J05/PJR5 presented to the
JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Best, P.B. 1982. Seasonal abundance, feeding, reproduction, age and growth in minke whales off Durban
(with incidental observations from the Antarctic). Rep. int Whal. Commn 32: 759-786.
Butterworth, D.S., Punt, A.E., Geromont, H.F., Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 1999. Inferences on the dynamics of
Southern Hemisphere minke whales from ADAPT analyses of catch-at-age information. J. Cetacean Res.
Manage., 1(1): 11-32
Butterworth, D.S. and Punt, A.E. 1999. An initial examination of possible inferences concerning MSYR for
Southern Hemisphere minke whales from recruitment trends estimated in catch-at-age analyses. J.
Cetacean Res. Manage., 1(1): 33-39.
Croxall, J.P., Trathan, P.N. and Murphy, E.J. 2002. Environmental change and Antarctic seabird populations.
Science, 297: 1510-1514.
Fujise, Y., Honda, K., Yamamoto, Y., Kato, H., Zenitani, R. and Tatsukawa, R. 1997. Changes of hepatic
mercury accumulations of Southern minke whales in past fifteen years. Paper SC/M97/20 presented to the
IWC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke
whales in the Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished). 16pp.
Gambell, R. 1973. Some effects of exploitation on reproduction in whales. J. Reprod. Fert., Suppl. 19: 533-
553.
42
42 Annex 150
Honda, K. 1985. Kaisan-honyûrui no jûkinzoku no seibutsu nôshuku ni kansuru kenkyû (Study on
bioaccumulations of heavy met al.s in marine mammals). Ph. D. thesis, Univ. Tokyo, 101p.
Honda, K., Yamamoto, Y., Kato, H. and Tatsukawa, R. 1987. Heavy m et al. accumulations and their recent
changes in southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:209-
216.
International Whaling Commission. 1989. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:33-
157.
International Whaling Commission. 1990. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40:39-
180.
International Whaling Commission. 1991. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:51-89.
International Whaling Commission. 1992a. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42:51-
86.
International Whaling Commission. 1992b. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42:263-
264.
International Whaling Commission. 1995. Report of Scientific Committee. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:53-
103.
Ishikawa, H., Otani, S., Kiwada, H., Isoda, T., Tohyama, D., Honjo, K., Hasegawa, A., Terao, T., Kushimoto,
T., Ohshima, K., Sugiyama, K., Sasaki, T., Itoh, S., Takamatsu, T. and Yoshida, T. 2004. Cruise Report of
the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area IV and Eastern
Part of Area III in 2003/2004. Paper SC/56/O12 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 2004
(unpublished). 18pp.
Kato, H. 1987. Density dependent changes in growth parameters of southern minke whale. Sci. Rep. Whales
Res. Inst., 38: 47-73.
Konishi, K. and Tamura, T. 2005. Yearly trend of blubber thickness in the Antarctic minke whale
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in Areas IV and V. Paper JA/J05/PJR9 presented to the JARPA Review meeting,
January 2005.
Lockyer, C. 1982. Investigation of the ear plug of the southern sei whaleBalaenoptera borealis, as a valid
means of determining age. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer., 36(1): 71-81.
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005. Distribution and abundance of humpback, fin and blue
whales occurring in the Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW (35°E-145°W). Paper JA/J05/PJR10
presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Ohsumi, S., Fujise, Y., Ishikawa, H., Hakamada, T, Zenitani, R. and Matsuoka, K. 1997. The fattyness of the
Antarctic minke whale and its yearly change. Paper SC/M97/18 presented to the IWC Intersessional
Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the
Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished). 21pp.
Sakuramoto, K. and Tanaka, S. 1986. A simulation stud y on management of whale stocks considering feed
back systems. Paper SC/38/O10 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1986.
Tamura, T. and Konishi, K. 2005. Feeding habits and prey consumption of Antarctic minke whales,
Balaenoptera bonaerensis in Areas IV and V of the Antarctic Paper JA/J05/PJR8 presented to the JARPA
Review meeting, January 2005.
Watanabe, I., Yamamoto, Y., Honda, K., Fujise, Y., Kato, H., Tanabe, S. & Tatsukawa, R. 1998.
Comparison of mercury accumulation in Antarctic minke whale collected in 1980-82 and 1984-86. Nippon
Suisan Gakkaishi, 64:105-109.
Watanabe, T., Yabuki, T., Suga, T., Hanawa, K., Matsuoka, K. and Kiwada, H. 2005. Results of
oceanographic analyses conducted under JARPA and possible evidence of environmental changes. Paper
JA/J05/PJR15 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Honda, K. and Kato, H. 2005. Yearly trend of trace element
accumulation in liver of Antarctic minke whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis. Paper JA/J05/PJR13 presented
to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
43
43Annex 150
Zenitani, R. and Kato, H., 2005. Long- term treage at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by
counting transition phase in earplugs. Paper JA/J05/PJR7 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January
2005.
44
44 Annex 150
35000
Blue
Fin
30000
Sei
Humpback
Minke
25000
20000
15000
Catches (whales)
10000
5000
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001
Calender year
Fig. 1. Catch history of large sized baleen whales in the Antarctic since 1904.
4,000,000
Minke
3,500,000
Right
3,000,000 Sperm
Sei
2,500,000
Humpback
2,000,000 Fin
Blue
Catch (tons)
1,000,000
500,000
0
1901906/07/0911/13/1517/19/21/2325/27/2932/33/3537/3942/43/45/4749/51/5355/57/5961/63/6567/69/7173/7578/79/81/8385/87990/9193/95/9799002/0305
Year
Fig. 2. Total biomass of harvested large sized baleen whales in the Antarctic since 1904.
15
10
(year)
5
Age at sexual maturity
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Fig. 3. Trend of age at sexual maturity of southern fin whales by cohort (Lockyer, 1982)
45
45Annex 150
25
20
15
(y10r)
5
Age at sexual maturity
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Fig. 4. Trend of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by cohort (Kato, 1987)
26
24
22 Male
y20
18 Mean±S.D.
16
14
12
10
8
Me6n age at sexual maturit
4
2
0
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Cohort
26
24
22 Female
y20
18 Mean±S.D.
16
14
12
10
8
Mean age at sexual maturit
6
4
2
0
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Cohort
Fig. 5. Trend of age at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by cohort (Zenitani and Kato, 2005)
100
90 Blue
Fin
80 Humpback
70
60
50
40
Pregnancy rate (%)
20
10
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Fig. 6. Yearly changes of apparent pregnancy rate of blue, fin and humpback whales in the Antarctic (data from
Lockyer (1982) and BIWS).
46
46 Annex 150
Fig. 7. Yearly changes of growth curve of Antarctic minke whales using samples from commercial whaling (Kato,
1987).
1980’s
1980’s
1990’s 1990’s Area IV Area IV
1980’s
1980’s
1990’s Area V 1990’s Area V
Fig. 8. Comparison of growth curve of body length in each cohort for Antarctic minke whales. Left column indicate
male, and right female. Upper and lower figures indicate Area IV and Area V, respectively. Age data in this figure were
used from Ms. Zenitani (unpublished data).
47
47Annex 150
Fig. 9. Boot strap estimates of median (solid line), and 5%- and 95%-iles (dotted lines), for recruitmey,2relative to
its estimated 1968 level for the corresponding bootstrap replicate) for Area IV for the base-case estimator when M is
-1
fixed at its corresponding best estimate of o.o57yr (Butterworth et al., 1999)
)
t
w
r
d
g
/
g
μ
g(
H
Age (year)
Fig. 10. Age trend of hepatic mercury concentrations (μg/g) in Antarctic minke whales using samples from
commercial whaling in 1980/81 season . (Honda et al., 1987)
Fig. 11. Age trend of mercury load (mg) in the body of Antarctic minke whales, and accumulation curve obtained from
the simulation of accumulation model (Honda, 1984).
48
48 Annex 150
120
100
80
60
40
01/02-
02/03 97/98- 20 Hg concentration (ng/g wet wt)
98/99 94/95-
95/96 88/89-
0
89/90 84/85- 26-
85/86 1-5 6-15 16-25
Survey year group 80/81- 0
81/82
Age group
Fig. 12. Comparison of age trends of hepatic Hg concentrations (ng/g) of Antarctic minke whales during five survey
year groups (1980/81+1981/82, 1984/85+1985/86, 1988/89+1989/90, 1994/95+1995/96, 1997/98+1998/99,
2001/02+2002/03).
120
1-5
100 6-15
16-25
g 26-
/
n 80
(
s
o
t 60
r
n
e
c 40
o
c
g
H
20
0
80/81- 84/85- 88/89- 94/95- 97/98- 01/02-
81/82 85/86 89/90 95/96 98/99 02/03
Survey year group
Fig. 13. Yearly changes of hepatic Hg concentrations (ng/g) in minke whales from four age groups (1-5, 6-15, 16-25, 26
or more).
6. 0
5. 5
5. 0
BT/BL( *100)
4. 5
4. 0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Fig. 14. Yearly changes in average fattyness index of blubber thickness in February (closed circle indicates males,
open circle females. (Ohsumi et al., 1997)
49
49Annex 150
6.0
5.5
s
e
k 5.0
i y = -0.1117x + 4.5923
h 2
rt R = 0.6016
b 4.5
u
l
nb
e 4.0
M
3.5
3.0
0 1987/88 1989/90 31991/92 1993/94 1995/96 1997/988 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04
Survey year
Fig. 15. Yearly changes in average blubber thickness of pregnant females in February (Konishi and Tamura, 2005).
Area VI Area V
140.0 140.0
Male y =-1.0507x +2172.8 Male
120.0 120.0 R 2=0.0606
y =-1.5017x +3077.6
2
100.0 R =0.2133 100.0
g
k k
80.0 80.0
60.0 60.0
40.0 40.0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
140.0 140.0
Female Female
120.0
120.0 y =-3.6764x +7424.1
y =-3.3534x +6782.2 2
2 R =0.6431
100.0 R =0.3655 100.0
g g
k k
80.0
80.0
60.0 60.0
40.0 40.0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year Year
Fig. 16. Yearly changes of stomach contents (kg) of mature Antarctic minke whales in Area IV and V (Tamura and
Konishi, 2005). Data used was from individuals collected from an area south of 63 degree S in January and
February. The content weight was combined the first and second stomachs.
50
50 Annex 150
Fig. 17. Yearly changes of abundance estimates for humpback and fin whales in Antarctic Area IV (70E-130E). Upper
figure shows humpback whales, lower figure fin whale (Matsuoka et al., 2005)
Fig. 18. Biomass of Humpback and Antarctic minke whales in Antarctic Area IV (70E-130E) using data from 1989/90
to 2003/04 JARPA (Matsuoka et al., 2005).
51
51Annex 150
Appendix 3
Temporal and spatial changes in stock structure of baleen
whale species in the Antarctic feeding grounds
LUIS A. PASTENE AND NAOHISA K ANDA
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
Information on stock structure of the main whale species comprising the Antarctic ecosystem is important for
a better interpretation of the estimation of abundance and trends, estimation of biological parameters and for
the implementation of management procedures.
The levels of available information on stock structure are different among the several baleen whale species
inhabiting the Antarctic. Furthermore in absence of geographical barriers, temporal and spatial changes in
stock structure could occur, particularly in the Antarctic feeding ground, which is subjected to changes in
oceanographic and other environmental conditions. Here we provide a background on stock structure for
each of the main species and identify additional research needs on stock structure.
1- TRUE BLUE WHALE
Little information is currently available on the stock structure of this species in the Antarctic. Past Mark-
recapture analysis conducted showed that a large proportion of whales tended to return year after year to the
same part of the Antarctic (Brown, 1954). Mark-recapture analysis based on a larger number of data (Brown,
1962) and analysis of catch distribution suggested that the six IWC whaling areas were probably valid for
this species (Brown, 1962; Mackintosh, 1965).
No analysis based on genetics has been conducted to investigate stock structure of true blue whale in the
Antarctic. During the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA),
biopsy samples have been collected but low sample size prevented us from studying their stock structure.
Effort will be made during JARPA II to collect more biopsy samples from traditional IWC areas III, IV and
V and to evaluate whether the Area division is still valid for this species. Genetic analyses will be based on
the standard mtDNA control region sequencing and microsatellites. As an initial step, it is desirable the
collection of 20-50 samples from each of the management areas (IWC, 1991).
In addition tagging methods will be developed for data loggers (TDR) and satellite tagging transmitters.
2- FIN WHALE
Little information is currently available on the stock structure of this species in the Antarctic. As in the case
of the blue whale, earlier mark-recapture analysis showed that most whales returned to the same part of the
Antarctic year after year (Brown, 1954). Historical non-genetic studies showed that the six whaling areas
were probably better valid for blue and humpback whales than for fin whales (Mackintosh, 1965). There was
certain segregation in the feeding ground between certain longitudes in four sectors which lie: South of the
Atlantic Ocean, South of the Indian Ocean, South of Western South Pacific Ocean and South of Eastern
South Pacific Ocean (Mackintosh, 1965). South of the Indian Ocean corresponds approximately to JARPA
Areas IIIE and IV and South of Western South Pacific to JARPA Areas V and VIW.
Only a single study based on mtDNA and biopsy samples collected by JARPA has been conducted to
examine genetic difference between the whales from IIIE+IV and VW (Pastene et al., 2005b). However,
sample size was too small (8 and 15, respectively) to make a firm conclusion on stock structure of this
species in the Antarctic.
Acquiring additional genetic data should be important for testing the hypothesis of segregation in the feeding
ground by oceanic areas. The number of fin whales to be sampled in JARPA II for the objective of
monitoring of biological parameters will be 50 in each year. These samples will be used to examine stock
53
52 Annex 150
structure of the species in conjunction with biopsy samples that also will be obtained during JARPAII. In this
way comparison between Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific populations can be achieved. Genetic (e.g.
mtDNA, microsatellites) and non-genetic techniques (e.g. mean body length of physically matured whales,
morphometric, ecological markers) will be used for this purpose. For genetic analysis the IWC has
recommended sample size of 20-50 from each population (IWC, 1991). However this should be interpreted
as a general recommendation as the sample size depends on the effect size of each species.
In addition tagging methods will be developed for data loggers (TDR) and satellite tagging transmitters.
Both blue and fin whales have experimented substantial changes in abundance in the Antarctic and it can be
expected that stock structure changed from that postulated in the past. Identification of such changes is
important for the adequate interpretation of abundance estimation and biological parameters.
3- MINKE WHALE
One of the research objectives of the JARPA was the elucidation of stock structure of the Antarctic minke
whale to improve stock management of this species. Based on the available JARPA samples, several
analytical approaches, involving both genetics and non-genetics methods, were used to investigate stock
structure of this species (Pastene et al., 2005a).
The JARPA review meeting called by the Government of Japan agreed that the most reasonable explanation
for the results of the analyses on stock structure was the two stocks present in the research area: an eastern
Indian (I) and a western South Pacific (P). These stocks appeared to mix across a soft boundary, which
would probably be best placed near 165°E. The meeting also suggested that further analyses could usefully
estimate the proportion of the I and P animals in an overlap area such as Area VW (130°-165°E), using a
method similar to that used in the case of North Pacific minke whale (IWC, 2003).
JARPA II will attempt to investigate the pattern of mixing between the I and P-Stocks in the suggested
overlap sector, in particular it will test whether or not there is significant yearly differences in this pattern.
The required sample size for such analyses was investigated based on the samples obtained by JARPA.
3-1 Method
Mixing proportion of the I-Stock in the mixed assemblage was estimated using a simple Bayesian method
(IWC, 2003) and mtDNA haplotype frequency data. In this method, the baseline stocks (I and P in this case)
are assumed to be pure (and known) and there is a prior on the mixing proportion of I and P-Stocks in the
overlap sector (VW in this case). The analysis assumes no uncertainty about the proportion of different
haplotypes in the I and P-Stocks.
3-2 Annual changes in I-stock proportion (MP) in VW
For this analysis the following baseline stocks were used:
I-Stock Baseline: Area IV, all JARPA surveys (n=2,655)
P-Stock Baseline: Area VE+VIW, all JARPA surveys (n=1,637)
MP SD
90/91 (n=180) 173 0.6246 0.1253
92/93 (n=193) 192 0.4907 0.1513
94/95 (n=130) 129 0.6046 0.1708
96/97 (n=121) 119 0.2446 0.1576
98/99 (n=171) 170 0.6512 0.1363
00/01 (n=133) 131 0.4847 0.1713
02/03 (n=89) 89 0.4267 0.2193
All years (n=1,017)1003 0.5320 0.0652
From this table, MP in 1996/97 appears to be smaller than in other years.
54
53Annex 150
3-3 Estimating the required sample size to find significant differences in mixing proportion between
1996/97 and AYC (All Years Combined)
In the next analysis the samples from all but 1996/97 years were combined, which is named as ‘AYC’, and
the AYC was considered as the sample representative of the mixing rate of I and P-Stocks in VW. The
sample from 1996/97 is considered as a ‘variable’ sample. The required sample size was calculated to detect
the difference observed between the AYC and the variable sample.
For this analysis the following baseline stocks were then used:
I-Stock baseline: Area IV (n=2,655)
P-Stock baseline: Area VE+VIW–(96/97) (n= 1,335)
The Bayesian method used can inform precision implications of the sample size in the overlap sector (VW).
The number of samples by haplotype was therefore scaled upwards in sector VW of the 1996/97 season. The
Bayesian program was run repeatedly with increasing sample size from initial n=121 until the Credibility
Intervals (CI) of MP in 1996/97 season did not overlap with the CI of MP in AYC.
1996/97 AYC
n MP Credibility n1 MP Credibility n MP Credibility
(scaled
Intervals upward) Intervals Intervals
VW 121 0.2479 0.0130- 300 0.1975 0.0150- 896 0.5975 0.4630-
0.5990 0.4430 0.7290
(130-
165°E)
Results obtained showed that for non-overlapping 95% credibility intervals between the estimates of the
mixing proportions over 130-165°E, a sample size in that region of about 300 will be required. This sample
size will provide the power to detect an annual change as big as the one that appears to have occurred in
1996/97 season.
3-4 Remarks
Samples in VW should be taken equally over the sector VW (about 100 samples in each 10° sector). This
will allow similar analysis conducted at smaller longitudinal sectors. The analysis at smaller longitudinal
sector was not possible using JARPA data because the annual average number of samples by 10° sector in
VW was only 48.
Monitoring of changes in stock structure is important for management purpose. For example catch quotas
based on stock will have to be adjusted for a shifting in stock boundaries (or equivalently changes of the
relative proportions of stocks in mixing areas). Otherwise there is the risk of a negative impact on the stock.
The ecological factor(s) is important to be investigated for the possible causes deriving such shifting.
It should be noted that the distributions of minke and humpback whale overlap in Area IV. One of the
possibilities for the changes in stock structure of minke wh ale stock could be a response to the stable rate of
increase in abundance of Stock D humpback whales in Area IV.
4- Humpback whale
As a result of the comprehensive assessment of this species by the IWC/SC, breeding areas, feeding areas
and migratory corridors of the southern humpback whale were defined (see Fig. 1 in IWC, 2001). Using
biopsy samples taken by JARPA, we tested the validity of stock structure in these feeding areas in the
Antarctic: Stock C (35-55°E, n=34), Stock D (80-110°E, n=79), Stock E (130°E-170°W, n=64) and Stock F
(170-145°W, n=36). All the pairwise comparisons of mtDNA haplotype frequencies (by randomized chi-
square test) resulted in significant statistical differences. Therefore genetic analysis of JARPA samples
showed a segregation of humpback whales Stocks C, D, E and F in the feeding ground (Pastene et al.,
2005b).
55
54 Annex 150
It is also known that Stock D of southern humpback whale has shown a stable rate of increase in abundance
(Bannister and Hedley, 2001). This is likely reflected in changes in proportion of Stock D in the mixing
sector 110-130°E suggested by past mark-recapture analysis (Chittleborough, 1959; Dawbin, 1966).
Sector/Survey Proportion of Stock D (SD)
110-130°E (n=10, 93/94, 95/96) 0.6015 (0.1865)
110-130°E (n=11, 97/98, 99/00) 0.6640 (0.2166)
110-130°E (n=13, 01/02, 03/04) 0.7591 (0.1172)
110-130°E (n=34, total) 0.7422 (0.0999)
Although the standard deviations of the estimates are large due to small sample size, proportion of this stock
in the mixed area seems to have increased with time. These results are consistent with the results of sighting
surveys that indicate that this stock is increasing its abundance.
The number of humpback whales to be sampled in JARPA II in Area IV for the objectives of monitoring of
biological parameters is 50 in each year. This sample, in conjunction with new biopsy samples obtained in
the research area, will be used to examine yearly varia tion in the pattern of stockstructure. Of particular
importance is the examination of the contribution of stock D in the sector 110-130°E and east in order to
investigate possible expansion of the D stock. Genetic (e.g. mtDNA, STR) and non-genetic techniques (e.g.
mean body length of physically matured whales, morphometric, ecological markers) will be used for this
purpose.
REFERENCES
Bannister, J.L. and Hedley, S.L. 2001. Southern Hemi sphere Group IV humpback whales: their status from
recent aerial survey. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47 (2): 587-598.
Brown, S.G. 1954. Dispersal in blue and fin whales. Discovery Reports. Vol. XXVI: 355-384.
Brown, S.G. 1962. The movement of fin and blue whales within the Antarctic zone. Discovery Reports. Vol
XXXIII: 1-54.
Chittleborough, R.G. 1959. Australian marking of humpback whales. Norsk Hvalfangsttid 48: 47-55.
Dawbin, W.H. 1966. The seasonal migratory cycle of humpback whales. In Norris, K.S. (ed.). Whales,
dolphins and porpoises. University of California Press, Berkerley. pp. 145-171.
International Whaling Commission. 1991. Report of the workshop on the genetic analysis of cetacean
populations. Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue 13): 3-21.
International Whaling Commission. 2001. Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetacean Res. Manage., 3
(Suppl.): 1-82.
International Whaling Commission. 2003. Report of the workshop on North Pacific common minke whale
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Implementation Simulation Trials. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5 (Suppl.): 455-
488.
Mackintosh, N.A. 1965. The stocks of whales. Fishing News (Books) Ltd.., London. 232pp.
Pastene, L.A., Goto M., Kanda, N., Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T., Otani, S. and Fujise, Y. 2005a. A
new interpretation of the stock identity in the Antarctic minke whale based on analyses of genetics and non-
genetics markers. Document JA/J05/JR3 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, Tokyo 18-20 January
(unpublished), 31pp.
Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005b. Genetic analyses on stock identification in the
Antarctic humpback and fin whales based on samp les collected under JARPA. Document JA/J05/JR16
presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, Tokyo 18-20 January (unpublished), 12pp.
56
55Annex 150
NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHORS
Appendix 4
Monitoring of environmental pollutants in cetaceans and the
marine ecosystem in the Antarctic Ocean and the western
North Pacific Ocean
GENTA YASUNAGA AND YOSHIHIROF UJISE
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-18, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan.
Contact e-mail:[email protected]
INTRODUCTION
It is known that the distribution of anthropogenic pollutants, such as organochlorines and heavy metals, in
the open ocean air and water is global in extent. spatial and temporal distribution of these pollutants
must be revealed in order to predict changes ithe future. Environmental monitoring of the pollutants
generally uses environmental samples, such as air a nd seawater, however, the pollutant levels are extremely
low in the open ocean. Whales are high in the food chain in the ocean, thus they may be particularly suitable
as monitors of pollutant levels and their adverse effects.
The Antarctic is an important area for environmental monitoring of the pollutants, since it is at the end of
their global transport as are the middle and low latitude areas, such as western North Pacific, which is where
the primary anthropogenic pollutant sources are located. Thus, the pollutants levels of the baleen whales in
the Antarctic are lower than those in middle and low latitudes of the northern hemisphere (Fig. 1).
Comparison of polluted and control areas is useful for m onitoring of global distribution and behaviour of the
pollutants.
Pollutants, especially organochlorines, mainly affect th e immune system of vertebrates. Control animals are
necessary for laboratory study of toxicology. Therefore, Antarctic baleen whales are well suited as control
animals for toxicology studies of free-ranging whales.
From these points of view, pollutant dynamics in whales will be examined by monitoring pollution in baleen
whales in the JARPA II combined with JARPN II in the western North Pacific. Furthermore, the fate of the
pollutants from a more global perspective will be examined by analyses of pollutant levels in air, seawater
and prey species. The relationship between the pollutant levels and some adverse effects in whales will also
be examined in this research.
OBJECTIVES
The following three objectives fothe comprehensive monitoring of e nvironmental pollutants in whales,
their food items and environmental samples is conducted as a part of the ecosystem monitoring which is one
of the main objectives of the JARPA II plan.
1. Elucidation of future accumulation and biological pr ocesses of pollutants in whales from the Antarctic
and the western North Pacific
2. Elucidation of transport and fate of pollutants in the Antarctic and the western North Pacific ecosystem
3. Elucidation of adverse effects of the pollutants for whales in the Antarctic and the western North Pacific
Ocean.
57
56 Annex 150
METHODOLOGY
To clarify the distribution and behaviour of pollutants globally, it is necessary to conduct comprehensive
monitoring of pollutants in cetaceans and the marine ecosystem in control areas, such as Antarctic Ocean
(JARPA II), as well as polluted areas such as western North Pacific Ocean (JARPN II).
1) Organochlorine compounds
In the JARPN II research, man-made compounds, such as PCBs, DDTs and HCHs, have been analysed in
three baleen whales (minke, Bryde’s and sei whales), one tooth whale (sperm whales), their prey species
(fishes, krill etc) and environmental samples (air and seaw ater) in the western North Pacific. Accordingly, in
the JARPA II research, these compounds will be analysed in three baleen whales (Antarctic minke,
humpback and fin whales), their prey species (Antarctic krill etc) and environmental samples (air and
seawater) in the Antarctic Ocean. Both research results will be combined for analysis of the fate and
distribution of pollutants in the ecosystem. The blubber and liver of whales are used for analysis of
organochlorines because of higher levels and sensitivity however, this protocol may be modified as needed.
2) Heavy metals
In the JARPN II research, harmful heavy metals, such as Hg, Cd and Pb have been analysed in three baleen
whales (minke, Bryde’s and sei whales), one tooth whale (sperm whales), their prey species (fishes, krill etc)
and environmental samples (air and seawater) in the western North Pacific. Accordingly, in the JARPA II
research, these compounds will be analysed in three baleen whales (Antarctic minke, humpback and fin
whales), their prey species (Antarctic krill etc) and environmental samples (air and seawater) in the Antarctic
Ocean. Both research results will be combined for analysis of the fate and distribution of the pollutants in the
ecosystem. The liver and muscle of whales are used for analysis of heavy metals because of higher levels and
sensitivity however, as for organochlorines, this protocol may be modifed as needed.
3) Relationship between chemical pollutants and cetacean health
Ecotoxicological and pathological approaches are used to detect dose-effect relationships of pollutants for
whales.
3-1) Ecotoxicological study
It is known that some organochlorines have adverse e ffects on the immune system of whales, however, there
have been few reports on these effects in free-ranging whales. Therefore, dose-effect relationships of
pollutants for whales are examined by toxicological approaches, follow as: 1) examination of the relationship
between biomarkers, such as cytochrome P-450, thyroid hormones, vitamin A and metallothionein , and the
pollutant levels in whales; 2) understanding of the contaminant sensitivity of whales; 3) examination of the
relationship between pollutant levels and expression of chemical related genes in the whales.
3-2) Pathology examinations
It is known that some organochlorines have adverse effects on the immune system of whales. Therefore,
necropsies are carried out to examine immnological effects, such as exodermis and lymph nodes
inflammation. In the western North Pacific, a considerable number of minke whales are observed with
anomalous testis tissues. Similarly, this phenomenon is observed in Antarctic baleen whales. This
phenomenon suggests that the relationship between the pollutant levels and prevalence rate of pathological
events in whales requires examination.
SAMPLE SIZE
In the JARPA II survey, the sample size for pathological monitoring in baleen whales was calculated by the
prevalence rate. Table 1 shows the relationship between precisions and prevalence rates for pathological
monitoring at the 95% confidence level.
There have been few reports on the statistical pathol ogy in free-ranging whales such as the Antarctic minke
whale. Exodermis and lymph nodes inflammation in th e feasibility observations of the JARPA surveys were
equal to or smaller than 10%. The prevalence rate of these effects in free-ranging whales on a global basis
may be expected to be similar to these levels.
58
57Annex 150
For Antarctic minke whales (their prevalence rate=10%), a minimum of 864 animals is required in each cell
with 40% precision. This precision value is generally u sed to estimate of prevalence rate in epidemiology
(Nakamura, 2002). Eight handred fifty animals expected in this research would be sufficient for estimation of
prevalence rates in order to elucidate of relationshi p between pollutants and their effects, while are not
complete enough to conduct all the pathological research.
REFERENCES
IWC. 1999. Report of the workshop on chemical pollution and cetaceans. J. Cetacean. Res. Mnage. (Special
Issue 1) :1-42.
Nakamura, K. 2002. Enjoyable epidemiology. Igakushoin, Co. Ltd., Tokyo, pp236 (in Japanese).
Table 1. Necessarysample size of estimationof the prevalence rate in pathologicalstudy at the 95%
confidence level.
Prevalence rate (%)
Precision
5 10 15 20 25 30
40% 1825 864 544 384 288 224
30% 3244 1537 968 683 512 398
20% 7299 3457 2177 1537 1152 896
10% 29196 13830 8708 6147 4610 3585
55 22 55
22 55
55
22 55 55 55
55
55 55 88..88
55
00 00
PPCCBB DDDDTT HHgg
00
Miinnkkee wwhhaallee Miinnkkee wwhhaallee HHgg 22 55
00 1155..33
00 00 PPCCBB DDDDTT 55 FFiinn wwhhaallee
cc HHgg PPCCBB DDDDTT PPCCBB DDDDTT
FFiinn wwhhaallee
BBoowwhheeaadd wwhhaallee) Miinnkkee wwhhaallee
00
PPCCBB DDDDTT
00 00 HHumppbbaacckk wwhhaallee 00
PPCCBB DDDDTT PPCCBB DDDDTT PPCCBBDDDDTT
22))
Miinnkkee wwhhaalleeSSeeii wwhhaallee FFiinn wwhhaallee
00
HHgg
00 1122))
PPCCBB DDDDTT FFiinn wwhhaallee
HHmppbbaacckk wwhhaallee
55 55 55 55
55 11..0000
44 00..7755
33
00..5500
22
00..2255
11
CCoonncceennttrraattiioonnss ((ppppmm wweett wwtt..)) 00 <<00..55 <000..55
00 00..0000 00 HHgg PPCCBB DDDDTT PPCCBB DDDDTT PPCCBB DDDDTT
PPCCBB DDDDTT HHgg
11,,22)) 33)) 33))
AAnnttaarrmiinnkkee wwhhaallee AAnnttaarrmiinnkkee wwhhaallee FFiinn wwhhaallee
Fig. 1. PCB, DDT Levels in the Blubber and Hg Levels in the Liver of Baleen Whales ..
11)Hoonnddaa eett aall.. ((1199Aoonnoo eett aall.. ((119999Heennrryy aanBeesstt ((11998833)Toomiittaa aanNiisshhmuurraa （（11997733））;Taarruusskkii eett aall.. ((11Hoobbbbss eett aall.. ((22000011));;
77)Gaauutthhiieerr eett aall.. ((1Haannsseenn eett aall.. ((119O''Haarraa eett aall.. ((119999Krroonnee eett aall.. ((119999Klleeiivvaannee Skkaaaarree ((11999988))Saannppeerraa eett aall.. ((11999933))
59
58 Annex 150
Appendix 5
Hypotheses on the the abundance changes of krill predators in
the Antarctic ecosystem
HIROSHIH ATANAKA
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
I propose the following hypotheses on the abundance changes of krill edators, such as baleen whales,
crabeater seal and penguins in the Antarctic ecosy stem. These hypotheses will be examined and selected
based on data obtained by JARPA and future JARPA II programs on the course of developing the ecosystem
model.
1. HYPOTHESIS OF CONSTANT OVERALL CARRYING CAPACITY
The total carrying capacity for the four baleen we species (blue, fin, humpback, and Antarctic minke
whales) that mainly prey on Antarctic krill is constant depending on krill biomass in the feeding grounds. It
is equivalent to the total biomass of four species before the days of commercial whaling in the Antarctic
Ocean. However, carrying capacity may change depe nding on fluctuations in krill biomass and composition
(relative abundances) of the whale species. Based on a bundance estimates in their pristine level and in past
and recent years and their daily krill consumption estimates, some estimates of total krill consumption by
large whales will be obtained. The plausibility of this hypothesis will be checked through the comparison of
these estimates.
2. HYPOTHESIS OF KRILL SURPLUS
The decline in large whale stocks due to commercial hunting resulted in a large surplus of krill which had
been consumed by large whales. Other predators of krill, such as Antarctic minke whales, pinnipeds, and sea
birds, fed on the surplus and increased in abundance. This hypothesis is an established theory, and will be
the basic concept of the ecosystem model.
3. HYPOTHESIS OF CHANGING CARRYING CAPACITY BY SPECIES
Carrying capacity may be fixed for the total biomassall baleen whales, but may change for individual
species. The carrying capacity for Antarctic minke whales has increased greatly with the decline in blue, fin,
and humpback whales. The abundance of the minke before 1940 and that in recent years (760,000 animals,
IWC, 1990) probably indicates two levels of carrying capacity for Antarctic minke whales. This hypothesis
will be used in the model as an assumption.
4. HYPOTHESIS OF STOCK INCREASE DUE TO A DECLINING OF AGE AT SEXUAL
MATURITY
The trophic condition of juveniles improves with the surplus in krill, inducing faster growth, which results in
a younger age at sexual maturity. The proportion of a dults in the stocks increases as a result, which in turn
increases recruitment so that abundance increases at a faster rate. At the same time, growth of fetus and
calves would be enhanced since mature cows are well fed and able to provide ample milk, and which would
most likely lead to a lower infant mortality rate. Su ch a mechanism will probably be an important process to
express quantitatively in the competition model among whal e species. The sexual maturity age of Antarctic
minke and fin whales is observed to have decreased, and the JARPA Phase I data on the former could be
useful. It would probably be possible to determine the recent sexual maturity age of fin and humpback
whales from the samples taken. The number of parents and the resulting number of recruits can be estimated
with the VPA analysis, and it will be confirmed whetr or not the decline of age at sexual maturity can
61
59Annex 150
explain quantitatively the increase of recruitment. Then equations for expressing the process of population
growth will be considered.
5. HYPOTHESIS OF A PREDOMINANT SPECIES IN THE ECOSYSTEM
The humpback whale, which is predominant (highest bi omass) in the ecosystem, can increase even if the
minke whale is near the upper limit of its carrying capacity and there is no surplus in krill. On the contrary,
the minke, which is in an inferior position, cannot increase by pushing aside other whale species. If we
examine the balance among whale species before any whaling had begun, the blue, fin, and humpback
whales were in a more predominant position in this sense than the Antarctic minke. At that time Antarctic
minke whales occupied only narrow niches when othe r large whales were dominant. The plausibility and
necessity of this hypothesis (assumption) will be checked on the course of model construction.
6. HYPOTHESIS OF DECLINING PREGNANCY RATES AND/OR JUVENILE SURVIVAL
RATES DUE TO INADEQUATE TROPHIC CONDITIONS
It has been observed that the blubber thickness of Antarctic minke whales is decreasing. This fact indicates
that they are becoming unable to store sufficient nutrition during their feeding period. Consequently, the
proportion of animals capable of becoming pregnant is decreasing, resulting in lower pregnancy rates. At the
same time, the age at maturity increases. In other wo rds, it is the reverse process of hypothesis No.4, which
results in a decrease in abundance. It is possible to estimate sexual maturity age of year classes going back
several years or a decade or so from the time samples were taken since it is estimated by observing the
transition phase of the growth layer in their earplugs. However, the blubber thickness and pregnancy rates
are measured only just after the time samples are tan. They are however important indices that enable
real-time tracking of qualitative changes in the stocks. Based on data of blubber thickness, krill consumption
and pregnancy rate, the relationships among them will be analysed. The decreasing process of mink whale
abundance will be considered through these analyses.
7. HYPOTHESIS OF COMPETITION AMONG WHALE SPECIES
As the abundance of humpback and fin whales (and blue whales) recover, Antarctic minke whales will begin
to decrease in abundance. The majo r mechanisms behind the decline will be increasing sexual maturity age
leading to decreasing recruitment and lower pregnanc y rates due to inadequate trophic conditions or
unfavourable feeding conditions. These mechanisms will be formularized based on past JARPA data as well
as those to be collected through monitoring in JARPA II and incorporated into the model.
8. HYPOTHESIS OF SLOW RECOVERY
Blue whales have been so severely depleted by ov er-hunting that mating opportunities are limited; and
although there is indication of abundance increase they are far from full recovery. Long-term monitoring
will be necessary to determine whether their rate of recovery will remain slow or increase.
9. HYPOTHESIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AFFECTING CETACEANS
Climatic changes such as global warming will bring about changes in the production and biomass of krill.
The change in feeding conditions of baleen whales will affect growth and recruitment rates. The effects may
differ depending on the whale species. These effects will be formularized using information from CCAMLR
and other organizations and data obtained from monitoring krill density in the research area.
62
60 Annex 150
Appendix 6
Sample sizes of Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales
required for statistical examination of yearly trend in
biological parameters
1) 1) 1) 1) 2)
TAKEH3)U B ANDO , TKASHI H AKAMADA , ROKO ZENITANI , YOSHIHIROF UJISE, EJITANAKA AND H IDEHIRO
K ATO
1)The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5 Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0055, Japan
2) Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 4-5-7, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8477, Japan
3) National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries 5-7-1 Orido, Shimizu, Shizuoka 424-8633, Japan
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail:[email protected]
Biological parameters such as pregnancy rate and age at sexual maturity in baleen whales are thought to
change in response to changes in abundance, food availability and competition with other species (Gambell,
1973; Kato, 1987; Masaki, 1979; Lockyer, 1979; 1984). Monitoring of biological parameters to detect
change in quality of habitat for baleen whales is one of the objectives of JARPA II.
Sample sizes required for statistical examination of yearly trend in the proportion of pregnant in matured
female (PPF) of Antarctic minke whales, apparent pregnancy rate of humpback and fin whales and age at
sexual maturity for minke and fin whales were calculated.
Ideally “true pregnancy rate”, which is the probability that one mature female would become pregnant in one
year, should be used. However since estimation of “true pregnancy rate” is difficult, the “apparent pregnancy
rate”, which is the ratio of pregnant females in the mature female samples ca ught in a certain area, is
conventionally used as an approximation of the “true pregnancy rate”.
It is known that the apparent pregnancy rate could be biased by segregation or date of sampling. However in
the case of fin whale, apparent pregnancy rate estimated from commercial whaling data was considered to
change in response to changes in abundance or density. Therefore apparent pregnancy rate in fin whale
reflects “true pregnancy rate” to some degree (Kato, 199 1). Therefore apparent pregnancy rate was used in
this study for fin whale as an approximation of the “true pregnancy rate”.
There was no information about the degree of bias of apparent pregnancy rate in humpback whale. However,
the apparent pregnancy rate estimated from commercial whaling data showed the same yearly trend as in the
fin whale and was considered to vary in response to changes in abundance or density. Thus, apparent
pregnancy rate was also used for humpback whale as an approximation of the ‘true pregnancy rate’.
In the case of the Antarctic minke whale, a substantial degree of bias appears to occur in the estimation of
apparent pregnancy rate. Timing of migration from assumed equatorial breeding areas to Antarctic feeding
areas differs according to reproductive status. Whales that conceive earlier in the breeding season tend to
migrate to Antarctic feeding areas earlier (Kato and Miyashita, 1991; Kato, 1995).
Observed apparent pregnancy rate in the Antarctic commercial whaling data was about 0.9 which was
thought to be biased upward from the “true pregnancy rate” of 0.78 (Best, 1982), which was estimated from
commercial whaling data in breeding areas (Kato, 1991).
It is concluded that the apparent pregnancy rate in Antarctic minke whales might not reflect “true pregnancy
rate”. Therefore in the case of this species the term roportion of pregnant in matured females’ is used
instead of ‘apparent pregnancy rate’. This ratio is an important parameter to monitor migration strategy,
distribution pattern and feeding environment of Antarctic minke whale, so, this parameter was included in
calculation.
63
61Annex 150
1. BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS USED IN THIS STUDY.
1) Apparent pregnancy rate (APR) (humpback and fin whales): ratio of pregnant whales in total mature
female samples.
2) Proportion of pregnant in matured female (PPF) (Antarctic minke whale): Same statistic as “apparent
pregnancy rate”.
3) Age at sexual maturity (ASM): Mean TP (Transition Phase) value in each year class.
2. METHOD
Sample sizes required for examining statistically significant trends in the regression lines (applied to the
value of biological parameters in each year), were calculated. Details of these calculations are shown in the
appendix. Initial value and rate of change in APR and PPF were deduced from JARPA samples and
knowledge from past commercial whaling data. Frequency of year-classes samples of females was deduced
from 1999/2000-2003/04 (for 6 years research period) and 1993/94-2003/04 (for 12 years research period)
JARPA samples collected in south of 62S in Area IV. Variance of error was deduced from linear regression
analysis conducted to female of 19 71-1990 year classes collected by JARPA survey in 1987/88-2003/04 in
Area IV.
3. SAMPLE SIZE REQUIRED FOR STATISTICAL EXAMINATION OF YEARLY TREND IN
THE PPF AND APR
3.1 Yearly trend of PPF in the Antarctic minke whale.
The PPF calculated from past commercial whaling data in the period of 1971/72-1986/87 and JARPA sample
in the period of 1987/88-1999/2000 in Areas IV and V stabled around 90% and slight increasing and
decreasing trend was observed in Area V in commercial whaling data and JARPA samples, respectively,
although the trends were not significant (Fig. 1) (Zenitani et al. 2001).
3.2 Yearly trend of APR in humpback and fin whale,
The number of mature and pregnant females (classified by reference to body length and presence of fetus) of
humpback and fin whale was extracted from the International Whaling Statistics (IWS). APR was calculated
from these data (Fig. 2).
APR in humpback whale increased from about 30% in the early 1930’s to 70% in the 1960’s with large
yearly variation. Rate of increase was calcula ted as 3.95%/year in the period 1933/34-1937/38 and
1.30%/year in the period 1949/50-1962/63.
APR in fin whale showed the same trend as in humpba ck whale. In this case APR increased from 30% to
50% in the 1930’s and increased again from the end of WW2 to about 60% in the late 1950’s. From that date
to the 1970’s it remained stable. Rate of increase was calculated as 2.46%/year in the period of 1930/31-
1939/40 and 1.78%/year in the period of 1946/47-1957/58. Gambell (1973) conducted similar analysis for
Antarctic fin whales and reported an increasing trend of APR during pre-war years and post-war years.
From the observed past yearly trend of PPF in An tarctic minke whales and APR for humpback and fin
whales, the initial values and rates of change needed to calculate sample size were set as follows:
Initial rate (PPF)： 80%、90%
Initial rate (APR)： 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%
Rate of change： 1.0%/year、1.5%/year、2.0%/year、2.5％/year、3.0%/year
3.3 Sample size of mature females required for statistical examination of yearly trends.
The calculated sample size of mature females required for statistical examination of yearly trends are shown
in Table 1.
64
62 Annex 150
3.4 Correction coefficient
To calculate required total sample size, sampleof mature female should be divided according to
expected ratio of mature female in total samples. Sexual and maturposition of Antarctic minke
whales collected in south of 62S in Areas IV and V in the 1989/90-2003/04 JARPA survey and of humpback
and fin whales taken in past commercial whaling in Antarctic is shown in Figs. 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3, respectively.
Correction coefficient was calculated as 3.00 for Antarctic minke whale, 2.91 for humpback whale and 2.72
for fin whale.
3.5 Calculation of total sample size
3.5.1 Total sample size required for statistical examination of yearly trend of PPF in Antarctic minke whale
Calculated total sample size is shown in Table 2. As explained above, PPF of Antarctic minke whale is
about 90% at this stage and it is important to detect the start of decreasing. Sample size required for
statistical examination of yearly trend at the rate of 1.0-1.5%/year in 6-years research period was calculated
as follows.
Rate of change = -1.0%/yeaˠ Sample size = 1617
Rate of change = -1.5%/yeaˠ Sample size = 663
3.5.2 Total sample size required for statistical examination of yearly trend of APR in humpback and fin
whales
3.5.2.1 CALCULATED SAMPLE SIZE OF HUMPBACK WHALE
Sample size required for statistical examination of year ly trend in 12-years research period was calculated as
follows, considering APR as 30-70% and yearly rate of change as 1.5-3.0%/year (Table 3).
APR = 30% ˠ Sample size = 41-160
APR = 50% ˠ Sample size = 56-181
APR= 70% ˠ Sample size = 41-160
3.5.2.2 CALCULATED SAMPLE SIZE OF FIN WHALE
Sample size required for statistical examination of ye arly trend in 12-year research period was calculated as
follows, considering APR as 30-60% and yearly rate of change as 2.0-2.5%/year (Table 4).
APR = 30% ˠ Sample size = 55-107
APR = 50% ˠ Sample size = 69-99
APR = 60% ˠ Sample size = 63-99
4. SAMPLE SIZE REQUIRED FOR STATISTICAL EXAMINATION OF YEARLY TREND OF ASM
4.1 Yearly trend of ASM in Antarctic minke and fin whales
Yearly trend of ASM (estimated from TP) was studied in Antarctic minke whale using past commercial
whaling data and JARPA samples. ASM in females decreased from the 1945 year class to the 1970 year
class and the rate of change was calculated as 0.2/year (Fig. 4) (Kato, 1987). Stable or slightly increasing
trend was found from the 1970’s using JARPA samples (Zenitani and Kato, 2005).
A decreasing trend in ASM in females was also found in fin whales from commercial whaling data. Age at
sexual maturity decreased from 10-14 years old 1930’s year classes to 6-10 years old in the 1960’s
year classes (Lockyer, 1979) and rate of change was calculated as about 0.1/year (Fig.5).
Yearly trend of ASM was not available for humpback whales because when the ear plug was demonstrated
to be useful for age determination in this species in the mid 1950’s, the level of catches of humpback whale
had already decreased substantially.
From the observed yearly trend of ASM, the ratechange needed to calculate sample size was set as
follows.
Rate of change: 0.05/year, 0.10/year, 0.15/year, 0.20/year
65
63Annex 150
4.2 Calculation of sample size of target year class required for statistical examination of yearly trend
of ASM.
ASM was calculated till the 1990 year class based on JARPA samples. Frequency of recent 6 year classes
was deduced from frequency of 1985-1990 year classes in sa mples collected in south of 62S in Area IV in
the 1999/2000-2003/04 JARPA survey. Frequency of recent 12 year classes was also deduced by the same
manner, from frequency of 1979-1990 year classes in samples collected in south of 62S in Area IV in the
1993/94-2003/04 JARPA survey. Variance of error from regression line was deduced from regression
analysis conducted to 1971-1990 year classes of fema les collected in Area IV by 1987/88-2003/04 JARPA
surveys.
Calculated sample sizes for 6-years research period and 12-years research period is shown in Table 5.
4.3 Correction coefficient
To calculate the required total sample size, sample size of target year classes should be divided according to
expected ratio of target year classes in the total samples.
Collection coefficient for 6-years research period was deduced from ratio of 1985-1990 year classes of
females in the samples co llected in south of 62S in Area IV during 1999/2000-2003/04 JARPA surveys
(Fig.6-1; 25.7). Collection coefficient for 12-years research period was also deduced by the same manner,
from ratio of 1979-1990 year classes of females in the samples collected in south of 62S in Area IV during
1993/94-2003/04 JARPA surveys (Fig. 6-2; 16.2).
As for fin whale, no data was available about year class composition in the total samples. Correction
coefficient calculated for Antarctic minke whale was used for fin whale as an approximation.
4.4 Total sample size required for statistical examination of yearly trend of ASM
The calculated total sample size is shown in Table 6.
4.4.1 Calculated sample size of Antarctic minke whale
As explained above, rate of change in ASM observed in Antarctic minke whale from commercial data and
JARPA sample was about 0.20/year and stable around zero or slightly increasing in recent year class. It is
not plausible that the change starts in the rate of 02/year, rather it seems to start more slowly. Then the
required total sample size for statistical examination of yearly trend of ASM in 6-years research period,
assuming initial rate of change as 0.10/year, was calculated as 1288 in each research year.
4.4.2 Calculated sample size of fin whale
As explained above, rate of change in ASM observed in fin whale from commercial whaling data was about
0.1/year. The required total sample size for statistical examination of yearly trend of ASM in 12-years
research period was calculated as 131 samples in each research year for that rate of change.
5. REFERENCES
Best, P. B. 1982. Seasonal abundance, feeding, reproduction, age and growth in minke whale off Durban
(with incidental observations from the Antarctic). Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 32: 759-786.
Gambell, R. 1973. Some effects of exploitation on reproduction in whales. J. Reproduct. Fert., Suppl . 19:
533-553.
Kato, H. 1987. Density dependent changes in growth parameters of the southern minke whale. Sci. Rep.
Whales Res. Inst. 38: 47-73.
Kato, H. 1995. Migration strategy of southern minke whales to maintain high reproductive rate. In Blix, A.
S., Walloe, L. and Ultang O. (Ed.) Whales, seals, fish and man. Elsevier Science: 465-480.
Kato, H. and Miyashita, T. 1991. Migration strategy of southern minke whales in relation to reproductive
cycle estimated from foetal length. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 41: 363-369.
Masaki, Y. 1979. Yearly change of the biological parameters for the Antarctic minke whale. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn 29: 375-395
66
64 Annex 150
Lockyer, C. 1972. The age at sexual maturity of the southern fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) using annual
layer counts in the ear plug. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 34(2): 276-294.
Lockyer, C. 1979. Changes in a growth parameter associated with exploitation of southern fin and sei whales.
Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 29: 191-196.
Lockyer, C. 1984. Review of baleen whale (Mysticeti) reproduction and implications for management. Rep.
Int. Whal. Commn (Special Issue 6): 27-50.
Zenitani, R., Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 2001. Year to year trends of some biological parameters of Antarctic
minke whales from the viewpoint of population monitoring. Paper SC/53/IA13 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee, July 2001 (unpublished). 16pp.
Zenitani, R. and Kato, H. 2005. Long-term trend of ag e at sexual maturity of Antarctic minke whales by
counting transition phase in earplugs. Paper JA/J05/PJR7 presented to the JARPA Review meeting, Tokyo,
Jan. 2005 (unpublished). 12pp.
67
65Annex 150
Table 1. Sample size of mature females required for statisticalexamination of yearly trend.
Research Initial Rate of change
period Rate(%) +1% -1% +1.5% -1.5% +2% -2% +2.5% -2.5% +3% -3%
30% 1060 944 462 438 256 259 162 175 111 131
40% 1175 1118 519 507 291 292 186 192 130 138
50% 1195 1195 534 534 303 303 197 197 139 139
6years 60% 1118 1175 507 519 292 291 192 186 138 130
70% 944 1060 438 462 259 256 175 162 131 111
80% 674 848 328 363 206 197 154 123 134 83
90% 304 539 203 221 - 116 - 70 - 46
30% 126 99 55 50 31 35 20 39 14 -
40% 136 122 61 58 35 36 23 26 17 23
50% 135 135 62 62 36 36 25 25 19 19
12 years 60% 122 136 58 61 36 35 26 23 23 17
70% 99 126 50 55 35 31 39 20 - 14
80% 63 104 43 44 - 24 - 15 - 10
90% - 71 - 29 - 15 - 9 - 6
Table 2. Totalsample size of Antarctic minke whales required for statisticalexamination of yearly trend.
Research Initial Rate of change
period Rate(%) +1% -1% +1.5% -1.5% +2% -2% +2.5% -2.5% +3% -3%
80% 2022 2544 984 1089 618 591 462 369 402 249
6years
90% 912 1617 609 663 - 348 - 210 - 138
80% 189 312 129 132 - 72 - 45 - 30
12 years
90% - 213 - 87 - 45 - 27 - 18
Table 3. Totalsample size of humpback whales required for statisticalexamination of yearly trend .
Research Initial Rate of change
period Rate(%) +1% -1% +1.5% -1.5% +2% -2% +2.5% -2.5% +3% -3%
30% 3083 2746 1344 1274 745 754 472 509 323 381
40% 3417 3252 1510 1475 847 850 541 559 379 402
6years 50% 3475 3475 1553 1553 882 882 573 573 405 405
60% 3252 3417 1475 1510 850 847 559 541 402 379
70% 2746 3083 1274 1344 754 745 509 472 381 323
30% 367 288 160 146 91 102 59 114 41 -
40% 396 355 178 169 102 105 67 76 50 67
12 years 50% 393 393 181 181 105 105 73 73 56 56
60% 355 396 169 178 105 102 76 67 67 50
70% 288 367 146 160 102 91 114 59 - 41
Table 4. Totalsample size of fin whales required for statisticalexamination of yearly trend.
Research Initial Rate of change
period Rate(%)
+1% -1% +1.5% -1.5% +2% -2% +2.5% -2.5% +3% -3%
30% 2887 2571 1259 1193 698 706 442 477 303 357
6years 40% 3200 3045 1414 1381 793 796 507 523 355 376
50% 3255 3255 1455 1455 826 826 537 537 379 379
60% 3045 3200 1381 1414 796 793 523 507 376 355
30% 344 270 150 137 85 96 55 107 39 -
40% 371 333 167 158 96 99 63 71 47 63
12 years
50% 368 368 169 169 99 99 69 69 52 52
60% 333 371 158 167 99 96 71 63 63 47
68
66 Annex 150
Table 5. Sample size of female whales of recent 6(12) year classes
required for statisticalexamination of yearly trend of ASM.
Research Rate of change
period 0.05/year 0.10/year 0.15/year 0.20/year
6 years 199 50 23 13
12 years 30 8 4 2
Table 6. Totalsample size required for statisticalexamination of
yearly trend of ASM.
Research Rate of change
period 0.05/year 0.10/year 0.15/year 0.20/year
6 years 5125 1288 594 336
12 years 488 131 66 35
69
67Annex 150
Fig. 1. PPF of Antarctic minke whales, caught during 1971/72-1986/87 by commercial whaling and 1987/88-2001/02
by JARPA surveys conducted in Areas IV and V (From Zenitani et al. (2001)) .
Number of mature female
6000 100.0
e Humpback 1933/34-1937/38 Apparent pregnancy rate
5000 y = 3.954 x+6.018 80.0
2
4000 R = 0.799
60.0
3000
1949/50-1962/63 40.0
2000 y =1.303 x+29.82
2
1000 R = 0.240 20.0
Number of mature femal
Apparent pregnancy rate (%)
0 0.0
1929/139032/139335/139638/139941/149244/149547/149850/159153/159456/159759/169062/169365/169668/169971/179274/75
12000 100.0
e Fin 1930/31-1939/40 1946/47-1957/58
10000 y = 2.459 x+20.12 y = 1.782 x+5.238 80.0
2 2
8000 R = 0.757 R = 0.877
60.0
6000
40.0
4000
2000 20.0
Number of mature femal Apparent pregnancy rate (%)
0 0.0
1929/139032/139335/139638/139941/149244/149547/149850/159153/159456/159759/169062/169365/169668/169971/179274/75
Fig. 2. APR of humpback and fin whales caught in Antarctic Ocean (Data extracted from International Whaling
Statistics).
70
68 Annex 150
♂:Imm ♂ :Imm
♂ :Imm
♂ :Mat ♂:Mat ♂ :Mat
8.4 ♀ :Imm 19.3 ♀:Imm 12.2 ♀ :Imm
:Mat ♀:Mat ♀ :Mat
33.3 ♀ 34.4 36.7
38.2
43.7 24.9
21.4 12.9
14.6
Fig. 3-1. Sexual and maturityFig. 3-2. Sexual and maturity compoFig. 3-3. Sexual and maturity composition of
composition of Antarctic minke whof humpback whales taken by commercifin whales taken by commercial whaling in
taken by JARPA surveys in 1989/9whaling in 1930/31-1965/66 in Antarctic. 1929/30-1975/76 in Antarctic.
2003/04 in south of 62゜S
(Data extracted from International W(Data extracted from International Whaling
in Antarctic Areas IV and V. Statistics) Statistics)
Correction coefficient Correction coefficient Correction coefficient
=100/34.4=2.91 = 100/36.72.72
=100/33.3 =3.00
Regression line fitted to 1945-1970 year classes
(Weight by sample size)
Male: Age at sexual maturity = 220.219 t
Female: Age at sexual maturity = 21.64-6 t
(From Kato (1987))
Fig. 4. Yearly trend of ASM in Antarctic minke whale (From Kato (1987)).
71
69Annex 150
Area IV
0.075/year 0.10/year
Area V Yearly rate of change from 1920’s to
1960’s year class
0.085/year
Fig. 5. Yearly trend of ASM in female fin whales (From Lockyer (1979)).
3.9 Male 6.2 Male
Female: Immature & TP unreadable Female: Immature & TP unreadable
Female: Other year class Female: Other year class
Female: Recent 6 year class Female: Recent 12 year class
17.6 9.2
44.5 52.0
32.6
34.0
Fig. 6-1. Ratio of recent 6 year classes in the totalFig. 6-2. Ratio of recent 12 year classes in the total
whales sampled in south of 62゜S in Area IV during whales sampled in south of 62゜S in Area IV during
1999/2000-2003/04 JARPA surveys. 1993/94-2003/04 JARPA surveys.
Correction coefficient Correction coefficient
=100/3.9=25.7 =100/6.2= 16.2
72
70 Annex 150
Appendix:
Estimation of sample size
This appendix explains the method of estimation of required sample size to test whether a significant increase or
decrease of biological parameters is observed at the 5% level (i.e. to test if the slope of the regression is significantly
different from 0 at the 5% level). For some biological parameters, not all samples are used for the analysis. Therefore
estimated minimum simple size should be divided by the ratio of the sample size used for the analysis to overall
samples.
In order to estimate increasing/decreasing rate per year y per year during a years (In case of age at sexual
maturity (Transition Phase (TP)), a year-classes) using samples collected bienniary, we consider a regression model
following;
yi= β 0 β x1 i （i=1,･･･,m） (1)
where, m is the number of data to fit to the regression model. Then, upper and lower bound of the confidence interval
are expressed by
β 1 t(0.025,m − 2) V(β ) ˆ1 (2)
where, β is estimator of（i.e. level of the change per year we intend to detect）,s estimated variance of
1 1 1
βˆ and t(0.025,m − 2) is upper 2.5%-ile of t-distribution of m –2 degrees of freedom. For simplicity, in this
1
calculation, it is asst(0.025,m − 2) ≒1.96 because t-distribution is asymptotically normal distribution.
1
can be expressed by the formula
2
ˆ ˆ σ
V( β1) = m 2 (3)
∑ i=1xi− X)
2
where,σˆ is residual mean square andis estimated mean of x among the samples. From here, the formulation is
different for the case of TP and that of APR and PPF. Therefore we separate the description into each case.
< PPF/ APR >
In this case, m=ax = 2i −1 and variance-covariance matrix for estimated value of APp/P) is as follows.
i xi
p 1(1− p1) 0 L 0
1 1 0 p3(1− p 3) L 0
V = Ω = (4)
n n L L L L
0 0 L p2m 1(1− p 2m 1
ˆ ˆ ˆ
In the case that generalized least-squares e1timate1−1.96 V(β ) >10 , would be significantly different
from 0. Therefore, required sample size n can be estimated by solving inequality with respect ton following, which is
derived from formulas (4).
2
1.96
n > c22 (5)
β1
t −1 −1
In this caｃe,２２means element of matrixX Ω X .
73
71Annex 150
1 x1
X = L L
1 x
m
In the case tha1<0, the inequality (5) would be derived, similarly.
Substituting the values to the formula (5), required sample size can be estimated.
＜Age at sexual maturity estimated by transition phase (TP)＞
As for TP, because compositions of year-classes are different by year, samples should be appropriately weighted to
estimate value of the denominator of formula (3)(x − X) 2. For a=6, we calculated a weighted
∑ i1 i
m 2
∑ i=1x i− X ) for 1985-1990 year-classes from samples collected in south of 62S in Area IV during 1999/2000-
m
2003/04 JARPA surveys. Fora=12, we calculated a weight∑d (xi− X )2 for 1979-1990 year-classes from
= 1
samples collected in south of 62S in Area IV during 1993/94-2003/04 JARPA surveys. The following paragraph shows
how samples are weighted by sample size.
Setting jkas the number of samples of year-class k caught in yejr j and n as the total sample size of a year-classes
caught in year j, the denominator of formula (3) is
m b a
(x − X )2 = n (x − X )2
∑ =1 i ∑∑ =1 1 k= j,k k
b a n j,k 2
= ∑∑ =1 1j k= (xk− X)
n j
where b is the number of years when survey is conducted. For simplicity, assuming that the number of samples of year-
class a jnand composition of the numbers of samples by year-cjksj (n /n) is constant every year, this formula became
m a n
(x − X) 2= bn k (x − X) 2 (6).
∑ i=1 i ∑ k=1 n k
Substituting the right hand side of formula (6) to denominator of formula (3),
2
V (βˆ ) = σ
1 a n (3)’’
bn ∑ k (x k − X )2
k=1 n
Similar to the derivation of the formula (5), from this formula,
2 2
1.96 σˆ
n > ˆ (7)
β1 b a nk (x − X )2
∑ k=1 n k
is derived (b a nk (x − X) 2 =7.7 for a=6 and 51.1 for a=12).
∑ k= n k
2
Residual mean squareσ( ) was deduced from regression analysis conducted to 1971-1990 year classes class (the
period of which distinct yearly change in TP had not occurred) of females collected in Area IV by 1987/88-2003/04
JARPA surveys. By substituting this figure toσ in formula (7), the required sample size can be calculated.
Similarly, required sample size can be estimated in the case of other parameters.
74
72 Annex 150
Appendix 7
Sample size of Antarctic minke whale for the purpose of
monitoring yearly trend of blubber thickness
K ENJIKONISHI, TKASHI H AKAMADA AND T SUTOMU TAMURA
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
We calculated the required sample size of the Antarctic minke whale to examine the yearly trend of blubber
thickness in the Antarctic. This calculation is explained in detail by Bando et al. (in Appendix 6) which tests
whether there is significant trend of blubber thickness at the 5 % level for 6 years periods. For this
calculation, we used mature males and pregnant females (not lactating) sampled at southward of 62°S by
JARPA. Because the blubber thickness is highly affected by the feeding period, samples taken at the end of
the feeding season (February) were used.
The change of blubber thicknesses per year were estimated as approximately 0.05 cm for both mature males
and pregnant females, using JARPA data in Area IV (Figs. 1 and 2). The calculated sample sizes for each
mature male and pregnant female in February were 123 and 145, respectively. The correction coefficients
(inverse numbers of each sexual stage proportion in total samples collected at southward of 62°S in Area IV
from 1999/2000 to 2003/04) used to estimate entire sample sizes from the sample sizes of each sexual
maturity group in February were 7.90 and 5.64, respectively (Bando and Zenitani, unpublished). Using these
correction coefficients, total sample sizes for mature male and pregnant female in entire survey season were
calculated as 972 and 818, respectively.
5.00
y = 0.04747xx+ 4.135288
4.88
4.66
4.44
4.22
cm4.00
3.88
3.66
3.44
3.22
3.00
877888 911929 95/96 99/00 03/04
yearr
Fig. 1. Trend of blubber thickness of mature male in Area IV (southward of 62S) in February.
75
73Annex 150
5.00
4.88 y= -0.04771x + 4.541568
4.66
4.44
4.22
cm4.00
3.88
3.66
3.44
3.22
3.00
87/88 91/92 955969 99/00 03/04
yearr
Fig. 2. Trend of blubber thickness of pregnant female in Area IV (southward of 62S) in February.
76
74 Annex 150
Appendix 8
Sample size required for genetic mark-recapture method to
monitor population trend
NAOHISA KANDA
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Mark-recapture method has been used in whale studies to estimate population abundance and to examine
migration pattern. Such studies in recent years have utilized biopsy sampling and molecular genetic markers.
Use of the biopsy samples, however, is not very practical because the amount of effort involved to obtain
large number of sample size is excessive. In order to co mpensate the deficiency, paternity testing in catches
on the basis of DNA profiles of mother-fetus pairs and those of matured males genotyped from a set of
microsatellite markers is more effective. Suspected fathers for th e fetus are looked for, and such matchings
combined with the traditional mark-recapture analysis such as the Petersen method can be used to estimate
population abundance and to monitor population trend.g., Skaug and Øien, 2004). Attempts with this
approach may be also used to describe stock structure and migration pattern.
Here we calculated sample size required to conduct the above approach in JARPAII for the Antarctic minke
whales from the Area IV+V west .
METHODS
Biological information: The number of matured males and fetus in future JARPAII samples were projected
from the data obtained during the JARPA averaged over the eight seasons (Table 1). The number of fetus
was equaled the number of pregnant females.
Mark-recapture method: In this analysis, the total number of mature males genotyped in a sample formed the
first capture sample, the total number of fetus genotyped formed the second capture, and the total number of
father-fetus matchings formed the recapture. It is then important to note that this method estimate male
abundance in the population. Petersen mark-recapture method modified by Chapman (1951) was used to
infer male abundance (Nm):
Nm = {(M+1)(C+1) / (R+1)}-1,
with variance,
V(Nm) = (M+1)(C+1)(M-R)(C-R) / (R+1)(R+1)(R+2),
where, for the Antarctic minke whales analysis, M is the number of the captured mature males, C is the total
number of genotyped fetus, and R is the number of fetus in C that matched to the fathers in M.
These three parameters were then replaced with the reproductive information given in Table 2 that also
incorporate sample size, S, such as M=0.462S and C=0.243S. R depends on matching percent, so that
R=0.243S (matching percent).
The minke whale abundance in this area was estimated to be on average approximately 100,000 (102,292:
63,971 to 170,047) from the number of sightings between 1990/91 to 2002/03 seons (Hakamada et al.,
2005; T. Hakamada, personal communication). Applying the biological information we used (% mature
77
75Annex 150
males in the total sample), this population abundance indicates that the male abundance in this area is
slightly below 50,000.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 shows the samples size from 400 to 1000 with four different matching percent (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and
2.5%) giving different levels of abunda nce estimates and coefficient of variation (CV). As expected, single
year samplings provide lower abundance and higher CV than when the samples were pooled for three
seasons obtained from six years research. Hereafter, we consider only the latter.
Biological information we used (i.e., M and C in the equation) and the male abundance we have (50,000)
were thought to be the most reliable among the all parameters we used because these values were obtained
from the large amount of data of the JARPA. The calculations showed that in order to have the male
abundance of about 50,000 the combinations of % matching-sample size should be 1%-1200, 1.5%-1800,
2%-2400, and 2.5%-3000. In other word, with male abundance estimate of about 50,000, we expect to see
the % matching from 1% to 2.5% with sample size from 400 to 1000. These % matchings are comparable to
the reported values in the similar studies (e.g., Skaug and Øien, 2004). In Norway, similar approach was
conducted to the Atlantic minke whales in their DNA register. From four matchings with reasonable
statistical power from the DNA profiles of 288 mother-fetus pairs compared to the total of 3301 registered
minke whales yielded five true fathers expected in the Norwegian DNA database.
The key issue that would influence our approach, however, is the number of microsatellite loci in the
paternity analysis part of the method. Currently, up to 10 loci has been used for individual identification in
the Antarctic minke whales in our institution, which is similar to Skaug and Øien (2004). The effort will
then apply to increase the number of the loci for the analysis in order to have better resolution and higher
statistical power. In addition, DNA profiles of the fathers estimated from the mother-fetus pairs is partial, so
that likelihood function of the paternity will be required to evaluate the statistical confidence of the paternity
(Marshall et al., 1998). It is also important to note th at, even with increased number of maker loci, we might
not have any matchings in our samples if the population abundance is much higher than previously estimated.
CONCLUSION
Considering that we will conduct long-term monitoring of trends in population abundance, values of Nm
estimated in future based on the method we are proposing need to be higher confidence, i.e., Nm with low
CV. This indicates the sample size of 800-1000 per year will be suitable.
REFERENCES
Chapman, D.G. (1951) Some properties of he hypergeometric distribution with applications to zoological
sample censuses. University of California Publications in Statistics 1: 131-160.
Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K., and Nishiwaki, S. (2005) An update of Antarctic minke whales abundance
estimate based on JARPA data including comparison to IDCR/SOWER estimat es. Paper JA/J05/PJR4
presented to the JARPA Review meeting, January 2005.
Marshall, T.C., Slate, J., Kruuk L.E.B., and Pemberton, J.M. (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-
based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 7: 639-655.
Skaug, H. and N. Øien (2004) Genetic tagging of males in North Atlantic minke whales through
comparison of mother and fetus DNA-profiles. SC/56/SD3
78
76 Annex 150
Table 1. Biological information of Antarctic minke whales from Area IV+VW obtained from JARPA surveys.
Biological information
Males Females
JARPA season MT MMM MMT FT PFF PFT
89/90-90/91 48.9 89.7 43.9 51.1 64 32.7
91/92-92/93 56.3 83.9 47.2 43.7 62.4 27.3
93/94-94/95 68.4 83.2 56.9 31.6 44.2 14
95/96-96/97 56.7 81.5 46.2 43.3 61.1 26.5
97/98-98/99 58.8 77.4 45.5 41.2 36.5 15
99/00-00/01 56.4 80.3 45.3 43.6 57.1 24.9
01/02-02/03 46.7 80.6 37.6 53.3 62 33.1
Average 56 82.4 46.2 44 55.3 24.3
Abbreviations: MT = Proportion of males in total sample, MMM = Proportion of matured males in total males, MMT =
Proportion of matured males in total sample, FT = Proportion of females in total sample, PFF = Proportion of pregnant
females in total females, PFT = Proportion of pregnant females in total females.
Table 2. Sample sizes (S) and coefficient of variance (CV) for abundance estimates calculated from Petersen mark-
recapture method modified by Chapman (1951) with different matching %. SD = standard deviation, and see text for
other abbreviations (M, C, R, Nm).
Single year sampling Three seasons pooled
S M C R Nm SD CV S M C R Nm SD CV
1.0% matching
400 184.8 97.2 1.0 9251 5285 0.571 1200 554.4 291.6 2.9 41498 18526 0.446
600 277.2 145.8 1.5 16614 8821 0.531 1800 831.6 437.4 4.4 67921 26651 0.392
800 369.6 194.4 1.9 24597 12243 0.498 2400 1108.8 583.2 5.8 94897 33607 0.354
1000 462.0 243.0 2.4 32935 15481 0.470 3000 1386.0 729.0 7.3 122135 39724 0.325
1.5% matching
400 184.8 97.2 1.5 7422 3915 0.528 1200 554.4 291.6 4.4 30239 11810 0.391
600 277.2 145.8 2.2 12814 6159 0.481 1800 831.6 437.4 6.6 48275 16282 0.337
800 369.6 194.4 2.9 18491 8213 0.444 2400 1108.8 583.2 8.7 66510 20029 0.301
1000 462.0 243.0 3.6 24320 10088 0.415 3000 1386.0 729.0 10.9 84834 23294 0.275
2.0% matching
400 184.8 97.2 1.9 6197 3049 0.492 1200 554.4 291.6 5.8 23786 8348 0.351
600 277.2 145.8 2.9 10428 4608 0.442 1800 831.6 437.4 8.7 37444 11228 0.300
800 369.6 194.4 3.9 14814 5989 0.404 2400 1108.8 583.2 11.7 51195 13621 0.266
1000 462.0 243.0 4.9 19278 7226 0.375 3000 1386.0 729.0 14.6 64987 15700 0.242
2.5% matching
400 184.8 97.2 2.4 5318 2460 0.463 1200 554.4 291.6 7.3 19602 6292 0.321
600 277.2 145.8 3.6 8791 3611 0.411 1800 831.6 437.4 10.9 30582 8327 0.272
800 369.6 194.4 4.9 12357 4610 0.373 2400 1108.8 583.2 14.6 41613 10012 0.241
1000 462.0 243.0 6.1 15967 5495 0.344 3000 1386.0 729.0 18.2 52665 11475 0.218
79
77Annex 150
Appendix 9
Effect on the stock of the catches during JARPA II
T AKASHI H AKAMADA
The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: [email protected]
The possible effects of an annual take of 850 minke whales (425 males and 425 females) during JARPA II
on Eastern Indian Ocean stock (I-stock) and Western South Pacific stock (P-stock), respectively, are
examined by using Hitter Methodology. Further, the possible effects of an annual take of 50 humpback
whales (25 males and 25 females) from Areas IV and V alternatively on Western Australian Stock (D-stock)
and Eastern Australian Stock (E-stock), respectively, are also examined by using population dynamics model
in Johnston and Butterworth (2005).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Minke whale
Based on the knowledge on stock structure, it is assumed a scenario that there is one stock in west of 165oE
(I-stock) and another in east of 165 E (P-stock), respectively and that I-stock and P-stock are mixing between
o o
130 E and 175 E. Tablo 2 showo previous catches by sex from I-otock aod P-stock, respectively. Survey will
be conducted in 35 E-175 E in the first year and in 130 E-145 W in the second year. Survey will be
conducted in each area every two years alternately. Therefore, animals will be taken in 130 oE-175 E every
year, where the two stocks are assumed to be mixing. As for sex ratio of minke whales to be harvested in the
future, we have assumed that it will be 1:1. A standard scenario as for future catches is as follows. Assuming
that the number of animals taken and mixing rate in 130 oE-175 E is almost same in the first year and the
second year, the number of animals taken from P-stock in the first year and the number of animals from I-
stock in the second year would be almost same. For example, assuming approximately 284 (=850/3) animals
o o
are taken in 130 E-175 E every year and that mixing rate of I-stock is 50% in this sector, from I-stock, 708
animals would be taken in the first year and 142 in the second year and, from P-stock, 142 animals would be
taken in the first year and 708 animals in the second year. Therefore, it is assumed that 850 animals are taken
from I-stock and P-stock every two years, alternately, as a standard catch scenario. As sensitivity test with
respect to future catches, the case that animals in 130 E-175 E are from I-stock is also examined. Because a
ratio of averaged abundaoce in weotern part of Area V (130 oE -165oE) estimated from 1996/97–2002/03
JARPA to that in 130 E –145 W is about 1/3. It can be assumed that 850 animals (425 males and 425
females) are taken from I-stock in the first year and 284 animals (142 males and 142 females) are taken in
the second year. Future catches assumed in standard scenario and in sensitivity test are shown in Table 3.
As for abundance estimate, two scenarios are assumed. One is assumption that 192,653 (CV=0.192) in I-
stock and 212,258 (CV=0.152) in P-stock based on estimates from CPII in Branch and Butterworth (2001).
The other is 228,349 (CV=0.092) in I-stock and 95,116 (CV=0.168) based on the latest abundance estimate
from JARPA in 2001/02 and 2002/03 (Hakamada et al., 2005). It is also assumed that g(0)=0.611 (Okamura
et al., in press). The case where the abundances are assumed to be the 90% lower limit for the estimate has
been also investigated as in past examinations for impacts on the stock using the Hitter methodology.
Humpback whale
The population dynamics model described in Johnston and Butterworth (2005) is used to examine the effect
of the catches during JARPA II on the D-stock and E-stock. In the first year, 50 animals are planned to be
taken from Area IV and 50 animals from Area V in the second year. The survey will be conducted in this
o
way in each area every two years alternately. The previous catches from Areas IV and V in the south of 40 So
are shown in Table 4. The previous catches from D-stock and E-stock in the breeding ground (North of 40 S)
are shown in Table 5. Future catches assumed in this study are shown in Table 6.
81
78 Annex 150
Population dynamics model used in this study is following. Population dynamics model in breeding ground
is
2.39
N B D
N B D = N B D + r N B D1 − y − C D (1)
y+1 y y K D y
2.39
N B E
N B E= N B E+ r N B E1 − y −C E (2)
y+1 y y K E y
where N B,Dand N B,Eare the number of whales D-stock and E-stock in the breeding area at the start of year
y D y E
y, respectively, r and r are the intrinsic growth rate (the maximum per capita the population can achieve,
when its size is very low) for D-stock and E-stock, respectively, Kand K are the carrying capacity of D-
D E
stock and E-stock, respectively and y and C y are the number of catches from D-stock and E-stock at the
start of year y. Taking possibility of mixing of Dstock and E-stock animals in feeding area into account,
population dynamics model in feeding area is
F,IV B,D B,E
N y =α N y +() − β N y (3)
F,V B,D B,E
N y = (1−α N y + βN y (4)
where N yFⅣ and N yFⅤ are abundances in Areas IV and V at the start of year y,α is the population of D-
stock which feeds in Area IV and βis the population of E-stock which feeds in Area V. Catches in Areas IV
and V are allocated in the proportion of abundance for D-stock and E-stock in these Areas.
Information on abundance used to estimate intrinsic gr owth rate and initial population size of the stocks in
Johnston and Butterworth (2005) are relative abundance estimates in breeding area (IWC, 1996; Brown et al.,
1997), CPUE data in breeding area (Chittleborough, 1965), Abundance estimates in feeding area from
JARPA (Matsuoka et al., 2005), Abundance estimate in breeding area (Bannister and Hedley, 2001;Brown et
al., 1997) and Abundance estimates in feeding ar ea from IWC/IDCR-SOWER (Branch and Butterworth,
2002). The abundance estimates from JARPA are treated as a relative index of abundance in this study same
as Johnston and Butterworth (2005). These figures are shown in Table 7 – 11.
By fitting the models described above to abundance data, Johnston and Butterworth (2005) obtained
estimates r =0.122, r =0.126, K =16,879, K =33,857, α=0.944 and β=0.671. These estimates are used
in this study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Minke whale
For each option, depletions in 1987/88 (when commercial whaling ceased), in 2005/06 (present), in 2011/12
(after 6 times of surveys) are shown. For reference, depletion after 30 years is also shown.
As shown in Table 12, both for best estimate and for 90% lower limit, even if MSYR(1+)=1%, abundance
would show increasing trend when 850 whales are taken every year from 2005/06. For P-stock, abundance
keeps nearly carrying capacity.
Table 13 shows results of sensitivity test. This table shows similar results in Table 13 and suggests no ill
effect of the catches on the I-stock and P-stock.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there would be no negative effect on the minke whale stocks of these
future catches.
82
79Annex 150
Humpback whale
Figs. 1 and 2 show that population trajectories relative to initial population size for D-stock and E-stock,
respectively. For comparison, the population trajectories in the case of 0 future catch are also shown. As both
Figs. show, there is little difference among the trajector y for 50 annual caches and that for 0 future catches.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no negative effect on the humpback whale stocks.
REFFERENCE
Bannister, J. L. and Hedley, S. L. 2001. Southern hemisphere Group IV humpback whales: their status from
recent aerial survey. Mem. Qld. Mus. 47(2):587-598.
Branch, T. A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2001. Southern Hemisphere minke whales: standardised abundance
estimates from the 1978/79 to 1997/98 IDCR-SOWER surveys. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 3:143-174.
O
Branch, T. A. and Butterworth, D. S. 2002. Estimates of abundance south of 60 S for cetacean species
sighted frequently on the 1978/79 to 1997/98 IWC/IDCR-SOWER sighting surveys. J. Cet. Res. Manage.
3(3):251-270
Brown, M. R., Field, M. S., Clarke, E. D., Butterworth, D. S. and Bryden, M.M. 1997. Estimates of
abundance and rate of increase for East Australian humpback whales from the 1996 Landbased survey at
Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island, Queensland. Document SC/49/SH35 submitted to the IWC
Scientific Committee, 15pp.
Chittleborough, R. G. 1965. Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale, Megaptera Novaeanglae
(Borowski). Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 16:33-128.
Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005. An update of Antarctic minke whales abundance
estimate based on JARPA data including comparison to IDCR/SOWER estimates. Document JA/J05/JR4
submitted to JARPA review meeting January 2005 (unpublished).
International Whaling Commission. 1996. Report of the Sub-Committee on Southern Hemisphere baleen
whales, Annex E. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 46:117-138.
Johnston, S. J. and Butterworth, D. S. 2005. Assessment of the west and east Australian breeding populations
of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales using a mode l that allows for mixing on the feeding grouds and
taking account of the most recent abundance estimat es from JARPA. Document JA/J05/JR19 submitted to
JARPA review meeting January 2005 (unpublished).
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005. Distribution and abundance of humpback whales in the
O O
Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV, V and VIW (35 E-145 W) Document JA/J05/JR10 submitted to JARPA review
meeting January 2005.
Okamura, H., Kitakado, T. and Mori, M. An impr oved method on line transect sampling in the Antarctic
minke whales survey. (unpublished).
Pastene, L. A., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Bando, T., Zenitani, R., Hakamada, T., Otani, S. and Fujise, Y. 2005. A
new interpretation of the stock identity in the Antarctic minke whale based on analyses of genetics and non-
genetics markers. Document JA/J05/JR3 submitted to JARPA review meeting January 2005 (unpublished).
83
80 Annex 150
Table 1. Abundance estimates used in this study.
survey I-stock P-stock
IWC-IDCR 192,653 (CV=0.162) in 1987/88 212,258 (CV=0.152) in 1988/89
JARPA 228,349 (CV=0.142) in 2002/03 95,116 (CV=0.168) in 2002/03
Table 2. Previous catches (1955/56-2004/05) by sex from I-stock and P-stock. We assume all samples are
taken from I-stock and P-stock, respectively, because 2004/05 JARPA haven’t completed yet.
I-stock P-stock
year Male Female Male Female
1955 1 1 0 0
1956 0 0 0 0
1957 208 273 0 0
1958 18 24 0 0
1959 76 99 0 0
1960 33 39 31 43
1961 1 0 1 0
1962 9 10 0 0
1963 81 20 3 3
1964 2 3 0 0
1965 1 0 4 3
1966 7 2 1 4
1967 390 211 0 1
1968 108 39 2 2
1969 85 53 7 4
1970 120 82 0 0
1971 1222 1965 0 0
1972 2911 2780 0 0
1973 2161 3855 10 3
1974 1769 2622 0 0
1975 1620 2156 18 13
1976 2272 3669 0 0
1977 1117 2477 357 249
1978 1454 2660 73 52
1979 2228 2636 2 4
1980 1740 2969 336 591
1981 1383 2705 644 183
1982 1619 3357 287 489
1983 1466 2297 148 399
1984 944 2060 294 90
1985 805 1752 302 98
1986 692 1895 129 285
1987 154 119 0 0
1988 0 0 86 155
1989 185 144 0 0
1990 99 90 65 73
1991 165 123 0 0
1992 110 96 57 67
1993 200 130 0 0
1994 85 55 115 75
1995 273 167 0 0
1996 59 68 146 167
1997 279 159 0 0
1998 116 68 131 74
1999 233 206 0 0
2000 86 55 172 127
2001 201 239 0 0
2002 51 49 184 156
2003 200 240 0 0
2004 220 220 220 220
84
81Annex 150
Table 3. Assumed future catches from I-stock and P-stock under standard scenario and sensitivity test,
respectively.
standard scenario sensitivity test
I-stock P-stock I-stock P-stock
year Male Female Male Female year Male Female Male Female
2005 425 425 0 0 2005 425 425 0 0
2006 0 0 425 425 2006 142 142 283 283
2007 425 425 0 0 2007 425 425 0 0
2008 0 0 425 425 2008 142 142 283 283
2009 425 425 0 0 2009 425 425 0 0
2010 0 0 425 425 2010 142 142 283 283
2011 425 425 0 0 2011 425 425 0 0
2012 0 0 425 425 2012 142 142 283 283
2013 425 425 0 0 2013 425 425 0 0
2014 0 0 425 425 2014 142 142 283 283
2015 425 425 0 0 2015 425 425 0 0
2016 0 0 425 425 2016 142 142 283 283
2017 425 425 0 0 2017 425 425 0 0
2018 0 0 425 425 2018 142 142 283 283
2019 425 425 0 0 2019 425 425 0 0
2020 0 0 425 425 2020 142 142 283 283
2021 425 425 0 0 2021 425 425 0 0
2022 0 0 425 425 2022 142 142 283 283
2023 425 425 0 0 2023 425 425 0 0
2024 0 0 425 425 2024 142 142 283 283
2025 425 425 0 0 2025 425 425 0 0
2026 0 0 425 425 2026 142 142 283 283
2027 425 425 0 0 2027 425 425 0 0
2028 0 0 425 425 2028 142 142 283 283
2029 425 425 0 0 2029 425 425 0 0
2030 0 0 425 425 2030 142 142 283 283
2031 425 425 0 0 2031 425 425 0 0
2032 0 0 425 425 2032 142 142 283 283
2033 425 425 0 0 2033 425 425 0 0
2034 0 0 425 425 2034 142 142 283 283
85
82 Annex 150
o
Table 4. The catches of humpback whales from Areas IV and V in the south of 40 S
Year Area IV Area V Year Area IV Area V
1904 0 0 1955 844 157
1905 0 0 1956 27 182
1906 0 0 1957 545 1,159
1907 0 0 1958 1,661 3,182
1908 217 0 1959 66 13,159
1909 118 0 1960 779 9,847
1910 83 0 1961 468 1,936
1911 0 0 1962 2,352 291
1912 0 0 1963 289 322
1913 0 0 1964 92 71
1914 0 0 1965 76 266
1915 0 0 1966 172 112
1916 0 0 1967 98 27
1917 0 0 1968 0 0
1918 0 0 1969 0 0
1919 0 0 1970 0 0
1920 0 0 1971 0 0
1921 0 0 1972 0 0
1922 0 0 1973 0 0
1923 0 0 1974 0 0
1924 0 0 1975 0 0
1925 0 0 1976 0 0
1926 0 0 1977 0 0
1927 0 0 1978 0 0
1928 11 0 1979 0 0
1929 0 0 1980 0 0
1930 0 0 1981 0 0
1931 159 0 1982 0 0
1932 82 0 1983 0 0
1933 593 0 1984 0 0
1934 1,340 0 1985 0 0
1935 938 4 1986 0 0
1936 1,435 0 1987 0 0
1937 832 0 1988 0 0
1938 835 24 1989 0 0
1939 0 0 1990 0 0
1940 0 0 1991 0 0
1941 0 0 1992 0 0
1942 0 0 1993 0 0
1943 0 0 1994 0 0
1944 0 0 1995 0 0
1945 0 0 1996 0 0
1946 0 0 1997 0 0
1947 1 0 1998 0 0
1948 11 74 1999 0 0
1949 725 1,308 2000 0 0
1950 1,208 998 2001 0 0
1951 958 487 2002 0 0
1952 224 723 2003 0 0
1953 310 1,121 2004 0 0
1954 379 2,615
86
83Annex 150
Table 5. The previous catches of humpback whales in the breeding ground (in the north of 40 S)
Year D-stock E-stock Year D-stock E-stock
1904 0 0 1955 1126 832
1905 0 0 1956 1119 1013
1906 0 0 1957 1120 1025
1907 0 0 1958 967 1023
1908 0 0 1959 737 1278
1909 0 0 1960 573 1341
1910 0 0 1961 587 981
1911 0 0 1962 548 209
1912 296 296 1963 87 0
1913 670.5 670.5 1964 1 0
1914 1968 0 1965 5 0
1915 1430 0 1966 28 0
1916 0 0 1967 12 0
1917 0 0 1968 0 0
1918 0 0 1969 0 0
1919 0 0 1970 0 0
1920 0 0 1971 0 0
1921 0 0 1972 0 0
1922 155 0 1973 0 0
1923 166 0 1974 0 0
1924 0 0 1975 0 0
1925 669 0 1976 0 0
1926 735 0 1977 0 0
1927 996 0 1978 0 0
1928 1033 0 1979 0 0
1929 0 0 1980 0 0
1930 0 78 1981 0 0
1931 0 110 1982 0 0
1932 0 18 1983 0 0
1933 0 44 1984 0 0
1934 0 52 1985 0 0
1935 0 57 1986 0 0
1936 3072 69 1987 0 0
1937 3242 55 1988 0 0
1938 917 75 1989 0 0
1939 0 80 1990 0 0
1940 0 107 1991 0 0
1941 0 86 1992 0 0
1942 0 71 1993 0 0
1943 0 90 1994 0 0
1944 0 88 1995 0 0
1945 0 107 1996 0 0
1946 0 110 1997 0 0
1947 2 101 1998 0 0
1948 4 92 1999 0 0
1949 193 141 2000 0 0
1950 388 79 2001 0 0
1951 1224 111 2002 0 0
1952 1187 721 2003 0 0
1953 1300 809 2004 0 0
1954 1320 898
87
84 Annex 150
Table 6. Assumed future catches of humpback whales from Areas IV and V
Year Area IV Area V
2005 0 0
2006 0 0
2007 50 0
2008 0 50
2009 50 0
2010 0 50
2011 50 0
2012 0 50
2013 50 0
2014 0 50
2015 50 0
2016 0 50
2017 50 0
2018 0 50
2019 50 0
2020 0 50
2021 50 0
2022 0 50
2023 50 0
2024 0 50
2025 50 0
2026 0 50
2027 50 0
2028 0 50
2029 50 0
2030 0 50
2031 50 0
2032 0 50
2033 50 0
2034 0 50
88
85Annex 150
Table 7. Relative abundance estimates in D-stock (IWC, 1996) and E-stock (Brown et al, 1997)
year D-stock
1982 10.2
1986 16.7
1988 12.7
1991 23.6
1994 36.0
year E-stock
1981 381
1982 493
1986 1008
1987 879
1991 1533
1993 1807
1996 2872
Table 8. CPUE data off the west and east coast of Australia (Chittleborough, 1965).
year west（D-stock） east （E-stock）
1950 0.475
1951 0.424
1952 0.347
1953 0.353 0.972
1954 0.351 0.755
1955 0.244 0.779
1956 0.178 0.704
1957 0.146 0.714
1958 0.123 0.750
1959 0.090 0.740
1960 0.062 0.522
1961 0.055 0.230
1962 0.051 0.069
89
86 Annex 150
Table 9. JARPA estimates of abundance of humpback whales in feeding Areas IV and V (Matsuoka et al., 2005).
year Area IV
1989/90 3873
1991/92 5203
1993/94 2740
1995/96 8850
1997/98 10874
1999/2000 16211
2001/02 33010
2003/04 31750
year Area V
1990/91 767
1992/93 3837
1994/95 3567
1996/97 1543
1998/99 8301
2000/01 4720
2002/03 2735
Table 10. Estimates of breeding ground abundance of humpback whales used in the model
stock abundance year source
D-stock 8000 1999 Bannister and Hedley (2001)
E-stock 3200 1996 Brown et al. (1997)
o
Table 11. Estimates of abundance of humpback whales south of 60 S from the IWC/IDCR-SOWER sighting surveys.
year circumpolar surveys Area IV Area V
1978/79 I 1039 -
1980/81 I - 966
1985/86 II - 568
1988/89 II 3375 -
1991/92 III - 2066
90
87Annex 150
Table 4. Effects on the Antarctic minke whales of 850 animals (425 males and 425 females) from I-stock and P-stock
every two years alternately using Hitter Methodology.
I-stock
a. Assuming that abundance estimate from IDCR in CPII.
i) Hit 1987/88 total (1+) population of 315,245 (best estimate)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 386,992 373,212 362,490 354,130 347,580
Depletion - 1987 81.5% 84.5% 87.0% 89.0% 90.7%
Depletion - 2005 85.2% 91.6% 95.2% 97.1% 98.1%
Depletion - 2011 86.4% 93.2% 96.4% 97.9% 98.6%
Depletion - 2035 90.3% 96.6% 98.3% 98.9% 99.2%
RY - 2005 831 1,125 1,112 988 850
MSY (+1) 2,322 4,479 6,525 8,499 10,427
ii) Hit 1987/88 total (1+) population of 228,741(90% lower limit)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 301,953 288,992 278,628 270,336 263,684
Depletion - 1987 66.7% 67.0% 67.4% 67.8% 68.3%
Depletion - 2005 75.8% 82.4% 87.1% 90.3% 92.4%
Depletion - 2011 77.5% 85.3% 90.2% 93.0% 94.6%
Depletion - 2035 83.3% 92.5% 95.5% 96.6% 97.1%
RY - 2005 777 1,125 1,161 1,055 915
MSY (+1) 1,812 3,468 5,015 6,488 7,911
91
88 Annex 150
(Table 4 continued)
b. Assuming that latest abundance estimate from JARPA.
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 432,578 407,798 393,825 386,084 381,742
Depletion - 1987 76.8% 76.8% 77.2% 77.7% 78.4%
Depletion - 2005 84.0% 88.6% 91.8% 93.9% 95.2%
Depletion - 2011 85.3% 90.6% 93.8% 95.6% 96.6%
Depletion - 2035 89.6% 95.2% 97.0% 97.7% 98.0%
RY - 2005 848 1,123 1,099 971 834
MSY (+1) 2,595 4,894 7,089 9,266 11,452
i) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 373,655 (best estimate)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 339,807 315,157 300,402 291,880 286,997
Depletion - 1987 70.4% 69.8% 69.9% 70.3% 71.0%
Depletion - 2005 78.9% 84.3% 88.4% 91.3% 93.2%
Depletion - 2011 80.5% 87.0% 91.2% 93.7% 95.2%
Depletion - 2035 85.8% 93.3% 95.9% 96.9% 97.3%
RY - 2005 805 1,127 1,146 1,033 892
MSY (+1) 2,039 3,782 5,407 7,005 8,610
ii) Hit 1990 total (1+) population of 278,082 (90% lower limit)
92
89Annex 150
(Table 4 continued)
P-stock
a. Assuming that abundance estimate from IDCR in CPII.
a) Hit 1988/89 total (1+) population of 347,324 (best estimate).
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 351,999 351,079 350,363 349,802 349,361
Depletion - 1987 98.1% 98.1% 98.1% 98.1% 98.2%
Depletion - 2005 98.2% 98.6% 98.9% 99.1% 99.2%
Depletion - 2011 97.4% 97.9% 98.2% 98.3% 98.4%
Depletion - 2035 95.7% 96.7% 97.2% 97.5% 97.7%
RY - 2005 160 184 188 185 180
MSY (+1) 2,112 4,213 6,307 8,395 10,481
b) Hit 1988/89 total (1+) population of 255,322 (90% lower limit)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 260,005 259,089 258,373 257,812 257,370
Depletion - 1987 97.4% 97.4% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5%
Depletion - 2005 97.6% 98.2% 98.5% 98.7% 98.9%
Depletion - 2011 96.5% 97.1% 97.5% 97.7% 97.8%
Depletion - 2035 94.2% 95.5% 96.2% 96.6% 96.9%
RY - 2005 160 184 188 185 180
MSY (+1) 1,560 3,109 4,651 6,187 7,721
93
90 Annex 150
(Table 4 continued)
b. Assuming that latest abundance estimate from JARPA.
a) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 155,641 (best estimate).
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 160,047 158,361 157,422 156,875 156,539
Depletion - 1987 95.8% 95.8% 95.8% 95.9% 95.9%
Depletion - 2005 96.1% 97.0% 97.5% 97.9% 98.1%
Depletion - 2011 94.3% 95.3% 95.9% 96.2% 96.4%
Depletion - 2035 90.4% 92.6% 93.8% 94.4% 94.9%
RY - 2005 159 184 188 185 181
MSY (+1) 960 1,900 2,834 3,765 4,696
b) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 112,042 (90% lower limit)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 116,492 114,801 113,849 113,293 112,952
Depletion - 1987 94.2% 94.2% 94.2% 94.3% 94.3%
Depletion - 2005 94.6% 95.8% 96.6% 97.1% 97.4%
Depletion - 2011 92.1% 93.5% 94.3% 94.7% 95.0%
Depletion - 2035 86.6% 89.7% 91.3% 92.2% 92.9%
RY - 2005 158 184 189 186 181
MSY (+1) 699 1,378 2,049 2,719 3,389
94
91Annex 150
Table 5. Results of sensitivity test with respect to future catches. It is assumed that 284 animals (142 males and 142
females) are taken from I-stock and 566 (283 males and 283 females) from P-stock, instead of 850 animals from P-
stock, during surveys in 13045 W.
I-stock
a. Assuming that abundance estimate from IDCR in CPII.
i) Hit 1987/88 total (1+) population of 315,245 (best estimate)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 386,992 373,212 362,490 354,130 347,580
Depletion - 1987 74.1% 74.6% 75.1% 75.7% 76.2%
Depletion - 2005 81.9% 87.3% 90.9% 93.2% 94.7%
Depletion - 2011 82.9% 89.1% 92.7% 94.7% 95.8%
Depletion - 2035 86.8% 93.6% 95.8% 96.7% 97.0%
RY - 2005 831 1,125 1,112 988 850
MSY (+1) 2,322 4,479 6,525 8,499 10,427
ii) Hit 1987/88 total (1+) population of 228,741(90% lower limit)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 301,953 288,992 278,628 270,336 263,684
Depletion - 1987 66.7% 67.0% 67.4% 67.8% 68.3%
Depletion - 2005 75.8% 82.4% 87.1% 90.3% 92.4%
Depletion - 2011 77.0% 84.9% 89.7% 92.5% 94.1%
Depletion - 2035 81.7% 91.1% 94.4% 95.5% 96.0%
RY - 2005 777 1,125 1,161 1,055 915
MSY (+1) 1,812 3,468 5,015 6,488 7,911
95
92 Annex 150
(Table 5 continued)
b. Assuming that latest abundance estimate from JARPA.
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 432,578 407,798 393,825 386,084 381,742
Depletion - 1987 76.8% 76.8% 77.2% 77.7% 78.4%
Depletion - 2005 84.0% 88.6% 91.8% 93.9% 95.2%
Depletion - 2011 85.0% 90.3% 93.4% 95.2% 96.2%
Depletion - 2035 88.5% 94.3% 96.2% 96.9% 97.3%
RY - 2005 848 1,123 1,099 971 834
MSY (+1) 2,595 4,894 7,089 9,266 11,452
i) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 373,655 (best estimate)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 339,807 315,157 300,402 291,880 286,997
Depletion - 1987 70.4% 69.8% 69.9% 70.3% 71.0%
Depletion - 2005 78.9% 84.3% 88.4% 91.3% 93.2%
Depletion - 2011 80.1% 86.5% 90.7% 93.2% 94.7%
Depletion - 2035 84.4% 92.1% 94.8% 95.9% 96.4%
RY - 2005 805 1,127 1,146 1,033 892
MSY (+1) 2,039 3,782 5,407 7,005 8,610
ii) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 278,082 (90% lower limit)
96
93Annex 150
(Table 5 continued)
P-stock
a. Assuming that abundance estimate from IDCR in CPII.
a) Hit 1988/89 total (1+) population of 347,324 (best estimate).
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 160,047 158,361 157,422 156,875 156,539
Depletion - 1987 95.8% 95.8% 95.8% 95.9% 95.9%
Depletion - 2005 96.1% 97.0% 97.5% 97.9% 98.1%
Depletion - 2011 95.1% 96.2% 96.8% 97.1% 97.3%
Depletion - 2035 93.1% 95.0% 95.8% 96.3% 96.6%
RY - 2005 159 184 188 185 181
MSY (+1) 960 1,900 2,834 3,765 4,696
b) Hit 1988/89 total (1+) population of 255,322 (90% lower limit)
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 116,492 114,801 113,849 113,293 112,952
Depletion - 1987 94.2% 94.2% 94.2% 94.3% 94.3%
Depletion - 2005 94.6% 95.8% 96.6% 97.1% 97.4%
Depletion - 2011 93.3% 94.7% 95.5% 96.0% 96.2%
Depletion - 2035 90.4% 93.0% 94.2% 94.8% 95.3%
RY - 2005 158 184 189 186 181
MSY (+1) 699 1,378 2,049 2,719 3,389
97
94 Annex 150
(Table 5 continued)
b. Assuming that latest abundance estimate from JARPA.
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 160,047 158,361 157,422 156,875 156,539
Depletion - 1987 95.8% 95.8% 95.8% 95.9% 95.9%
Depletion - 2005 96.1% 97.0% 97.5% 97.9% 98.1%
Depletion - 2011 94.7% 95.8% 96.3% 96.7% 96.9%
Depletion - 2035 91.8% 93.9% 94.9% 95.4% 95.8%
RY - 2005 159 184 188 185 181
MSY (+1) 960 1,900 2,834 3,765 4,696
a) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 155,641 (best estimate).
Statistic MSYR (1+) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
K (1+) 116,492 114,801 113,849 113,293 112,952
Depletion - 1987 94.2% 94.2% 94.2% 94.3% 94.3%
Depletion - 2005 95.1% 96.2% 97.0% 97.5% 97.8%
Depletion - 2011 92.7% 94.1% 94.9% 95.4% 95.7%
Depletion - 2035 88.7% 91.4% 92.8% 93.6% 94.1%
RY - 2005 158 184 189 186 181
MSY (+1) 699 1,378 2,049 2,719 3,389
b) Hit 2002/03 total (1+) population of 112,042 (90% lower limit)
98
95Annex 150
Fig. 1. D stock population trajectories relative to initial population sizeK in the case of 0 future catch and in the case
annual 50 catches from Areas IV and V alternatively.
Fig. 2. E stock population trajectories relative to initial population size K in the case of 0 future catch and in the case of
D stock
1.2
1
0.8
N/K 0.6
0.4 0
0.2
50
0
1900 1950 2000 2050
year
annual 50 catches from Areas IV and V alternatively.
E stock
1.2
1
0.8
N/K 0.6
0.4
0
0.2
50
0
1900 1950 2000 2050
year
99
96 Annex 151
151. Hakamada T, Matsuoka K and Nishiwaki S, “An update ofAntarctic minke whales
abundance estimate based on JARPAdata”, SC/D06/J6 (2006) pp. 10-11
abundance estimate in Table 3_Therefore , change in treatment of unsurveyed area wo uld not change
abundance and probably also abundance trend estimates substantially_
Se nsithit y test to examine the effect of tr ack.lines neu ly pa rallel to ice edge
Table 4 shows that average ratio of abundance in Options B and C to that in Op tion A_ Average of PsP/_~
is not sigfinicantldifferent from 1 in each cases_ Average of PJP" is sigfinicantlylarger than I in some
case _But there is no case that Average ofP.!PJ is sigfinicantly smaller than 1. Therefore , it was sugg ested
that including such tracklines would not cause overestimate of abundance_
Estimat e of Rl and R2 and cor rected ab undance in A.1·eas IY and V
In Haw (1991)'s method , estimated c.orrection factor between SSV and SV in closing mode is R l=0 .821
(CV=0.084) and estimated correction factor between SV in closing mode and SV in passing mode is
R2=0.159 (CV=0.126)_ Both R! and R2 are significantly different from 0_ This means that the effect of
sampling activity and that of closing mode is significant
In case of linear model, correction factors between SSV and SV in passing mode was 0.886 (CV=0 .199)
and estimated corredio n factor between SV in closing mode and SV in passing mode was 1.063
(CV=0.244) estimated by linear model, which were not significantly different from 0.
Abund a nce estimates in Anas IY an d Y and ab undance estima te fm· the minke whale of I and P
stocks
Table 5 is corrected abundance estimate in each Area derived from Haw 's correction met hod_ Table 6 is
that derived from using linear model Table 7 shows abundance estimate in I and P stock from 1995 /96 to
2004 /05 based on tl1e estimates in Table 5. Abundance estima tes in I stock (west of 165"E) are 76,343 in
1995 /96 (CV =0.145 ), 115,945 (CV =0.239) in 199 7/98, 77,479 (CV=0 .184) in 1999/2000, 203 ,772
(CV=0.172) in 2001 /02 and 118,596 {CV=0 .172) in 2003 /04. Abundance estin1ates in P stock (east of
165°£ ) are 130,868 (CV=0.233) in 1996/97, 79,1 10 (CV=0.202 ) in 1998 /99, 163,262 (CV=0.185 ) Ill
2000 !01, 87 ,569 (CV=0 .177) in 2002 /03 and 72,087 {CV=0 .146) in 2004 /05.
Abundan ce n·end in Areas IY and V and in I and P stocks
Table 8 shows estimated annual increasing rate in Areas IV and V based on abundance estimates in the
south of 60°8. The estimates and their 95% confidence intervals are in Areas IV and V are -0.42% [-4.02%:
4.59%] (1989/90-2003/04) and -1.54% [-4.91; 2.18%] (1990/91-2004105), respectively.Estima ted abundance and
their 95% confidence inten ·als are in I and P stocks are 7_93% [--0.05%; 11.45%] (1995/96--2003/04) and -5_88%
[-12.19; 0.18%] (1996/97-2004/0S), respectively. It is thatno significanincreaseor decrease of the abundance
is detected Table 10 showed annual increasingratein I artd P stock are 2.60"/oand -2.12%, respecti,·ely. Both
estinlates-erenot significantly different from 0.
10
97Annex 151
DISCUSSIOi"
Dif~renc~in ~stmatedcor~ ctio factor osun'~Ymod~b~w t~~n Haw's method and linear model.
One of the possible reasons is because abtmdance data applied in each method is different in stratificatEon.
On the application of Haw's method, abtmdanc.eestimate in southern part of Area IV and V are used so as
not to pool strata whose density is very different. But on applying to linear model, Area based abtmdauc.e
was used to make estimation process easier. Other possible reason is bec.aus·e the effect of lack of data (i.e.
passing mode wasn't conducted up to/97.) on each method could be difItshould be noted that
this difference could hardly differ.
Abuoda nc~estimat~obtain from Option C
Trac.klines used in Option C are designed very systematically. This is because they are allocated equal
longitudinal intervaldparallel to a longitudinal line and because they have equal length (45 n miles).
There is no doubt that there is no bias in abundance estimate from such systematic. trackline. But
searching effort inon C was much less than that in Option A and abundance estin1atein Option C l1as
sometimes less precision. Considering this, abundance estimate in Option A was adopted.
Abundanct r~ncl
Abundance trend in Areas IV and V and in I and P stocks showed no significant increase or decrease.
Abundance trend in Areas IV and V were estitnated based on estimates in eight years therefore it is
suggested JARPA abtmdance data provide more rdiable abundance trend than IDCR/SOWER which were
less frequent than JARPA. Abundance trend in I and P stock were based on estimates in five years. T11is is
because the abundance trend in I and P stockess precision than those in Areas V. Fmther
investigate is necessary to exan1ine abundance trend in I and P stock. JARPA II will provide sighting data
to this investigation.
ACKNOW LEDG MENT
Authors would like to appreciate all the researchers and crews involved the JMr. Hiroshi
Kiwada, ICR for his work of identifying tracklines those nearly parallel to ice edge. We thank Drs.
Hiroshi Okamura, the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries and Toshihide Kitakado, ToJkyo
University of Marine Science for their valuable conunents especially on statistical methodology. We also
appreciate Drs. Hiroshi Hatanaka, ICR, Hiroshisa Kishino, University of Tokyo, and Doug Butterworth,
Universityf Cape Town for providing useful comments to improve the manuscript.
11
98 Annex 152
152. Hatanaka H et al, “Response toAppendix 2”,Appendix 3,Annex O1, Report of the
Scientific Committee, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 8 (Suppl.), 2006, pp. 259-264
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 259
Annex 01
Report of the Standing Working Group on Scientific Permits
Members: An, Baba, Bando, Bass, Berggren, Bj!llrge, 6. REVIEW OF RESULTS FROM EXISTING
Brownell, Butterworth, Childerhouse, Clapham, Cozzi, PERMITS
Danielsdottir, DeMaster, Fortuna, Fujise, Funahashi, GalesThe Working Group reviewed the results from two Japanese
Gedamke, Gong, Goto, Gr!llnvik,Gunnlaugsson, Hakamada,
Hatanaka, Hayashi, Hester, llyashenko,niguez, Iwasaki, programmes (on Antarctic minke whales and on North
Jung Youn, Kanda, Kasuya, Kato, Kawahara, Kell, Kim, Pacific common minke, sei, Bryde'sand sperm whales), and
Kitakado, Koh, Lawrence, Leaper, Lens, Lovell, Mae, one Icelandic programme on North Atlantic common minke
whales.
Magloire, Matsuoka, Miyashita, Morishita, Murase, Further, the Working Group considered a report from a
Nishiwaki, Nishiyama, Northridge, Ohsumi, Ohta, 0ien, non-IWC meeting on JARPA results, and a progress report
Okamura, Olafdottir, Palazzo, Palka, Panigada, Pastene, from the Planning Steering Group on Preparations for
Pinto de Lima, Polacheck, Ramhally, Reijnders, Ridoux, JARPA review.
Rogan, Rojas Bracho, Rose, Sadler, Secchi, Shimada, The entire reviewof results from existing proposals is
SimiJlonds,M., Soh, Sohn, Song, Tanaka, Tominaga, Van
Waerebeek, Vikingsson, Wade, Wall!ile,Walters, Weiruich, found under Item 16.1of the Scientific Committee plenary
Williams, Yamakage,Yasokawa, Yoshida,Zenitani, Zhu. report
7. REVIEW OF NEW OR CONTINillNG
PROPOSALS
1. CONVENOR'S OPENING REMARKS The Working Group reviewed the new proposal (JARPA II)
submitted by the Government ofJapan for takes ofAntarctic
Bj!llrgeopened the meeting and welcomed the participants. minke, fin and humpback whales in the Antarctic
(SC/57/01) . The discussion is given under Item 16.2the
Scientific Committee plenary report. The Working Group
did not reach consensus on .this programme, and the
.2. ELECTION OF CHAIR opposing views are presen!ed in their entirety here in
Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.
Bj!llrgewas electe<;t\o the Chair. Further, the Working Group considered the continuing
proposals of Japan (JARPN II) and Iceland. There were no
substantial changes in these proposals since the previous
review by the Scientific Committee. The Working Group
therefore referred to its comments madet earlier reviews.
3. APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEURS
Northridge agreed to act as rapporteur with assistance fromThe entire reviewof new or continuing proposals is to be
Gr!llnvik. found under Item 16.2of the Scientific Committee plenary·
repqrt.
8. PROPOSALS TO FACILITATE THE REVIEW
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC PERMITS
A discussion in the Working Group on possible approaches
Tha~ genda was adopted as shown in Appendix 1. to improve the review processf scientific permit proposals
is reflected undercientific Committee pnary report Item
163. .
5. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE 9. ADOPTION OF REPORT
\.
Documents to be considered were SC/57/01-6 and 014-16. The report was adopted on the 6 June at 18:15.
99Annex 152
260 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX 01
Appendix 1
AGENDA
L Convenor's opening remarks 6.3 Ice)ad- North Atlantic'common minke whales
·6.4 Review report from non-IWC meeting on
2. Election of Chair JARPA results
6.5 Preparations for JARPA review
3. Appointment of Rapporteurs
7. Review of new or continuing proposals ·
4. Adoption of Agenda 7.1 JARPAII
7.2 JARPN II
5. Documents available 7.3 Iceland
. 6. Review results from existing permits 8. Proposals to facilitate the review process of Scientific
6.1 Japan- Antarctic minke whales Permits
6.2 Japan - North Pacific common minke, Bryde's
and sperm whales 9. Adoption of repcirt
Appendix2
COMMENTS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN'S PROPOSAL FOR A SECOND PHASE OF SPECIAL
PERMIT WHALING IN ANTARCTICA (JARPA II)
S. Childerhouse (New Zealand), N. Gales (Australia)c:s.Baker (New Zealand), C. Bass (UK), P. Berggren (Sweden),
J. Bickham (USA), J. Breiwick (USA), R. Brownell (USA), C. Carlson (USA), J-B. Charrassin (France), F. Cipriano (IP),
P. Clapham (USA), T. Collins (IP), J. Cooke (IUCN), B. Cozzi (Italy), W. Dinter (Germany), M. Engel (Brazil), K. Findlay
(IP), C. Fortuna (Italy), N. Funahashi (IP), J. Gedamke (Australia),och (Brazil), M. Iniguez (Argentina), T. Kasuya
(IP), L. Kell (UK), K-H. Kock (Germany), M. Krahn (USA), R. Leaper (UK), R. LeDuc (USA), D. Mattila (IP), S. Moore
(USA), S. Northridge (UK), C. Olavarria (IP), J. Palazzo (Brazil), S. Panigada (Italy), C. Parsons (UK),in (USA),
C. Pomilla (IP), L. Porter (IP), P.Reijnders (Netherlands), V.Ridoux (France), F. Ritter (Germany), J. Robbins (USA),
E. Rogan (Ireland), L. Rojas (Mexico), N. Rose (IP), H. Rosenbaum (USA),T.Rowles (USA), L. Sadler (UK), E..Secchi
(IP), D. Senn (Switzerland), M. Simmonds (UK), M. Sironi (IP), M. Stachowitsch (Austria), D. Thiele (Australia), J. Urban
(Mexico), P.Wade (USA), K. Van Waerebeek (Belgium), R. Waples (USA), M. Weinrich (IP), R. Williams (IP), B. Wilson
(UK) and A. Zerbini (IP).[IP~Invi Ptridipant].
Earlier this year the Governmenof Japan concluded an 18- levels are also approaching the annual commercial quoas
year programme of whaling under special permit in for Antarctic minke whales that were in place prior to the
Antarctic waters (the JARPA programme). During the years moratorium. This is clearly far beyond the intention
of its operation, JARPA killed more than 6,800 minke envisaged when Article 8of the Convention was developed,
whales (almost all Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Because the and means that the SC has a serious responsibility to ensure
data collection of JARPAended in early 2005, the results of that any current and proposed programmes for special
·permit whaling are reviewed in a transparent and thorough
that programme cannot be reviewed by the Scientific
Committee (SC) until 2006 or 2007, and JARPA has scientific manner that can stand the scrutiny of the
published very little in the international peer-reviewed international scientific community. Such levels of take
literatureith which to judge the qualitof its research and should also be subjectto the same regulatory measures as
its relevance to the management of whales by IWC. Despite commercial whaling, i.e. the full RMP process.
this, Japan now proposes a second phase of special permit First and foremost, is scientifically invalid to review the
whaling (JARPAII) to commence during the austral summer JARPA II proposal before the IWC has had a chance to
of 2005/06. JARPA II will'more than double the annual conduct a full review of the results of the original 18year
· catchof minke whales and also take 50 fm (B.physalus) and JARPA programme. If JARPA II goes forward, it will have
50 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) each year. already been in operation for two years (and will have taken
Furthermore, the proposal indicates that Japan intends to almost 2,000 whales) before this review can be conducted,
abandon the accepted IWC method of managing whale and without such an in-depth review the SC cannot make8
stocks, the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), in meaningful assessment of the relevance of the proposed
favour of a speculative 'multi-species' ,approach whic.h research, or the need for the proposed catches. ·
essentially proposes the selected culling of more abundant By bringing this proposal forward at this time the
whales (e.g. minke whales)in order to promote recovery of Government of Japan has substantially compromised the
depleted large whales (e.g. blue whales). capacitY of the SC to pedoirn its task as designated by the
With the new proposal Japan will increase its annual take Commission in its 'Guidelines for the Review of Scie·nt~c
of whales under special permit to a level where, in each year,ermit Propos (aonosv~n, 2001) and puts at stake . e
it will take almost half the number of all whales ever taken capacity of the SC to provide objective and representauve
under special permit by all other nations combined. These scientific advice to the Commission.
100 Annex 152
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 261
Consequently, we 63 scientists, (including representatives (b) The research claims to address a question or questions
from 16 national delegations and 16 other participants), that cannot be practically or scientifically achieved by
attending the IWC SC/57 meeting feel unable to engage in a non-lethal means. In this case, the use of non-lethal
scientifically defensible process of review of the JARPA II means (biopsy) has been clearly demonstrated to
proposal. To do so would substantially undermine the address temporal and spatial changes in stock
scientific credibility of this organisation. Instead we submit structuring, which is an important component of the
the following brief comments on serious concerns and RMP.
issues that are raised by the proposal, and we feel that this (c) The research is supposed to yield results leading to
proposal can be addressed by the SC only when the JARPA reliable answers to the questions being addressed.
review is complete. Our comments are structured in However, the research methodologies specified in the
accordance with the Commission's guidelines. proposal are very poorly developed and presented, and
they thus negate the possibility of a reasonable review.
1. Objectives
(a) Under the ·RMP,the management procedure currently 3. Effectsof catches on stocks
accepted by the IWC, most of the data requested in the (a) This analysis is difficult or impossible to do without
JARPA II proposal are not required. recent in-depth assessments of minkes, humpbacks and
(b) The objectives in the proposal are based on several ·rm whales. No-current agreed abundance estimates exist
unsubstantiated or incorrect assumptions: for any of these species in the area where JARPA II
(i) That whales are directly competing with each takes will occur. Similarly, stock structuring remains
other. Whilst overlap of prey (Antarctic krill) is poorly defined in all species.
well established for most of the Antarctic baleen (b) Particular concerns on this issue are:.
whales, there are no accepted models to indicate (i) The determination of the extent and possible
any level of competition· between whales, nor, reasons for an apparent substantial decline in
indeed, that krill production is controlled byop· abundance of Antarctic minke whales.
down influences, such as predation by whales. (ii) The targeting of species that were subject to
(ii) That the reduction of one species (minke whales) massive over-exploitation during earlier whaling,
will result in an increase of another species (blue whose populations were taken to dangerously low
whales). Current evidence refutes this. levels and which remain well below their pre
(iii) That minke whales are top predators. While minke exploitation abundance.
whales are a highpredator, they are acomponent of (iii) A lack of any agreed estimates of fin whale
a wide clade of predators at the same level which abundance, population trend or stock structure.
include whales, seals, birds and fish. (iv) The potential impact of take of humpback whales
(iv) That blue whale low abundance and recovery is from small, poorly · understood and highly
threatened populations in the South Pacific (e.g.
due to minke and humpback whale populations.
This hypothesis fails to include the other major Fiji, Samoa, Cook Islands, etc.)
biomass krill predator species such as seals and sea (v) The potential impact of takes of humpback whales
birds. .on "existing, non-lethal research programmes in
(c) The propo:>sails open ended and has no time limit by Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere in the South
which it can be assessed. Pacific.
(d) CCAMLR expertise is necessary to evaluate ecosystem (c) Givep the dramatic increase in the takefminke whales
interactions such as competition assumptions. to levels that mayexceed anyRMP-derived catch limits,
(e) Even if the IWC decided to move to a multi-species and notwithstanding our lack of agreed abundance data,
management procedure, the proposal does not have the SC has no capacity to determine potential
well-defined hypotheses and performance criteria. sustainability of takes because it has been instructed by
theCommission 'not to consider Southern Hemisphere
2. Methodology minke whales in the context of implementation of the
(a) The proposed research is supposed to address questions RMP unless advised to <;!oso by the Commission'.
that cannot be answered by analysis of existing data.
However, without a review of the data already collected
in theprevious 18years it isnot possible to evaluate this REFERENCE
. criticalissue, especially as the new proposal provides an
undefended rationale to more than double the take of Donovan, G. 2001. Report of the Scientific Committee. AMex Y.
GuidelinesfortheRC.viof Scientific PennitProposals.J.Cetacean
minke whales. Res. Manage . (Supp3:371-2.
101Annex 152
262 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITfEE, ANNEX 01
Appendix3
RESPONSE TO APPENDIX 2
H. Hatanaka, J. Morishita, D. Goodman, L.A. Pastene andY. Fujise
It is regrettable that Appendix 2 concludes that 'the The comments in Appendix 2 relating the JARPA II
Government of Japan has substantially compromised the sample sizes to the RMP also ignore the fact thnt the RMP
capacity of the Scientific Committee (SC) to perform its is for commercialwhaling- it does not apply to Article VIII
tasks and puts at stake the capacity of the SC to provide research whaling. It is however interesting to note that if the
objective and representative scientific advice to the RMP were implemented, it would regulate the total take
Commission' on the basis of the false premise that 'without including research whaling catches. .
afull review (of the original18 yearJARPAprogramme) the With regard to the premise in Appendix 2 that JARPAll
SC cannot make a meaningful assessment of the relevance cannot be reviewed until the original18 year programme has
of the proposed research (JARPA II), or the need for the been reviewed, it should benoted that at its half way point
proposed catches'. in 1997, the SC did review the results of JARPA (IWC,
It is the use of this false premise as the basis for saying 1998). The SC noted that the programme had made a major
that the SC cannot review the proposed research that contribution to understanding of certain biological
compromises the SC's ability to meet its obligations under parameters and provided considerable data which could be
paragraph 30 of the Schedule and the Commission's Rules directly relevant for management (IWC, 1998). The SC also
of Procedure. Paragraph 30 of the Schedule to the ICRW noted that non-lethal means to obtain some of this
says that: 'Proposed permits mru.! (emphasis added) be information were unlikely to be successful particularly in
reviewed and commented on by the Scientific Committee at the Antarctic (IWC, 1998).
Annual Meetings when possible' . Further, under the Further, in January2005, the Government of Japan helda
Commission's Rule of Procedure M.4, the SC '...shall meeting to review 17 years of data from the 18 year
(emphasis added) review the scientific permits and scientific programme. This meeting was open to any interested
programmes for which Contracting Governments plan to scientists and theeport of that meeting was submitted to
issue scientific permits' .It is also a denial of the
SC/57 (SC/57/06). It is unreasonable and unacceptable for
fundamental princip.le that science based policy .and those scientists who decided for political reasons not to
rulemaking must be the basis for the management of attend that meeting to now blame Japan for undermining SC
resources and the requirements for such under Articles V credibility. Data from·!? of the 18 year JARPA programme
and VIII of the ICRW. ' has been reviewed and was used in the development of
The primary objective 'of the JARPA II which is JARPAII .
clearly stated in the proposed plan · (SC/57 /0 I) and Appendix 2 also uses the excuse that ·'JARPA has
summarised in the report of the Standing Working Group on published very little in the international peer-reviewed
Scientific Permits, has been ignored by the authors of literatUrewith which to judge the qualitYof its research and
Appendix 2. its relevance to the management of whales by IWC' as a
Appendix 2 also says that 'Japan intends to abandon the reason for the inability of scientists in the SC to review the
accepted.. . (RMP), in·favour of a speculative approach programme. This statement is simply untrue and ignores the
which proposes that selected culling be conducted... '.This fact that Japan has submitted data and reports from JARPA
is an erroneous interpretation·of Japan's intention to to the SC every year. Japan has made more than !50
improve the RMP as a tool for managing commercial scientific papers availableto the Scientific Committee and
whaling on a sustainable basis. It is now more than 10years had a further 79 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific
since theRMP was adopted and it is a normal process of the journals. Japan has also provided data through theSC data
advancement of science that improvements to the RMP can availability protocol. The excuse also ignores the fact that
be made with substantial data accumulated tiy JARPA many journals that publish in English have refused to accept
together with data from JARPA II. papers with data from lethal research. This refusal has
Appendix 2 makes several references to the size of nothing to do with the scientific quality of the research.
catches taken under JARPAand proposed under JARPAII in
terms of RMP and the intention of Article VIII. It also Responses to 'serious concems and issues'that areraised
mistakenly describes the proposed increase in minke.whale in Appendix 2. (Numbering below corresponds to the
catches as having 'an undefended rationale'. Catches under numbering in that Appendix).
JARPA II have been calculated as the minimum required to
obtain statistically significant data. Given that the stocks toL Objectives
besampled are abundant and, for humpback and fin whales, (a) JARPA II provides abundance estimates for calculating
increasing rapidly, it is quite logical that the sample size is catch limits under the RMP,and also provides biological.
correspondingly large. These calculations and their rationale parameters for in-depth assessment and information on
together with an examination of the effects of these catches stock structure for implementation of the RMP.
on the stocks are clearly. presented in the research plan (b) Objectives of JARPA II are base\! on scientific evidence
(SC/57 /0I). and important hypotheses. JARPA revealed that the
It must benoted that quotas under the RMP are calculated Antarctic ecosystem is changing. Some hypotheses for
such that catches for a period of 100 years would not ·understanding changes in biological parameters of
negatively affect the stock and that it is not envisaged minke whales and changes in the balance among baleen
that JARPA II would be carried out for that period of whales are proposed in JARPA II. These will be
time. Comparing catches under JARPA II with quotas that developed furt.her through the JARPA II programme..
would be calculated under the RMP is therefore . not (i) There ate intra, 'and inter-species relations~ps
appropriate. among whales for their major food resource, I<rtU·
102 Annex 152
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 8 (SUPPL.), 2006 263
Modelling of the Antarctic ecosystem ~as been use more than one estimate; the effects catches were
developed in IWC (e.g. SC/57/021) and evaluated mainly by considering the casef the smaller
CCAMLR. However, the advance is rather slow estimate. For humpback whales, abundance trends and
due to the lack of sufficient information. JARPA increase rates were consistent between results from
and JARPA II will provide a wide variety of data IARPAand Australian surveys.Therefore the reliability
and accelerate the development of ecosystem of these abundance estimates wille high. Distribution
studies. · of the fm whale extends further north beyond the
(ii) It was hypothesised broadly that the depletion of JARPA surVeyarea. Therefore the abundance estimates
large baleen whales (blue, fm and humpback) used for analyses are underestimated. Catches will not
resulted in the increase of mipke whales, seals and negatively affect these stocks as described in SC/57/0 1
sea birds. It is plausible that the reduction of one and b(ii) and(iiibelow. Information on stock structure
species (e.g. minke) would have some potential for fin whales is poor but not for Antarctic minke and
direct and indirect effect on other species (e.g. blue humpback whales. Samples taken by JARPA between
whales). 1987/88-2003/04 were· used in a comprehensive
(tii) JARPA II will start to define inter-species . · analysis to investigate stock structin the Antarctic
relationships among whale species in the minke whales, and a new hypothesis based on large
ecosystem model, and it will incorporate other krill sample sizes and results of different techniques has been
predators (seals, sea birds and so on). now proposed (Pastene et a/., 2005a). Regarding
(iv) Blue whales were depleted by over hunting, .and humpback whales, the SC suggested putative breeding
their recovery will be examined through ecosystem grounds, feeding grounds and migratory corridors for
models incorporating other predators including this species in 2000 (IWC, 2001). These feeding
seals and sea birds to the extent possible. grounds were tested using genetic data obtained from
(c) JARPA II will be reviewed at the end of the first six JARPA and significant differences were obtained
years of the research, and results will be evaluated. among C, D, E and F supporting the conclusion of the
Revisions will be made to the programme if required.
SC in 2000 (Pastene et a/., 2005b).
(d) Information from CCAMLR is used for modelling inter (b) (i) JARPAshowed a consistent trend of minke whale
species relationships in JARPA II and the.contribution abundance and no statisticallysignifican~
by CCAMLR to the JARPAII programme is welcomed. decreasing or increasing trend during 16years. The
(e) JARPA II provides a wide variety of data useful to · apparent abrupt decline in abundance from
developing a multi-species management procedure.
SOWER estimates is not biologically plausible
Hypotheses will be developed and their performance given thebiologiGaland age data from JARPA.
tested based on time series data obtained through .(ii)JARPA and Australian survey showed rapid
JARPA and JARPA II. Per~orma of tee various recovery and high increasing ratesof humpback
components of the research programme will be judged whales. The population dynamics model used in
on the basis of the contribution of results to the JARPA showed no delay of recovery for the take
improved understanding of the Antarctic ecosystem. proposed in JARPA II. It is clear that targeted
stocks of humpback whales are not at dangerously
2. Methodology low levels.
(a) A review meeting for results from JARPA was (iii)The recovery of fm whales was also shown in
conducted in January 2005. (SC/57/06). Participants JARPA urveys. Extrapolation of these
from eight countries agreed on the following, 'JAAPA underestimated estimates for unsurveyed areas
has revealed that changes have occurred in the suggests large stock sizes that could easily tolerate
ecosystem since the 1970s, sugges'ting competition the small take plarmed in JARPA II. Historical
among minke and other large whales'. Sample sizes information based on historical catch analyses
were determined as minimum numbers of samples suggested a stock structure based ocenai~basin
required to achieve the research objectives. Details of (Mackintosh, 1965). Information on stock structure
calculation for the sample sizes are described in will be improved through the JARPA II
Appendices 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the research plan programme.
(SC/57/01) . (iv) Genetic and photo-ID analyses of humpback
(b) Non ~etha mleans are not satisfactory to address all whales being conducted in the South Pacific are not
objectives of the planned JARPAII. For example, age of conclusive yet. For example genetic analysis for
whale, nutrition al condition of the whale, food different breeding grounds has not included the
consumption, and heavy metal load cannot be obtained Eastern Australia samples yet. Furthermore, if
by ·the current non-lethal methods.·As for the former whales show some degree of site fidelity to
JARPA, JARPA II will be conducted as a feeding areas, some differences should be
comprehensive research plan using lethal and non-lethal detected among small sectors in AreaV.This has
·methods allocated properly for each research objective. not been observed. Further research is necessary to
(c) Most of the research methods used in JARPA II were examine this issue, possibly incorporating DNA
established through a research period of 18 years in sequences from low and high latitudes in a single
IARPA.These methods were reviewed and evaluated as analysis.
appropriate in the review meeting of IARPAheld by the (v) Plarmed take of humpback whales is far less than
Government of Japan in January 2005 (SC/57/06). 1% of estimated abundance therefore the impact on
existing non-lethal research programmes will be
3. Effectsof catches on stocks negligible. On the contrary, information from
(a) Abundance estimates used in the analyses onffectsof JARPA II will contribute to existing non-lethal
catches on minke whale stocks, were obtained through· ·research programmes because it can provide data
the JARPAand SOWER programmes. It is reasonable to not possible in non-lethal sampling.
103Annex 152
264 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, ANNEX 01
(c) The RMP was developed for commercial whaling and it Mackintosh, N.A. 1965.The Stocks of Whales. Fishing News (Books)
should not be applied to the scientific permit research. Ltd, London. 232pp.
Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Bando,T., Zenitani, R., Hakama
The results of FITIER calculations showed an T., Otani, S. and Fujise, Y. 2005a. A new interpretation of the stOck
increasing trend or maintaining abundance near the identity in the Antarcticminke wha(Ba/aenopterti bonaerellsis)
carrying capacity under the planned take of JARPA II. based ·on analyses of genetics and non-genetic markers. Paper
This means that stocks will be sustained. JNJ05/JR3 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting called by the
Government of Japan, January 2005, Tokyo (unpublished). 30pp.
[Available from: www.icrwhale.org/eng·inde:c.html].
Pastene, L., Goto, M.,.Kanda, N. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005b. Genetic .
REFERENCES analyses on stock identificationin the Antarctichumpbackandfin
International Whaling Commission. 1998. Report of the Scientific whales based on samples collected under the JARPA. Paper
Committee. Rep. int. What. Commn 48:53-118. · JNJ05/JR16 presented to the JARPA Reviw meeting called by the
Government of Japan, January 2005, Tokyo (unpublished). 12pp.
International Whaling Commission. 2001. Repon of the Scientific
Committee. J. Cetacean Res.Manage. (Suppl.) 3:1-76. [Available fromwww.icrwhael .org/eng-inde:.:.htm.l]
104 Annex 153
153. Government of Japan (Compiled by Fujise Y, Pastene LA, Hatanaka H,
Ohsumi S and Miyashita T) “Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility Study
of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit
in theAntarctic (JARPAII)” , SC/59/O3 (2007)
SC/59/03
Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07 Feasibility Study of the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special
Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)
Government of Japan
(Compiled by Y. Fujise, L.A. Pastene, H. Hatana ka, S. Ohsumi, and T. Miyasbila)
ABSTRACT
The Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II)
started with two feasibility surveys in the austral summer seasons 2005/06 and 2006/07. The objectives of the
feasibility surveysre 1) to examine the practicability and appropriateness of sighting methods and sampling
proceduresin the enlarged research area, and 2) to examine the practicability of methods of hunting, hauling,
flensing and taking biological measurements large body-sized whales such as fin and humpback whales. Based
on the results obtained in the two feasibility surveys this paper evaluates whether or not these objectives were
fulfilled.t is concluded that the practicability and appropriateness of the planned sighting methods and design
were adequateand could be used to cover the entire research area under normal conditions. Results also showed
that sampling procedurewere appropriate for the increased sample size of Antar ctic minke and fin whales.
Although it took more time to catch, transport, measure and dissect fin whales than is the case of Antarctic minke
whales,the process from catching to biological sampling of this species was successfully conducted at least for
animals less than1m in body length or 65tons in body weight. As the full-scale JARPA II survey will incorporate
sample sizes for fin and humpback whales as specified in the original research plan (Government of Japan, 2005),
further improvement to deal with such larger animals will be contin ued during the full-scale program.
INTRODUCTION
Following the completion of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic
(JARPA), conducted between 1987 /88 and 2004/05 austral summer seasons (season), the Government ofJapan
launched a new research program called Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special
Permit in the AntarcticARPA II), under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling (Government of Japan, 2005). This is a long-term research progran1, which combines lethal and
non-lethal methods, JARPA II has the following objectives : 1) monitoring ofthe Antarctic ecosystem, 2) modeling
competitionamong whale species and developing future management objectives, 3) elucidation of temporal and
spatial changes in stock structure and 4) improvingmanagement procedure for the Antarctic minke whale
stocks.
The full-scale JARPA II will start from the 2007/08 season. JARPA II will focus on Antarctic minke, humpback
and fin whales and possibly other species in the Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill
(Euphausia superba). Annual sample sizes for the full-scale research (lethal sampling ) are 850 (with I0% of
allowance) for Antarctic minke whales (Eastern Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific Stocks), 50 for
humpback whales (D and E-Stocks) and 50 for fin whales (Indian Ocean and the Western South Pacific Stocks).
Before the start of the full-scale survey of JARPA II, two feasibility surveys were conducted in the 2005/06 and
2006/07 seasons. In the feasibility surveys, a maximum annual sample size0+- 10% Antarctic minke and ten
fin whaleswere planned for each season. Humpback whales were not sampled during the feasibility surveys.
Cruise reportsof the feasibility surveys were reported by Nishiwaki eta/. (2006; 2007).
The objective of this paper is to examine the main results of the two feasibility surveys (Nishiwaki eta/., 2006;
2007) and to evaluate whether or not the objectives ofthose surveys were fulfilled, and suggest changes for the full
JARPA II research program, if necessary.
-1-
105Annex 153
OBJECfiVES OF THE FEASIDILITY STUDY
The objectivesfthe feasibilitysurveyswere: I) to examinethe practicabilityand appropriatenessofsighting
methodsand samplingproceduresin theenlargedresearch area,2) to examinethe practicabilityof methodsof
hunting,hauling,flensingand taking biologicalmeasurementsoflarge body-sizedwhalessuchas fin and
humpbackwhales(GovernmentofJapan, 2005).
OUTLINE OF JARPA II FEASIDILITY SURVEYS
1. First feasibility survey (2005/06, Nishiwaki et al ,2006)
1. 1. Research area
As mentionedin theoriginalresearchplan(GovernmentofJapan, 2005),the research area ofJARPA II is
basicallythesameas inJARPA:southof60°S,35°E- 145°W.Theareawasdivided intosixsectors(easternArea
Ill, westernArealV, easternArea IV, westernArea V,easternArea Vand westernArea VI) as shown inFig. l.
The foursectorson the westside(easternAreaIII, westernAreaIV,easternArea IV,and westernAreaV) were
coveredin theftrst feasibility surveybetween 3 December2005and 20March2006 (Fig.2).
I
Latitudinalrangesof the surveyweredifferentaccordingthe researchtype.Dedicatedsightingvessel(SV)
surveyedareassouthof 6o•s whilethe sightingand samplingvessel (SSV)areas southof 62°S.
11.2. Sighting method
1.2.1. Sighting vessels (SV)
TworesearchvesselsKyoshin Maru No.2 (KS2)and Kaikoh Maru (KK!) were engagedin sightingactivitiesand
experimentsonly(SV).Designof the surveytrneklinewas improvedwith regardto previousJARPAsurveysby
conductingsurveyinnorth andsouth strata simultaneously.
IThe surveytrack linewas designedbyeach I0degreelongitudinalwidthinterval in principle. Thesurveystarting
point wasrandomlyselectedfromthe arrangementofthe surveytrack lineand longitudestandardlinesinthe
survey.
As mentionedin Nishiwakiet al. (2006)the surveytraeklinewiththeeven numberstothe longitudinalwidth(IO
ldegrees)wasset basedon the planedresearchdays.Tracklinedesignwas constructedfromunitof twoormore
track lines(zigzagshape) inthe northstratumandfour or morein the southstratum (Fig. 3).
ISightingprocedureswerethesameas inthe previousJARPA surveys(Nishiwakiet al. 1999, Ishikawaeta/. 2000).
The surveywas operatedunderoptimalresearchconditions(whenthewindspeedwasbelow25 knotsinthesouth
Istrataandbelow20 knot inthe north strata,andwhenvisibilitywasmorethan 2n.miles).The standardsearching
speedof I .5knotswas used.The sightingsurveybySV wasconductedunder limitedclosingmode(only
sightingsofAntarctic minkewhalesor likelyAntarcticminke whaleswere approachedto eonftrm speciesand
schoolsize)and passingmode(the vessel did notapproachthe sightedwhalesand searchingfromthe barrelwas
Iuninterrupted).n the easeoffin whale sightings,someexperimentswereconductedin the samemanneras the
Iotherwhalespecieslistedbelow.
IThe surveyofSV wasconductedindependentlyfrom theSSVs.In additionto the sightingof Antarcticminke
Iwhalesor likeAntarcticminke whalesand fin whales,theSVapproachedblue (B.musculus), humpback
(Megaptera novaeangliae), southernright(Eubalaena australis), pigmyright (Caperea marginata), sei(B.
boreaf sier~ (Physeter macrocehpalus) andsouthernbottlenose(Hyperoodonplanifrons) whalesfor
.conductingsomeexperiments.
IThe researchperiodwas I8days between3 December2005and20March2006. Byadding aseconddedicated
.sightingvessel,distance ofsearchingwas increasedremarkablyincomparison to formerJARPA.Searching
:distanceswas 8836.2n.milesby the SVs.The sightingsurveycoveredmost ofthe researchareaas originally
planned,despiteexternaldisturbances.
II2.2. Sighting and sampling vessel (SSV)
1111reesightingand samplingvessels Yushin Maru No.2 (YS2), YushinMaru (YS1)andKyo Maru No.I (KOl)
wereengagedin sightingand samplingsurveys(sightingI san1plingvessels;SSVs).
-2-
106 Annex 153
Designoftrack line ofthe SSVis fundamentallythe sameas thoseofthe SV (Fig. 4).Accordingtothe original
JARPA JI plan(Governmentof Japan,2005)thesurveyof SSVswasfocusedsouth of 62°S.
Three SSVsadvancedalong paralleltracklines7n.milesapartfromeach otherat a standardspeed of 11.5knots.
ThesightingsurveywasconductedWlderlimitedclosingmodeas definedabove,andindividualsweretargetedfor
samplingas explained below.In addition,the SSVsalsoapproachedotherwhalespeciesfor conductingsome
experiments.The totalsearchingdistancebythe SSVswas7536.5n.milescoveredin 108days.
Sightingsmade by SVsand SSVsaresummarizedin Table1.
1.3. Sampling method
The samplingactivitywas focusedto thearea southof62°S as mentionedin theoriginalplan (Governmentof
Japan,2005).Density indexofAntarcticminkewhalesbasedonsightingdatafromJARPAislowinthelatitudinal
band between60°Sand 62°S (lessthan IO%of thewholelatitudinalrange).This indicatesthatsamplingof
Antarcticminkewhales in thislatitudinalbandhas a lowimportance.
Duringthe firstfeasibilitystudy, externaldisturbancesoccurredom 21 December2005 toI9 January2006.
1.3.1.Antarcticminkewhale
A maximumoftwoAntarcticminkewhaleswassampledrandomlyfrom eachprimarilysighted school.A totalof
821schools(1,959 individuals)weremade bySSVsas primarysightings.A totalof779 schools(1,879
individuals)were targetedforsamplinganda total of853 individualsweresampled.Those sampleswere
transportedtotheresearch baseNisshin Maru(NM) for biologicalresearchand flensing.Thereforethe planned
samplesize wasachieved.Onlythree animalswerestruckand lost.
1.3.2.Fin whale
Thesamplingoffin whales wasrestricted toanimalswithanestimatedbodylengthless than20m duetotechnical
limitationsofNM, and to avoidanyhandlingaccident
Out of37 schools(245 individuals)primarilysightedbySSVs, II schools(112 individuals)were targetedfor
sampling.A totalof I0 individualswere sampledas originallyplanned.Samplingefficiencywas 90.I6%.No
struck andlostoccurred.
1.4. Biological survey
Biologicalresearchwas conductedon theNM forall whalessampled.
1.4.1.Antarcticminkewhale
To cover for the largernumberof Antarcticminkewhalestobesampledina similarresearchperiodas inthe
previousJARPA, tworesearch teamsconductedbiologicalresearch for 24 hours.Asa result ofthis modification
the total 853minkewhaleswereinvestigatedbiologicallyinthesameresearchperiod. Somebiological
information of the animalssampledis giveninNishiwakietal. (2006).
1.4.2.Fin whale
Allthe tenfinwhalessampledwereexaminedbiologicallyon boardtheNM. Becauseof the instrumentscale
limitation(upo25ton), body weight ofthe finwhaleswasestimatedbysummingup the weightdatain eachpart
of the body.A summaryof biologicalsamplesanddata collectedfrom finwhales is giveninTable 2.
The maximumbodylength andweight of the collectedfin whaleswas20.22mand 6l.52t, respectively(female).
The minimumbodylengthand weightwas 19.14mand 47.28t,respectively(male) (fable 3).Two individuals
were pregnant.Therefore evenwiththe limitationof bodysize(weight)in sampling,this samplingschemecan
partiallycoverfor themature component.
1.5. Non-lethal component
Apartfromthe sighting componentof the program,the followingexperiments werepartof the non-lethal
components of theJARPA II in2005/06:sightingdistanceandangleexperiment,photo-identificationexperiment,
biopsysampling, satellitetaggingand oceanographicandacousticsurvey. Detailsean befound inNishiwakietat.
(2006).
2. Second feasibility survey (Nishiwaki et aL, 2007)
-3-
107Annex 153
2. 1. Research area
In the second year feasibility study the three seetors on the east side of the research area (western Area V, eastern
Area V and western Area VI) were surveyed between 15 December 2006 and 28 February 2007 (Figs. I and 5).
Same as in the first feasibility survey latitudinal ranges of the survey were different according the researeh type.
Dedicated sighting vessel (SV) surveyed areas south of 60"S while the sighting and sampling vessel (SSV) areas
south of62°S.
2. 2. Sighting method
2.2.1.Sightingvessels (SV)
Two research vessels (KS2 and KKl) were engaged in sighting activities only. Track design was similar as in the
first feasibility survey. In the Eastern part of Area V (including the Ross Sea), two strata were defined as
East-North and East-South. Zigzag-shaped traek lines were adopted independently in each stratum. Details were
described in the cruise report (Nishiwaki el a/.,2007).
In 2006/07 survey the research period was 76 days between 15 December 2006 and 28 February 2007. Searching
distances was 6,091.73n.miles by the SVs. The sighting survey covered the most of research area planned except
for western part of Area V (130E-l65E), which could not be surveyed due to a fire aeeident at NM.
2.2.2. Sightingandsamplingvessel (SSVs}
lbree sighting and sampling vessels (YS2, YSI and KOI)were engaged in sighting and sampling surveys.
Design of track line, survey manner and experiments by the SSV were basically the same as in the first feasibility
study, except for the eastern part of Area V (including the Ross Sea) where two strata were defined as East-North
and East-South. Zigzag-shaped traek lines were adopted independently in each stratum. Details were described in
the cruise report (Nishiwaki et al., 2007).
The searehing distanee by the SSV s was 5,877.14n.miles covered in 76 days. The sighting survey covered most of
the planned research area except for the western part of Area V (l30°E-165"E), which could not be surveyed
completely due to a fire accident at NM.
A summary of the sightings made during the second feasibility survey is shown in Table 4.
2.3. Sampling method
Sampling method was also the same as in the first feasibility survey. However in the case of the fin whale the limit
ofbody size was changed from 20m to 19m.The reason is that fin whales in Area Vwere heavierthan expected for
our predicted body size.
2.3.1.Antarcticmink£whale
In the second feasibility study out of 443 schools (1,043 individuals) of the primary sightings of Antarctic minke
whales by the SSVs, 438 schools (I ,027 individuals) were targeted for sampling. A total 505 individuals were
sampled. Sampling efficieney was 93.8 %. Struck and lost occurred in only three cases.
2.3.2. Finwhale
In the seeond feasibility study in 2006/07, sampling of fin whales \vas restricted to an estimated body length less
than 19m (change from 20m to 19m decided at the field) due to technical limitations ofNM.
Out of 19 schools (156 individuals) of primarily sighted fin whales in Area VNE by SSVs, 3 schools (9
individuals) were targeted for sampling. A totalf3 individuals were sampled. Sampling efficiency was 100%.
In retrieving the first fin whale onboard NM most ofthe body wasdropped into the sea beeause it was culled off by
the band used to pull it. The animal was larger (heavier) than estimated and theNM was not technically
experieneed to onboard an animal of such weight.
Fin whales migrating to the Area V could be larger than fin whales distributed in other parts of the research area.
After careful considerations after the first sampled fin whale, no problems were observed with the other two fin
whales sampled, including an animal of 65.02tons.
-4-
108 Annex 153
2.4. Biological survey
Biologicalresearch was conducted on theNM for all whalessampled.
2.4.1.Antarcticminkewhale
Biologicaldataandsamplescollectedfrom the Antarcticminkewhales in 2006/07aresummarizedinNishiwakiet
at.(2007).
2.4.2.Fin whale
Biologicaldata and samplescollected from the finwhales in2006/07are summarizedinTable 5.The largestfin
whalesampled in the second feasibilitysurvey was 21.15m and65.02 tons in body length and bodyweight,
respectively (Table 6).
2.5.Non-lethal components
As inthe firstfeasibilitysurvey apart fromthe sighting componentthefollowing non-lethal researcheswere
conducted:sightingdistance and angleexperiment, photo-identificationexperiment,biopsysampling, satellite
tagging,preyspeciessurveyand oceanographicand acousticsurveys(see details in Nishiwaki eta!., 2007).
3. Progress in the biological analysis ofAntarctic minke and fin whales
Oneofthe main objectivesof the JARPAII is tomonitor the biologicalparameterssuch as apparentpregnancy
rate(PPF) and age at sexualmaturity.Below is a brief progressreportof the analysesrelated to some biological
parameters.
3.1.Antarctic minke whales
3.1.1.Apparentpregnancy rate (PP F)
TemporalvariationsofPPF for 1-stockand P-stock ofAntarcticminke whalesare shown in Fig. 6. The PPFwas
constantbothI-and P-stocksduring 16years ofthe JARPAperiodat around92.9%and 85.4%for I andP-stocks,
respectively.PPF was estimated basedon data collectedduringtheJARPA II feasibilitysurveys and resultswere
addedto the timeseries ofJARPA. Those data willbemonitoredat least for thenext 4 years.
3.1.2.Age atsexualmaturity
It is knownthat the age at sexual maturitydeduced from the transitionphaseofAntarctie minke whalesshows
temporalchangespossibly in response tochangein environmentalconditions(seeFig.7 fortemporal trendof this
parametersbasedonJARPAdata).The age ofwhales sampledduringthe feasibilitysurveysis being estimatedand
valueswill be addedto study the trendshown in Fig. 7.
3.2. Fin whales
3.2.1.Stomachcontents
It wasreportedthat fin whales mainlyfed on the AntarctickrillEuphausiasuperbain the 1950s(Mackintoshand
Wheeler, 1929;Nemoto, I959). In late 1960sand early 1970swhalinggroundsfor fin whalesshiftedtonorth. In
thenortherngroundsfinwhalemainlyconsumed E. vallentini(Kawamura,1974, 1980).Thereforepreyspeciesof
finwhaleshad been expected to differ from thoseof Antarcticminkewhales.
HoweverduringtherecentJARPA surveys, it was observedthatdistribution of fin whalesexpandedsouthwardto
nearpack ice ofthe Antarctie since 1990(Matsuoka eta/.,2005).
Table7 showsthesummary of the stomachcontents of finwhalessampledduring the twoJARPA II feasibility
surveys.Preyspecies in the stomach contents ofthe fin whaleswas theAntarctic krill.This is direct evidencethat
Antarctieminke whalesand finwhalesconsumethe same preyspecies, at least in someregions ofthe Antarctic.
3.2.2.Bodyweight
Biomassestimationsareimportantfor theconstructionofecosystemmodels.In thiscontext,preciseestimationsof
bodyweight are essential.However itis difficultto estimatethe bodyweight of fin whale becauseof their large
bodysize.
Lockyer (1976)estimatedthe relationshipbetween bodyweightand length of fin whaleusing datafrom Japanese
whaling fleetin Nishiwaki (1950) and Ohnoand Fujino (1952).
-5-
109Annex 153
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between body weight and length of eleven fin whales sampled during the JARPA II
feasibility surveys. This figure also shows the data for fin whales reported previously (Nishiwaki, 1950; Ohno and
Fujino, 1952).
The body weight of the fin whale from recent JARPA II surveys is heavier than those previously reported in 1950s,
and this suggests that new data obtained from JARPA II is valuable for ecosystem modeling exercises.
4. A review of the biological information available for southern humpback whale of Groups IV and V
The humpback whale is one of the target species ofthe JARPA II. From the start of the full JARPA II an annual
catch of 50 animals is planned. Catches will be made in each austral summer season alternatively in Areas IV
(Stock D) and V (Stock E).
As indicated above the main objectives ofthe JARPA II feasibility surveys were a) to examine the practicability
and appropriateness of sighting methods and sampling procedures , and improve them as necessary, and b) to
examine the practicability of methods of hunting, hauling, flensing and biological sampling in large-sized baleen
whales. Unlike the Antarctic minke and fin whales, no humpback whales were sampled during the feasibility
surveys in 2005/06 and 2006/07 austral summer seasons. Regarding to the second feasibility objective results were
satisfactory for fin whale; animals were sampled and no critical problem with hunting, hauling, flensing and
biological sampling was observed. On this particular issue no problems are expected for humpback whales as this
species is smaller than the fin whale.
Biological information in Antarctic Areas III-I related to stock structure, biological parameters, feeding ecology
and level of contaminants in cetacean, are relevant for the JARPA II research objective of 'Monitoring of the
Antarctic Ecosystem '. Samples and biological data related to these research items were obtained for Antarctic
minke and fin whales during the JARPA II feasibility surveys but not for the humpback whale. In this section the
biological information available for humpback whales in Areas IV and Vis reviewed.
Stock structure
Mackintosh (1965) showed that humpback whales tend to gather into five or six distinct feeding concentrations in
theAntarctic during the austral summer season. These feeding concentrations were denominated as Groups I-V
(with a Group IIa and lib) corresponding roughly to IWC Management Areas I-VI. The Groups most documented
are Groups IV and V. Omura (1953) examined the distribution of humpback whale in the feeding grounds ofAreas
IV and V based on catch data. Based on catch information he suggested that two populations occur in these Areas
with a boundary around 130°-l42°E. He did not discard the possibility of intermingling between these two
populations in the feeding ground. He also examined the pattern of distribution bymonth and suggested that for the
month where more data were available (November-March) the boundary between these two populations changed
from 120°-l30°E in November to eastside of 140°E in December and to J20°-l40°E in January.
More recently the IWC Scientific Committee (SC) proposed the breeding grounds, migratory routes and feeding
grounds of seven humpback whale stocks (identified by the alphabet letters A-G, respectively), and suggested the
possibilityof sub-stocks in some of them (IWC, 2005). Of interest for the research under JARPA II are Stock D
(Western Australian Stock related to Antarctic Area IV) and StockE, which is composed of three putative
sub-stocks: EI=eastern Australian sub-stock; E2"'New Caledonia sub-stock and E3"'Tonga sub-stock. Stock E is
related to Antarctic Area V.
During theHobart Workshop on the comprehensive assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales, Stock
D was recognized as a single stock, with animals migrating northward during winter from Antarctic Area IV along
the west coast of Australia towards a current breeding destination as far north as )5°S, beyond North West Cape,
Western Australia (IWC, 2006a). On the other hand six possible models for stock structure were proposed for the
South Pacific (Stocks E and F) and the Workshop strongly recommended several genetic analyses to discern
among these models (IWC, 2006a).
The most recent genetic analysis conducted in the feeding grounds of Areas IIJE, IV, V and VIW involved several
hundreds of samples obtained during the JARPA and IDCR/SOWER cruises. Mitochondri al DNA control region
sequencing and microsatcllite analyses showed significant genetic heterogeneity in humpback whales among the
four Areas examined, and the authors concluded that these Areas are occupied by different populations (Pastene et
al.,2006).
-6-
110 Annex 153
TheSC endorsedtheHobart workshoprecommendationthateveryeffortbe madefor scientiststosharedatafrom
lowand high latitudeand carry out mtDNAanalysesunderthe IWCDataAvailabilityAccessprotocol(IWC,
2006b).Such co-operativeanalyseswouldallowfor a morecomprehensivestudy of stockstructureof humpback
whalesofStocksD, E and F. Additionalgeneticsamplingin thefeedinggrounds,particularlyinAreaV, will be
valuable forsuch study.
Biologicalparameters
Lockyer(1984)summarized informationon biologicalparametersfor baleenwhale speciesfromseveral
geographicregions.Withregardsouthernhumpbackwhale,thepeakmonthsofconceptionfor Australia/Antarctic
populationsare July/August, andthe gestationperiodisof II andhalfmonths.The peakmonthofbirth is
July/Augustandthelength ofneonateis4.3m.Thesuckingperiodisfrom10and halfto II monthsand thelength
atweaningis8.8m.Themeanlengthat sexualmaturityis 11.5and 12.0mfor malesandfemales,respectively.The
averageageat sexual maturityis 4 o5 years for bothsexes.The maximumrecordedlength in physicallymature
females is> l5.0m.
Ofinterest for theresearchunderJARPAII is theinformationavailableforWesternAustralia-AreaIV(GroupIV)
andEasternAustralia-AreaV (Group V), particularlyon thefollowingbiologicalparameters:pregnancyrate,
age/lengthat sexualmaturityandage/lengthat physicalmaturity, whichcouldchangeaccordingtochangesin the
conditionsofthe whales.The availableinformationisderivedfromsamplesobtainedduring thepastcommercial
whalingforthis species.Thereforethe informationcan beconsideredas old.The oldestpublicationbasedonsuch
samplessourceis datedMattews(1937)and thelatest oneis Chittleborough (1965).
Belowthe mainresultsof some relevantstudiesaresummarized.
Pregnancyrate
Chittleborough{1958)examinedpregnancyof humpbackwhalesbasedon samplesobtainedduringwhaling
operationsin WesternAustralia(1949-1956, n=2,450),EasternAustralia(1952-1956,n=821), AntarcticAreaIV
{1949/50-1955/56,n"'l,767)andAntarcticAreaV{1949/50-1955-56n , =1,250). He definedpregnancy rateas the
percentageof femalesin advancedpregnancyamongstthesexuallymaturefemalestakeninthe catches.
Pregnancyrates werelower forWesternAustralia{11.7%) thanAreaIV(48.2%)and for easternAustralia(9.3%)
thanAreaV (47.8"/o)T. he authorsalso providedinformationon pregnancyrate byyear or by uustral summer
season (season).In the case ofWesternand EasternAustraliathe percentagefluctuateeachyear, butabout
differentlevels at eachstation.
Omura{1953)examinedsexual maturedfemalestakeninAreaV intheseasons 1950-52(n=63)andestimatedthe
pregnancyrateat 85.7%.
l£!:!.gthat sexualmaturity
Omura(1953)examinedhumpbackwhalessampled inAreaV intheseasons1950/51-1951-52. Sexualmaturityin
maleswasdeterminedaccording to theweight oftestes.Fora sampleofn=42 maleshe suggesteda length at
sexualmaturity of 12m(39 feet4 inches). For femalessexualmaturitywas determinedbythe presenceof oneor
morecorporaluteain the ovaries.For asampleofn=70 he estimatedthesexualmaturityis reachedinaverageata
bodylengthof39-40 feet (11.9-12.2m).
Chittleborough(1955a)examinedmalehumpbackwhalestaken in WesternA-ustraliafrom 1951to 1953.Heused
themean testisweightof 2000gas indicator ofpuberty.Basedon609maleswhose testes wereweightedhe
estimatedthatat a lengthof36 feet 9 inch{11.2m),50%ofmalehumpbackwhaleswouldbe sexuallyimmature
and50% wouldhavereached or passedpuberty.
Chittleborough( 1955b)examinedfemalehumpbackwhalestakeninWesternAustraliafrom1949to 1954.A total
of821 animalswereexaminedof which 154wereimmature,77 at pubertyand 590 mature. At pubertythe mean
bodylengthofthe femalehumpbackwhales was38.50 feet{11.7m).Accordingto thisauthor sexualmaturity
(basedon the firstpregnancy)mayeither followimmediatelyuponpubertyor be delayedfor a furtheryear. He
estimatedthe lengthat sexualmaturityat 39.66feet (12.lm).
Chittleborough (1960)examinedthe mean lengthsofthesamplesofpuberalfemalestaken on thewestcoasteach
year from1956to 1959andcomparedeach yearestimatewiththe previousestimateforthe period1949-1954. In
1956(40.15feet,n=17){12.2m), the meanlengthwasconsiderablygreaterthanof thesampleaccumulatedfrom
1949to 1954{38.50feet,n=77)(11.7m).Since1956the meanlengthofthepuberal femalesdecreasedeachyear
-7-
111Annex 153
until 1959(37.96 feet,n=43)(11.6m).These differenceswere statisticallysignificant.The sameauthor examined
the mean lengthsof the samples of puberalfemales takenonthe east eoast fortwo periods: 1952-54(n=60) and
1956-59(n=\5). The mean lengthvaried insignificantlyfromthe first period(38.5lfeet, n=60) (I 1.7m)to the
seeondperiod(39.38 feet, n=15) (12.0m).
Age at sexual maturity
Chittleborough(1959)examinedage at pubertyfor humpbaekwhalesfrom Westernand eastern Australia
eombined(1957).For femalesthe author examinedtheages(as determined from baleenplates) and ovaries
conditionof391 animals.The majority offemalesreachpubertyat 4or 5years oldand the upperlimitoftheageat
pubertyis closeto sevenyears. Theauthor alsoexaminedther elationshipbetweenages (as determined by baleen
plates)and sexual conditionin 238 males.He classifieda maleas sexuallymature with total testes weight
exceeding 4kg.Inmalesthe meanage at pubertyliesbetween4and 5years old. Furthermore,theauthor examined
therelationshipsbetweennumber ofearplug laminationsandovarianconditionsin 290females.Heconcludedthat
sincemost humpbackwhalesreach pubertyat 4and 5 yearsold,the meannumber of laminationsin the earplugat
pubertyis betweeneight and ten laminations.
Chittleborough(1965) examineda larger number ofsamplesfor Western andEastern Australiacombined
(1949-52).Basedon data from 1,067malesand thecriterionoftestesweight of4kg, pubertyis reached at3-6years
old. For a total 1,603females examinedthe majorityof individuals(70%) attain pubertyat 4 and 5 years old.
Length at physicalmaturity
Chittleborough(1955a)studiedthe physicalmaturitybased on 567 male humpbackwhales taken in Western
Australia(1951-53),where epiphyseswereexamined.Onlyeightanimals had attainedphysical maturity.The
mean bodylengthat physical maturity for these animalswas 42.97feet (13.1m). Chittleborough(1955b)studied
the physical maturitybasedon 457 female humpbackwhalestakenin WesternAustralia (1951-54), where
epiphyseswere examined.Onlyeight animalshadattainedphysicalmaturity. The mean body length at physical
maturityfor these animalswas 44.34 feet (13.5m).
No informationon age at physicalmaturitywas availablefor the relevant region.
Morerecentlysome information on biologicalparameterse.g.age at first calving,has been obtained from
long-termsightinghistories of individuallyidentifiedfemale humpbackwhales in the Gulfof Maine (Clapham,
1992)and southeasternAlaska (Gabriele etat.2007).Informationfrom such source is not available forwhalesof
group IV and V.
Feedingecology
Mizueand Murata (1951) examinedthe stomachcontentand blubberthickness of whales caught by the Japanese
whalingfleet in the season 1949/50 in Antarctic waterscomprisedbetween6l -69°Sand between ll6 °E-162°W.
A total of56 humpbackwhales wereexamined,which fedexclusivelyon Antaretic krill(Euphausiasuperba).Of
a totalof 56 animals examinedin the second halfofDecember, 12.5% had the first stomach empty, 16.1%it
containedlessthan 25% filled; 28.6% had thestomach25-50%filled;21.4% had the stomach 6~75% filled and
21.4%hadthe stomaehfull(75-100%).Theyalsoexaminedthesizeofthe Antarctickrill containedin the stomach.
A 5.3%had krill ofsize overScm;66.1% had krill ofsizesbetween4 and Scm;26.8%had krill of size under4cm
and 1.8%had krill ofdifferent sizes mixed.Theyalso collectedsome data on blubberthickness but sample size
was too small to reach any conclusion.
Kakuwa e/ al. (1953)examinedthe stomach contentof37 humpbackwhalescaught by Japanesewhalingfleet in
the 1951-52seasoninthe areacomprised ber.veen 66°-72°8and between 160°Wand 180°,Whalesfed exclusively
on krill.Whaleswith emptyfirst stomach accountedfor 35%of the catch whilesmall krills predominatedin the
stomach contents. Neitherthecoefficient northevarianceofthe regression ofthe blubber thicknessupon the
length of the whalesdifferedsignificantlybetween sexes.Differencewas significantin the adjusted mean ofthe
blubberthicknesssuggestingthat femaleshad thickerblubberthanmales of similarsizes.
Klumov(1961) cited in Chittleborough(1965) estimatedthathumpbackwhales feeding in polar waters consume
1-l.Stons of euphausiidsper day.The latterauthor informedofthe examinationof thestomach contentsfrom 197
humpbackwhalessampledat the west coastofAustralia,whichshowedfood remainsinjust five. In each ofthese
whales thequantity of food ingestedwas small (probablylessthan 2kg beforedecompositionbegan).
-8-
112 Annex 153
Levelofcontaminants
No information is available for the relevant region.
It can be concluded that apart from the information on stock structure, which has been updated recently using
molecular techniques, other biological information ofsouthern hwnpback whales are old dated, only available
from animals taken from the past commercial whaling about 40 years ago. Furthermore there is limited
information on time series for key biological parameters and other biologicalindicators of whale conditions. In
addition it should be noted that the interpretations of several biological parameters in the past was complicated by
the nature of whaling operations, which, among other aspects, concentrated operations in some particular areas.
EVALUATION OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDIES
1. The practicability and appropriateness of research methods
1.1. Sighting methods in the enlarged area
The feasibility studywas planned to cover a wide longitudinal span: 140° (from 35°E to 175°E) in the 2005/06
survey, and 85° (from 130°E to 145°W) in the 2006/07 survey. These surveys were planned to be conducted
through early December to late March. It was planned that the search effort would be distributed mainly in Area
IV in the f1rstsurvey and in Area V in the second survey, in the peak feeding season of baleen whales.
Due to external disturbances the sectors comprised from 35°E to 55°E and from 135°E to 139°E could not be
covered in the first feasibility survey. Despite these disturbances sighting surveys was conducted in the peak
feeding season from early January to early March in the main research area from 55°E to 130°E, which included
Area IV. Without such disturbances the survey could have covered the entireresearch area.
Due to a fire accident at NM the western part of Area V could not be covered in the second feasibility survey.
However the survey had been conducted normally in the other sectors previous to the accident and clearly Area V
west could have been surveyed, if the fire accident not occurred.
Therefore it can be concluded that the practicability and appropriateness ofthe planned sighting methods and
design were adequate and could be used to cover the entire research area under normal conditions. In particular the
use of two dedicated sighting vessels allowed the surveys to be conducted in the north and south of the research
area simultaneously.
1.2. Sampling procedure s given the increased sample size and additional species
In the first feasibility study, a total of779 schools (1,879 individuals) of Antarctic minke whales were targeted for
sampling. A total of 853 individuals were sampled from 4 December to 20 March. Sampling efficiency oft his
species was 95.6%. A total of 11schools (112 individuals) of the fin whales were targeted for sampling. A total of
10 individuals were sampled from 3 February to 13 March. Sampling efficiency was 90.16%.
In the second feasibility study, a total of 438 schools (1,027 individuals) of Antarctic minkewhales were targeted
for sampling. A total of505 individuals were sampled from 15December to 14February. The survey stopped on
27 February. Sampling efficiency of this species was 93.8%. Out of20 schools (157 individual s) in the primary
sighting sof fin whales by SSVs, 3 schools and 9 individuals were targeted for sampling. A total of3 individuals
were sampled. Sampling efficiency was 100.0 %.
One of the modifications that allowed the biological examination oflarger sample sizes was the design of two
research teams that alternated the work in the periodof24 hours.
These results showed that sampling procedures were appropriate for the increased sample size of Antarctic minke
whale and for additional species. However it should be noted that in the full JARPA II survey the targeted sample
sizes for fin whales will be0 (instead of l0 in the feasibility surveys) and humpback whales will be also sampled
with n=50 (no humpback whale was sampled in the feasibility surveys) (Government of Japan, 2005). The
efficiency will be improved to deal with such larger sample sizes during the full-scal e program.
2. Methods for catching, flensing and taking biological measurements of large body-sized whales
Although it took more time to catch, transport, measure and dissect the fin whales than is the case for the Antarctic
minke whales, the process from catching to biological sampling of fin whales was successfully conducted at least
for animals less than 21m in body length or 65tons in body weight. Some facilities such as the strength of winches
-9-
113Annex 153
andhaulingmethods,are beingplanned.Technicalimprovementswill becontinuedduringthe full-scaleJARPAII
program.
CONCLUSIONS
Basedon the evaluationaboveit can beconcludedthatthe feasibilitysurveysofJARPA II wasconducted
satisfactorilyandthattheobjectivesofthefeasibilitysurveywerecovered adequately.However, thefullJARPAII
surveywill involvesamplesizes forfin andhumpbackwhalesas specifiedin the originalresearchplan
(GovernmentofJapan, 2005)andthereforetechniquesanddevicesfor handlingtheselarge animalswill be
improvedcontinuously throughthefull-scaleJARPA 11program.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Our acknowledgementsto scientistsand crewmemberthat participatedin theJARPAII feasibilitysurveysof
2005/06and 2006/07seasonsfortheirdedication,hardwork and efficiencydespiteexternaldisturbances.
REFERENCES
Cavalieri, D., P. Gloersonand J. Zwally.1999.Near real-timeDMSPSSM/Idaily polar griddledsea ice
concentrations.Edited byJ. MaslanikandJ. Stroeve.Boulder,CO: NationalSnowand Ice DataCenter.Digital
media.
Chittleborough,.G. 1955a.Aspectsof reproductionin themale humpbackwhale,Megapleranodosa
(Bonnaterre).Aust. J. Mar.Freshw.Res. 6(1):1-29.
Chittlcborough, R.G.955b. Puberty,physicalmaturity,andrelativegrowthofthe femalehumpbackwhale,
Megaplera nodosa(Bonnaterre),onthe westernAustraliancoast.Aust.J. Mar.Freshw.Res. 6(3):315-327.
Chittleborough,R.G. 1958.Breedingcycleofthe female humpbackwhale,Megapteranodosa(Bonnaterre).Aust.
J. Mar. Freshw.Res. 9:1-18.
Chittleborough,R.G. 1959. Determinationofageinthe humpbackwhale,Megapteranodosa(Bonnaterre).Aust.J.
Mar. Freshw.Res. 10(2):125-143.
Chittleborough,R.G. 1960.Apparentvariationsin themeanlengthoffemalehumpbackwhalesat puberty.Norsk
Hvalfangst-Tidende3:120-124.
Chittleborough,R.G.1965.Dynamicsoftwo populationsofthe humpbackwhale,Megaptera novaeangliae
(Borowsky).Aus/.J. Mar.Freshw.Res. 16(1):33-128.
Clapham,P.J. 1992.Ageat attainmentof sexual maturityofhumpbackwhales,Megapteranovaeangliae.
CanadianJournal ofZoology10:1470-1472.
1
Gabriele,C.M.,Straley,J.M. andNeilson,J.L.2007.Age atfirst calvingoffemale humpbackwhalesinsouth
easternAlaska.MarineMammalScience23(1):226-239.
Governmentof Japan. 2005.Planforthe SecondPhaseofthe Japanese WhaleResearchProgramunder Special
Permit inthe Antarctic(JARPAII)-Monitoringof theAntarcticEcosystemandDevelopmentofNcw
ManagementObjectives for WhaleResources.Paper SC/57/01 presentedto theIWC ScientificCommittee,Jun
2005 (unpublished).99pp.
InternationalWhalingCommission.2005.Report ofthe Sub-Committeeon OtherSouthernHemisphereWhale
Stocks.J.CetaceanRes. Manage.7(Suppl.):235-246.
InternationalWhalingCommission.2006a Reportof the Workshop onthe ComprehensiveAssessmentof
SouthernHemisphereHumpbackWhales.Paper SC/58/Rep.SpresentedtotheScientificCommittee.May2006
(unpublished).17pp.
-10-
114 Annex 153
InternationalWhaling Commission. 2006b.Report of the ScientificCommittee.J. CetaceanRes. Manage.9
(Suppl.)(in press).
Ishikawa, H. Murase, H.,Tohyama, D., Yuzu,S., Otani, S.,Mogoe, T., Masaki,T., Kimura,N., Ohshima,T.,
Konagai, T., Asada,M., Takeuchi, J., and Kinoshita, T. 2000. CruiseReport ofthe Japanese Whale Research
Program WlderSpecialPermit inthe Antarctic (JARPA) Area IV and Eastern PrutofArea III in 1999/2000.Paper
SC/52/020 presented to the IWC ScientificCommittee,July2000 (unpublished). 25pp.
Kakuwa, Z.,Kawakami, T. and Iguchi, K. 1953.Biologicalinvestigationon the whales caught by theJapanese
AntarcticWhaling Fleets in the 1951-52season.Sci. Rep. WhalesRes.Inst.8; 147-213.
Kawamura,A. 1974.Food and feeding ecologyin the southernsei whale.&i. Rep. WhalesRes./nst., 26:25-144.
Kawamura,A. 1980.A review of food ofBalaenopterid whales.&i. Rep. WhalesRes./nst., 32:155-197.
Klumov, S.K.1961.Planktonand the feedingofthe whalebonewhales(Mystacoceti).Dokl. Gosud Okeanogr. Ins.
(Acad.Sci. USSR) 51: 142-56.
Lockyer,C. 1976.Bodylength ofsome species of large whales.J. Cons.Int. Explor.Mer,36(3):259-273.
Lockye r, C. 1984.Reviewof baleen whale(Mystieeti) reproductionand implicationsfor management.Rep.int.
Whal. Commn(Special Issue 6):27-50.
Mackintosh,N.A. and Wheeler, J.F.G. 1929. Southernblue and fin whales.Discoveryreport, 1:257-540.
Mackintosh,N.A. (1965). Thestocksof whales. FishingNews (Books) Ltd., London.
Matsuoka, K.,Hakamada,T. andNishiwaki, S.2005. Compositionofbaleen whalespecies in the JARPAresearch
area.Appendix I. pp25-36.Document SC/57/01 presentedto be 57 IWC Scientific Committee meeting
(unpublished)
Matthews,L. Harrison. 1937.The hwnpback whale,Megapteranodosa.DiscoveryRep. 17:7-92.
Mizue, K. and Murata, T. 1951.Biological investigationon the whalescaught bythe Japanese Antarctic whaling
fleetsseasons 1949-50.Sci. Rep. WhalesRes./nst.6:73-131.
Nemoto,T. 1959.Food of baleen whales withreferenceto whalemovements. Sci. Rep. WhalesRes.Ins/.,
14:149-290.
Nishiwaki,M. 1950.On the body weight ofwhales. Sci.Rep. WhalesRes.lnst., 4:184-209.
Nishiwaki, S.,Tohyama, D., Yuzu, S., Bando,T., Watanabe,M., Kitajima, A., Takeda, S., Murase, H.,Otose,S.,
OKubo,J.,Tsutsui, S.,Takatsuki, M. andKinoshita,T.1999. Cruise Report ofthe Japanese Whale Research
Programunder special Permit in theAntarctic(JARPA)Area V and WesternPart ofArea VI in 199811999.Paper
SC/51/020 presentedto the IWC ScientificCommittee, May 1999 (unpublished).20pp.
Nishiwaki,S.,Tohyama, D.,Ishikawa, H.,Otani,S.,Bando,T., Murase,H., Yasunaga, G., Isoda,T., Nemoto,K.,
Mori,M.,Tsunekawa, M., Fukutome,K., Shiozaki,M.,Nagamine, M.,Konagai, T.,Takamatsu, T., Kumagai, S.,
Kage,T., Ito, K., Nagai, H. and Komatsu, W.2006. CruiseReportof the Second Phase ofthe Japanese Whale
Research Program under Special PermitintheAntarctic (JARPAII) in2005/2006 -Feasibilitystudy- . Paper
SC/58/07 presentedto the IWC ScientificCommittee,Jun 2006 (Wlpublished).21pp.
Nishiwaki,S., Ogawa, T., Matsuoka, K.,Mogoe,T., Kiwada,H., Konishi,K., Kanda, N., Yoshida,T., Wada; A,
Mori, M., Osawa,T., Kwnagai, S., Oshima,T., Kimura,K., Yoshimura,1.,Sasaki,T.,Aki, M.,Matsushita,Y.,Ito,
H.,Sudo,S.andNakamura G. 2007. CruiseReportofthe SecondPhaseoftheJapanese WhalesResearchProgram
under SpecialPermit in the Antarctic (JARPAll) in 2006/2007-Feasibilitystudy-. Paper SC/59/04 atthis
meeting,24pp.
-11-
115Annex 153
Ohno, M. and Fujino, K. 1952. Biological investigation on the whales caught by the Japanese Antarctic whaling
fleetsseason 1950/51.Sci. Rep.WhalesRes.lnst., 7:125-183.
Omura, H. 1953. Biological study on humpback whales in the Antarctic whaling areas IV andSciRepWhales
Reslnst Tokyo 8:81-102.
Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Nishiwaki, S., Yoshida,and Kanda, N. 2006. Genetic characteristics and pop ulation
structure of humpback whales in the Antarctic feeding grounds as revealed by mitochondrial DNA control region
sequencing and microsatellitc analyses. Paper SC/D06/J31 presented to the Workshop to Review Data and Results
from Special Permit Research on Minke Whales in the Antarctic, Tokyo 4-8 December 2006 (unpublished ). 48pp.
-12-
116 Annex 153
Table 1: Summaryof whale sightings conducted bySV and SSVs in lhe wholeresearch area in lhe2005/06
JARPA II feasibility survey.
Vessls Sightir vessls Sighting~ling wssels Total
Typeofthesigbtings Priimry Secondly Primary Secondly Primary Secondly
Species Sch. IrxL Sch. Ind. Sch. Ind. Sch. Ind. Sch. 100. Sch. Ind.
AntarcticmirkeW!ales 837 2,424 170 470 821 1,959 20 64 1,658 4,383
190 534
Likedrrinke.....nales 85 138 8 14 12 13 0 0 97 151 8 14
Blue...males 18 29 2 3 6 9 5 7 24 38 7 10
Fin...males 151 503 12 40 37 245 24 148 188 748 36 188
Sei...males 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0
0
HumpbackmEles 1,085 2,024 99 161 617 1,176 47 93 1,702 3,200 146 254
Southernright Wlales 33 44 4 4 20 29 4 5 53 73 8 9
226 456 25 71 8 8 II 72 234 464 36 143
BaleenWlales I 138
SpennW!ales 139 12 12 43 43 6 6 181 182 18 18
SouthernbottlenoseVlila71s 150 3 6 17 29 0 0 88 179 3 6
-13-
117Annex 153
Table2:Summaryof biologicaldataandsampleseolleetedfromfinwhalesinthe2005/06 JARPAII feasibility
survey.
Sample s and data Number of whales
Mats Female Total
Photographic record of external character 4 6 10
Body length and sex identifi catio n 4 6 10
Meosuremcnt of external body proportion 4 6 10
Body weight by total weight of parts 3 6 9
Skull measure ment (lengt h and breadth) 4 4 8
Detailed measurem ent of blubber thickness (fourteen
points) 4 6 10
Ladation sta Ius 6 6
Measurement of mammary gland 6 6
Breadth me:asure111entof uterine horn 6 6
Testis weight 4 4
Epididymis weight 4 4
Weight of stoma ch content 4 6 10
Number of ribs 4 6 10
Diatom film observation 4 6 10
Diatom mm sampl e 4 6 10
Blood plasma for physiological study 4 6 10
Earplug for age dtl erminatlon 4 6 10
Ocular lens for age determ inalion 4 6 10
Tympanic bone for chemical analysis 4 6 10
Larg estb~lec plate for chemical analysis 3 6 9
Vertebral epiphyse s sample 4 6 10
Ovary 6 6
Histological samp le of endo melrium 6 6
Histological sampl e of mamm ary gl:tnd 6 6
Milk samp le for chemical analysis 0 0
Histological sample of testis 4 4
Histol ogcal sampl e of epid idymis 3 3
Skin :and liver tissues for genetic study 4 6 10
Blubber , muscle and liver tissues for enviro nmental
monitorin g 4 6 10
Lung tissue for~i ronitoring 4 6 10
Mocro patho logical observa tion (lhyroid, lung, stomac h,
liver and gonad) 4 6 10
TISsues for histopathological study 4 3 7
Muscle, liver, kidney, lumbaancl blubber tissues for lipid
analysis 4 6 10
Muscle, liver and blubbe r tissues for chemical ana lysis 4 6 10
Muscle and blubber tissues for nutritional analysis 4 6 10
Stomac h contenls for food :and feeding study 4 5 9
Stomach contents for environmentalmonitorin g 2 3 5
Stom ach content s for lipid ana lysis 2 4 6
External par:tsitcs 3 2 5
Internal par:asitcs I 0
Photographic record offetu s I 2
Feta l length and weight 1 l 2
Externa l measurements of fetus I l 2
Collection of who le fetus 0 0 0
Fetal ocular lens for :1gedet ermina tion 2
Feta l skin for genetic study I 2
Baleen plates for educationa l exhibi tion 0 I
-14-
118 Annex 153
Table3: Somebiological informationobtainedfromfin whalesinthe2005/2006JARPAII feasibilitysurvey.
Date of Body Body Weight of Reproduc tive
No. Sex Remarks
capture length weight* test is (LIR) information
F-001 060203 1 9.17m M 1.84/2.19kg
F-002 060208 20.05m 53.48t F Pregnant Feta l length
127.5cm
Pr egnant Feta l length
F-003 060209 19.47m 52.05t F 280.7cm
F-004 060210 18.73m 41.87t M 5.36/5.54kg
Spondy losis
F-005 060213 19.1 4m 47.28t M 10.10/10.6 0kg
deforma ns
F-006
060214 19.15m 47.04t F Immat ure
F-007 060307 20 .22m 61.52t F Ma tur e/Resti ng
F-008 060309 18.2 2m 41.06t F Imm atur e
F-009 060310 18.30m 42.27t M 1.65/1.91kg
F-010 060313 19.35m 47.24t F Immatu re
*B ody weight was estimated by summing the weight of body parts.
Table4: Summaryof whalesightingsconductedbySVsandSSVs in wholeresearchareasin2006/07JARPAII
feasibility survey.
Tvncof thevcssls SVs SSVs GrandIota!
Tvocoflhc sil>.hlinos Primaov Secondlv Sub lola! PrYrnlrv Sccondlv Subtotal Pr~ Seeon~ Combined
Seh. Ind. S<;h.Ind. Seh. Ind. Sch. Ind. Sch. Ind. Sell. Ind.
Whale species Sell. Ind. Sell. Ind. Seh. Ind.
i\nlan:ticminlc.cwhale 526 1,126 41 105 567 1,231 443 1,043 13 66 456 1,109 969 2,169 54 171 1,023 2,340
Dworf-formed minl<cwhaleI I 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 0 0 I I
Like1ninwfWc: 20 32 2 4 22 36 8 8 2 4 10 12 28 40 4 8 32 48
Dluewha1c 5 8 0 0 5 8 2 4 I 3 3 7 7 12 I 3 8 15
18 156 4 14 23 170 37 253 4 14 41 267
Finwha~ 18 97 0 0 97 19
Humpbackwhalo 91 171 8 16 99 187 69 112 3 9 72 121 160 283 II 25 171 308
B•k:<nwhales 33 50 2 4 35 54 0 0 3 7 3 7 33 50 5 II 38 61
Spermwhale 33 33 0 0 33 33 3D 30 0 0 30 30 63 63 0 0 63 63
Southcnbot11cnoswehale 25 41 0 0 25 41 26 39 I 1 27 40 51 80 1 1 52 81
-15-
119Annex 153
Table5: Summaryof biologicaldataand samplescollectedfromfinwhalesin the2006/07JARPAII feasibility
survey.
Number ofwhales(rm whale)
Samples anddata
Male Female Tot al"
Photographic recordof externalcharacter I I 2
Bodylength and sex identificat,ion I 2
Measurementof external body proportion I 2 3
Body weightby totalweightof parts I l 2
Skullmeas..-em:nt (lengthand breadth) I 2
Detaild measurementof blubber thickness(fourteenpoints) 1 2
Lactationstatus
Measurement of mammarygland
Breadthmeasurementof uterinehorn
Testisweight I
Epididymisweight I
Weight ofstomachcontent 2
Photographicreco rdoffetus
Fetal length and weight
Externalmeasurementsof fetus I
Number ofribs 2
Number ofvertebrae 2
Diatomfilmobservation 2
Diatomfilmsample 2
Bloodplasmafor physiologicalstudy 2
Earplugforage determination 2
Ocularlens forage determination 2
Tympanicbone for chemicalanalysis 2
Largestbaleenplate forchemicalanalysis 2
Number and lengthof baleen plates
2
Palatelength 2
Vertebralepiphyses sample 2 3
Ovary I I
Histologicalsample of endometrium I I
Histologicalsample of mammarygland I I
Milksamplefor chemical aualysis 0 0
Histological sampleoftestis
Histologicalsample ofepididymis I
Skin and livertissuesfor genetic study 2 3
Blubber, muscle and liver tissues forenvironmental monitoring 2 3
Lungand livertissuesfor air monitoring I 2
Macro pathologicalobservation (thyroid, lung, stomach,gonadand liver) 2
Tissuesfor histopathologicalstudy 2
Tissuesfor lipidanalysis
(muscle, liver, kidney, lumbar, blubber) 2
Tissuesfor chemical sludy (muscle, liver,kidney) I 2
Tissuesfor variusstudies(muscle, blubber)
0 I I
Tissuesfor food study(muscle, blubber, ventralgroove) 0 0 0
Tissuesfornutritionalstudy (muscle, blubber) 2 3
lsfor foodand feedingstudy
Stomachconten 1 2
Stomachcontentsfor envir onmental monitoring 0
Stomach contentsfor lipidanalysis I 0 1
External parasites
0 0 0
Internalparasites 0 0 0
Fetus 0 0 0
Fetusocular lensfor agedetermination 0
Fetalskinfor genetic study I 0
Bloodsamples forgeneticstudy I
Baleenplates for educationalexhibition 0 0 0
Tympanicbone for educationalexhibition 0 0 0
Pelvisbone for educationalexhibition 0 I
-16-
120 Annex 153
Table 6: Some biological information on fin whales sampled in the 2006/2007 JARPAll feasibility survey.
Date of Body length Body weight Testis weightReproductive
No. Sex Remarks
capture (m) (ton)* (UR, kg) information
FOOl Jan. 3, 2007 F
F002 Jan.5,2007 20.67 51.62 M 8.10/9.80
Fetal length
F003 Feb.2,2007 21.15 65.02 F Pregnant
243.4cm
*Body weight was represented by total weight of body parts.
Table 7: Summary of prey species found in the stomach contents of fin whales sampled during two JARPA II
feasibility surveys.
Stomach contents
Euphausia
Number su erba (%) None Unknown
Male 5 5 100% 0
Female 7 6 100% 1
1
Unknown 1
Combined 13 11 100% 1 1
-17-
121Annex 153
,. ,,.
" .. "' .. "' "' ..
~ ~,
-,;:.
( First year suiVey ) r:l't;;
..
( ISecond year survey ~
VI·W
Cl
0 year
Sampnng survey orszs35E-165E): First year
~
Figure 1:Geographic strataofthetwo-yearJARPA II feasibilitysurveys.
-18-
122 Annex 153
...
...
,..
Figure 2: Geographic strata used in the JARPA II feasibility survey in 2005/06. After Nishiwaki eta/ . (2006)
Figure 3: The design of survey track line ofSVs from the minimum unit. After Nishiwaki eta/. (2006).
Figure 4:he design of survey track line ofSSVs from the minimum unit. After Nishiwak.i eta/. (2006}
-19-
123Annex 153
140'E 150"1:
Figure5:GeographicstrataoftheJARPAIIfeasibilitysurveyin 2006/2007JARPAIIsurvey.Greenlineshowthe
positionoftheis iceedgeestimatedbyobservationofresearchvesselsand theinfonnationfromDMSPSSMI I
dailypolargriddledsea iceconcentrationdataset availablefromtheNationalSnowandIceDataCenter(NSIDC,
Cavalieriel a/. 1999). AfterNishiwakiel a!. (2007).
-20-
124 Annex 153
100.0
...
80.0 • •
• PPF=93.8%
0 60.0 PPF=92.9% (2005/06
40.0 (JARPA) JAR PAil)
~ 1-stock
20.0
0.0
0' Mg;: . .,., ..b~ ~g: o- M~ . .,., -.o
Q'd' ~- ...... ~,.o- ~-._oo a-0 g- ,..... 0,.,
oo"- "'"' o-"' "'"' "'"' a-0 ao' ao 0N
--"' -- "'"' --"' -- -"' "'"' "'"'
100.0
80.0 .. • •
• PPF=93.8%
e 60.0 PPF=92.9%
.9 (2005/06
~ 40.0 (JARPA) JAR PAil)
20.0 1-stock
0.0 ..... ..,., -.o
~!2:: ~- ..J.~ ~-"' ~-~ gQ g€ Q-a .,.,
ooO. "'"' "'"'....,a- .,a-0 .,o oO: ...oO"' 0
--"' --"' "'~ -- -- "'"' -"' "'"' "'"' N
Figure 6: Temporal variation ofPPF forI-stock (upper figure) and P-stock (lower figure) of Antarctic minke
whales. Close black circles and solid line indicate the PPF trend ofi-stock during the JARPA period, and open
circles and broken line the PPF trend ofP-stock during the JARPA period. Larger close and open circles indicate
thePPF estimations based on new data from JARPA II surveys.
-21-
125Annex 153
1-stock
15~ ----------------------------------------------~
14
13 •
12
II
10
9
7
6
1930 1940 1950 U60 1970 1980 1990 2000
Cohort
15,--- ---------------------------------------- -----.
14
·;::13 Female
~ 12 ••
E I I
10
9
7
6
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 10 00
Cohort
P-stock
15.--- ----- ------- ------ ------------ -----------~ -
14
.g 13 Male
i! 12
..
e 11
;::110
"'
~
-..
~
-<
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1000
Cohort
5,-------------------------------------------------,
.-.14
13 Female
~ 12
e 11
;;
::110
~
1930 1940 1950 1970 1980 1990 2000
Cobort
Figure 7:Temporal trend of mean age at sexual maturity derived from transition phase in earplug by cohort for
each sex and stock based on JARPA samples. Open circle is mean age and solid line is range of standard deviation.
-22-
126 Annex 153
80
Fin whale
70
•
c 60 •
~0
~
·~..so
,..
"0
"' 40
• Published data
30 --L ockye r (1976)
• New data -JARPAn
20
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Body length {m)
Fig. 8. Relationsh ip betwe en body lengt h (m) and body weight (to n) for fin whales.
Sm all do t: publish ed data from Nishiwaki (1950) and Oh no & Fujin o (1952). Ca lcul ated cnr've is
drawn fro m a regression equat ion by Loekye r (1976)
-23-
127128 Annex 154
154. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 21 Suikan No. 165
(16 April 2009)
Now ·insuisanshou ·Shii·ei-21·Swkan ·Dai-165·Gou
[Order of the Ministry ofAgTiculture, Forestry and Fisheries #21Suikan165 ]
Toyomicho 4·5, Chuuou ·ku , Tokyo
Institute of Cetacean Research
Director-General Minoru Morimoto
I hereby approve. as applied. the part ial amendment of Tokubetsu ·Chousa ·Jigyou·
Gyoumu ·Houhousho [the Code for Special Research Programs ]. which was applied
for by Nichigeiken ·Dai-1085-Gou [the application form] dated April 16, Heisei 21
[2009].
Apri l 28.Heisei 21 [2009]
Minister ofAgriculture , Forestry and Fisher ies. Shigeru Ishiba
129Annex 154
·*ffi~!:fl!k:!E:I:~IBT4:m=5%
Mffi~; ...M.?-~iHJF~m
~** ~* fi
SJ!:1F4JJ 1a#lta~:@fmo1s5%~$mJ(l)i9J-::>tci!WZIJ~i!t*~UU;;.JJ
~-cp-$QfcJEii$ -~?v")t7:~k~Ti5o
SJl2X: 4JJ2sa
130 Annex 155
155. Government of Japan, “Japan’s Opening Statement to the 62ndAnnual Meeting of
the International Whaling Commission” IWC/62/OS (2010)
I C/ 62 /0S Japa n
~
FISHERIES AGENCY
M INISTRY OF AGR IC ULTURE , FORESTRY AND FISHERIES . GOVE -RNMENT OF JAPA N
1-2-1, Kasum igaseki , Chiyoda -ku , Tokyo 100-890 7, Japan
TEL: *81-3-35 02-8204FAX: *81-3 -3595 -7332
JAPANS OPENING STATEMENT
TOTHE 62ndANNUALMEE TING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
The Government ofJapan ~'Pres issiscere appreciation to the Government of
the Kingdom ofMoroccofor hosting the 62nd Annual Meeting of the IWCand for
the warm hospitality we have received.
The 621>1IWC meeting is destined as an historic event in the long and
controversial hist01y of the organization. At this meeting, we will discuss the
"Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from the
Chair and Vice-Chair ofthe Commission", which was presented to the members of
the IWC on 22 April 2010, make a decision which we hope will change the fate of
the iWC.
Japan has been a strong supporter of the "Future of tProcess"because we
firmly believe that the IWC should be a fully functional international organization
forthe conservation and management of wb..<Ueasnd that a "paradigm shil't" is
needed to achievethis as noted in the proposed Consensus Decision.No doubt.this
is an e.'rtremelydifficult process for all member countries as the paradigm shift
requil-es compromises equally from those who oppose whalingd those who
support su.stain.b whaling based on scientifically based conservation and
m..<magemen.meas~s .There should be no clear winner or loser in this pmcess
becauseall member countries in the IWC desire healthy whale populations .
In this process, we could all work together with the spirit of coltrustation,
and mutual respect. for differences, while without prejudice to the respective
fundamental positions m..'lttersof principle or prejudicing their future rights, as
the proposed Consensus Decision mentions. We have made a remarkable pmgress
under those efforts. However, some countries haveenl made hard pmposals
to phase out/elinlinate whaling activities, isan even action outside ofthe
IWC. Japan believes tb.tuch acts are not compatible with the spirit we had at
the outset of this process and is very much concerned because they might
undermine our efforts and achievements. Japan has actively and positively
contributedto the negotiation process by offering substantial compromises. In
ordo?.rto have the IWC m..'l.nagewb..iling operations,isaready to accept
reduoed quotas,he placement of international observers onboard whaling vessels.
the deployment of satellite based re..<Uvessel monitoring systems (VMS),
registersnd market monitoring with DNA"finger prints ". among others. Japan is
also ready to accept the conservation programs included in the proposed
Consensus Decision providedhat compromises come from all member countries
and that the final outcomeis fair and balanced.
131Annex 155
These are substantial compromises on our part. On the other hand, it is very
important forJapan that the Consensus Decision respects J apan's interests. Wihile
we appreciate that the proposed Consensus Decision includes a catch limit for
Japan 's coastal whaling conununities , thexe is still a significant discrepancy
between the catch limits proposed for the 10-year interim period and those
acceptable for us.
Japan reiterates its strong conunitment to continue in good faith the dialogues
with all concerned states at thi62"< 1nnua l meeting ofthe IWC for the pUlpose of
achieving a consensus. Weurge all membe.rcountries to cooperate for the futureof
theiWC.
Concerning safety at sea,Japan deeply regrets that the dange1'0usattacks directed
against Japanese vessels which are engaged in legitimate research activities in the
Antarctic have been conducted again this season by a non·government..'ll
organization. ie. the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, despite repe.'.\ted
condemnation from the international conununity. The attacks constitute a .serious
thre..'\t the lives and property as well as to the international maritime legal
system. It is important for the IWC to share the infonnation about the violent
att..'\cks against our research vessels in the Antarctic Ocean and to t.ake
coordinated internationa l actionsagainst SeaShepherd . Japan has issued arrest
warrants for the members of Sea Shepherd and will continue to pursue resolute
actions. We urge other IWC members to cooperate, especially the flag States and
the port States for the Sea Shepherd, to take effective measuresto prevent violent
actions from happening again. noting previous resolutions and st.'\tements by the
IWC on this issue. As this is a fundamental safety is.sue beyond respective
positions on wh..'lli, Japan asks all member countries to respond to this issue
"cith strong conunitments.
Japan supports the re..'llizationof the management , conservation and sustainable
utilization of whale resources based on the best scientific information available.
Japan also recogniz,esdifferences of views concerning wh.'.\les and wh..'\lingamong
IWC members and the strong emotions of not only those who oppose whaling but
also those who support whaling. Exactly because ofthis, science, international law,
and mutual respect should p1'y\ a more important role in the IWC. The delegation
of Japan will make the best effort to address the ch..'lllengesfacing the IWC
tru'Oughdiplomatic negotiations.
132 Annex 156
156. Government of Japan, “Scientific Contributions of JARPA/JARPA II and JARPN/
JARPN II”, IWC/62/20 (2010)
IWC /62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Sc ientifi c Conn· ibu tio ns of JARPA /JARPAIand JARP_ -/JARP"'TI
Submitted b y Japan
62""Annual Meetingof the InternatWhaling Commis•~on
June 2010
Tllis docmnent provides a list of publicationsresulting from the analysis of data derived from the
Japanese Whale Research Progran1s tmder Special Pennits in the Antarctic (JARPA and JARPA II:
Annex A) and the Western North Pacific (JARPN and JARP N II: Annex B). Cmi se reports from these
research pwg:rams are available at: hnp :/lwww.icrwhale.on z/Cnri seRep ortJARPA .htm and
http ://v.-ww.icrwhale.on ziCnriseReportJARP N.htm respectively.
AnnexA
(as of December 2009)
Scientific contribution from JARP A/JARPA II
The Institme of Cetacean Researc h, Toyomi-cho 4-5, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055 , Japan
The Japanese Whale Research Programtmder Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) was c.onduc.ted between
the austral summer seasons of 1987/88 and 2004/05. The JARPA had four main objectives : a) estimation of
biologic.al parameters to improve the manag~nen of the Southern Henlisphere minke whale ; b) ehtcidate
the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem ; c) elucidation of the effect of environmental change on
cetaceans ; and d) eluc.idation of the stock struc.ture of Southern Hemisphere minke whales to i.mpro,·e stock
management.
TheInt~natio Wnaaling Comnlission Scientific Committee (IWC SC) carried out two review work shops on
JARPA , the first in 1997 (mid-term review) and the second on December 2006 (final review ). Report s of these
workshops can be fotmd in the following web site:
http :/!www.iwcoffic.e .om:/ documen ts/conservat ion/RIWC -48-377-417.pdf (mid-term review )
http ://v.\vw .iwcoffic.e .org/ documen ts/sci com/worksbop s/SC -59-Rep 1rev.pdf (final review)
JARPA II started with two feasibility survey s in the seasons 2005/06 and 2006/07. The first full survey started in
the 2007/08 season. The objectives of the JARPA II are the following : a) moni.toring the Antarctic ecosy stem
(whale abundance trends and biologi cal parameters ; krill abundance and the feeding ecology of whales ; effects
of con taminants on cetaceans ; cetacean habitat ); b) modeling c.ompetition among whale species and future
management objecti ves (constrnc.ting a model of c.ompetition among whale specie s; new management objecti ves
including the restoration of the cetacean ecosystem ); c) elucidation of tempora l and spatial change s in stock
structure ; and d) improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks.
Scientifi c contlibutof JARPA /JARPA II
Scientific contribution of JARP A!JARPA II has been maddiff~· onms , as scientific document s for the
I\.VC SC meetings and other sc.ientific meetings of intergo vernmental organization s, as publications in peer
reviewed journal s, and as oral presentations at scientific sympo siums.
Table 1 shows the number ofiWC SC documents , peer -reviewed publications and oral presentations at scientific
symposium based on JARPA!JARPA II sampl e/data, by year.
Documents submitted to the ITVC SC and other scie ntific meetings of intergovernmental organizations
Inthe period 1988-2009 a total of 195 documents were pres ented to annual and interse ssional meetings of the
IWC SC and other meetings , with an annual average of 8.9 docuInnthe IWC SC , documents were
1
133Annex 156
IWC /62/20
Agenda item 10.2
preSl'ntedmainly at th&"\liP(Revise d Management Procedure ), IA (In-depth assessm enT).SH (Southern
Hemisphere) and SP (Special Permit) sub-committees, which deal mainly with assessment and managemen t of
whales.
Peer reviewed publications
The number of peer-reviewed papers made in same period is 107, with an annu al average of 4.9 papers.
Scientific. contributions have been made not only in the field of whale assessment and management but also in
the field of whale natural sciences.
Oral presentations ar symposium
The number of oral presentations at scientific symposium in tl1eperiod 1988-2009 is 199, 1.vithan annual avexage
of9.1 presentations. Scientific contributions have been made not only in the field of whale assessment and
management but also in the field of whale natural sciences. Titles and contents of the present ations can be found
in the annual progres s report of the Institute of Cetacean Re.search (ICR) and Japan progress report on cetacean
research presented to the annual IWC SC meetings .
The list ofiWC SC and other meetings documents and peer-reviewed papers derived from JARPAIJARPA II is
shown in the Appendix 1, by year. An asterisk indicates those papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
Othl'r scil'ntifi c conntb ution
JARPAIJARPAII sample/data has been uSl'din:
a) Undergraduate , master and doctoral thesis: 17
b) Chapte rs of books :53
c) Bulletin of the IC(Geiken Tsushin)and Suisan Shigen Kauri Danwakaihou: 41
JARPAIJARPA II biological material such as whale skeletons have been provided to municipal museums.
Data access an d availabilit y
All the data and samples obtained by JARPAIJARPA II have been available to the national and international
sc.ientific community through established data access protocols. Appendix 2 shows the data access protocol of
ICR, which can also be found at the IWC SC web page.
Tab le 1: Scientific contributio n of JARPAIJARPA II
Year IWC SC and other "Peerreviewed Orn1 presentations at
meeti ngs documents publications symposrnm
1988 0 0 2
1989 3 2 6
1990 6 5
1991 4 9 5
1992 4 2 6
1993 4 7 7
1994 9 3 7
1995 9 3 11
1996 6 8 7
1997 27 3 4
t998 5 J 2
1999 12 3 6
2000 13 5 10
2001 6 3 15
2002 7 6 15
2003 8 4 22
2004 2 & 14
2005 8 6 21
2006 44 & 12
2007 11 7 6
2008 3 4 8
2009 4 8
Total 195 107 199
2
134 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Appen d ix 1
List of sdenrific papers based on data and samples collected by JARPA and JARPA 11 (pe- erre~;ew papders and unpubli shed
docum•nts submitted to the I WC/Sdentific Committee and other meetings ). Aster isks inrlicate those papers published in peer
re-\iewed journals.
[1989](5)
Kasamatsu. f . anShigemlUl.e• H. 1989. Pre!itninary report of the second millke whale sightimg low and middle latirudinal waters in the
SouthernHemisphere in 1988189.Paper SC/4!/SHMi!5 preseotedto theIWCScientificCollllllittee,Juoe 1989 (unpublished). !5pp.
*Kato, H , Hirayama, H, Fujise, Y. and On.K_1989. Preliminary report of the 1987188 Japanese feasibility snuly of the special pennit proposal for
SouthernHemispheremillkewhales.Rep. inirJ?~ Caomnm39:235-248.
Kishino, H.• Kato, H.• K.1samatsu.f. and fuj ise, Y. 1989. Statistical method for the estimation of age mmposition and biological parameters of the
populatioo.aper SC/41/Mi3 presenredto theIWC Scientifimmittee, June 1989(unpublished).38pp.
Naganobu, N.,ShinlalllotK_ and Kato, H. 1989.Oceanographical analysis on the southern millke whale disrributionbased on the data during_Japanese
Iesearch takein 1987188.Paper SC/41/SHMilS presentedto theIWC Scientific Committee.June 1989 (unpublished). 9pp.
*Nakamura. T., Ohnishi, S. and Matswniya, Y. !989.A Bayesian cohort model for catch-at-age data obtained from research takes of w-hales. Rep. int.
mwl . Commn39: 375-382.
[1990](14)
*Butterworth.. S.and Punt, AE. 1990. Someprelintinaryexaminations of the potentialinformationcontent of age--strucruredata fromAntarctic millke
whalereseaichcatchesRep. int. TY71l ommn40:30 1-315.
fujise, Y.. Kaio, H. and Kishino. H. 1990. Reproductivesegregation of the millkewbale population in high latitudinal waters with some estimations of
pregpancyand se.xualmaturity rates, data from Japanese research takes in 1987/88 and 1988189. Paper SC/42/SHMi!O presented to the IWC Scientific
Committee,Jtme1990(unpublished). 20pp.
Ft~iseY .. Yamamura.K. Zenitani. R.. Ishikawa. H., Yamamoto.Y..Kinmra, K andKomaba, M. 1990.Cruise report of the researchon southern millke
whales in 1989/90 underhe Japanese proposal to the scientific permit. Paper SC/42/SHMi25 presented to the IWC Scientific Collllllittee.Jtu1e1990
(unpublished). 56pp.
*lchii, T. 1990. Dislribution of Antarctickrill concentr.Itionsexploited byJapanesekrill tr.Jwlers and millke whales. Proceedingsofthe NIPRSymposhm1
onPolarBiology3: 36-56.
Ichii,Tand Kato. H. 1990. Foodof southern minke whales fromJapanese researchtake in 1987188. PaperSCI42/SHMil4 presentedto the l\VC SC-ientific
Committee,Jtme 1990(unpublished). 15pp.
*Jtob, S., Takenaga, F. and Tsuyuki, H. 1990. Smdies on lipids of the Antarctic millke whale. I. The fatty acid compositions of the minkewhale blubber
oilscaughton 1987188season. liJkogaku3(7)486-90. (in Japanese).
4Kasamatsu, f.. Kishino. H. and Hirayama, H 1990. Estim.1tionof the mmiber of millke whale (Balaenopteraaauorosrrata)schools and individuals
basedon the 198188 Japanese feasibilitystudy data. Rep.int. mwt . Comnm40: 239-247..
4Kato. H.. fujise , Y.. YoshH..,Nakagawa. S.. Ishida, M. aTanift ~.1.90. Cruise report and preliminary aoalysis of the 1988/89 Japanese
feasibilitysrudy of the special permitproposalforsouthernhemi;-phere minkewhales. Rep. im. Whal.Comnm40:289-300.
~Kat, H., Kishino, H. aod f ujise, Y. 1990. Some analyses on age comandisegregation of southem minke whalesusing san1ples obtainedby the
Japanese feasibilitydyin 1987/88.Rep.intmiGI. Commn40: 249-256.
*Nagasaki, f . 1990.The Case for ScientificWhaling. Nature334: 189-190.
Sedlak-Weinstein.E. 1990Prelinti.n.ai)r•eport of parasitic infestationof the millke whale Balaenopteraaa1iorostratataken during the.1988189 Antarctic
expedition.Unpublishedpaper.4pp.
Taga. Y., Kishino, H. aKasama~ t st1990. Detection probabilities and search half-widths of paired vessels. Paper SC/42/SHMi27 presented to the
IWC Scientific Conunittee, June 1990(unpublished+.Addendumlpp .
'Tanaka, S. 1990.Estimation ofnaMa! mortality coefficient of whales from theestimatesof abundanceand age c.ompositiondata obtained fromrese.uch
catches.Rep.im. mtal. Commn40: 531-536.
Yoshioka, M., fuj ise, Y., Kato, H. and Aida, K 1990.Senuu progesteronelevels in southern millke whalesby reproductive staniS. Paper SC/42/SHMil3
presentedto theIWCScientific Conunittee,June 1990(unpublished). lOpp.
[1991](13)
'Bergh,M. 0., Butterworth, D. S. Pun!,A. E. 1991. further e.xaminationof the poteotial information content of age-s-tmcture data from Antarctic
ntinkewhalereseaichcatchesRep.inr. Tf1. Commn41: 349-361.
fujise,Y., K.1to.and Kishino.H. 1991.Someprogressin exantinationon age dismbutandsegregationof the southernmillkewhale populationusing
datafrom theJapaneseresearch take. Paper SC/43ipresentedto the IWCScientificCommittee,May 1991 (unpublished).17pp.
'khi i, T andKato.H. 1991.food andd:tilyfood constunptionof •outhernmillkewhatheAntarctic. PolarBiology11:479-487.
~Kasan1a,t s.uKishino. H. and Taga, Y. 1991. Estimation of sottthetn millke whale abundance and school size composition based on the 1988189
Japanesefeasibility srudydata. RefIT?10/. ommn41: 293-30I.
*Kato,H.,ft~i ,sY. andKishino, H. 1991. Age strucn1reand segregationof southetn minkewhalesby the data obtaineddwing Japanese rese=h take in
1988189.Rep. tnt. IT?wl. Commn41:287-292.
'Kato, H. and Miyas.bita, T. 1991. Migration strategy of sottthem minke whales in relation to reproductive cycles estimatedfrom foetal lengths. Rep. inr.
Tf'ha.lCom11m41: 363-369,
*Kato, H., ZenitanR.and Nakamura. T. 1991. Inter-reader calibration in age readings of earphtgs from southetn millke whale, with some notes of age
readability.p. int. mwl. Commn41: 339-343.
'Kishino, H. Kato, H.. KasanlatsU.f . and Fujise. Y. 1991. Detectionof heterogeneity and estimation of population characteristicsfrom the field survey
data: 1987/88 Japanesefeasibilitysrudyofthe SouthernHemisphere minkewhale5.Annals of thelTIStiTUotef StatisticalMathematic43(3):435-453.
Kishino.H.. Fujise,,Kato. H.and Taga,Y. 1991. Maxinnuulikelihood procedureforestimation othemean age atsexml marurityofmillke whales
using theata fromJapanese esearch take.PapS043/M ~3 presetuedto theIWCScientificCommittee, May 1991 (unpublished).9pp.
Kishino H.. Taga,Y.. Nishiwaki S. and K.1sama:tl1J, F. 1991.Abtmcl.mceestimateof the SouthernHemisphere millke whales in aiea IV from the sighting
in the989190Japaneseresearch take. PaperS043/Mi22 presentedto the IWCScientificConunittee,May 1991(unpublished). 15pp.
3
135Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item10.2
Matsui.tri,T. and Kishino. H. 1991. Precision of the estimatednatlll"almortalitycoefficient and recruillllentrate.evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation.
Paper SC/43/Mi21presentedtothe IWCScientific Committee,May 1991(unpublished). 9pp.
*Nakanrura.T. 1991. Anewlookat a Bayesiancohort modelfor time-seriesdataobtaind fromresearchtakes of w!L1le.sRep.tnt. What. Commn41: 345-
348.
*Wada, 5., Kobayashi, T. and Nmnachi, K 1991. Genetic Variability and Differentiation of Mitochondrial DNAMinke \'.'hales. Rep. Int. Tn>la.
Commn(speciali"'ue 13):203-215.
[1992)(6)
Fujise, Y .. Kato, li , Zenitani, R and Kishino, H. 1992..Seasonal and areal changesin age distributionand "'gregation of the southern minke whales in
Antarctic areas IV and V using data from the Japanese researches. Paper SC/441SHBIO presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. June 1992
(unpublished).37pp.
*Nakamura.T. 1992.Sinmlationtrialsof a Bayesian cohort model for time-seriesdata obtained fromresearchtakes of whales. Rep. in/. What. Commn42:
421-427.
Nishiwaki.S., Kawasaki,M ,Kishino,H. andTaga,Y. 1992.Abundanceestimatesof the SouthernHemisphere minke whale in AreaV from the sighting•
in the Japaneseresearch in 1990/9aper SC/44/SHB8presentedtotheIWC ScientificCommittee,J\Ule1992(unpublished). 12pp.
*Tanaka, S.. Kasarnatsu. F.nd Fujise, Y. 1992. Likely precision of estimatesnan~ra mlortality Gitesfrom Japanese research data for Southern
H,.i~mhere minl.e: whaleF£p. tm.Wha!. Comm n2:413-420.
Yosltioka, M. and Fuji;e, Y. 1992. Serum testosterone and progesterone levels in southern minke whales (Balaenoptera acutoroslrata). Paper
SC/44/SHB13presentedto theIWCScientific Committee,June 1992(unpublished). 4pp.
Yoshioka. M.. Oktun= , T.,Aida K and Fujise. Y. 1992. Development of techitiquesfor quantifyingmuscle progesteronecontenrin the minkewhale
(Balaenopleraacu/orostraia). PaperSC/44/SHB12 presentedtthe IWCScientificCommittee,June 1992(tmpublished).4pp.
[1993)(II)
Cocke, 1_G.and De La Mare.W. K 1993.A c.omparative note ondemogGlphicparametersof right andntinkewhales.Paper SCI45i0 25 presented tothe
IWCScientific Comntittee,May 1993(unpublished).4pp.
*f uji;eY.,Ishikawa, H.,Saino, S., Nagano, M.. IshiK ,Kawaguchi, S.. Tanifhji, S.. Kawashima. S. and MiyakoshiH. 1993. Crui;e report of the
1991/92JapaneseresearchinAreaIVunder thespecial pennitfor SouthernHentisphere minkewLles.Rep.tnr. Tn1al. Commn43:357-371.
Fujise, .. Ze.nitani, R., Saino,S., ltoh. S., Kawasaki, M.. Matsuoka, K and TT.1993.Cmise reportof the 1992193Japanese researchunder the
specialpermit for SouthernHentisphereminke whales.PaperSCI45/SHBal2 presented totheIWC ScientificCommittee, Apri11993(unpUblished). 39pp.
*Hastumma, R.. Og1.wa. T., Fujise, Y. and Kawanishi, Y 1993. Analysis of selenium metabolitinurine samples ofminke w1L1le(Balaenoptera
acutorostrata)singione.xchangecllfomatography. ComparativeBiochemistryandPhysiology104C(1): 87-89.
*ltoh,S.,Takenaga,F. andTsuyuki, H. 1993. Studieson lipids ofthe Antarctic minke \VII.The fatty ac.idcompositionsof tilebluboilsof minke
whaleand dwarfntinke whalecaughton 1988189and 1989190seasons. l'ukagakl>42(12): t007-1011.(inJapanese).
•Iwata,H.,Tanabe,S., Sakai,N., andTatsukawa, R. 1993.Distributionofpersistent organochlorinesintheoceanicair andsurfaceseawaterand therole of
oceanon theirglobaltransportand fate. Environ.Sci. Teclmo/.27:1080-1098.
•Kasamatsu, F., Yant<tmoto,Y., Zenitani, R, IshikaH.,IshibashiT.,Sato, li , Takashima,K and Tanifuji, S. 1993. Report of the 1990/91 southern
minkewhale researchcruisetmderscientific penni! inAreaV. Rep. Int. Tl'hla. Commn43: 505-522.
Naganobu. M. Kano, H..Fujise, Y .and Kato. H. 1993.Preliminaryoceanographianalyseson the southernntinke whaledistributionbased onthe data
duringJapaneseresearch take in 1988/89.PaperSC/451SHBal5 presentedto theIWCScientificCommittee.May 1993 (uupublished).13pp.
*Nakamura, T. 1993.Two-stage Bayesiancohort model for time-series data to reduce bias in the estintate of meannan!ralmortality inc.Tfll.p.
Commn43:343-348.
•Pastene.LA , Kobayashi, T., Fujise, Y. and Nuruachi,K 1993b.MitochondrialDNAdifferentiationinAntarctic ntinke whales..Rep.im. What. Commn
43: 349-355.
Pastene.L. A.. Kobayashi.L Fujise, Y. andNmmchi, K 1993a. TemporalVariationin MitochondrialDNAHaplotypes Composition in Nlinke Whales
fromAntarcticAreaIV. PaperSC/451SHBa13presentedto theIWCScientific Committee. April 1993(tmpublished). 16pp.
199 ~)(12)
Fujise, Y . and Kishino, H. 1994. Patternsof segregationof minke whales in Antarctic Areas IV and Vas revealed by a logistic regression mode.JPaper
SC/46/SH ll presentedto theIWCScientificComntinee.May 1994(unpublished).23pp.
Fujise,Y.. Zenitani, R.,Karo,H.andKishino,H. 1994. Agedistributionsofminke whalesitheAntarcticAreasIVandV in 1991192.and 1992/93seasons.
PaperSC/46/SH20presented totbeIWCScientific Conmtittee, May 1994(unpublished). 22pp.
Hori, H., Bessho, Y " K.1wabata, R., Watanabe, 1., Koga, A. and Pastene, L A. 1994. World-wide population structure of minke whales de.duced from
ntitochondrialDNAcontrolre.gionsequences.Paper SCf46/SH14 presentedtothe 1\VCScientificConmtitiee,May 1994(uupublished). llpp .
~Kimoto H..,Endn. Y. and Fujintoto.K 1994.1nfluence ofinteresterificationon theoxidativestability of marineoil rriacylgll alofAmerican
OilChemistsSociety71(5):469-473.
Naganobu, M.,Kano, H., Fujise, Y. andKato. H. 1994.Relationshipbetween oceanograplticconditionand minkewhale densityin the RossSea basedon
the data from the 992193 cruise of Japanese wltale research programme tutder specperutitPaper SC/46!SH17 presented to the 1\VC Scieutific
Comntirtee,May 1994{tmpublished). 2lpp.
Nishiwaki.S.. Ishikawa.H.. ltoh. S.. Matsuoka. K. Yuzu. S.. Nagatome.. L Yamagiwa. D.. MUGls.eH.. Tanifuii. S.. Mivakoshi. H. and Ono. K 1994
Reportof the 1993194crui sfthe Japanese.whale researchprogr,;;;,te~dspeci;;_pjerutit.in the Antarcr~lv. Paver SC/46iSH15presentedto the
IWCScientific Comntittee, May 1994(unpUblished).42pp
Nishiwaki, S., Matsuoka, and Kawasaki. M. 1994. Abundanceestintatesof SouthernHeutisphere minke whale in 1991/92 and 1992193 seasonusing
dsta from Japanese whale rese.1rchprogGllll1llemlder special perntit in Antarctic. Paper SC/46/SHI2 presentedto the I\VC Scientific Conmtittee, May
1994{uupublished). 14pp
Ohstmti, S.. Kawasaki, !vi and Nishi\vaki, S. 1994. Biological results of beaked whalessurveyed by Japanesewhale researchprogGllluneunder special
penni! in the Antarctic theneedof their researchtake.PaperSCJ46/SM15presentedto theI\VCScientificCommittee,May 1994 (unpublished).24pp.
*Pastene, L.A., Fujise,and Nmnachi, K 1994. Differentiation of ntitochondrial DNAbetweenordinaryanddwarfforms ofsouthernminkewhale.Rep.
ini.rqwt. Commn44:277-281.
4
136 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Pastene, L.A. and Fujise, Y. 1994. An outline, with a progress report, of the photo-identification experiments on southern baleen wh.1.1esconducted during
the Japanese Whale Research ProgranlUle Under Special Permit in the Antarctic Paper SC/461SH21 presented to the IWC Scienrific~1.mm1994e,
(unpublished). 14pp.
Pastene, L.A.,oto , M., FujisY. and NumachL K 1994. Further analysis on the spatial and temporal heterogeneity in mitochondria l DNA haplotype
distribution in minke whales from Antarctic ArNasand V. Paper SC/46/SH13 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. May 1994 (unpublished).
25pp .
*Yoshiok.1, M.,Ok~lll ,T.,rAida, K . and FujiseY. 1994. A proposed technique for quantifying muscle progesterone coninnthe minke whales
(Balaenopreraacurorosrrata).CanadianJoumalofZoology 72: 368-370.
(1995](11)
Butterworth, D. S.. ThomsonR.and Kato, H. 1995. An Initial Analysis of Updated Transition Phase Data for tvlinke Whales in AntaIV.Paperea
SC/47/SH24 presented to the. IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995 (unpublished). and Paper SC/47/SH24 (Rev) prese.oted to the IWC Scientific
Commi ttee, June 1996 (unpublished ). 18pp.
Fujise,Y. 1995. A Preliminary morphometric study in minke whales from Antarctic Area N using data from the 1989/90JA~.A survey. Paper
SC/47/SH7 presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee. May 1995 (unpublished ). 15pp.
*Fuk-ui,Y.,Mogoe. T., Terawalti,Y.,Isbik.1wa. H., Ftgise, Y. and Ohsumi. S. 1995. Relationship between physiological status and serum constituenr
values in minke whale(Balaenopteraacutorosrrata)J.01mmlofReproductionandDevelopment 41(3): 203-208.
*lshik.1wa.H., Amasalti.H. 1995.velopment and Physiological Degradation of Tooth Buds and Development of Rudiment of Baleeo Plate in Southern
Minke Whale, Balaenopreraacutorosrrata:TheJownao lfVererinm)•MedicalScience:665-670.
*Kasamatsu, F., Nishiwaki,S. and Ishikawa,H. 1995. Breeding areas and southbound migrations of southern minke Balaenopteraacutorosrrata.
Mar.EcoLPreg.Ser.l19:1-IO.
Matsuoka. K 1995. Finding of blue whales by JARPA in the _.,tarcti c. Paper SC/M95/BW3 presented to the Steering CoMeeting for Research
Related to Conservation of Large Whales in the Southern Ocean,_ Tok-yo, 1995 (tmpuhlished). IOpp.
tvlatsuoka, and Ohsumi. S. 1995. Yearly trend in population density of large baleen whales in the AntarctN andVas in recent years. Paper
SC/47/SH9 prese.oted to the IWC Scientific Committee. :May 1995 (unpublished). 2Spp.
Naganobu. IlL Kano, H., Fujise, Y., Nishiwaki, S. aod Kato, H. 1995. Relationship between oceanographic condition and minke wh.'lledensity in the
Antarctic.cean based on the data from the Japanese scientific permit cruise in 1989190, 1991192 and 1993194. Paper SC/47/SHII presented to the IWC
Scientificommittee. May 1995 (unpublished). 21pp.
Nisbiwak iS.,Isbik.1wa, H., Itch, S., ShilnarK..oMogoe. L Kawazu, H., Machida , S., YamaneL Ono, K and Ohkoshi, C. 1995. Report of the
1994195 cruise of the Japanese whale research programme under spec ial permit (JARPA) in the AntarV.iPaper SC/47/SH5 presente.d to the IWC
Scientific Conunittee , May 1995 (uopublished). 38pp.
Nisbiwaki , S., Matsuok.1.K aod KawasakM. 1995. Cotoparison of paraureters to obtain abWldauce estinh1tes in !he Japanese whale.research programme
tmder sp ecial permit in the _.,tarctic (J) and the lotem.1tional Decade of Cetacean Research (IDCR). Paper SCf471SHIO presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee. May 1995 (unpublished ). 17pp.
T anabe. S.. Aono. S., Fujise. Y ., Kato. H aod Tatsukawa , R. 1995. Persistent organochlorine residues in tbe -""'!arctic Balaenoprera,
ae~~toros PtperafC!. 95/PI3 prese.oted to the Workshop on Chemical Pollution and Cetaceans , Bergen, 1995 (tmpublished). 6pp.
Tan.1ka, E and Nakanmra, T. 1995. Preliminary estimation of average nantral mortality coefficient of southern minke whales using J•.!IJU>Adata. Paper
SC/47/SHS presenred to the l\VC Scientific Committee..May 1995 (unpubli IOpp..
[1996](13)
Aono. S..Tanabe., S., Fujise.. Y. and Tatsukawa . R1996. Specific accunmlationof persistent organochlorinein minke whale (Balaenoprera
acutorosrraraand their prey species from the _., tarctic and the North Pacific. Paper SC/48/022 presented to the IWC Scienrific ColllDlittee. Juue 1996
(uopuhlished}. !Opp.
*Bakke, L Johmsen, S.,Bakke., 0. and EI-Gewely, M.R 1996. Lack of population subdivision an1ong the millke wh(Balaenopreraac11torosrra)ta
from Icelandic and Norwegian waters based on mitochondrial DNA sequenMarineBiology 125: 1-9.
*Butterwortli D.S.and Geromont, H. F. 1996. On the provision of advice on the effect on stock(s) of scientific permit catches, with particular reference to
proposed research catches of minke whales from _.,taAreaIV. Rep.tnt. What.Commn 46: 653-655.
*Butterworth , D. SPunt.A. E., Geromont , H. F., Kato. H. and Miyashita, T. 1996. An adapt approach to the amlysis of catch-at-age information for
Southern Henlisphere minke whalesRep.tnt. 111m/. cmnm46:349-359.
Bunerwortli D. S. and Punt A.E. 1996. ·""' Extension of the adapt Approach Put Forward for the Analysis of Catch-At-Age Infonnation for Southern
hemisphere Minke Whales. Paper SC/48/SH17 presented to the l\VC Scientific Committee , June 1996 (unpublishe d). 17pp.
*Fuk-ui,Y.,Mogoe. T., Jung. Y.G.. Terawaki. Y., Miyamoto. A.. Isbik.1wa, H., Fujise, Y. and Ohsuu ri, S. 1996. Relationships among n:cnphological status.
steroid hormones, and post-tha"ing viability of frozen spennatozoa of male minke (Balaenopreraacutorosrrara). m·ine MammalScience 12(1):
28-37.
*lga, K., Fuk1~,Y., Miyau1oto. A., Isbik.1wa, H. and Ohsumi. S. 1996. Endocrinologicalobservations of female minke wb.'lles(Balaenoprera
acutorostrara). arineManunalScience 12(2): 296-301.
'*Matsuok.1,. Fujise. Y. and Paste.oe, L.A. 1996. A sighting of a large school of the pygmy Capereamarginala in the southeast Iodian Ocean.
Mm1neMammalScience 12(4): 594-597.
Naganobu. M.. Kauo, H ., Itoh. K. Nisbiwaki , S. aod Kato, H. 1996. Relationship between oceanographic conditiou' and minke \\haleinandity
arouod the Ross Sea based on the data from the Japanese scientific permit cntise in 1994195. Paper SC/48/SHl9 presented to the l\VC Scientific
Committ ee. May 1996 (tmpublished). 25pp.
Nisbiwaki , S., lsbik.1wa, H.. Tohyan 1a. D., Kawasaki, M., ShiK.,Yuzu, S., TanmraL Mogoe, T.,HishiiT.,Yoshida , T., Hidaka, H., Nibe, H.,
Yamashiro ,K.,Ono, K and Taguchi , F. 1996. Report of the 1995196 Japanese whale research progran1 under special permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) in
Area Nand eastern part of ArillPaper SC/48/SHI2 presented to the IWC Sc.ientific Committee, May 1996 (unpublished ). 48pp .
*Pastene, L.A., Goto. M., Itoh, S. and Nuu1achi, K 1996. Spatial and temporal patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation in minke \\b.'llefrom ,., !arctic
Areas Nand V. Rep.im. Tfll>al.ommn46: 305-314.
Pastene., L.A., Goto, M.,, H. and Nishiwaki , S. 1996. A preliminary analysis of mitochondrial DNA in humpback w(Megapteranovaeangliae)
from Antarctic.."ueas NandV. Paper SC/48/SHIO presented to the l\VC Scie.otific Committee, May 1996 (unpublished). 17pp.
Pa.~1 ,e.Ae., Kishino , H. and Goto, M. 1996. Preliminary RFLP analysis of mitochondria l DNA in the ,minke whale from Areas iland VI.
Paper SC/48/SHIJ preseutedtothe IWC Scientific Committee , May 1996 (unpublished ). 19pp.
5
137Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
[1997](30)
Anonymous. 1997a.Listof data setsprodtJCedby the Japanese WhaleResearchProgramunder SpecialPermitin the Antarctic (JARPA). Paper SC/M97/8
presented to the IWC IntersessioualWorkingGroup to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Researchon Minkewhales in the Antarctic. May
1997(unpublished). 6pp.
Anonymous.1997b.Scientific contribtnionof the Japanese Whale Research Programtmder SpecialPennit in the Antarctic (JAR!'A). Paper SCIM97/9
presented to the IC lntersessionalWorkingGroup to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Researchon Minke whales in the Antarctic.May
1997(unpublished). 12pp.
Anonymous. 1997c. Abstract of the scientificworks,based on JAR!'A data and material, presented in symposiumand otherscientificmeetings (Item2 of
Doctunents'Scientificcontributionof the JAR!'A'). 24pp.
•Aono. S .. Tanabe, S.. fujise, Y., Kaio. H. and Tatsukawa, R. 1997. Per.istent organochlotiues in minke whale (Balaenoprera acmorosrrar)aand their
prey species fromthe Antarctiand theNorthPacific_En•iromnentalPolllltion98:81·89 .
Bun. M.L. and Borchers. D.L. 1997. Minke whale abund.mceestimated from the 19'91192 and 1992/93 JARPA sighting surveys. Paper SCIM97123
presented to the IWC IntersessionalWorkingGroup to ReviewData and Results from Special Permit Researchon Minke whales in the Antarctic, May
1997(unpublished). 16pp.
Butterworth,D.S. andPunt, A.E. 1997. Theeffectsof different nutiugs of control parameter. and of the incorporationof anindependentestimateofMSY
rate on the performance of the Punt-Butterworthwhale stock m.1nagementprocedure. Early version of the paper (SC/J90/Mgl and SC/J90/Mg3)are
presentedto the WCWOikshoponManagementProcedure, June 1990 (tmpublished).44lpp.
Butterworth, D. S., Punt, A E. Geromont, H F., Kato, H. and Fujise. Y. 1997. ftu1her ADAPT analyses of catch-at-age information for Southern
Hemispheremiuke whales in Areas IV and V. Paper SC/M9716presentedto the IWC Interses.sional Working Group to Review Data and Results from
SpecialPermitResearchonMinkewhalesin theAntarctic.May 1997 (unpublished). 50pp.
Clarke, E.D. and BorcheB, D.L. Proposal for the development of llllbiasedabundanceestimatorsfor JARPA sightings surveydata. Paper SC/49/SH30
presentedto the IWCScienti fic Committee, September1997 (Ullpublisbed). lOpp.
Cooke, L FuJise, Y., Leaper,R., Obswni,S.and Tanaka,S. 1997.An exploratoryanalysi; of the agedistributionof minkewhalescollecteddttringJARPA
expeditions 1987188 through 1995196. Paper SCIM97121 presented to the IWC lntersessioua1WorkingGroup to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research onMinkewhalesin the Antarctic,May 1997 (unpublished).llpp.
Cooke, J., Fujise, yand Kato, H. 1997.A analysis of maturirystageand transitionphase data fromminke whalescollectedduringJARPA expeditions in
Area IV, 1987188through 1995/96. Paper SCIM97122presented to the IWC Jntersessioual Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research onMinkewhales in the Antarctic,May 1997 (unpublished). 16pp.
Fujise.Y. 1997. A brief review of studies related to research on effects of environmen.tal changeson cetacin theJARPAstuvey. Paper SC/M9715
presented to the IWC IntersessioualWorking Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Researchon Minkewhales in the Antarctic, May
1997(unpublished). 19pp.
Fujise, Y., Honda,K., Yamamoto. Y., K.1to, H., Zenitani, R. and Tatsukawa, R. 1991'.Changesof hepatic mercury acC\11lrulatiouosf Southern miuke
whales in past fifteen years. Paper SC/M97120 presentedto the IWC lntersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit
Research on Minkewhales in the.'\utarctic,May 1997 (twpublished).16pp.
fujise. Y. and Kishino, H. 1997. Further examination of segregation pattern of minkt'whalesin Antarctic Areas IV and V as revealed by a logistic
regression model. Paper SC/M97f13presentedto the IWC Intersessional Working Gro•upto Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on
Minkewhales intheAntarctic. May 1997(unpublished).22pp.
Fujise, Y.,Nishiwaki. S. and Pastene, L.A. 1997. An examination of traudam sampling schenteof the JARPAsurveys.Paper SCIM97114 presentedto
the IWC Intersessioual Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the !\.ntarctic.May 1997
(unpublished). 17pp.
•Fukiti.Y., Mogoe. T., lshik.1wa,H.<tlldOhswni. S. 1997a. FactOis affecting in vitro nL1turationofntiuke whale (Balaenopreraacutorostrara)follicular
oocytes.BiologyofReproduciion56:523-528.
*Fub:ui.Y..Mogoe, T.•Ishikawa,H. andOhsunliS. 1997b.In VitroFertilizationof in Vitro Man!fedMinkeWhale (Balaenopieraacutorosrrar)aFollicular
Oocytes. MarineMammalScience 13(3): 395-404.
lchii, T. 1997_A review of the Marine Ecosytem Studiestmder the JARPA. Paper SCIM9714 presented to the 1\VCIntersessioual Working Group to
Review DataandResultsfromSpecialPermit ResearchonMinkewhalesintheAntarctic, May 1997(unpublished). 9pp.
Ichii,T..Tanmra.T., Fujise.Y.,Nishiwaki_S. and Matsuok.1.K. 1997.Interannualch1.nges inbody fatc.ondition, stonL1ch-<n:otentmassand distribution of
minkewhales inAreas IV andV. Paper SC/M97116 presentedto the1\VClntersessional WorkingGroupto ReviewData and Rest t~from Special Permit
Research onMinkewhales in theAntarctic.May 1997 (unpublLshed). 19pp.
Nishiwaki, S., Matsuoka, K.. Kawasaki, M., Kishino, H. and Kasan>atsu, F. 1997. Review of the •ighting surveys in the JARPA .Paper SCIM97/l
presented to the IWC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special Permit Researchon Minkewhales in the.Antarctic, May
1997(unpublishe d).42pp.
Nishiwaki, S.. Matsuoka, K.. Hakamada. T. andKasan>atsu. F. 1997.Temporalchange•ofdistnbutionand abundanceestimateson large baleen whalesin
AreasIV and V in the Antarctic. Paper SCIM97/19 presente.d to the IWC lntersessioual WorkingGroup to Re,iew Data and Results from SpecialPermit
Research onMinke whales in theAntarctic,May 1997(unpublished).20pp.
Nishiwaki, S.,Niimi,Y., Ito, S., Shtinamoto.K.,Abe,H.. Yuzu, S., Shtinok.1w,aT.,MiyalllOto, S., Taguchi.F.,Kasai, H.,Kinoshita. T., Iwata.T.. Sano,K.
andTanabe,K. 1997. Report of the 199&97JapaneseWhaleResearchProgramunder SpecialPernlit in theAntarctic(JARPA) in AreaV andwesternpan
of AreaVI.Paper SC/49/SHlOpresentedto theIWCScientificComulittee.September 1997 (unpublished).37pp.
Ohsumi, S. 1997.Developmentof objectives in the JapaneseWhaleResearchProgramunder Special Permit in the AnL1rctic(JARPA).PaperSC/M97110
presented to the IWC IntersessioualWorkingGroup to ReviewData and Results from Special Permit Research on Minkewhales in the Jl.ntarctic. May
1997 (unpublished)_5pp
Obswni. S.. Tanaka, S. and Kato, H. 1997. A review of thesmdieson estimation of biological parameters condttcted tmderthe Japanese Whale Research
ProgramunderSpecial Pernlit in theAntarctic(JARPA).Paper SCIM9712presented to the IWCIntersessionalWorkingGroupto ReviewData and Results
fromSpecial PermitResearchonMinkewhalesinthe Antarctic.May 1997(unpublished). 25pp.
Obswni, S., Fujise, Y.,Ishikawa,H., Hakamada,T, Zenitani, R. andMatsuoka, K. 1997. Thefattynessof theAntarcticmiukewhale andits yearlych.11g1e.
PaperSCIM97118presentedto the 1\VCIntersessioual WorkingGroup to ReviewData:md Results from Special Permit Research onMinke whales in the
Antarctic, May 1997(unpublished). 21pp.
Pastene, L.A. and Goto. M. 1997. A review of the sntdies onstock/speciesidentity in the utiuke and other baleen whale species, conducted tmder the
Japanese WhaleResearchProgramunder Special Pemlit in the AnL1rctic(JAR!'A). Pal"erSCIM9713 presented tothe IWC IntersessionalWorking Group
to ReviewDataandResultsfrom Special PemlitResearch on Minkewh:t1e. in theAntarctic, May 1997 (tmpublished).34pp.
6
138 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Pasteue,LA , Goto, M., Kinmra,I. and Ni:shiwaki. S. 1997. Population stmcrure of the humpback whale in the Antarctic feeding grotllld based on analysis
of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Paper SCIM97115presented to the 1\VCInterr.essional Working Group to Review Dat:l and Results from
Special Permit Research on Minke "tales in the .'\.ntarctic. May 1997 (uupublished). 13pp.
Tanmra, I. , Jchii, I . and Fujise., Y. 1997. Consumption of krill by minke wbales in Arand V of the Antarctic. Paper SCIM97117 presented to the
IWC Intersessioual Working Group to Re.i.ew Data aud Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the Antarctic, May 1997 (unpublished).
9pp.
Tanaka. E. =d Fujise, Y. 1997. Interim estimation of narural mortality coefficient of Southern winke wbales using JARPA data. Paper SCIM97/l l
presented to tlte 1\VCInterse.ssional Working Group to Review DaL1and Results from Special Permit Research on Minke whales in the Antarctic. !V!ay
1997 (unpublished). 20pp.
Thomson, R.B., Butterworth, D.S. and Kato, H. 1997. Has the age at maturity, as indicated by transition phase readings, of Southern Hemisphere winke
wh.1les declined over recent decades? Paper SCIM97/7 presenred to the 1\VC lntersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research on Minke whales in the .<\.ntarctic, May 1997 (unpublished).33pp.
Zeuitaui.R., Fujise,Y. and K.1to. H. 1997. Biological parameters of Southern winke whales ba&ed on.materials collected by the JARPA survey under
special pennit in 1987/88 to 1995/96. Paper SCIM97/12 presented to the 1\VC Intersessional Working Group to Review Data and Results from Special
Permit Research on Minke whales in theAntarctic. May 1997 (unpublished). 19pp.
(1998] (12)
Qarke, E.D.. Asbbridge. J., Burt, M.L., Hedley, S.L.and Borchers, D.L GAMcbased abtmdance estimation from JARPA survey data: Progress and
sinmlation model design. Paper SCISOICA\VS33 presented to the IWC Scientific Comminee , May 1998 (unpublished). 51pp.
Goto. M., lenitani, R., fujise, Y. and Pastene. LA 1998. Examim tiou of mitochondrial DNA heterogeneity in minke wbale from Area IV considering
temporal, longitudinal and latimdinal factors. Paper SC/50/CAWS7 presented to the IWCScientific Comminee, Apri1 1998 (unpublished). !Opp.
*lchii, I.. Shinohara, N., Fujise. Y., Nishiwaki, S. and Matsuoka, K. 1998. Interannual ch.1ngesin l>odyfat condition index of minke wbales in the
Antarctic.MarineEcology Progre3sSeries 175: 1-12.
Ishikawa, H., Matsuoka, K., TohyanJa, D., Yuzu, S., Shin10k-.wa. T., Ohsbima, K., MizushinJa, Y., Nibe, I.. Kido T., Asada, M., Nakamura, M.,
Ichinomiya, D.and Kinoshita. I . 1998Cruisereportofthe Japanese Whale Research Program tmder Sped aI Pe:nnit in theAntarctic (JARPA)AreaIVand
easternpartof Area ill in 1997/98. Paper SC/50/CAWSSpresented to the IWC Scientific Committee.,April 1998 (tmpublished).26pp.
•Ito, S., Takeuaga.. and Tsuyuki, H. 199;8. Lipids in Antarctic Minke \\!hales III. Site and Sexual Differences of Muscle Lipids. J. Jpn. Oil Chem. Soc.
47(2): 191-194. (in Japaue.se).
'Ki d.1M.Y. 1998. Morphology of the Tracheobronchial Tree and tb~ Route of the Pulmonary Artery in the Fetal Minke Whale (Balaenoprera
acuroosrrata.)Okajimas FoliaAnar.lp1!.15(5):251-258.
Matsuoka,K.. Nishiwaki, S., H.1kamada, T.and Kasamatsu. f . 1998. AbWldance and Distribution of Spen n and Beaked \Vh.1les in the Antarctic Areas IV
and V -Preliminary Report-. Paper SCI50JCAWS9 presented to the IWC Scientific Conuninee, Apri1 1998 (tmpublisbed). 15pp.
'Mogoe, T., Fulmi, Y., Ishikawa. H. and 011"-IU, S. 1998a. Morphological Observations of Frozen-Thawed Spermatozoa of Southen Minke Wllales
(Balaenopreraaa1torostrata)J.ournalofReproductionand Development44(1) :95-100.
'Mogoe. T., Fulnli. Y., Ishikawa. H. and Qh.,•mi S. 1998b. Effects of Diluent Composition and Temperarure on Motilityand Viability After Liquid
Storage and cryopreservation ofl\1inke Whale (Balaenopreraacurorostrata)Spermatozoa. ManneMammalScience14(4):854-860.
*Nagasawa, K., Yamada, T.K. and Ishikawa, H. 1998. Measurements of the skeleton of a 1ninke whale (Balaenopteraacllforosrra) from the Antarctic
Ocean. Bulleiinofihe YamagataPrefecmralMuseum20: 1-19.
Pastene, L.A. and Goto. M 1998. further RfLP analysis of ntitoc.hondrial DNA in Antarctic winke whales from Areas V and VI. Paper SC/50/CAWS4
presented to the.1\VCScientific Comminee, Apri11998 (unpublished). 16pp.
*Terabayashi, T.and K.1wauisbi, Y. 1998.Natrally occurring ganglioside lactones in l\tinke whale brain. CarbohydrareResearch 307(1998): 281-290.
[1999)(15)
Abe, H . Goto, M.. Katsumata, Y., Mizutani. M. and l'asteneU\ .. 1999. Prelin!iJwy mkro satellite DNA analysis to investigate stock struc.ture in the
Antarctic nilllke whale (Balaenopteraaatrorosrrata)Paper SCI51/CAWS9 presented to therwc Scientific Couunittee. May 1999 (unpublished). 12pp.
*Bannister, J.L.. Pastene, LA and Burnell, S.R. 1999. First record of movement of a southern right whale (Euba/aenaausn·alis) between warm water
breeding grounds and the .<\.ntarcticocean, South of60 °S.ManneMammalScience15(4):1337-1342.
•Bunerworth, D. S., Punt, A. E. Geromont, li F., Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 1999. Inferences on the dynantics of Southern Hemisphere minke whales from
ADAPT anaJyses of catch-at-age information J Cetawm Res.Manage.1(1): II-32.
Butterworth, D.S., Ptmt,E ., Fujise, Y. and Kato, H. 1999. Do the JARPA agecstrucnlfe data for Southern Hemisphere minke wbales provide indication
that commacial selectivity could h.we been age-specific for higher ages? Paper SC/511CAWS21 presented to the 1\VCScientific Comminee, May 1999
(tmpub lished). !Opp
Clarke, E.D., Burt, M.L. and Borchers. D.L. 1999. Sumulation of JARPA surveys to test abund.1nce estimation methods. Paper SC/511R..W16 presented to
the IWC Scientific Committee. May 1999 (unpublished). 17pp.
fuji se. Yand Ohsumi, S. 1999. Progress of the outstanding tasks identified at the JARPA review meeting. Paper SC/51/CAWS13 presented to the IWC
Scientific Couunittee, May 1999 (tmpublished). Spp.
FuJise,Y., Taumra, T..lchihasbi. H. andKishino. li 1999. Further examinations of the Segregation pattern ofminke whales inthe Antarctic Area IV using
a logistic re,gressiou mode with considerations on the pack ice distribution. Paper SC/51/CAWSI8 presented to the IWC Scientific CotlUltinee, May 1999
(unpublished). 18pp.
•Ishikawa, H., Am.ualci,H., Dohgucbi, H.• Furuya, A aud Suzuki, K. !999. Immunohistological disnibutions of fibrouectin, tenasctypeI, ill and IV
collagens, andlamininduring tooth developmentanddegenerationin fetuses of minkeJ.Y"haB lea,laenopteraacuwrostrata.Thelollrnal of Veterinary
MedicalScience61(3):227-232.
Matsuoka, K., Watan.1be, I. , lchii. I.. Shimada, H. and Nishiwald. S. 1999.Application of tile XCTDoceauograpbic survey in the Antarctic Areas lliE
and IV {35°E-130°E) during 1997198 JARP'A cruise. Paper SC/51/ES. pres.ented tothe1\VCScientific Comminee. May 1999 (tmpublishe.d). llpp .
Nishiwaki, S., TohyanL1,D., Yuzu, S., Baudo, T., Watanabe, M., Kitajim!\, Takeda, S., Murase, H., Otose, S., Ol.:ubo, J, Tsutsui, S., Takatsuki, M. and
Kinoshita, T. 1999. Cruise Report of the Japanese Whale Research Program tmder Special Perntit in the Antarctic (JARPA) !\rea V and western part of
area VI in 1998/99. Paper SC/51/CAWS!Oprese nted to the 1\VC Scientific Comminee, May 1999 (tulpublished). 20pp.
Pastene, L.A and Goto, M 1999a. FW1her spatial and tenlpofal analysis of ntitochondrial DNA variation in minke whales from Areas ill and IV
considerations on the pack-ice distribution. Paper SC/51/CA\VSll presented to the 1\VCScientific Comminee, May 1999 (unpublished). ll pp.
Paste n A . and Goto, M. 1999b. Review of the studies on stock identity in the minke whaleBalaenopteraacurorostratafrom the Southern Hentisphere.
Paper SCI51tCAWS30 present ed to the 1\VC Scientific Comminee, May 1999 (unpublished). 28pp.
7
139Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agendai tem 10.2
Polacheck,I. , Dobbie, M.. Fujise, Y. and Kato. H. 1999. Spatial and Temporaldistribution of.ages of southern hemispheretninkewhales in commercial
andJARPA catches inareas IV andV. PaperSC/51/CAWS31presentedto tl1eIWC ScientificCommittee. May 1999 (unpublished). 32pp.
Tanabe, S., Aono, S., Fujita.. K., Nakata, H.. Fujise, Y., Kato. H. and Tatsuk-.wa R._1999.Temporal trend of persistent organochlorineresidues in tninke
whale (Balamopteraacutorostrata)collected from the Antarctic during 1984-1995. Paper SCI511E4 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May
1999(unpublished). Spp
Tan.'lk,aS. 1999b. Biasin densityestimatwhen the speedof whale.ampling vesselsis reduced in highdensityareas. Paper SCI51/CAWS12 presented to
theIWC Scientific Committee.May 1999(tmpublished). 18pp.
[2000](I S)
•Asada,M., Horii, M.. Mogoe. I.. Ful.u: i. Y.. Ishikawa. H. and Ohsunli. S. 2000. In Vitro Mamration and Ultrasm>cntralObservation of Cryopreserved
lvlinkeb.'lie(Ba/aenopieraacutorosrraia)FollicuL1rOocytes. BiologyofReprod11ctio6n2(2):2.:>-"2359.
Clarke. E.D., Burt, M.L. and Borchers, D.L. 2000. Investigation of bias in GAM-based abundance estin1ationmethods and their suitabilityfor JARPA
surveydata.PaperSC/521!Al9presented to the IWCScientific CollUllittee, June2000(unpublished). 15pp.
Goto, M. and Pastene, L.A. 2000. Results of molecular genetic analyses of whale products collected from the. Japanese retail nwkets in 1996 and
1999/2000surveys.Paper SC/52JSD7presentedto theIWC ScieotificCollUllittee,June2000 (wpublished). 2lpp.+ Appendix llpp .
Hakan1ada, I. and Fujise,Y 2000. Report of an experimenton alternativesampling methodology performedduring the 199912000 JARPAsurvey. Paper
SC/5 21019 presentedto theIWC Scientific Conmlittee,June2000(unpublished). 6pp.
Ishikawa. H.•Murase, H., Tohyama,D., Yuzu, S., Otani, S., Mogoe, T., Masaki, I.. Kimura,N.. Ohshima, I.. Konagai, T., Asada.M., Takeuchi, J. and
Kinoshita,I _2000. Cruise report of the Japanese Whale Research Programunder SpecialPernlit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area IV aod eastern part of
Areaill in 1999/2000.PaperSC/521020presented to theIWCScientificCommittee,June 2000(unpublished).25pp.
*Kasamatsu, F.. Matsuoka. K. and Hakamada,I. 2000. Interspecific relationships in densityamonthewhale cornomnity in the Antarctic.PolarBioi.
(2000)23:466-473.
Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 2000. Dwarftninke whales; Morphology, growth and life history with some analyses on morphometricvariation among the
differentormsand regions. PaperSC/52/0S3 presentedto the IWCScientific Committee. Jwe2000 (tmpublished).30pp.
Matsuoka.,K.. Hakamada,I. and Nisbiwaki. S. 2000. Current abtmdance and density treudof humpback whales in the AntarcticArea IV using JARPA
data. PaperSC/52/L<\2preseuted to the IWC ScieutificCollUllinee,Jwe 2000 (tmpublished).14pp
Matsuoka K.,Murase,H.,Nishiwaki, S.. Ful.:uch,iT. andShimada_H.2000.Developmentof a retrievable sonobuoysystemfor whalesoundsrecordingin
polarregion. PaperSC/52/07 preseotedto theIWC Scieotific Co0111lihe,eJune2000(unpublished)_7pp_
Matsuoka, K_,Watanabe, T., lcllii, I ., Shimada. H. and Nishiwaki_S. 2000. Large wb.'liedistributions in relation to the.southern boundaryof the ACC in
theAntarcticAreas Nand 111Eusing JARPA 1997/98data. PaperSC/52JE4presentedto the IWC ScieotificConuuittee.Jtme 2000 (unpublished). 15pp.
*Mogoe, I. , Suzuki, I. , Asada, M., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H_and Ohsumi, S. 2000. Functiooal reduction of the Southern tninke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorosttata) testis duringthefeedingseason.ineMmmnalScience16(3):559-569.
Murase, H.. Matsuoka, K.. lchii. I. and Nisbiwaki, S. 2000. Relationmip between the-distribution of euphausiids and baleen wb.1lesin the Antarctic
exanlinedusingJAR PA data.Paper SC/52/ESpresentedto thel\VC Scientific Comminee., Jtme2000 (unpublished). lSpp.
Nishiwaki, S. 2000. Perfom=ce of biopsy skin >antpling for tninkewhales during the JARPN and JARPA •urveys using ICR air gun Paper SC/52/05
preseoted to the IWCScientific Conuuittee, June 2000(unpublished).Spp_
Pastene.L.A. and Goto. M 2000. Mitochondrial DNA analysis in nlinkewhales from Antarctic Areas V and VI. PaperSC/521IA3preseoted to the IWC
ScientificCollUllihee.ne2000 (unpublished). 12pp.
Pastene,L.A., Goto, M., Abe,H., Nishiwaki,S.and Palsboll, P.2000.Genetic diversityof humpbackwhales in the Antarcticfeedinggroundexanlinedby
.mitochondrialDNA and nlicrosatellite. Paper SCI521IA4presentedto thel\VCScientificConuuittee, June2000 (unpublished). 16pp.
*Rosenbaum.H.C., Brownell JR,R.L., Brown,M.W., SchaetiC.• Portway,V., White.B.N., Malik.S., Pastene.LA , Pateneude.N.J., Baker,C.S., Goto,M.,
Best,P.B., Clapham,PJ ., Ha.milion,P., Moore.M., Payne.R, Rowntree,V., Tynan,C.T., BannisterJ.L., DeSalle.R._2000:World-wide gene.iic differentiation
ofEubalaena:questioningthe numberofright whalespecies.MolecularEcology9:1793-1802_
Tanmra, T_ and Ohsumi, S. 2000. Regional assessmentsof prey cousumption by marine cetace.an•in the worlcl Paper SC/52/E6presented to the IWC
ScientificCollUllittee.June2000 (unpublished). 42pp.
•Wei. H.,and Fuk'lti.Y. 2000. Fertilizabilityof ovine,bovineor minkewhale (Balaenopteraaa11orostratas)pennatozoaintracytoplasmicallyinjectedinto
bovineoocytes. Zygote8(3):267-274.
[2001](9)
*Asada, M., Tetsuka, M., lshilcawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and f11lu-:i.,Y. 2001. Improvement on in Vitro Maturation, Fertilizationand Developmentof Minke
Whale(Balaeoopteraacutorosttata)Oocytes.TheriogeJ>olog5y6: 521-533_
*Asada.M., Wei.,H., Nagayarua.R._,Tetsuka,M., lshilcawa, H.,Ohsunli. S. and Ful-:u,iY. 2001.An aheruptat inttacytoplasmicspem1injectionof frozeo
th.lwedtuinkewhale (Balaenopterabonaerensis)oocytes. L';ygor9e(November):299-307.
H ahmada , I. Matsuoka, K., Nishiwaki,S.,Murase, Hand Tanaka, S.2001. Abundancetrendof SouthernHetuisphere nlinkewhales in Areas IV and V
obtainedfromJARPAdata.Paper SC/531 L0\12preseotedto the IWCScientific Committee. July(unpublished). 35pp.
Matsuoka.,K., Hakamada,I ..MUiase,H. andNishiwaki. S. 2001.Currentabundanceand densitytrend ofhumpbackand fin whales in the AntarcticAreas
IV andVusing JARPAdata. PaperSC/53/L0\18Presentedto the 1\VC ScientificConuuittee,July 2001 (unpublished)_23pp.
Nishiwaki,S .. Matsuoka, K.,Murase, H. and Hakarnada, T. 2001. Review of thesightingprocedurein the JARPA_PaperSC/531IA7 presentedto the IWC
Scientificonuuittee, July001(unpublished)_24pp.
Nishiwaki.S., IshilcawaH, Natita,H..Otani.S.•Kiwada, H., KatiYJ.L Yoshimura. L Takamatsu.I.. Teraob. T.. Shioz:lkiM..Abe. N.. Okamura. S.•
Yasui.,K. andMori, M. 2001.Cntise reportof theJapanese\!.'haleResearchProgramtmder Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area V andWestern
part ofArea VI in 2000/2001.PaperSC/53/011 preseutedto the IWCScientificConmlinee_July 2001 (unpublished)_2lpp.
Pastene, LA , Goto, M. and Kanda, N. 2001. An update of the nlitochondrial DNA RFLPanalysis in the Antarctictninke whales from Arems and N .
PaperSC/531L .. l7 presented tothe l\VCScientific CollUllittee, July2001 (tmpublished).16pp.
*Suzuki, I ., Mogoe.T., Asada.M., Miyamato.A., Tetsuka.M.. lshikawa.H., Ohsunri,S., Fubti ,Y. 2001. Plasma and pituitary concentr.ltions of
gonadotropins(FSH and LH) in tninkewb.'lle•(Ba/aenopleaCIIIOI'OStrata)duthrienfgeedingseason.Dwriogenology55(5): 1127-1141.
Zenitani, R.,ato,H. andFujise, y_2001. Year to ye<~trrodsof some biologicalparametersof Antarcticnlinke whalesfrom the viewpoint of population
monitoring.PaperSCJ 53iiAI3 presentedto theiWC Scientific CollUlltitee, July 2001 (unpublished).16pp.
[2002](13)
8
140 Annex 156
IWC /62/20
Agenda item 10.2
•Abe. H. andGoto.M. 2002. The ApplicationofMicrosatelliteDNA for DetemliningPopulation StmctlU"eof Minke \Vbak pp. I09-113.Jn: Nishimura,
A e<l. TechnicalReporrsoftileHokkaidoNational FishriesResearchlnstimreNo.5. pp.l l3. HokkaidoNationalFishries rese.1rchInstitute, Hokkaido.
Butterworth,D.S., Punt, A.E., Branch.T.A.,Fujise, Y..Zenitani, R. andKat200~.U.pdatedADAPTVPA recruitment arulabundanceirend estimated
for SouthernHemisphereminke whales inareas Nand V.Paper SC/541LA.2Spresented tothe l\VC ScientificCommittee,May 2002(mpublisbed). !Spp.
Hakamada, T. 2002. Comparativeanalyseson abuodance trendfor Antarcticmillkewhalebetween JARPA andIWCIIDCR-SO\VERin Areas Nand V.
PaperSCI541LO.l4presented to theIWC Scientific.Committee, May 2002(unpublished).6pp.
L•hikawa. H , Otani, S., Mogoe, T.. Ki\vada. H.. Tohyama, D.. Yoshida, T.. Hayashi, I. ,Nagdllline, M..Ful:utome, K. Koyanagi, T.. Fujihira. I., Sasaki,
I ., L.ruhara,T and Mori, M 2002. Cruise reporttheJapanese Whale ResearchProgran1under Spe<ialPermit in the Antarctic (JARPA) Area Nand
EasternPa!Tof Area ill in 2001/2002. Paper SC/5410 18presentedto thel\VC ScieniificCommittee,May 2002(tmpublished).20pp.
'Kunito,L Watanabe. 1., Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y. andTanabe, S. 2002.Using trace elements in skin to discriminate thepopulationsof minke wh:uein
southernhemis.pher.e.Alarienvironmenta l esearch53: 175-197.
:M.1tsudaH,.. Murase., H. and Morishit,.2002. Comprehensiv ere-evaluation of thI\VC's st.a.ad.dmarcricminke whale abundanceestimation
approach.Paper SC/54/IAII presented to the 1\VCScientificCommittee, May2002(tmpublished). 12pp.
'Murase, H., Matsuoka, K , lchii, T. and Nishiwaki, S. 2002. Relationshipbetween the distribution of eupbausiids and balein theAntarctic
(lS"E-145''\V).PolarBiol25:135-145.
*Pastene, L.A., Goto_M_andKanda, N. 2002_Tlte utility of DNA analysis for the managementand conservaiton of large whales. Fisheri.esScience
68(Supp.l):286-289.(Proceedingsof InternationalCommemorativeSympoiusn~ 70thAnniversaryof theJapaneseSocie.tyof fisheries Science).
Pastene., L.A. and Goto. M. 2002. An update of the mitochondrial DNA RFLP analysis in the Antarctic minke whales from Areas V and VL Paper
SC1541IA9presented to the1\VCScientific Committee.Jlllay(wtpublished). 14pp.
Sbimada, H. and Mtll"3Se. . 2002. Some analyses on sea ice condition in re.lationto changes in the Antarctic minke whale distribution pattern in the
AntarcticAre;N . Paper SC/54/L-.18 presented to the1\VCScientificCommittee.May2002 (1mpublished).8pp.
•suzuki, M., lshi.kawa, HOtani, S.. Tobayama, 1.,Katsumata,E, Ueda. K , Uchida. S., Y<s>hioka, M. and Aid.1,K 2002.The ch.aracteristicsofadren.1l
glandsandits homtone• in cetacean.FisheriruSci(!llce68(Supp.l): 272-275. (Proceeding,•of International CollllllelllOrativeSymposiwn,70thAnniversary
of theJapaneseSocietyof FisheriesScience)
Tan.lka,E.,Matsuoka.K and Hakarnada, T. 2002. A Calculationof Extent of Discrepancf etaceanStock Abtmd."Ulcuender Asstmtptionthat g(O)=I.
PaperSC/54/L>\30presented to theIWCScientificColll!ltittee, May (unpublished).5pp.
'Urashima, I ., Sato, H., Munakata, J., Nakamnra, T., I.Saito, I ., Tetsuka, fuli ~,Y., L<dtikaw,aH., Lyndersen, C. and Kovacs, K M. 2002.
Chemical ch.aracterization of the oligosacchaindbeluga (Delphinapterusleucas) and Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) milk. Compalattve
BiochemisflyandPhysiologyPartB 132:611-624.
12003{]12)
Branch,TA. ,Matsuoka, K and Miyashita. T. 2003.Antarctic blue whalesare recovering.Paper SCI55/SH6 presentedto the l\VC ScientificCommittee,
May 2003(unpublished).2lpp.
Goto, M., Berube, M..Kanda.N..Ishikawa, H.,Nishi\vaki,S. andPastene.,L.A.2003. Phylogeneticanalysisoffw wbmrD~A controlregion sequences
world-wide.Paper SCI5SISD6 presentedto the IWCScientificCommittee.May2003(unpublished).Spp.
*Hayashi.K.. Nishida,S., Yoshida. H., Goto. M.. Pastene. LA. and Koike. H. 2003. Sequencevariation of theDQBallele in the cetaceanMHC. Mammal
Sh1dy28:89-96.
LeDuc R.G., Dizon, AE .,Goto,M., Pasteoe, LA .Kato. H.and Bro;;nell, R.L.Jr. 2003.Patterns of geneticvariationin southern henU.pherebh1ewhales.
Paper SCI55/SH9 presented tthel\VC Scientific Committee,Jlllay 2003(unpublished).Spp.
Marques, Fernanda F.C., Hedley. S.L., Hakamada, T. and Matsuoka. K 2003. Spatial modelling of JARPA stU"data in AreaN. Paper SC/55/L>\3
presentedtothe l\VCScientificCommittee, lvlay2003 (unpublished).25pp.
Matsuoka, K ,Hakarnada, T.. Mnrase, H. and Nishiwaki, S. 2003. Current distribution.abundance and trendof humpbackwhales in the Antarctic
AreasN andV. PaperSC/55/SH10presented to thel\VCScientificCommittee,May2003 (unpublished). 15pp.
Nikaido,JilLGoto, M., Kanda,N.,Pa•tene. L.A. andOkada.N.2003.A new SINEprocedure for spe<iesidentificationof baleen wbales.PaperSCI5SISD7
presentedto the 1\VCScientificCommittee, lvlay2003 (unpublished). 6pp.
'Nisbida, S., Hayashi, K. Pastene, L.A., Goto, M.. Kanda, N. and Koike, H. 2003. PoljiDorpltic analysis of cetacean MHC - A case sttldyon the millke
whales -. MammalianScience3:75-78.(in Japanese).
'Nishida, S.,Pastene,A , Goto,M.and Kanda,N. 2003.SRY genestmcture andphylogenyin thecetaceanspecies.MammalSrudy28: 57-66.
Nishiwaki, S.. Tohyama, D., Mogoe. T.. Mmase. H.. Yasllllaga, G., Mori, M.. YosbiT..Ful:utome. K. Machida. S.. Ogawa, R.. Oka, R, Ito. S.,
Konagai. T.,!soda. T.Mori, Y., lwayarna. H. and Horii. N. 2003. CruiseReport of the Japanese WhaleResearch Progranttmder Spe<ialPermit in the
Antarctic (JARPA) Area V and western PaiTof Area VI in 2002!2003. Paper SC/55/06 presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee. May 2003
(unpublished).20pp.
'Ohishi.K.,Zenitani, R., Bando. 1., Goto. Y., Uchida, K , Maruyama, T., Yamamoto. S., Miyazaki,N. and Fujise, Y. 2003. Pathological and serological
e\lidence of Bnlcella-Wiec.tion inbaleen whales (M:ytsiceti) in thewesternNorthPacific_CompaImmzmology ~\ficrobi &oInoecyiousDiseases
26: 125-136.
Pastene,LA., Goto, M. and Kanda, N. 2003. ftll"theran.1lysesof mtDNA RFLP data in the Antarctic minke willie from Areas ill-VI. Paper SC/5511A8
presentedtothe l\VCScientificColll!ltittee.May2003 (unpublished).6pp.
[200~](10)
•Amemiya, K , lwan.1l"niY, ., Kobaya•hi, T., Terao, L Ful.:ui.Y..Ishikawa, H.. Ohsumi,S.. Ffuabayasbi. M and Hochi.S. 2004. Acquirementof Oocyte
activaling Factor in Antarctic MinWhale (Balaenopterabonaerenssi) Spermatogenic Cells. Assessed by Meiosis Resumption of Microinseminated
MouseOocytes.J Mmnm. Om Res. 21: 149-156.
'fujihira , I ., Kinoshita, M., Sasaki, M., Ohnishi, M , Ishikawa. H , Ohsumi, S. and F1lkui, Y. 2004. Contparative Stll<lieson Lipid Analysis and
UltrastrucnrrinPorcineand SouthernMinke Whale(BalaenopterabomrerensisO ) ocytes.JournalofReproductionandDevelopment50(5):525-532.
'ful'ui, Y., Togawa. M , Abe, N.. Takano, Y.. Asada, M., Okada, A., lid.1, K. Ishikawa, H. and Ohstuni, S. 2004. Validation of the Sperm Quality
All.llyzer and the H;po-osmotic Swelling Test for frozen-thawedRam and Minke Whale (Balatmoprerabonaremts) Spermatozoa. Journal of
ReproductionandDevelopmem50(1): 147-154.
•nauni, S.. Sawai. K, Takeuchi,Y., lwayanLl.H.. Ishikawa. H.. Obsunti. S. and Fulmi, Y.2004. lnterspeciesSomaticCell Nuclear TraIn Vitro
Productionof AntarcticMinke\Vhale(Balmmop1erabonaerensis)Embryos. CloningandSremCells6(3):284-293.
9
141Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Ishikawa,H.,Otani,S., Kiwada, H., !soda, T., Tohyama, D., Honjo, K., Hasegawa, A., Terao, T., Kushimoto. T., Ohmuna, T., Sugiyama, K , Sasaki, T.,
frob, S.,Takarnat.su, T. andYoshida, T. 2004. Cruise Reportof theJapaneseWhale ResearchProgram underSpecialPennifaitic(JARPA) Area
IV andEasternPart ofAreaill in 200312004.Paper SC/56/012 presentedto theIWC Scientific Committee,June 2004(tmpublis.hed). 18pp.
•rwayanl<l.H.. Hocbi, S., Kato. M.. Hirabayashi. M.. Kuwayan13,M..Ishikawa, H.. Obsumi, S..and Fclali. Y. 2004.Effecttypeanddonor'se
sexualmaturityon vitrificationof nlinkewh.1le(Balaenoprerabonaerensis)oocytesatgerminal vesicle-stage. Zygore12{4):333-338.
Matsuoka,K ,Hakam.,da, T.,Murase, H. and Nisbiwaki, S. 2004. Currenta.blUldanceestimatesof humpback and fin whalesin the AntarcticAreasIIIE, IV,
andVIW (35•E-145"\V).Paper SC/56/SHII presented to the IWCScientific Committee, June2004 (unpublished).33pp.
'Muranisbi, Y..asaki, M., Haya;hi, K , Abe, N., Fujibira, T , Ishikawa. H., Obsumi. S.•Miyamoto, A. and Fulati, Y. 2004_Relationship between the
appearance of preantral follicles in the fetal ovary of Antarctic minke whalescrabonacrmsis) and hormone concentrations in the fetal heart.
umbilical cordand maternalblood Zygote 12: 125-132.
'Tetsuka, M.,Asada, M., Mogoe, T., Fulmi, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Obsuuti, S. 2004. The Pattern of Ovarian Development in the Prepubertal Antarctic
MinkeWhale (BalaeJioplerabonacrensis).Jownal ofReproriuctton andDevelopment50(4): 381-389.
•wata.rl3be, H.. Mogoe., Asada, M..Hayashi, K. Fujise. Y., Ishikawa.H., Ohsumi. S., Miyamoto, A. andFulnli. Y 2004. RelationshipbetweenSenun
Sex Hormone Concentrationand Histologyof Seminiferous Tubulesof C"Jltured Baleen Whalesin the WesternNorth Pacificduring the Feeding Seaso!L
Journal ojReproducrionandDevelopmem50(4):419-427.
[2005] (H )
Burt.tvLt~Hedley,S.L, Hakama,dT a audM.dtsuok Ka.2005.Comp:u-=ooonfatund.m ecestimateosfJ.A.~ sn.-y dat.tnA.-1e"lfromSldlldarline
transectanalysis anddeosity surfacefitting_Paper SC/571IA18presented to the IWCScientific Committee,May-June 2005(unpublished). 14pp.
Butterworth, D. andMor~ iM. 2005. Some in1plicatiom of the ADAPT-VPA assessmeots of minke whales in Areas IV and V for their dytl3lllics. Paper
SC/571IA19presentedto theIWC Scieotific Conmlittee. May-June2005 (unpublisbed).6pp.
•Ishikawa, H. and Shigeruune. 2005. Improvements in More Hunl3lleKilling Methods of A.ntaiTtic Minke Whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis, in the
Japanese\:VhaleResea.-chProgran1underSpa:ial Pennit in theAntarcticSe2 (JARPA).Jpn.J Zoo WNdl.Med. 10(1): 27-34.
•rwayanl<.lH., Isllika\va, H.,Ohstmli, S.and Fulmi, Y. 2005. Attemptat In VitroMaturationofMinke Wbale(BalaenopteraBonaeremis) OocytesUsing a
Portable CO, Incubator.Journalof Reproduction and fu·elopmeni 51(1): 69-75.
'Matsuoka, K. Pitman. R. and Marques, F. 2005. A note on a pigmy right whale (Caperea ma.rginata) sighting in tl>esouthwestern Pacific Ocean.
J CetaceanRes.Manage7(1): 71-73.
'Matsuoka. K., Hakanl<lda, T., Kiwada, H., Murase, H. and Nishiwaki. S. 2005. AbundanceIncreases of Large Baleen Whales in the Antarctic based on
theSightingSurveyduring Japanese Whale Research Program (JARPA). GlobalEnvironmentalResearch9(2): l05-115.
Matsuoka,K , Kiwada, H., HakUll<ldaT,., Nishiwaki S. and Obsw.ni.S. 2005. Distribution and Abundance of Sperm Whalesin the AntarcticAreas IIIE,
IV, V and VIW (35•E-l45"\V). Paper A&D 7 presented to the Cachalot Assessment Research Planning (CARP) Workshop, March 2005 (unpublished).
13pp.
Mori,M. andButterworth, D.S. 2005. Somedvances in the application of ADAPT-VPAto minkewhales in Areas IV aud V. P"Jlef SC/57/l4.17presented
totheIWC Scientific Conmlinee, May-June2005 (unpublishe.d).27pp.
Mori, M. and Bunerworth, D.S. 2005. Modelling the predator-prey interactions of krill, baleen wh.ues and seals in the Antarctic. Paper SC/57102l
presentedto theI\VC ScientificCommittee, May-June 2005 (unpublished). 44pp.
Naganobu, M.. Taki,. and Hayashi.T.2005. Prelimimry surveyreport of the JapaneseR1VKa;yoMmu itheRossSea and adjacent water;. Antarctica
in 2004/05.PaperSC/5710 16presentedto theIWC ScientificComnlinee.May-June 2005(tmpublished).8pp.
'::-iikaido,M., Sas.'lki,L Makino, H., Goto, M., Kanda. N., Pasteoe, L.A. a:ndOkada, N.2005. Phylogeneticreconstruction ofl>aleeowbalesand detection
oftheirpastextensive radiationeventby theSINE insertionanalysis.Fossils77:22-28 (in Japanese).
Nishiwaki, S.,ohyanl<,lD., Goto, M.. Mogoe. T, !soda, T., Tsunekawa, M., Yoshimura.K , Kasai, H., Teraok.1, L Koyanagi. T., Ito, S., Kitajinl<,lA ,
Ogihara,M., Hasegawa, A. and Fujibira, T. 2005. Cruise report of the Japanese wbale research program uoder special permit in the Antarctic (JARPA)
AreaV andwestern part of AreaVI in 200412005. Paper SC/57/05 presented to theIWC Scientific Conmlinee, May-June 2005 (unpublisbed).22pp.
Punt,A.E and Polacheck T. 2005. Application of statistical catch-at-age analysis to data for Southem Hemisphere minke whales in Antarctic Areas IV
andV. PaperSC1571IA9presente<ito the IWC Scientific Collllllittee.May-Jlme 2005(tmpublished).75pp.
~sa5a,k T..Nik.lid, JvL, Hamlltou. .GoiO,1\-,Kitw, H.~K...i N..PdaasttL :n.~D,o, Y.~F01dyc.eR. .E.Hasegawa vf_:wd OkaU~ N. 2005.
Mitochondrial Phylogenetics and Evolution ofMys ticeteWhales. S)mematicBiology 54{1): 77-90.
[2006] (53)
Bando, T.,Zeuita.rt,iR. and Fujise, y_2006. A study on stock structure in the Antarcticnlinke whales from the JARPA research area based on analysis of
bodylength ofphysically maturedwhales.Paper SCID06/Jll presented to the !Re\~e w eeting, December2006 (uopublisbed).7pp.
Baudo, L Zeuitarti, R., Fujise, Y., Hakamada.T. andKate, H. 2006. Biological pa.ran1eters of Antarctic nlinke whalebased on materials collectedby the
JARPA surveyin 1987/88 to2004/05.PaperSCID06/J17presented tothe JARPA Review Meeting, December2006(tmpublished).28pp.
*Fujibira,. , Kobayashi, .tHoch~ S., Hir.lb>yashi, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. a: i. Y. 2006. Developmental capacity of Antarctic minke
wbale(Balaenoptcrabcnaeremis) vittified oocytes following in ''iiro maturation, and parthenogenetic activation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Zygote14: 89-95.
Fujise, Y.. Hatanaka. H. and Obsuoli, S. 2006. \Vh.1t bas happened to the .'\.ntarctic minke whale stocks? - An interprepation of results from JARPA ·.
PaperSC/D06/J26 presented to the JARPAReview Meeting,December 2006 (tmpublished). 15pp.
Hakanl3da,L Goto, M. andlslnkawa,H. 2006.Examination of theeffect of skip on the abuodance estimate for Antarcticminke whales in JARPA. Paper:
SC/581IA6presented to the IWCScientific Comnlinee. May-Jtu1e2006(unpublished). IOpp.
Hakrumda. T...!vlatsuoka. K and Nishiwaki, S. 2006. Abundatreedof Antarctic minke whales in Areas IV and V based on JARPA data. Paper
SC/58/IA7 presentd to theiWC Scientific CoUllltittee,May-June2006(unpublished).4pp.
Hakarnada, T. and Matsuoka, K 2006. Exanlinationthe effect of swvey mode on abundance estimate for Southern Hentisphere humpbac.k wh.1lesusing
JARPASightingdata.Paper SCI581SH6 presentedto the IWCScientific C<>Ulliltltee,May-June2006 (unpublished).5pp.
Hakan l<lda, T , Goto. M. and Ishikawa, H. 2006. Exanlination of correction the effect of skip on the ablllldanceestin1ate for Antarctic nlinke wh.ues in
JARPA. PaperSC/D06/J3 presentedto theJARPA ReviewMeeting,December2006 (unpublished).8pp.
Hakanl3da, T., Matsuoka,. and Nishiwaki, S. 2006. An.update of Antarctic minkewhales abtmdance estimate based on JARPA data. Paper SCID06/J6
presentedto the JARPARe~1e.wMeeting. December2006 (unpublished).34pp +Addendum 2pp.
Hakarnada, T.006.Morphometric analysisn stock structuretheAntarctic minkewhale basedon JARPA sa.ruples. Paper SC/D06/JIOpresented to the
JARPA Review Meeting, Decerubr 2006 (unpublished). 8pp.
10
142 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Hatanaka,H.•Fujise, Y., Pastene, LA andOhsumi,S.2006.Re•iewof JARPAresearchobjectivesandupdate of tl1ework relatedto JARPA ~lSk desri\'ed
from the 1997 SC meeting.PaperSCID06/Jl presented to theJARPA Review Meeting.December2006 (unpublished). 12pp.
*Honda, K., Aoki, M. andFujise, Y 2006.EcochemicalApproachUsingMercury Accumulationof Antarcticlvlinke \\'hale, Ba/aenopterabonaerensis, as
Tracerof Historical Changeof Antarctic Marine EcosystemDuring 1980-1999. Bull.Environ.Contam. Toxico/76: 140-147.
•rwan.mli. K., Mita H.. Yamamoto, Y.• Fujise, Y.. Yan1ada, T. and Suzuki, T. 2006. eDNA-derived anlino acid sequences of myoglobins from oine
speciesof whalesanddolphins.CompBioclwmPhysiolB BiochemMolBioi. 45:249-56.
Kato, H. and Zerlitarl,iR. 2006. Interpretationfferences in bodylength foryoungerage classes of Antarctic nlinkewhalesbetweenby commercialand
JARPAdatasets.Paper SC/58/IA22 presentedto the IWCScientific Conunittee, May-June2006 (unpublished).5pp.
*Kobayashi.T., Amenliya, K., Takeuclli.K., Tsujioka. T., Tonlinaga,K., Hirabayashi, M., Ishikawa.H.,Ful.·ui. Y and Hochi, S. 2006. Contribution of
spermatozoalcentrosomesto the microtubule-<>rganizingcentre in Antarcticnlinkewhale (Balaenopierabonaerensis).Zygote 14(1): 45-51.
'Konishi, K. 2006. Characteristics of blubber distributionand body condition indicators for Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoprerabonaerensis).Mammal
Smdy31 15-22.
Konishi. K., Tanmra, T.and Walloe. L. 2006. Decline in energystorage in tl1e .<\.utartcic nlinke whale Balaenoptera bouaerensis in theSouthern Ocean_
Paper SCID06/119preseuredto the JARPA ReviewMee.ting,December2006(unpublished).6pp.
Marsuishi. T, Ikeda, H. and Nishiwaki. S. 2006. Estimation of g(O)based on the sighting survey data and covariates infonnatiou of JAR!'A Paper
SCID06/J5 presentedto the JARPAReviewMeeting,December2006 (unpublished). 12pp.
Matsuoka,K.,Hakamada, T ,Kiwada. H., Murase,H. and Nishiwaki. S. 2006c. Distributionand abund.mceestin1ates of humpback whalesin the Antarctic.
Areas IV and V (70oE -170oW). Paper SC/A06/HW57 presented to the Comprehensive Assessment of Southern Henlisphere Humpback \\'hales. April
2006 (unpublished). 21. pp
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T.,Kiwada, H.,Murase, H.and Nishiwaki,S. 2006a.Distn1mtiouand abundanceestimatesof blue whales in theAntarcticAreas
IIIE,IV, V and VIW (35"E -145"\V)based on JARPAdata Paper SC/58/SH7 presented to theIWC Scientific C.omnlittee, May-June 2006 (unpublisbed).
9pp.
Matsuoka, K.. Ha!wmd.1, T.,Kiwada, H.. Murase, H. andNishiwaki. S. 2006b. Updated distributioand abundanceestimates of humpbackwhales in the
Antarctic Areas IV and V (70'E -170'W). Paper SC/58/SH21 presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee, May-June 2006 (unpublished). 4lpp . [Colour
figures]
!.>latsuok,aK., H<lkamada,T., Kiwada, H.,Murase, H. and Nislliwal."i,S. 2006d. Distnlmtion and standardizedabundance estin1atesfor hwltpback. fm and
blue whales in the Antarctic Areas IIIE, IV. V and VIW (35'E-145'\V), south of 60'S. Paper SC/006/17 presented to the JARPA Re•iew Meeting.
December2006 (unpublished). 37p.
*Mori.M. and Butterworth.D.S. 2006. A firsstep towards modelling the krill-predatordynamics of the Antarcticecosystem. CCAMLRSciena 13: 217-
277.
Mort. M. Butterwotth, D.S. andKital-.a<to.T. 2006. Appilcation of ADAPT-\lPA to VariousstocKHypotheses for the Antarctic minke wllalesDistribured
throughI\VC ManagementareasIIIE to VIW. PaperSC/58/IASpresented to theIWC Scientific.Conunittee, May-June2006 (unpublisbed).40pp.
Mori. M., Butterworth, D.S. and Kitakado, T. 2006. Application of ADAPT-VPA to Antarctic ulinke whales in the JARPA research area. Paper
SCID061114presentedto tl1eJARPAReviewMeeting, December2006 (unpublished).32pp.
Mori. M ..Butterworth. D.S.. Zerlitarl,i R. and Kato. H. 2006. Model-based analyses of trends over ti.mein age correspondingto the transition phase for
Antarcticnlinkewhales in theJARPA research area.PaperSCID061J16presented to the JARPAReview Meeting,Decen1ber2006(unpublished). 17pp.
Murase, H.. Kiwada, H., Matsuoka, K. and Nishiwaki, S. 2006. Results of the cetacean prey sUIVey using a quantitative echo sounder in JARPA from
1998/99to 2004/2005. PaperSCID06/J21presentedto theJARPAReviewMeeting, Decen1ber2006(unpublishe<l.)15pp.
Murase, H., Tamura, T.. Matsuoka.K., and Hakamada, T.2006. First attemptof estin11tion of feedingimpact on krill standing stockby three baleen whale
species (.<\.utarcctinlinke, humpback and fin whales) in Areas IV and V using JARPA da.ta. Paper SO'D06/J22presented to the JARPA R.-iew Meetin&
December2006 (unpublished). 7pp.
Murase. H., Tan1ura.T., Matsuoka, K. Nishiwaki, S., YaStl1ll,3H.. Matsnkura, R., Yabuki, T., Takao,Y., Taki. K., Hayashi, Land Naganobu. M. 2006.
Distribution patterns and bul3SSof .<\.tuarctic!:rill (Euphaw;iasuperba) and ice krill (E. crysrallorophia)swith referece to .<\.urarc.tinclinkewhales in the
Ro~s Seain 2005 usingKaiyoJ\.a!m-JARPAjointsurvey data.Paper SC>D06/J24preseuredto theJARPAReviewMeeting,December 2006(unpublished).
19pp.
Murase, H., Kitakado, T., Matsuoka, K., Nislliwaki, S. andNaganobu, M 2006. Relating the disln1mtionpanerns of Antarctic nlinkewhales \vith abiotic
andbiotic envitomneutal factors in the Ross Sea in 20using Kaiyo Maru-JARPAjoint SllfVey data. PaperSCID06/J25presentedto the JARPA Review
Meetiug, December 2006(unpublished). lSpp.
Naganobu, M., Nishiwaki, S.. Yasuma, H., Matsulmra, R., Takao, Y., Taki. K., Hayashi, T., Watanabe, Y.. Yabuki, T, Yoda, Y., Noiri, Y., Kuga, M.,
Yoshikawa,K..Kol.·ubun,N.,Murase, H., Matsuoka, K. and Ito,K. 2006.Intenctions betweenoceanography, krill andbaleen whales in theRos. Sea and
Adjacent Waters: An overview of K:tiyoMaru-JARPA joint survey in 2004105. Paper SCID061J23presented to the JARPA Re•iew Meeting, December
2006 (unpublished).33pp
*Nikaido,M., Hanlilton, H., Makino, H., Sasaki, T.• Takahi,K., Goto. M., Kanda, N., Pastene, LA and Okada, N. 2006.Baleen whale phylogeny and
a pastextensiveradiation event revealedby SINEinsertion analysis. MolecularBiologyandEvolution23(5):866-873.
Nishiwaki. S., Ishikawa,. and Fujise. Y. 2006. Review of general methodology and survey procedure under the JARPA.Paper SCID061J2presented to
the JARPAReview Meeting,Dec ember 2006(unpublished). 47pp.
Nishiwaki, S.. Tohyama, D., Ishikawa, H.. Otarli. S.,Bando, T., Murase, H.. YaStmaga. G..!soda, T., Nen1oto.K..Mori,M, Tsunel<awa.M.,Fukutome. K.,
Shiozaki, lvl, Nagauline, M., Konagai. T , Takamatsu, T., Kumagai. S., Kage, T., Ito. K , Nagai, H. and Kon11tsu. W. 2006. Cmise Report of the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Pemlit in the Antarctic (JARPAO) in 200512006-Feasibility study-. Paper SC/58107
presented to the IWC ScientificComnlittee, May-June.2006 (unpublished). 21pp.
Pastene, LA , Goto, M.. Nishiwaki, S.. Yoshida. H. and Kanda, N. 2006. Genetic characteristics and population structure of humpback whales in the
Antarcticfeedinggrotmd as revealed by nlitochondrialDNA control region sequencingand nlicrosatellite analyses. Paper SC/A06/HW40presented tothe
ComprehensiveAssessmentof SouthernHemisphereHumpback \\'hales. April2006 (unpublished). 13pp.
Pastene, LA 2006. A brief review of the genetic studies on dwarf nlinke whale based on JARPA samples. Paper SCID06/J8 presentedto the JARPA
Review Meeting, December2006(unpublished ). 8pp.
Pastene.LA , Goto M. and Kanda. N. 2006. Genetic analysis on stockstructure in the Antarctic tninke whales from the JARPAresearch area based on
nlitochondrial DNAandnlicrosatellites.PaperSCID061J9 presentedto te JARPAReviewMeeting,December2006 (unpublished).22pp.
Pastene, L.A. 2006.\\'hat do we know about the s1ockstructure of the Antarc.tic nlinke whale? A StUlllJl.1I)'of studies and hypotheses. Paper SCID06/J12
presentedto the JARPA Review Meeting,December2006 (unpublished).24pp.
11
143Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item I0.2
Pastene.L<\..Goto, M.. "'ishiwal...i. S., Yoshida , H. and KN.d2006. Genetic characteristics and popuL1tion stmcnuce of hwupback whales in the
Antarctic feeding ground as revealed by mitochondrial DNA control region sequencing and microsatellite analyses. Paper SC/D06/J31 presented to the
JARPA Review Meetiog. December 2006 (unpublish ed). 14pp.
Pastene, L.A.. Ishikawa, H., Goto, M. and Nishiwaki, S. 2006. Overview of other studies on 1'lfgewhales based on JARPA samples. Paper SC/D06/J32
presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, December 2006 (unpublished) . 6pp.
Paxton,C.G.M,. Burt. M.L., Hakamada,T. and Matsuoka, K. Spatial modelling of JARPA survey data in ArV: fittinallyearsin a single modeL Paper
SC/58/IA20 presemed io the IWC Scientific Co mmittee, May-June 2006 (unpublished). 16pp. [Colour figures]
Polacheck. T. and Pnnt A.E. 2006. Minke whal e.growth models for use in statistical catch-at-age models. Paper SCI58J1A3presented to the IWC Scientific
Committee. May-June 2006 (unpublished). 36pp.
Pnnt, A.E.. and PoL1check. T. 2006. Further statistical catch-at-age analyses for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Paper SCJ58/IA2 presented to the
IWC Scientific Committee. May-June 2006 (unpublished). 40pp.
*Rock, J., Pastene, LA , Kaufman, G., Forestell, P., Matsuoka, K. and Allen. J. 2006. A note on East Australia Group V Stock hwupback whale movemenl
between feeding and breeding areas based on photo-identificJ CetaceanRes.Manage. 8(3): 301-305.
Tamura, T.and Konishi, K. 2006. Food habit and prey con.<tmljltionof Antarctic minke whale BaL1enopterabonaerensis in JARPA research area. Paper
SC/D06/JIS presented to the JARPAReview Meeting. December 2006 (unpublished) . 23pp.
Tamura, T., KonishiK. Nishiwaki, S., Taki, K., Hay-ashi T. and NaganobuM 2006. Comparison between stomach contents of Antarctic minke whale
and krill S'.lfllpled by RMT net in the Ross Sea and its adjacent waters. Paper SCID06/J20 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, December 2006
(nnpublished). 13pp.
Tanaka.E.,Zenirani, R.. Hak;unada, T. and Fujise.. Y. 2006. An estimate of average nanucalmortality coefficient of Antarctic minke whales usingJARPA
data. Paper SOD06 /Jl3 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting, December 2006 (tmpublished). 12pp.
Watanabe, T.. Yabuki T.. Suga, T.• Hanawa, K.. 1VLts1uob , K. and Kiwada, H. 200Rests~ of oceanographic analyses conducted tmder JARPA and
possible evidence of environmental changes. Paper SCID06/J30 presemed to the JARPA Review Meetiog. December 2006 (unpublished). 13pp.
*Yabuki, T., SugaT., Hanawa, K..Matsuoka, K., Kiwada, H. and Watanabe, T. 2006. Possible Sour ce of the Antarctic Bottom Water in the PBayz
Region.Jr;umal ofOceanograph6y2(5):649-()55.
Yasunaga, G ,Fujise, Y. and Honda, K. 2006 . Trace element accumulations of Antarckrill. Euphausiasuperba,in AreasIII, IV.V and VI from the
Antarcticcean during 1989-1999. Paper SO D06 1J27 presented to the JARPA Review Meeting. December 2006 (unpublished). 12pp.
Yasunaga. G., Fujise. Y.. Zenitani. R.. Honda. K. and Kato. H. 2006. Yearly trend of trace element accumulation in liver of Antarctic minke whales.
Balaenoptera bonaerensis. Paper SCID06/J28 presen!ed to the JARPA Review Meeting. December 2006 (unpublished). 23pp.
Yastmaga, G., Fujise, Y.. Zenitani, R., TaS.band Kate. H.2006. Spatial and tenlj)Oralvariatio:n in organochlorine contaminants in the Antarc-tic minke
whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis. Paper SC!D06JJ29 presentetheoJARPA Review Meeting, December 2006 (tmpublished). l 3pp
Zenirani, R. and KatH. 2006. Temporal trend of age a"'"'- uaturity of Ant.'lfctic minke whales based on transition phase in earplugs obtained under
JARPA surveY'from 1987/88 - 2004/05. Paper SCID06/J15 presented tthe JARPA Review Meeting , December 2006 (unpublished ). 9pp.
[2007) (18)
Acevedo, J., Olavarria, C., PlJ..Cortes.. D., Aguayo-Lobo, A. and Pastene, L.A.2007. Dwarf minke whal(Balaenopteraacurorostrata)in Antarctic
Are.as and II. Paper SC/59/IA24 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2007 (tmpnblished). Spp.
'Asada, M., Tetsuka, M., Ishikawa, H.. Ohsnmi, S. and Fulrui. Y. 2007. Ultrastmctural Ch.mges during Maturation and Cryopreservation of Follicular
Oosytes of Antarctic Minke \Vhales (Balaenoptera bonaerensJapaneseJuumal ofZoo WildlifeandMedicnw 12(1): 51-66.
' Branch. T.A., Stafford, K.Jvl., Palacios, D.M., Allison, C., Bannister, J.L , Burton, C.L.K., Cabrera, E., Carlson, CA. GaUetti Vernazzani , B., Gill, P.C.,
Hucke -Gaele, R., Jenner. KC.S. , Jenlvln.M., Mat5ttob , K.. Mikhalev, Y.A , Miyashita. T., Morrice, M.G.• Nishiwaki , S., Sturrock. V.J., Tormosov.
D., Anderson. R.C., Baker, A.N., Best, P.B., Borsa, P., Brownell Jr, R.L., Childerhonse, S., Findlay, K.P., Gerrodette , T., llangakoon, A.D., Joergensen, M.,
Kahn. B., Ljungblad, D.K., Maughan, B.Mccat e~,R.D., Mcb y, S.. Norris. T.F., Oman Whale and Dolphin Research Group, Rankin, S., Sanwan, F.,
Thiele, D., Van Waerebeek, K. and Warneke , R.M. 2007. Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales in the Southern
Hentisphereand adjacenwaters.MammalRw37 (2): 116-175.
Butterworth. D S and Mori M.2007. On the conljlatibilitrest ~rtmsADAPT-VPA and transition-phase-based trends in ageat-manuity for the !-stock
of Antarctic minke whales. Paper SC/591IA22 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee . May 2007 (unpublished). Spp.
Govemment of Ja pan (Compiled by Fujise, Y., Pastene, LA. , Hatanaka, H., Ohsumi, S. and Miy-ashita, T.). 2007. Evaluation of 2005/06 and 2006/07
feasibility study of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPII).Paper SC/59/03
presented to the IWC Scien!ific Committee, May 2007 (unpublished). 23pp.
Hakamada, T.. Matsuob. K. and Nishiwaki, S. 2007. Improvements of the JARPA abundance estimation of Antarctic tninke whales based on JARPA
Review Meeting recommendations. Paper SC/5911AII presented to the IWC Scientific Committee , May 2007 (tmpublished). 24pp.
Konishi,K.,Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., B.mdu, T., Kate, H. and WalloL.2007. Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke wha(Balaenoprera
bonaerenssi)in the Southern Ocean using JARP A data. Paper SC/59/0 10 presented to the IWC Scien!ifi c Committee. May2007 (unpublished) . l Opp.
•LeDuc., R.G., Dizon, A.E., Goto, M., Pastene., L.A._ Kato. H., Nishiwaki. S. and
BrowneU, R.L. 2007. Patterns of genetic variation in southern hentisphere blue whales, and the use of assignment test to detect mixing on the feeding
grounds.J. CetaceanRes.Manage.9(1): 73-80.
Murase, H. and Kitakado. T.. Matsuoka, K., Nishiwaki. S. and Naganobu. M. 2007. Exploration of GAM based abtmdance estintation method of .<\.niarctic
minke whales to take into account environmental effects: A case study in the Ross Sea. Paper SC/59/l-'\12 ptheIWC Scientific Comnrittee, May
2007 (unpublished). 13pp.
Mori, M., Butterworth, D. and Kitakado, T. 2007. Further progress on application of adapt-VPA to Antarctic minke whales. Paper SCI59/IA13 presented to
the IWC Scientific Committee, May2007 (unpublished ). 32pp.
~Naa g,H., Mogoe, T.• Ishikawa , H.. Hoclli, S., Ohswni, S. and Ful:ui, Y. :1007. Follide Size-Dependent CillFollicular Fluid Components and
Oocyte Diameter in Antarctic Minke Whale(Balaenoprerabonaerensis.)Journal of Reproduction and Development 53(6): 1265-1272.
Naganobu. M .. Nishiwaki , S., Yaswua . Matsuk-u , r<,Takao. Y.•Taki. K.. Hayashi, T., Watanabe , Y.. Yabuki. T., Yoda. Y., Noiri. Y.. Kuga, M.,
Yoshika\1<-. .. Kol.:l.tbun.N.• Murase. H.. Matsuoka , K. and Ito. K. 2007. Interactions between oceanography , krill and baleen whales in the Ross Sea and
adjacent waters, Antarctina2004105. 13th CCAMLRJWG -EMM meetiog . CCAMLR. WG-EiviM-07n . 25pp.
'*Nishida. S. Goto. M.• Pastene, L.A.,K.anda,N. and Koike. H. 2007. Phylogenetic Relation.ships Among Cetaceans Revealed by Y-Chromosome
Sequences. Zoological Science24(7): 723-732.
Nishiw-aki,., Ogawa, T.. Matsuoka, K.. Mogoe, T., Kiwada, H., Konishi, K., K.wda, N., Yoshida, T., Wada, A., Mori, M., Osawa, T., Ktm1.1ga,i S.,
Oshima, T., Kinn.l!",aK., Yoshimura. I.• Sasaki, T., Aki, lVl, Matsushita, Y., Ito, H., Sudo. S. and Nakamura , G. 2007. Cmise report of the second phase of
12
144 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
theJapaneseWhale ResearchProgr.ununderSpecialPern:ritin theAntarctic(JARPA II) in 2006/2007-Feasibilitystudy- _Paper SC/59104 presentedto the
IWCScientificCouunittee,May2007 (unpublished).23pp.
*Onbe, K. Nishi& . S.. Sone, E., Kand.., ., Goto. M . Pastene,.L.A., Tanabe. S. and Koike, H. 2007. Sequence Variationthe Tbx4 Gene in Marine
Mammals. ZoologicalScience24(5):449--464.
*Pastene. L.A.,Goto, M., Kanda. N., Zerbini, A.N__!{,rem, D., Wat1nabe.K. Bessho, Y., Hasegawa, M., Nielsen, R, Larsen.f _and Palsbs>ll.P.J.2007.
Radiation and speciation of pelagic organisms dtuing periods of global wam:riog:the case othecommon minke whale. Balaenoprera acurorosiTata.
MolecularEcology16: 1481- 1495.
Tanmra, T. andKonishi. K 2007. Additional analysis of stomacit contents weightof the Antarcticn:rinkewhaleBalae.noprerabonaerensisin the Southern
Ocean.PaperSC/59/09 presentedto theIWC ScientificCommittee, May 2007 (unpublished).7pp.
Zenitani.R. Kisbiro, L Hak:unada. T. AndKato, H. 2007. Currentstatus and future plan of agereading by earplugsin baleenwhalesunder the sc-ientific
pem:rits,withnote onage readingof Antarcticminkewhales.Paper SC/59/08 presentedto theIWCScientificCouuninee, May2007 (unpublished). Spp.
[2008] (7)
*Ish-ikawa. H. and Sbigenrune, H. 2008. Contparative Experimentof\\''baliGrenades in the Japanese Wb;ue Research Program under Special Pern:rit
(JARPAandJARPN).Jpn.J. ZooWild/.Med 13(1): 21-28.
Ishikawa, H., Goto, M., Ogawa, T.• Baudo. L Kiwada. H.,!soda, T., :Kumagai, S , Mori. M. Tsunekawa,M. Ohsawa, T., Fulcutonte,.K., Koyanagi, T,
Kandabashi, S., !Kawabe, S., Sotomura,N., Matsuk-ura, R , Kato, K., Matsumoto, A., Nakai, K., Hasegawa. M.. Mori, T., Yoshioka, S. and Yoshida, T
2008. Cmise report of the SecondPhase of the Japanese. \VbaleResearch Programunder Special Penni! in the Antarctic (JARPII)in 200712008. Paper
SC/60104 presented tothe 1\VCScientific Committee, June2008(unpublished). 19pp.
Kitakado,T. 2008 Evaluation of StatisticalPowerof a Test for Exan:rio.ingBias in Age-readingExperimentforAntarcticMinke whales.Paper SCI60/IAI6
presentedto the I\VCScientific Committee, Jtme 2008(unpublished). llpp .
*Kon.i<hi,K., Tatmtra, T.• Zenitani, R., Banda, T., Kato. H. and Walloe, L 2008. Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke.whale (Balaenoptera
bonaerensis)in the SouthernOcean. Polar Biol31:1509-1520.
Mori, M.and Bu.tterworth,D.S. 2008. Somemodificationsto thecurrent ADAPT-VPA modelfor Antarcticminkewhales. Paper SC/60/IAI3 presented to
the IWCScientific Couunittee, June 2008(unpublished). Spp.
*Ohishi.K., Fuj1se. Y. and Maruyanta. T. 2008. Brucellaspp. in the western North Pacific and Antarctic cetaceans:a review. J. CetaceanRes. Manage.
10(1):67-72.
*Yunoki, K., Ish.ikawa, H., Fuk-u,i Y. and Ohnishi, M. 2008. Chemical Propertiesof Epidermal Lipids, EspeciallySphingolipids, of the Antarctic Minke
\Vbale.Lipids(2008) 43: 151-159.
[2009] (5)
l<hikawa. H. 2009. JAPAN: Progress Report on the Killing Methodof Whales in the Second Phase of Japanese.Whale Research Programin the Antarctic
Sea (JARPAII) and Northwestern Pacific Ocean (JARPNII). Meeting of theNAMMCO Couunittee on Hunting Methods. Marine Research InstiMe,
Reykjavik,Iceland. 2009/4123
Matsuoka,K., Hakanh1d.1T . ., Kimura. K. and Okada, Y2009. Influence of sea ice concenlrationon Antuctic minke whak abundance estimation inthe
Ross Sea. PaperSCI61/Lo\16presentedto IWCScientificComn:ritteeMay 2009(unpubhshed). 7pp.
Matsuoka,K. and Pastene, LA 2009.Sumntary ofphoto-id informationof bluewhales collectedby JARP.'\/JARPA IIandprelin:rinaryanalysisof matches
in thefeedingground,_PaperSC/61/SH3presentedto1\VCScientificCommitteeMay 2009(unpublished). Spp.
Nishiwaki, S.,Ogawa. T. Matsuoka. K.,Banda. T., Mogoe,L C>laniS , ., Konishi, K.. Sato.H..Nakai, K., Nomura, L, Tanak--,1H.. Kiwada,H., Mori, M..
Tsunekawa,M., Wad.."lA , ., Yoshimura, I, Yonezaki, S., Nagamine, M., Yoshid., , Fukutome, K., Tamahashi, K., Morine, G. and Yoshida, T 2009.
Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese \Vbale Research Progrant under Special Penni! in the Antarctic (JARPA II) in 200S/2009. Paper
SC/61J03 presented to IWC Scientific CouunitteeMay 2009(unpublished). !Spp.
*Tanmra, T. and Konishi.K 2009. Feeding Habits and Prey Consuntption of AntarcticMinke 1.\lbale(Balaenoplerabonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean.
JournalojNo11hweslAtlamicFisheryScience42: 13-25.
13
145Annex 156
IWC /62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Appendh: 2
Protocol for arress to sample s/data from the Institut e of Cetacean Research (l CR), Tok yo, Jap an under Pr ocedu re B
(J CR\116 (suppl.)) : in press
I.t'\'TRODL'CliO N'
This protocol has been devdoped in the context ofPtoc edure B of the IWC Scientific Committee's rules for data availabiiity adopted at
the 55th Annual Meeting (Jowna l ofCeracea n Research and Management 6 (suppl.): in press). Procedure B applies to <h.tarequired for
analyses deemed important in provid ing advice to the Committee other than catch limits. Conditions for data recipien ts (repeated below)
as specified in the m les for data availability are applicable .
It was agreed that the Committee shall specify the nature of the work and the data required during the meeting at which the
recommendation is made . to the fi.illest extent possible in the time availab le at the meeting and in accord with the published protocol.
Requests to the ICR for data under Ptocedure B of the Scientific Committee's mles for data availability shall be submitted by the Data
Availabihty Group assisted by a nominated member ofi CR
It was also agreed that if the correct process is followed , the data owners will normally approve the applications within a 'specified tirue
period '; in this case ICR agrees tbat it will respond within XXX weeks of receiving an application.
FOR\IAT OF THE APPLICATI0:'-1
The format for the applica tion is based on the revised application for catch-at-age analyses agreed by all members of the Scientific
Committee at the end of the Scientific Committee mee.ting in 2003 (Annex G, Appendix II ).
(a) Title of the proposal , giving the broad subject of the proposed an.,Jyses.
(b) Investigators: the full name and affiliation of the principal investigator(s) and co-investigator( s) should be provTins.
should include at least one scientis t from ICR.
(c) Objectives and rationale of the study as specified by the by the Scientific Committee along with dte appropriate reference to dte
report(s) of the Scientific Committee. Tltis will include dte reasons why the proposed analyses are important and how they fit
into preYiouswork
(d) Data to be used will include a general description of all data to be used as well as data held by !CR. ·ror the ICR-held data. the
precise requirement s will be.given, including the levd of disaggregation.
(e) Dese~;p orfheomnethods likely to be used. The level of detail must be in accor"~tcethe level of novelty ofdte proposed
method s and the particular research questions they will address. Referenceto similar analyses should be included where
aYailabe.
(f) &hedule of the work: this should include estimated times for the various analyses to be carried out and an indication of which
investigators will collabo rate on individual components. If the project is a long-term project , annual progre ss reports will be
required by ICR and the Scientific Committee .
(g) Output of the research: this will follow the rules for publication agreed at the Scientific Committee meeting and given below.
ICR may consider requests for less stringent conditions (e.g. presen tations at non-IWC scientific meetings , publications , etc.).
Such requests should be detailed here.
CO:'>IISDERATI0 :'-1OF THE PROPOSAL
If an applicatio n bas been approved by the whole Scientific Committee at an annual mee ting.it will nonnall y be approved by ICR.
However . the final decision ·will always remain the prerogative of ICR ICR may request reviews binternalreview group andlor
external experts. The following fucto,-,;will be taken in to accmmt by ICR when considering applications.
(a) p,;OI;ty: highest priority for an.-liysis/research of samples/data produced by Japan's Whale Research Ptograms tmder Special
Permi t.,will be for the scientists d1at collected and obtained the data in any particular field.
(b) Suitability of the requested data in the context of the proposed methods and the objective s of the research.
(c) Level of co-operation with ICR scientists.
The re;ponse to an applicatio n for data will be comm unicated by the ICR's Director General to the Data Availability Group and may
include requests for fi.lrther information. If the research proposa l is accepted, ICR will nominate a scientist, (normac<ry one of the
investig.,tors) who shall be.respon sible for making the necessary arrangemenpro,~o theerequired samplesfdata.
Agreed Srienrifir Commit tee condition s for data r•ripient s
Applica tions deemed suitable tmder Procedure A or Ptocedure B below are granted under the following conditions:
(I) Data shall not be tran.smitted to third parties.
(2) Papers may ouly be submitted to a Connnittee meeting in accor<l'lllcewith the tirue restrict ions given below. Such papers must
not include the raw data or the data in a form in more detail than is necessary to tmderstand the analysis.
(3) Papers must carry a restriction on citation except in the context of iWC meeting:;.
(4) Data owners are offered c<rauthorship.
(5) PublicMion rights remain strictly widt the data owner.
(6) Data shall be returned , to the Secretariat or the data owner as appropriate , immediatel y after the meeting at whiclt the paper is
submitted and any copies destroyed, wliess an extension is granted
(7) Data reque.sters sign a form agreeing to the above conditions. Such forms will be held by the data owner and the Secretariat. In
dte case of Ptocednre B, the Data Availabil ity Group "isign the agreement on the Committee 's beb.,}f ani ensure tbat the
condition1iof any agreement are met by any individuaJ scientlsts involved in the analysis _
(8) In the event of a breach of the conditions in (6), serious sanctions (to be determined] will apply.
14
146 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
AnnexB
(as of December 2009)
Scientific contribution from JARP~/ JARPN II
TI1eInstitute of Cetacean Research, Toyomi-cho 4-5, Chuo-la1,Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
The Japanese Whale Research Program tmder Special Penni t in the North Pacific (JARPN) was conducted betandn1999. The
JARPN had two main objectives: a) detennthestock stnlCntof common mink.e w·hale . indparticular to inves tigate whether or not
the "\V ' stock exist• and if so to estiimte mixing rates between "0" and ·'W ' •tock•, and b) detmnine the feeding ecology of the co11U110n
minke whale ill the North Pacific.
The International Whalii1gCommission Scientific Committee (IWC SC) carried out a workshop in February 2000 to review data md
results of JARPN. Report of tlus workshop can be found in the following web site:
http:f/w.icrwhale.orwene/worksho p.pdf (final review)
JARPN II started with two feasibility surveys in 2000 and 2001.f~tlsurvey started in 2002 . The objectives of the JARPN II are
the following: a) feedii1g ecology and ecosystem smdies (prey constunption by cetaceans, prey preference of cetaceans, ecosystem
modeling) ; b)nitoring enviioumental pollutant ill cetaceans aud the marii1eecosystem accumt~aof tfioolutant' in
ce.taoeru.1s, bioacc umulation proces s of pollutantsfoodchain. relationships between chetnical pollutants and cetacean health),
and c) stock stmcmre of large whales (common n.Unkewhale<Bryde'swhale, sei whale md spenn whale).
The IWC SC carried out a review of the data and results collected by JARPN II in its si.xfirst years (2002-2007) in January 2009. Report
ofthis wotk•hop can be fOtmdin the following web •ite:
htlp:/www.icrwhale.org/englworkshop2.pdf
Scientifi c contr ibution of JARP NIJARPN II
Scientific contribution of JARPN/JARPN II has been made in different fonn•. as scientific documents for the IWC/SC meetiitgs and otl1er
scien _tific meeting of intergovernmental organiza tions, asinpeer rev-iewedjotmuUs, and as ornl presentations at scientific
sympositmlS.
Table lshO'\Vthe nwnbec ofiWC SC and other meetings doctunents , peer-reviewed publications and oral presentations at scientific
symposium based on JARPNIJARPN II sample/data, by year.
Documents submitted to the IWC SC and other scientific meetings of intergovernmental organi::ah"ons
In the period 1994-2009 a total of 185 documents were presented to annual and imersessionalmeetings of the IWC SC and other meetings,
with an annual average of 11.6 doctunents. In the IWC SC documents were presented mainly at the RMP (Revised Management
Procedure)_IA (In-depth assessment)_EM (Ecosystem Modeling) and(Spec Pe"mit!sub-collllllinees. "iuch deal mainly with
assessme nt and m.an..1gementof whales.
Peer reviewed publications
The munber of peer-reviewed papers made in theperiod 1994-2009 is 62. with an annual average of3.9 papers. Scientific contributions
have beenmade not only in the field of whale assessment and management but also iit the field of whale natural sciences.
Oral presentations at symposium
The number of oral presentations at scientific symposium ii1the period 1994-2009 is 136, with an ruumal average of8.5 presentations.
Scientific.contributihave been made noo~tyin the field of whale assessment md n1<magementbut also in the field of whale namral
sciet>ces. Titles and contents oftl te presentation. can be found in the an.nu."tp!rogress report oftlte Instimte of Cetacean Research (IC:R)
and Japan progress report on cetacean research presetheannual IWC SC meetings .
The list of IWC SC:and other meeting• doctunents and peer-reviewed papers derived from JARPN/JARPN II is showu in tlte Appendix L
by year. An asterisk indicates those papers publpee-rre'.e~dewm11D.1ls.
Other sci~ntci foitlibuti on
JARPNIJARPN •ample/data has been used in:
d) Undergraduate , master and doctoral tl>esis:
e) Chapters of books: 23
f) Bulletin of the ICR (Gdlam Tsushin) and Suisan Shigen Kanri Danwal24hou:
g) Other reports: 4
JARPNIJARPN II biological material such as whale skeletons have beeu provided to mutiicipallllllsenms.
Data acce-s'.iand aYailability
Allthe data and samples obtained by JARPN/JARPIIhave been available to the national and international scientific coUlllllmity
through established data access protocols Appendix 2 she data access protocol ofi CR. \\ilicb can also be fotmd at the I\:VCSC
web page .
15
147Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Table l · Scientific contribution of JARPN/JARPN IT
Year IWC SC doctunents Peer reviewed publications Oral presentations at
sympositWl
1994 1 0 0
1995 5 0 2
1996 7 3 5
1997 5 6 2
1998 3 4 3
1999 3 2. 3
2000 41 2 10
2001 6 I 11
2002 12 5 12
2003 7 4 22
2004 11 4 12
2005 13 6 12
2006 6 4 16
2007 7 11 10
2008 3 4 9
2009 55 6 7
Total 185 62 136
Appendix 1
List of scientific pape rs ba.od on da ta and samples coUected b)·.TARPN and JAR PN II (peer -r e,iewed papors and unpublished
document s submitted to the l'IVC/Scientific Committee). Asterisks indicate those pap ers published in peer t·.,iewedjo uruals.
[1994](1)
Hori. H.,Bessbo, Y.. Kawabata., Watan.1be, I.. Koga, and Pastene, !L.A.1994. World-wide populatioo strucmre of minke whales deduced from
mitochondrialDNAcontrolregionsequences.Paper SC/46/SH14pre;ented to the IWCScientificCommittee.May 1994 (unpublished). 1lpp.
[195](5)
Fujise.Y. 1995. Preliminaryanalysis ofhea •y metals and organochlorines:inminkewhales taken from the coastal Japan(sul>-area7) and of!Shore area
(sub-area) in the we"em North Pacific.PaperSC/471NP5 presentedto theIWCScientificComnrittee, May 1995 (unpublished).9pp
Fujise,.and Kato, H. 1995.Preliminaryreportof morphological differencesofminke whales betweencoastal Japan(sub-area7) andof!Shorearea (sub
area9) of westernNorthPacific. PaperSC/471NP6presentedto theIWCScientificCommiitee.•May 1995(unpubliShed).9pp.
Goto,M. and Pastene, L.A. 1995. Populations differentiation in the westernNorth Pacificm:inkewhale as revealedby RFLPanalysis of mitochondrialD
loopDNA Paper SC/47iNP4 presented tothe1\VCScientificCommittee,May 1995(mpublisbed). 15pp.
Wada, S. 1995. Comparisoo of allele frequencies between minke whale samples from Japanese coastal waters and pelagic waters (subarea 9). Paper
SC/471NP7presentedto theIWC ScielllificCommittee,May 1995(unpublished).4pp.
Fujise,Y., Kishiro,I ., Zenitarr,i R,Matsuoka, K, Kawasaki.M.and ShimanJoto, K 1995.Cruisereportof the JapaneseWhaleRese.1rchProgramundera
SpecialPermitforNorthPacificMinkeWhalesin 1994. PaperSC/471NP3presented to the.IWC ScientificComlllitte.e, May 1995(unpublished).29pp.
[1996](10)
Aono, S., Tanabe S., Fujise, Y. and Tatsukawa, R 1996. Spec;fic accumulation of persistent organochlorines in urinke whale (Ba/aenoprera
acuroroscraraa)nd theirprey species from the Antarctic and the North Pacific. PaperSC/481022 presented to the IWCScientificCommittee. J\Ule1996
(tmpublisbed). lQpp.
•Butterworth, D.., GeromontH.F.and WadaS. 1996.Futther analysisof allele frequency data to provide estimatesof the extent ofwixiug betweenthe
variousNorth Pacificnrinkewh;tlestocks.and their implicationsfor theothe"O"stock Rep.intWhal.Commn46:441-451.
Fujise, Y. 1996. Heavym.e.tlaconcentratinnminkewhales fromthe Pacific.coastof Japanandan offshorearea in the westernNorthPacific. Paper
SC/48/NP22presented to theIWCScientificCommittee.June 1996(unpublished). 7pp.
Fujise. Y. and Kato, H. 1996. Some MorphologicalAspects of the Western North Pacific Minke Whales: Pre.!imillaryAnalyses of Materials from the
JARPN StllVeys in 1994-5.Paper SC/48/NPll presentedto the1\VCScientificComntittee, June 1996 (unpublished). lOpp.
Fujise,Y.• Iwasaki, T.,Zenitani,R . Araki,J.,Matsuoka,umra,I .. Aono, S., Yoshida,T., Hidaka,H.. T.and Tohyama. D. 1996.Cruisereport
of theJapaneseWhaleResearchProgramunder a SpecialPermit forNorth Pacific minke whales in 1995wtheresults of a preliminaryanalysis of data
collected.Paper SC/48/NPI3presented to theIWCScientificCommittee,e1996(tmpublisbed). 39pp.
Iwasaki.T. 1996.Constimenst of theurinein theNorthPacific minkewhales withsome.noteson urinaryconcentrationsof sex steroidhormones_Paper
SC/48/NP14presentedtothe.IWCScientificCorulllittee,June 1996(unpublished). 9pp.
•Kur:unocbi, T.,acbid.1, M., J\taki, J., Uchida,A...Kishiro, T. andNagasawa, K 1996. Minkewhales (Balaenopteraacutorosrrata)are one ofthe major
finalhostsofAnisakissimplex(Nematoda:Anisakidae) in theNorthwestern Nortn Pacific Ocean.Rep.in/.. ommn46:415-419.
Miyasbita,T.andFujise,Y. 1996.Abundanceestimateof the westernNorth Pacific minkewhaleusingsightingdataof the JapaneseWhaleProgramunder
a Special Perotitsul>-area 9 and noteson theresult• of dedicatedsighting surveys. Paper SC/481NP7presented to the IWCScientific Conuninee. June
1996(unpublished).!Opp.
•Miyasbita, T.nd Fujise, Y. 1996. Abund."Ulceestilofthe western N<>rht Pacific minke whale ill sub-area9 with ntheresults of dedicated
StllVeys. Rep. Wl~n lommn47: 543-551.
16
148 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Wada. S. 1996. Results ofallozymeana.lysis on minke whale samples from JARPN in 1995. Paper SCI48tNP2 1presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,
June 1996 {unpublished).pp.
[197]{11)
Abe. H., Goto. M., Palsbell. P.J. and Pastene, LA . 1997. Prel.imin.1rymicrosatellite analyses of western North Pacific minke whales. Ba/aenoptl!l"a
acurorosrraraP.aper SC/49/NP12:presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. September 1997 (tmpublished). 11pp.
*Aono, S., Tanabe, S., Fujise,., Kato. H. and Tatsukawa, R. 1997. Persistent organochlorines in minke whale (Bala<mopacworostram) and their
prey species from the.Antarctic and theNorth Pacific. EnvironmentalPollution98: 81-89.
*Goto, M. and Pasrene, L.A. 1997. Population structure of western North Pacific minke whale based on an RFLP analysis of mtDNA control region. Rep.
tnt. Wha/.Commn47: 531-537.
Goto, M. and Pa.tene, L.A. 1997. RFLP analysis of the mitochondrial DNA control region in minke what.,. sampled during the 1996JARPN. Paper
SC/49/NPIOpresented to the IWC Scientific Committee, September 1997(unpublished). lOpp.
'Hatanaka, H. and Miyashita, L 1997. On the feeding migration of the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of minke wh:ues. estintates based on length
composition data. Rep. illf. IT. orn1147: 557-564.
'H.atanaka, H. 1997. A short review of hypothe on minke whale stock structure in the Northwestern part of the North Pacific. Rep. tnt. Whal. Conmm
47: 553-555.
•Pastene. L.A.. Goto,M.. ltoh,S., WadaS . and K.1to.H. 1997. Inand-Inter-Oceanic Patterns of Mitochondrial DNA Variation in the Bryde's Whale.
Ba/aenopteraedeni.Rep.int.Whal.Commn47: 569-574.
\Vada, S. 197. Results ofallozyme analysis on minke whale samples from JARPN in 1996. Paper SC.'49/NP14 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee.
September 1997 (unpublished). 2pp.
'Araki J., Kuramochi. T..Macbida, M.. Nagasawa, K ,and Uchida. A. 1997. A note on the parasite fttma of the western North Paciminke wh:lle
(Balaenopteraacworosrrata).Rep. tm. Whal. Commn47:565-567.
Fujise, Y., Shimada, H, Zenitani, R.. Goto, M., Tamura, T., Lindstrom, U., Uchida, A., Yoshida, H.• Shimawoto, K , Yuzu, S., Kasai, H., Kinoshita, T.,
Iwata. T.and Toyama. D. 1997. Cruise report theJapanese Whale Research Program undera Special Permit in the North Pacific (JARPN) in 1996 with
some p rehminary analyses of data collected during the 1994-1996 JARPN surveys, Paper SCf49/NP8 presented to the IWC Scientific Conmlittee,
September 1997 (•mpublished). 38pp.
Ishikawa, H., Yuzu, S., ShinJamoto,K. Baudo, T., Ohshima, K , Kasa~ H., Kinoshita, T., Mizushima, Y., lwakami, H., Nibe•, T., Hosoyama, T.,
Kuramochi, T., Numa.no, K. and Miyamoto, M. 1997. Cmise report of the Japane\VllaleResearch Progran1under a Special Pernli•t in the North Pacific
(JARPN) in 1997. Paper SC/49/NP9 presented to tl1eIWC Sciemific Committee, September 1997 (•mpublished). 28pp.
[1998](7)
Abe, H., Goto, M. and Pasrene, L.A. 1998. Further microsatellite analysis in the western North Pacific minke whales, Bal"acutorosrrata. Paper
SC/50/RMPS presented to the IWC Scientific C<munittee, April l998 (unpublished). IOpp.
Fujise,Y..Zenitani, R. and K.1to, H. 1998. An exanlination of the W-stock hypothesis for North Pacific minke whales. with special reference to some
biological parameters using data collected from JARPN Stuveys from 1994 to 1997. !Paper SC/501RMP12.presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee.
April 1998 (unpublished).14pp.
Goto, .!viand Pastene, L.A. 1998. Population stmcture in the North Pacific minke whale as revealed by RFLPand sequenc=~yses of the mtDNA
control reion Paper SC/501RMP7 presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee, Aprill 998 (•mpubhshed). ISpp.
'Lindstr0m, U.,FujiseY.. Haug, T.and Tannrra, I. 1998.Feeding habits of western North Pacific minke whales,Balaenopteraacutorostrata, as observed
in July-September 1996. Rep. tnt. Wha/.Commn48:463-469.
'Pastene, L.A., Goto, M. and Kishino, H. 1998. An estintate of mixing proportion of T and '0' stocks minke whales in sub-area 11 based on
mitochondrial DNA haplotype data. Rep.inL JT!hl.ommn48:471-474.
'Tanmra, T., Fujise, Y and Shimazaki, K 1998. Diet of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorosrratain the Northwestern part of the North Pacific in
summer 1994 and 1995. FisheriesSctence64(l): 71-76
*Uchida, A.. Kawakami, Y., Yuzu, S.. Kishikawa, S., Kuramochi, T.. Araki. J., Macltida. M. and Nagasawa. K 1998. Prevalence of parasites and
histopathologyof parasitisatiin minkewhales(Balaenopteraacutorosrrar)afromthe westemNorthPacific Ocean and SomhemSea of Okhotsk.Rep.
int. Whal.Conmm48: 475-479.
[1999](5)
Goto, M. and Pasrene, L.A. 1999_Genetic population srrucmin the western North Pacific minke whale examined by mtDNA control region sequencing
analysis. Paper SCI511RMP8presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee, May 1999 (unpublished). 12pp.
*Martinez, 1. and Pastene, L.A. 1999. R."J'D-typing of Cen!Ial and Eastern North Atlantic and Western North Pacific minke whales, Balaenoprera
acutorosrrar.aICESJ01mmlofMarineScience56:640-651.
~Le, T.H.L., Takahashi, S., Saeki, K . Nakatani. N., Tau.1be. S., Miyazaki, N. and Fujise.High1percentage of butyltin residt>esin total tin in the
livers of cetac= from Japanese coastal waters. Environmental Scie&cTec/molo!'J3'3(11): 1781-1786.
Paste:n,L.A. ~ ota, M.and F~is y_e1999. Reviewof thesntdieson stock ide.nttiy in theminkewhaleBalaenopwro aoaorostratafromtheNorthPacific.
Paper SC.'51/RMP15presented to the IWC Scientiftc Conunittee. May 1999{unpublished). 28pp.
Zenitani, R.• FujisY., Matsuoka, K , Tamura, T., Banda. T.. lchih.1Sh,i H.. Shimol<awa, T., Krasnenko. AS ., Taguchi F., Kinoshita, T.. Mori, M.,
Watanabe, M., lchinamiya. D., Nakamura, M.. Sakai, K , M.1tsuzaka.Kamei ,H. and Tohy:um, D. 1999. Cmise report of the JapameseWhale Research
Progran1under a Special Penuit in the North Pacific in 1998. Paper SCI51/R.MP7presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1999 (unpublished).
lOpp
[2000](43)
Milani,Y.. Banda, T., Takai, N. and Sakamoto, W. 2000. Diet records and stock stmcture of minke whales Balaenoptl!l"aaalfomstrata around Japan
examined by dl3 C and d15 N analyses. Paper SCIF2KIJ20 presented to theWorl:shop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special
Pertuit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), February 2000 (unpublished). 12pp.
Tanmra, T. and Fujise, Y. 2000. Geographical and seasonal changes of prey species in the westem North Pacific minke whale·.Paper SC.'F2K/J22
presentedto the Work.shopto Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Spec.ial Pernlit North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), Fe.bruary
2000 (unpublished). 26pp.
Tamtlfa,T. and Fujise, Y. 2000. Diurnal change illfeeding activity in the western North Pacific minke whale. Paper SCIF2KIJ23 presented to the.
Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progranm1e tmder Special Pernlit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), febmary 2000
(unpublished). 16pp.
17
149Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Ageucla item 10.2
Tamura..T. and F1~i,s Y .2000. Daily and seasonal food CO!lSWllptionby the western North Pacific minke whale. Paper SCtF2KIJ24 presented to the
Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Rese.arch Programme under Spec ial Pem:lit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), February 2000
(lillpublished). !Spp.
Tamur,aT. and Fujise, Y. 2000. Briefreviewof thestudiesof feedingecology in the minkewhaleBalaenopteraacutorosrrarafromthewesternNorth
Pacific prior to JARPN surveys. Paper SC/F2KIJ31 presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanes e Whale Research Programme IU1derSpecial Permit
for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN). February 2000 (lillpublished). 6pp.
Tamura, T..Ohsun:li, S. and FujisY. 2000. Some e.xami.natious on body fatness of the western North Pacific minke whales. Paper SCIF2K/J25 presented
to the W01kshop to Review the Japanese. Whale Research Progranune under Special Pem:lit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN). February 2000
(lillpublished). 20pp.
Tanmra. T. and Obsumi, S. 2000. Regional assessments of prey consumption by marine cetaceans in the world. Paper SC/ S21E6 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee . June 2000 (unpublished) . 42pp.
Abe, H., Goto , M. and Pastene, L.A 2000. Population suucture in the western North Pacific minke whale inferred from n:licrosatellite analysis. Paper
SC/F2K/JJO presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Pemlit for North Pacific !vlink.e Whales
(JARPN), Febmary 2000 (unpublisbed). 14pp.
Fujise,Y.,Hakamada. T., Aoki. M., N"tin:,liS.. Nakata. H.. HondaK. and Tanabe. S. 2000. An attempt to identify stocks in the western North Pacific
n:linkehale (Balaenopleraacutorosirata) using the accumu lation levels of heavy metals and organochlorines as ecological ffilcers. Paper SCIF2K/J18
presentd to ·the Workshop to Revie w the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Perntit for North Pacific Min:keWhales (JARPN). Febn rary
2000 (unpublished). !Spp.
Goto, M. and Pastene, L.A. 2000. Pop1~at sroc.turein the western North Pacific ntinke whale based on RFLP and sequencing analyses of mtDNA
control region, using data from the 1994-1999 JARPN surveys. Paper SGF2KIJ11 presenred tothe Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research
Progranune under Special Permit for North Pacific Minke:Whales (JARPN), Fel>nrary2000 (1mpublished). 15pp. +Appendix 1pp.
Goto, M., Abe. H. and Pastene, L.A. 2000. Estimation of the mixing proportion of 'J'and ·o• stocks in sul>-are11using ur:l-i and bi-parental genetic
markers. Paper SCtF2K!J27 presented to the Workshop to Review theJapanese Whale Research Progranune under Special Perutit for North Paciftc Minke
Whales (JARPN) , February 2000 (unpublished) . IOpp. +Appendix Spp.
Goto, M.• Abe, H. and Pastene. LA 2000. Additional analyses of mtDNA contro l region sequences in the western North Pacific. ntinke whales using
JARPN samples. Paper SCIF2K/J32 presented to the Workshop to Review tile Japanese Whale Research Progranune under Special Permit for North
PacificMinke Wl>ales(JARPN), Febru:u y 2000 (unpublished) . Spp.
Goto, M .Kim, Z.G., Abe, H. and Pastene, L.A. 2000. A note on the possibility of identifying indi\oidual J stock anin>als from a mixed assemblage based
on n:litochondrial DNA analysis. Paper SCIF2K!J28 preseured to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progra!llme lillder Specia l Permit
for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN) ,Febn~a ry00 (unpublished )9pp.
Goto, M. and Pastene, L.A. 2000. Re-estin>ation of the mixing proportion of theTand'O 'stocks using alternative stralification. Paper SCI5:2/RMP6
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee . J1me2000 (tmpublished). 9pp.
Goto,M. and Pa.-;renLA. 2000. A note on additional mtDNA analysis on western North Pacific minke whale using JARPN samples. Paper SCI52/RMP7
presentedto the IWC Scientific Committee. June 2000 (unpub lished). 12pp.
Hakan1ada, T. and Fujise.Y. 2000. Prelur:linaryexamination of the heterogeneity of e>.1ernal!lleasuremeurs of minke whales in the western part of the
North Pacific. using data collected during 1994-1999 JARPN surveys. Paper SCIF2K/JIS presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale
Research Progranmte mder Special Pem:litfor North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), February 2000 (unpublished) . 12pp.
Hakamada. T. and Fujise,Y. 2000. Further exanlination of morphological heterogeneity in North Pacific ntinke whales collected during the JARPN
surveys. Paper SC/52.1R.MPI6 presenteto the IWCScieutific Conllllittee, June 2000 (unpublished). 5pp.
Hatanaka, H. 2000. Compreltensive sumnrary on W stock hypothesis of nliuke whale through JARPN progrant Paper SC/F2K/J2 I presented to the
Workshop to Re•i ew the Japanese Whale Research Prograrnme mtder Spec ial Pem:lit for North Pacific Minke Wh.•les (JARPN), Febru.uy 2000
(unpublished). Spp
Kur:unochi,T., Ar:lldJ.,Uchida , A., Moriya!IIJ, N., TakeY.,,Hayashi, N.. Wakao. H., Machida,M. and Nagasawa . K 2000. Summary of parasite and
epizoitinvestigationsduring JARPN surveys 1994-1999. with reference to stock structure analysis for the western North Pacific minke whales . Paper
SCIF2K/JI9 presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progranuue under Special Pem:lit for North Pacific !vlink.e Whales
(JARPN). February 2000 (unpublished ). 22pp.
Martien,K.K. and Taylor, B.L. 2000. The lin:litations of hypothe sis testing as a means of demographicall y delineating independent m:lits. Paper SCJF?_KfJ3
presented to ·the Workshop to Review the Japanese.Whale Research Programme lutder Spec.ial Perntit for North Pacific Min:ke Whales (JARPN), Febntary
2000 (1mpublished). 32pp.
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada .T.. Fujise. Yand Miyashita ,r 2000. Distribution pattern of minke whales baseon sighting data during the JARPN 1994-1999.
Paper SC/f?_]{/JI6 presened to the Wotkshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progranune llllder Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales
(JARPN), Febnrary 2000 (unpublished). 17pp.
Nakata. H., Tanabe., S Niimi. S., Minh. T.B.. Sakakibara , A. Fujita. K and FujY.e2000. Population suucttrre in minke whale from the North Pacific.
e.xanlined by the persistent orgar:licpollutants as chemicaJ ffilcers. P2K/ J17 presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research
Progranuue under Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales (Ji\RPN) . February 2000 (1mpublisbe9pp.
Okamura, H., Zenitar:li, R.. HiranL1K. and Kato, H. 2000. Some analyses on the possibihty of the existenc e ofW-slock minke whale in sub-9rusing
the informatin on conception dates . Paper SCIF2K/J I4 presenteto the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special
Permit for North Pacific Minke Wha les (JARPN), Febru.uy 2000 (lillpublishe9pp.
Okamura, H. and Goto, M_2000. The statistical power of the. hypothesis testing for the elucidation of genetic population. stmcture in the North Pacific
minke whales using allele freqllffiCY data. Paper SCIF2K!J3 0 presentetothe Wotkshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progranm1e under
Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN) . February 2000 (unpublished). 7pp.
Pastene, L.A,Goto, M. and Fujise,Y. 2000. Re.view ofthest udies on stock identity in the ntinke Ba/aenopt•raaattorostrata from the North Pacific.
Paper SC!F2XIJI presented to the "Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Prograntme under Special Pertuit for North Pacific Minke \\~tales
(JARPN). Febnrary 2000 (unpublished ). 22pp. + Appendix 4pp.
Punt, A.E., Butterworth, D.S. and WadaS. 2000. On the use of allele frequency data within a Baye;i..anfr;uuework to evaluate the relative probal>ilities of
alternati'-e stock stmcnue hypotheses for the North Pacific minke whales. Paper SCIF2K!J2 presented to the Workshop to Review the Japanese Whale
Research Progranmte.under Special Pem:litfor North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN). Febru.uy 2000 (1mpublished). 12pp.
*Punt, A.E., Butterworth. D.S. and Wada, S. 2000. Othe use.of allele frequency dawithina Bayesian framework: evaluation of relative probal>ilities of
alternative stock stmcnue hypotheses for North Pacific minke whalJ CeracoonRes.Manage. 2(2): I S!-158.
Taylor, B.L.. Chivers. S.J. and Dizon. A.E. 2000. Estimating the statistica l power to detect population subdivision using mitochondria l DNA. Paper
SCIF2K!J4 presented to the Wotkshop to Review the Japanese Whale Research Progranlllie 1utder Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales
(JARPN), Febnc-uy 2000 (unpublished). 13pp.
18
150 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Age11daitem 10.2
Taylor, B.L. and Chivers, S.J. 2000. Evaluatingthe perfonnance of different statistics to detect populationsubdivision. PaperSC/f2KIJ5 presented to the
Workshop to Re,iew the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit for North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), February 2000
(unpublished). lOpp.
Taylor, B.L 2000.Geneticpopulation structure in the westernNorthPacific minkewhale: an analysis of mtDNAdata. Paper SOF2K/J6 preseutedto the
Workshop to Review the Japanese 'Whale Research Programme under Special Peru:titfor North Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), February 2000
(unpublished). 4pp.
Taylor,B.L. and Chivers.S.J. 2000.An example ofthe calculationof tl>estatisticalpower to detectpopulationsub-division in)lorth Pacific n:tinkewhales.
Paper SC/F2K!J7presented to the Workshopto Review the JapaneseWhale ResearchProgranune under SpecialPermit for North PacificMinke Whales
(JARPN), Febmary2000 (unpublished).12pp.
Taylor, LB. 2000. Relating stock depletion to dispersal: The western North Pacific minke whale example. Paper SC/52/SDlO presented to the IWC
ScientificCoouuittee,June2000 (uopublished)Spp.
\Vada.5. 1000. Stockstmcntre of thewesternNorth Pacificn:tinkewhalesbased on the allozymeanalyses.Paper SCIF2K/Jl2 presentedto the Workshop
to ReviewtheJapaneseWhaleResearchProgrammeunder Special PermitforNotth PacificMinkeWhales (JARPN).Febmary 2000 (Wlpublished). 4pp.
Zenitat:ti,R., Kato, H and Fujise, Y. 2000. Some analyses on biological parantetersof westernNorth Pacific n:tinkewhales. from a view point of stock
identification.Paper SCIF2K/Jl3 presented to theWorkshopto Review the JapaneseWhale Research Programmeunder SpecialPern:titfor North Pacific
lvlinkWhales(JARPN),Febmary 2000(unpublished). 18pp.
Fujise,Y. 2000. Outlineof theresearch activitiesof theJapanese WhaleResearchProgramunder SpecialPermit in the North Pacific (JARPN) from 1994
to 1999. PapecSOF2K!J8 presentedto the Workshop to Reviewthe Japanese\\'bale Research Programmeunder SpecialPermit forNorth PacificMinke
Whales (JARPN).February2000 (uopublished}.30pp.
Fujise, Y., Zenitani, R., Tamura, T., Bando, T., Ohtani, S., Takeda,S., Kitajin1a, A., Kimura, T., Masaki, I . andTohyarua, D. 2000. Cmise Report ofthe
Japanese Whale ResearchProgramunder Special Pern:ttiin theNorth Pacific(JARPN)in 1999.Paper SC/F2K!J9presentedto theWorkshopto Review the
Japanese Whale.ResearchPrograrumenuder SpecialPermitforNorthPacificMinke \\'bales (JARPN),Febmary 2000(uopublished).32pp.
Goto, M. and Pasteue. L.A. 2000. Results of molecular genetic analyses of whale products collected from the Japanese retail markets in 1996 and
1999/2000surveys.PaperSC/521SD7preseutedto the IWCScientificConuuittee,June 2000(unpublished).21pp.+ Appeudix llpp .
Nishiwaki. S. 2000. Perfonn:mceof biopsy skin santpling for minkewhales during the JARPN and JARPAstuveys using ICR airgun.Paper SC/52/05
presentedto theIWCScieutificCoonninee.June 2000 (uopublished).8pp.
Okamura. H., Matsuoka.K., Hakaruada, T., Okaz.1ki,M. and MiyashitaT. 2000. The GAM-based analyses on thedensity index of minkewhales in the.
J.'\.RPNsurvey. PaperSC/521RMP3presentedto theIWCScientificComn:tniee. Jtme2000(tmpublished). 1Opp.
Ohsnn:ti,S., Hatanaka.H. and Fujise, Y. 2000. Reviewon the objectives of JapaneseWhaleResearchProgramunder Special Permit in thenorth-western
NorthPacific (JARPN).PaperSCJF2K/J29preseutedto the Workshopto Reviewthe JapaneseWhale ResearchProgrammeunderSpecial Pernlit for North
PacificMinke \\'bales(JARPN).Febmary2000 (uopublished).7pp.
"Uchida, A. andAraki,J. 2000.The ectoparasites andendoparasitesin the minke"''hael, Balaenopwraacutorosn·atafromthe westeruNorthPacific Ocean.
J Jpn. Vet.MildA<soc. 53(2): 85-88 (in Japanese).
Watanabe. L Matsuoka, K., Tamura.I . and FuJiseY. 2000. Oceanographicconditions of the westernsubarctic gyre region based on oceanographicdata
during theJARPN 1994-1999.Paper SC/f':'.JI. 6 presented to theWorkshopto Reviewthe.JapaneseWh:tleResearchProgrammeunderSpecialPermitfor
North PacificMinkeWhales (1.'\.RPN).Febmary 2000(unpublished). 18pp.
Zenitani, R., FujisY..Okanmra, H. and Kato.H. 2000.Furtherexan:tinationof thedisnibntion of westernNorthPacific n:tinkewhales applying alogistic
regressionanalysis for reproductivedata collected by the JARPN stuveys. Paper SC/521RMP17 presented to the IWC Scientific Comn:titte,eJune 2000
(unpublished). 8pp.
(2001](7)
Cui, G.. Punt, A.E., Pastene. L.A.and Goto,M. 2001. A bayesianapproachto addressingstostmcn~ qrestionsusing mtDNA data, with anillustrative
application to theNorth Pacificminke whales. PaperSC/53/RMPl presentedto theIWCScientificComn:tittee,July 2001(unpublished). 19pp.
Fujise,Y.,Zenitani, R. and Goto. M.2001.Utilityof non-genetic infonuation for stock identification· The caseof thewesternNorthPacificminkewhale- .
Paper SC/53/SDSpresentedto theI\VCScientificCommittee,July2001 (unpublished).9pp.
Goto, M., Kanda. N. and Pasteue. LA 2001. Genetic e.'<all:tinatioonf western North Pacific n:tinkewhales including samples from JARPN 11. Papec
SC/53/RMPII presentedto theIWC ScieutificComn:tittee.July2001 (uopublished).II pp.
Goto, M., Kim, Z.G. and Pastene, LA. 2001. Genetic analysis of additionalsamples from the T stock and implicationsfor the estimationof n:tixing
proportionof 'J'and '0 'stocks insub-area II. Paper SC/531RMP12preseutedto theI\VCScientificConunittee,July 2001(unpoblished). 12pp.
Pastene, L.A., Goto. M. and Kanda,N. 2001.Commentson the estimationsof the 1 and 0 stocks mixingproportionand level of by-catches of common
n:tinkewhale. using mitochondrial DNA data from the retail marketsurveys. PaSC/53/R.~B presenredto the IWC Scieutific Comn:tittee.July 2001
(unpublished). !3pp.+R evised version(Table3).
Fujise,Y.•Pastene, LA .,Tanmra, T.. Bando, T.. Murase. H.,Kawahara,S.. Watanabe, H..Ohiztmli. H., Mogoe, T..Kiwada.H..Nemoto,K. and Narita. H.
200 1. Progress report of the feasibility sntdy of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the western North Pacific -Phase 11
(J.'\.RPNII) in 2000.Paper SC/53/0 10 presentedto theIWC ScientificConuuitlee,July 2001(uopublished). 77pp.
'Okamura, H..Matsuoka, K., Hal,amada,T., Okazaki,M. andMiyashita, T. 2001. Spatial antemporalstmctureof thewesternNorthPacificminkewh:lle
distribution inferredfromJARPNsightingsdata.J.CetacronRes.Manage.3(2): 193-200.
(2002](17)
'Ohsmni, S. and Tamura, T. 2002. Dietary studies on baleen whales in the North Pacific. Fisheries Science 68 (Supp.I): 260-263. (Proceedings of
InternationalCommeu10rativeSympositml 70thAnniversaryof the JapaneseSocietyof fisheries Scieuce).
"Tamura T. and Fujise Y. 2002. Geographical and seasonal changeof the prey speciesof minke whale in the NorthwesternPacificICES Joumal of
MarineScience59(3): 516-528.
•Abe, H. and Goto,M. 2002. The Applicationof MicrosatelliteDNA for Deteru:tiningPopulation Stmcture of Minke Whale.pp. 109-113. Jn:Nishintura,
A. ed. Technical ReportsoftheHokkaidoNmional FisheriesResearchlnstimte No.5. pp.l 13.HokkaidoNationalFisheriesresearchin•titme,Hokkaido.
Cui, G., Punt,A., Pastene.LA . and Goto.M. 2002. Bayesand EmpiricalBayesApproaches to AddressingStock StmctureQuestions using mtDNA data,
with au Illustrative Applicationto the Northific Minke Whales. Paper SC/JQ?.JNP4presented to the IWC/SC North Pacific n:tinkewhale RMP!lST
meeting,January2002 (unpublished). 13pp.+Appendix lpp.
•cui. G., Punt,A.E.. Pastene, L. A., and Goto.M.2002. Bayes andEmpiricalBayesapproachestoaddressingstockstructurequestionsusingmtDNAdata,
with anillustrativeapplicationto Northcific n:tinkewhales.J CetaceanRes.Manage.4(2): 123-134.
19
151Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Goto, M. andPastene, L.A. 2002. Re-estimation•themixing proportionof 0 and J Stocks in sub-areas 2and17 followingthe guidelines offeredin
Appendix 15 of Annex D (RMP Sub-Comntittee Report). Paper SC/J021NP9 presented to the IWCISC North Pacific minke whale RMPIIST meeting,
January2002 (tmpublclled).3pp.
Goto,M.,K.mda, N. and Pastene, L.A. 2002.Further mtDNAanalysison North Pacificntinkewhalesincluding JARPNandJARPN II samplesfrom 1994
to 2001.aper SCIJ021NP10 presentedto theIWCISCNorth Pacificminkewhale RMPIISTmeeting, January2002 (tmpublished). 9pp.
Goto. M., K.mda, N. and Pastene, L.A. 2002. An additional genetic analysis to investigate the plausibilityof different stock scenarios in North Pacific
minke whaleIST.PaperSC/54/RMP 15presentedto the IWCScientificConuuittee.. May 2002(unpublished).8pp.
Kanda, N.. Goto, M. andPastene. LA. 2002.Further microsatellite.analysison NorthPacific ntinkewhalesincludingJARPNandJARPN IIsamples from
1994to 2001.PaperSC/J021NP11presentedto theIWCISCNorthPacificminkewhale R.~IIS mTeeting,Jantk"Y2002(unpublimed).4pp.
Kanda,N.. Goto, M. andPastene, L.A. 2002. Considerationson stock structureof minke whales in western North Pacific. Paper SC/54/SD3 presented to
theIWC ScientificCommittee,May2002(unpublished). 3pp.
Pastene.L.A. Goto, M. and Kanda,N. 2002.Proposal on anupdate to thedefuultson stockstructure in section3 of Appendix 15of Ann"'xD (RMP Snb
ComntitteeRepon ). PaperSC/J021NP7presentedto theIWCISCNorthPacificminkewhaleRMPIISTmeeting,Janu.1ry2002 (wpublished).2pp.
Pastene,L.A. Goto. M.andKand.1, N.2002. Scientificbackgroundsupporting the stock scenariosproposedin SC/J02/NP7. Paper SC/J02 /NP8 presented
to theI\VCISC NorthPacificminkewhaleRMPIISTmee.ting,January2002 (unpublished).2pp
*Pastene. L.A., Goto. M. and Kanda, N. 2002. Tite utility of DNA ar.uysis for the managenJentand conservation of large whales. FisheriesScience
68(Supp.l):286-289.(Proceedingsof InternationalCommemorativeS)1uposium 70thAmtiversaryof theJapaneseSocietyof FisheriesScience).
Fujise,., Tamura.T., Bando, T., Watanabe, H.. Kiwada,HOtani,S..Kanda,N.. Yasunaga, G., Mogoe, T., Konishi.lnamori,M. Shigemune, H. and
Tohyama, D. 2002. Cruise report of the Feasibility Snldy of the Japanese Whale Research program under Special Perntit in the western North Pacific
PhaseU (JARPN II)in2001. Paper SC/541016 presentedto theIWC Scientific Comnli.ttee,J\llay2002(unpublished). 5lpp.
Government of Japan (Edited by Fujise. Y._Kawahara, S., Pastene, L.A. and Hatanaka, H.). 2002. Report of 2000 and 2001 f=ibility study of the
Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Perntit in the western Nonh Pacific-Phase II (JARII)Paper SC/54/017 presented to the IWC
ScientificComntinee,May2002 (unpublished).202pp.
Miyashira. T., Matsuoka, K., Nishiwaki, S. and HakanJada, T. 2002. Informationon track line and sightings of common minke whales during the recent
JARPN/JARPNU.Paper SC/54/RMPll presentedto theI\VCScientific Comntittee,May 2002(unpublclled).4pp.
Zenitaui.R.. Fujise. Y., Kawahasa.S. and Kato, H. 1002. Exantination of the distributionand reproductive stanlSof westernNonh Pacificntinke whales
collected in 5111>-area7s. 8 and 9 durmg JARPN and JARPN II from 1994 to 2001. Paper SC/J02tNP12 presented to the IWC/SC Nonh Pacific minke
whale RMPIISTmeeting,January2002 (unpublished).9pp.
12003)(ll )
*Ohishi.K., Zertitaui, R., Bando, T., Goto, Y.. Uchida. K , ManT.,Yamamoto, S., Miyazaki, N. andFujise, Y. 2003. Pathologicaland serological
evidence of Brucella-infection in baleen whales (Mysticeti) in the western North Pacific. ComparativeImnnmo/ogy Mic&oInfectious Diseases
26: 125-136.
Olicmmra.H.. Goto. M., Kitakado.T., Kanda. N. and Pastene. L.A. 2003. Investigationof the plausibility of western North Pacific minke whale lSI's
baseline stock scenario D based on mixing restin~ fromemstDNA data. Paper SC/551IST3presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee,May 2003
(unpublished).4pp.
Pastene, L.A. 2003On the different criteria used by the IWC/Scientific Comntittee for defining stocks in bowhead and western North Pacific minke
whales.PaperSCI55/RMP9presentedto theIWC ScientificComntittee. May2003 (unpublished).7pp.
Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kand.1, N., Zestitaui, R.andKato, H. 2003. Additional genetic analyseson theplausibility of thebaselinestock scenariosadopted
forNorth Pacific minkewhale ISTs.PaperSC/55/IST2presentedto theIWC ScientificConuuittee.May2003 (unpublished).13pp.
fujise, Y., Tamura, T., Bando, T., Y3.SUIa., Konishi. K , Murase, H., Yoshid.1, T., Ito, S., Ogawa, R., Oka, T., Sasaki, T., Fulmtome, K., !soda. T.,
Bimkawa, N., Horii, N., Zharikov,K.A., Park, K.J., Tohyan1a, D. and Kawahara, 5.2003. Cntise Report of theJapaneseWhale Research Program under
SpecialPerntitn the westernNorthPaci.fic-Pl:k= (JARPN II)in 2002(part I)OffShorecomponent-. PaperSC/55/07 presentedto the l\VC Scientific
Comntittee,May2003(tmpublished).4l pp.
Goto. M.,Benlbe, M.,Kanda.N.. Ishikawa,H., Nishiwaki,S. andPasrene,L.A 2003. Phylogenetic analysisof fin whalemrDNAcontrolregionsequences
worl -di~ Paper SC/55/SD6 presentedto the IWCScientificConuuittee.May2003 (unpublclled). 8pp.
*Hayashi, K.. Nishida. S., Yoshida, H.,Goto. M.. Pastene.L.A. andKoike,H. 1003. Sequencevariation of the DQBallele in thecetaceanMHC. Mammal
Study 28: 89-96.
Kishiro.T."Kato, H., Ohizumi. H., Yoshida,H.. Saito, T., !soda. T., Tabata, S., Sakakibaras..Hara,T.,Hayashi, T., Miyamita, T., Ftome,
K., Kiwada,H. andKawahara.S.2003. Reportof the 2002 JARPNIIsuiVeyin the westernNorthPaci.fic. Part II:Coastal component- Coastal Survey off
Kushiro,north=t Japan. PaperSC/55/08 presented to theI\VCScientific Comntittee.May2003 (tmpublclled). 26pp.
Nikaido,M., Goto,M.,Kanda,N., Pastene, L.A. andOkada, N. 2003.A new SDIEprocedurefor speciesidentificationofbaleenwhales. PaperSC/551SD7
presentedto theIWCScientificComntittee,May 2003(unpublished).6pp.
'Nishida, S., Pastene,L.A., Goto,M. andKanda,N.2003SRr genestructureandphylogenyin thecetacean spec.ies.Mammal Sntdy2 8:57-66.
*Nishida, S.. Hayashi, K.. Pastene, L.A., Goto..anda.N. and Koike. H. 2003. Polymorphicanalysis of cetacean MHC- A case smdy on the ntinke
whales-. MammalianScience3: 75-78.(in Japanese).
1200 (~5))
Kawahara, S.. Kishiro. T.. Tamura, T.,Murase, H..Kiwada,H. andNi•hiwalci.S 2004. Prelintinaryestink11ionof preyselectionof minkewh.uesbased on
JARPNII coastal survey off the southeasternHokkaido in September-October2002. Paper SC/56/018 presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee. JtUJe
2004(unpublished). 16pp.
Kawahara, S.and Hosho,T.2004. ln1provementand test runs Multspec-typeecosystemmodel for the western North Pacific. Paper SC/56/024 presented
totheIWC ScientificConunittee.Jtme2004(unpublished). Spp.
Tamura. T.. Konishi, K. and Fujise, Y.2004. Prelintinary analysesof preyconsumption of thsee baleen whalesand their interactionwith theheries in
western North Pacific.PaperSC/56/015 presentedto the IWCScientificConuuittee,June2004 (tmpublclled). 13pp.
Tamura, T., Konishi,K , Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K., Murase, H., Miyasltita. T.. Kishiro, T., Ohizumi, H., Kato, H.. Kawahara, S. and Fujise, Y. 2004.
Preliminary analyses of interaction between common minke whales and fisheries off Kushiro region. Paper SC/5610 16 presented to the IWC Scientific
Comnlittee,June 2004(unpublished)16pp.
Tamura, T., Konishi, K..Miyashita,T., Yoshida. H.,K.1to,H. and Kawahara,S. 2004. Prelintinaryanalysesof interactionbetweencommon ntinkewh.1les
and sandlance fisheries off Sansilmregion.Paper SC/56/0 17presentedto theIWC ScientificConuuinee, June 2004 (tmpub9pp.ed).
20
152 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item I0.2
*Zharikov, K., fujise , Y., Tanmra. T., Kiwada, H., SandT.,Konishi , K. an!soda, T. 2004. Distribtttion and feeding oflarge cetaceans basedthedata
of JARPN II - 2003 May, 17-July, 9.MarineMmnmalsoftheHolarctic 2004: 207-210.
'Kim, E.Y.. Iwata. H. fujise. Y. and Tanabe. S. 2004. Searching for nove.!CYP members using eDNA library from a minke whale liver. Mar.Errviron.
Res. 58: 495-498 .
*Ohi.shi.K., Taki.hitaK . Kawato, M., Zenitani, R., Sando , T., fujise , Y., Goto, Y.. YamamotS.and Mamyama, T. 2004. Molecular evidence of new
variantBmcel/a in North Pacific common minke whales. MicrobesandInfection 6: 1199-1204.
*Ohi.shi. K., Taki.hita. K., Kawato, M., Maruyama. T., Zenitani, R., BandL, fujise , Y., Goto, Y. and Yamamoto , S. 2004. Molecular Ch.11acterization
of Bn1cel/a from North Pacific common minke whale.. Oceans'04: 499-504. (Proceedings of Jutemationa l Conference "Oceans'04 MIS/lEE Tecbuo
Oceans'04").
Goto, M.. Kanda. N. and Pastene. LA. 2004. Analysis of mtDNA sequences in B!)'de's whales from the cenlral western North Pacificand Baja California
Peninsula. Paper SCI56/Pfl5 presented to the JWC Scientific Committee, June 2004 (llllpublished). 9pp.
Pastene. LA , Goto, M. and Kanda. N. 2004. An update of the mitochondrial DNA and rnicrosatelli te analyses in western Nonh Pacific B!)'de's whale.
Paper SC/56/Pfl 4 presented to the l\VC Scie!UificCommittee, JUlie2004 (unpublished ). 9pp.
Hakamada, T.• Matsuoka , K. and Nishiwaki , S. 2004. Jucreasing trend and abUlldauce estinJate ofsei whales in the western North Pacific . Paper
SC/561019 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, Jtme 2004 (tmpublished) . 9pp.
Shimada. H. 2004. Ablllldauce estinJate of the western N011hPacific stock of B!)'de s whale using sighting data from 1998 to 2002. Paper SC/56/PFI6
presented tothe IWC Scientific Committee, June 2004 (w1published). 8pp.
Tarmua, T., Fujise., Y., Baudo, T., Yastmaga, G., Konishi, K., Ki"'-ada, H.•!soda, T., Itoh, S., Machida, S., TsUllekawa, M., Konagai, T., Takamatsu. T.,
Ohshima. T., Honjo , K., Matsuoka, L Zharikov. K.A.. Au. Y.R.. Tohyama, D. and Kawahara, S. 2004. Cmise Rep011of the Japanese Whale Research
Program Ullder Special Perutit in the western North Pacific - Phase II (JAII)in 2003 (partI) -Offshore component - Paper SC/5610 13 presented to
the IWC Scientific Committee, Jtme 2004 (tmpul>lished). 47pp.
Yoshida. H., Kato, H., KisbiroL Iwasaki, L Miyashita,L Ryono, T..Tabata , S., Sakalooara. M.. Saino. S.. HLra.Hayashi, T., Tornizawa.Y, Tau1ai.
K.. Okamoto. R.,Ful.:uoka, M., Watanabe H.. T>unekawa. M. and Kawahara. S. 2004. Repot1 of the coastaSllfve)on common minke whales off Sanru:u
coast. northeast Japan: the Japanese Whale Research under Special Permit in the western North Pacific - Phase II (JARPNII)in 2003 (partII)-Coasta l
COlllpOnetn. Paper SC/561014 presented to thI\VC Scientific Conunirtee . Jtme 2004 (tmpublished). 3lpp .
12005](19)
Taruura, T., Kubodera L Ohizumi, H., Konishi. K ,!soda, T. and Fujise, Y. 2005. Food habits of sperm whales based on JARPN II (2000-03). Paper PE3
presented tothe Cachalot Assessment Research Platrning (CARP) Workshop. March 2005 (llllpublished). lOpp.
*Niimi, S., Watanabe, MX , Kin1.E.Y.. Iwata, H.. Yastmaga. G., Fujise, Y. and Tanabe, S.2005. Molecular cloning and mRNA expression of cytochrome
P4501Al and IA2 in the liver of common minke whales (Balaenopreraacmorostrara.)MarinePollutionBulletin 51(2005) : 784-793.
*Obishi. K., Takishita, K., Kawato, M., Zenitani, R., Bamdo. T., Fujise, Y., GY.o,Yamamoto, S. and Maruyama, T. 2005. Chimeric structure of omp2
of Bntcel/afrom North Pacific common minke whales (Ba/aenopteraacurorosirata).Microbtol.Immunol. 49(8): 789-793.
*K.111d,aN., Goto, M. and Pasteoe, L A. 2005. Genetic Characteristics of Western North Pacific Sei Whales, Ba/aenoprera borealis, as Revealed by
MicrosatellitesMarineBiotechnology 8: 86-93.
Kitakado, L Kanda, N. and Pasteoe, L.A. 2005a. A prospective evalnation of statistiCalpower for population indentification Ullder Island models. Paper
SCIMOS/BR3 present ed to the l!Uersessional Work•hop fo r North Pacific B!)'de's Whales, March 2005 (tmpublished). 14pp.
Kitakado. L Kanda. N. and Pastene. L.A. 2005b. A retrospective evaluation of statistical power for population identification in western Not1h Pacific
B!)'de'swhales. Paper SCIM05/BR4 presented to the Jutersessional Workshop For North Pacific B!)'de's Whales. March 2005 (tmpublished). Spp.
Kitakado, T.• Kanda. N. and Pastene,L.A. 2005c. Preliminary bayesian analyses for population identification using mtDNA data in western North Pacific
B!)'de'swhales. Paper SCIMOS/BRSpresented tothe Jutersessional Workshop For North Pacific B!)'de's Whales, March 2005 (tmpublished). Spp.
Pastene. L.!\ 2005. Relationship between B!)'de's whales to be surveyed and harvested in the western North Pacific and those in Southern Hemisphere
stock Paper SCIM05/BR6 presented to the lntersessional Workshop For North Pacific B!)'de's Whales, March 2005 (unpublished ). 2pp.
Pastene, LA 2005. Conmtents on the hypotheses 011 stock stmcture presented at thpre-illlpleml'Jltatioanssessmenof western North Pacific B!)'de's
whale. Paper SC/005/BWI3 presented to the f irst lntersessional Workshop of Western North Pacific Bryde's Whale. lulplementatioa October 2005
(unpublished). 12pp.
Bando, T . Hakarnada, T. and Ohsurni. S. 2005. Estimation of pregnancy rate of the western North Pacific B!)'de's whale. Paper SCI005/BWI5 presented
tothe Firstl!Uersessional Workshop for Western North Pacific Bryde·s Whale lu1plementation, October 2005 (llllpublished). 5pp.
Bando, T., Kisbiro,L Ohswni, S.. Zenitani. R. and Kato, H. 2005. Estinlation of some biological parameters of western North Pacific B!)'de's whale by
age distribution . Paper SCI005/BWI7 presented to the First lutersessional Workshop for Western North Pacific B!)'de's Whale Implementation. October
2005 (unpublished). lOpp.
•Bimkawa , N., Ando, H., Goto, M., Kanda. N., Pastene, LA ., Nakatsuj i, H . Hata, H. and UraA..2005. Plasma and Urine Levels of Electrolytes, Urea
and Steroid Honnones Juvolved in Osmoregulation of Cetaceam. Zoological Science22: 124S--1257.
Kisbiro, L Kato, H., Yoshida. H., lvliyashita, T., RyonoT..Tabata. S.. Okantoto, R., Yasui. K., Sato, H., MoritaY , Saino, S., Hara, T., EbisuiL
Kuroishi, H., Nishiwaki. S. and Kawahara , S. 2005. Cruise report of the coastal survey on couunon minke wl1ales off Kushiro, northeast Japan: the 2004
JARPN II survey (ParII) -coastal component Paper SC/57104 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. May-June 2005 (tmpublished) . 37pp.
HakauJada, L Banda , T. and Ohsurni,S.2005. Estinlatiou of the lower l>otmdof MSYR for western North Pacific B!)'de's whale. Paper SCt005/B\VI4
presented to the first lutersessional Workshop of Western North Pacific Bryde s Whale lu1plementation . October 2005 (Ullpublished) . 7pp.
Hatanaka. H. and Kawa!Jara. S. 2005. An examimtion of the catch history of Western North Pacific Stock of Bryde's whale. Paper SCIM05/BR2 presented
to the Jntersessional Workshop for North Pacific S!)'de.s Whales, March 2005 {llllpublished). 7pp.
Matsuoka, K., Kiwada, H.. Fujise, Y. atld Ohsurni, S. 2005. Distnoution pattern of Sperm whales in the western North Pacific based on sighting survey
data of the JARPN/J."JU>NII between 1994 and 2004. Paper A&D 6 presented to the Cachalot Assessment Research Platrning (CARP) Workshop. March
2005 (unpublished). 16pp.
*Nikaido, M.• Sasaki L Makino, H., Goto. M., Kanda, N., Pastene. L.A. and Okada. N. 2005. Phylogenetic reconstruc tion of baleen whales and detection
of their past extensive radiation event by tbe SINE insertion 3llFossilss77: 22-28 (in Japanese).
•Sasaki, T., Nik.1ido, 1-l, Hamil ton, H., Goto, M., K.1to, H., Kanda, N., PastenLA , Cao, Y., Fordyce, R.E, Hasegawa, M. and Okada. N. 2005.
Mitocl>ondrial Phylogenetics and Evolution of Mysticete WhalesSystematicBiology 54(1): 77-90.
Tamura, T., Fujise. Y., Mogoe,L Kanda. N., Yastmaga, G., Konishi, K., Kiwada, H.. Ogihara, M.. Hasegawa. A .. Kitajinla. M., SugiyamL, Sasaki, T.,
Mori. M .. Teraoka, T., Tstmekawa. M.• Fulmtome. K.. Zh:trikov, K.A . NA, J.H. Tohyama, D.. Juagake, D. and K.1wal1.11aS. . 2005. Cntise rep011of the
Japanese whale research prograut Ullder special permit in the western Not1h Pacific - Phase(JAR!')! II)in 2004 (partI) -offihore component. Paper
SC/57/03 presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee. May-JUlie 2005 (llllpublished). 33pp.
21
153Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
(2006](10)
•M itani. Y., Baudo..L Takai., N. and Sakamo to, W. 2006 . Patterns of stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the balees of common minke whale
Balaenopteraaa11orosrrar arom the western North Pacific.FisheriesScience 72(1): 69-76.
*Ohishi. K., Maruyama, T , Ninomiya , A.,Xi<la, H.. Zenitani,R.,Baudo, T., f ujiseY.,Nakamatsu. K., lvliyaz.'lkiN. and BolttlllOV,AN . 2006 . Serologic
investigation of influenza a vims infection in cetaceans from the western North Pacific and the Southern OceaMarineMammalScience 22(1): 214-22 1.
Pastene, L.A. 2006. An examination of the p lausibility of different stock stmcture hypotheses of North Pacific Bryde ·s whale based on the. available
information. Paper SC/S&IPFI2presented to the IWC Scientific.Committee, May-June 2006 (unpublished}. 5pp.
*hvan.1nti, K., lvlita. H.,mamoto , Y.. Fujise , Y., Yamada, T. and SuzukL I. 2006. eDNA-derived amino acid sequences of myoglobins from nine
species of whales and dolphins.CompBiochemPhysiol B BiochenlMotBioi. 45:249-56 .
K1nda. N., Park. J.Y , Shoo, H., K.in1,Z.G.. GotoM. and Pastene, L A 2006. Preliminary microsatellite an.1lysis of bycaught J-stock minke whales from
Japan and Korea. Paper SC/581NPM2 presented to the l\VC Scientifi.c Committee..May -June 2006 (unpublished). 7pp.
Kishiro.I. Kato, H., Yoshida, H., lvliyashitaT, Ryono. T., Tabata, S., Yastn, K., Sato, H.. MoritaY., Kmnagaya , K.. Tok·uda, D.. Nakai. K.. Ftmabashi ,
N .. Ebisui.I. Wakatsuki. T.. Sakaguchi. M.. E ouhana. I., Nishiwal<L S. and Kawahara. S. 2006. Cruis e report of the second phase of the Japanese whale
research progrnm under special permit in the wes tern North Pacific (JARPNII)in 2005 - coastal compon ent offKushiro . Paper SC/581010 presented to the
IWC Scientific Commin ee. May-June 2006 (UDpublished). 32pp
*Nikaido, M., Hanlilton, H., Makino, H., Sasaki,I .Takahashi ,K., Goto, M., Kanda, N.,Pas1ene, L.A. and Okada, N. 2006. Baleen whale phylogeny and
a past extensive radiation event revealby SINE insertion analysis.MolecularBiologyandEvolution 23(5): 861>-873.
Park_J.Y., Goto, M., Kanda. N., Sohn. H., Kim. Z.G. and Pasteoe , LA 2006. Preliminary nlitoehondrial DNA control region sequenc ing analy-,i;s of by
caught J-stock olinke whale from Korea and Japan. Paper SC/581NPM3 presented to the.IWC Scientific Commirtee, May-June 2006 (unpublished). 7pp.
Tanmra. I .Otani, S., Kiwada, H., Mori. M., Konishi, K., L<;od,aT., \Vada, A., Ogihara . M.. Hasegawa, A.. Kumagai. S., Komatsu, \V., Hayasaka , K.,
Fu1:u to., , K.Kasai. H., Xoyan.1gi, T., Naganline , M.. Shiozaki, M., Zharikov. K.A .. NA, J.H., Ogawa.I. Watambe , H., Yonezaki , S., !nagake , D. and
Kawahara , S. 2006. Cruise report of the second phase of the Japanese Whale Researeh Progrnm under Special Perulit in the Western North Pacific (JARPN
li) in 2005 - Offshore component - . Paper SC/58108 presenied to the IWC Scientific Commirtee, May -June 2006 (unpublished) . 52pp
Yoshida. H., K.ato. H., Kishiro, T., Iwasaki, T., !vliyao;hita, T.,T..iTabata, S., Morita. Y., Sato. H., Okada, A., TonlizawaY , Saino, S., Kuroishi, H.,
Ebisui,T., Nakai. K., Nishiwaki , S. and Kawahara, S. 2006. Cmise report of the second phase of the Japanese Whale Research Progrnm under special
pemlit in the Western North Pacific (JARPN II) in 2005 - coastal components off Sanrilm. Paper SC/58109 presented to th e l\VC Scientific Committee.
May-June 2006 (unpublished) . 30pp.
[2007](18)
K.a"''ahara. S.nd Hatanaka . H. 2007.Concept of the ecosystem models developed in JARPN
II PrograoLPaper SC/59/011 presented to the !IWCScientific Comminee , May 2007 (unpublished). 6pp.
*Konishi, K. and Tamura , I. 2007. Occurren.ce of the minimal armhook squids Berrytewhisanonychus (Cephalopoda : Gonatidae) in the stomachs of
common minke whales Batmmopteraacutorosrrata in the western North PacificFisheriesSciellce 73 1208-1210
Mori. M. and Hakan1ada, T. 2007. Some mitial progress on the ecosysteru modelling of the JARPN II survey area using £copath with-Ecosinl. Paper
SC/59/013 presented to the l\VC Scientific Committee , May 2007 (tmpublished}. llpp .
*Murase, H., Tanmra, T., Kiwada, H., fu ji.se, Y., Watanabe, H.. Ohi:zumi, H.. Yonezaki. S., Okamura H. aod Kawahar a, S. 2007 . Prey selection of
common minke (Bataenop1eraacutorosrrata )and Bryde's (Ba/aenopteraedem) whales in the western North Pacific in 2000 and 200 1. Fish.Oceanogr.
16(2): 186-201.
'Kanda , N.. Goto.M., K.ato. H.. McPhee, M.V . and Pastene L A 2007 . Population genetic stmctttre ofB ryde 's whale(Ba/aenopterobrydei) at the inter
oceanicand trans-equatorial levelsConsen•ationGenetics 8(4): 853-864.
•fuk·ui. Y ., lwayama, H., Matsuoka. I., Nagai, H., X onJa, N., Mogoe , I. , Ishikawa,
H.. Fujise.Y. Hirabayasbi, M.. Hoc.bi. S. Kato .H. and Ohsumi. S. 2007. Attempt at Intracytoplasmic spem1 injection ofin vitrolllJruredoocytes in
common nlinke whales (Ba/aenopteraaaaorosrrata) captured during theKushiro coast survey. Journalof ReproductionandDevelopment. 53(4): 945-952.
Goto, M.. K.ato, H., ZenitaniR., Yoshida, H., Saito, I .Tabata, S., Morita,Y.. Sato, H~ Okamoto, R., Maeda, H., Odagawa. A , Ebisui, T., Nakai, K.,
Matsumoto, A., fu jimori, S., Nishiw aki, S. and Kawahara , S. 2007. Cruise report of the secood phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program tmder
Special Permit in the Wes tern North Pacific (JARPN II) in 2006 - Coastal component off Sami ku. Paper SC/59/06 presented to the IWC Scientific
Comnli ttee, May2007 (unpublished ). 34pp.
*Ntimi. S..Kim . EY ., Iwata, H.. Watanabe, M.X.. Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y. and Tanabe , S. 2007. Identification and hepatic express ion profile£ of
cytochrom e P450 1-4 isozymes in comn1on minke whales (Balmmopreraacutorosrrata.)Compm·ativeBiochemistryandPhysiology,Pan B 147 (2007):
667-681.
'Nish ida. S., Goto. M.. Pastene, L.A.. K.1nda. N. and Koike.. H. 2007. Phylogenetic relationshamong cetaceans revealed by Y-<hromosome sequences.
Zoological Science 24(7): 723-732.
•Onhe. K. Nishida, S. Sone. E.. Kanda, N.. Goto. M , Pastene, L.A . Tan.1be. S. and Koike . H. 2007. Sequence Variation in the Thx4 Gene in Marine
Mammals. ZoologicalScience 24(5):449-464 ..
*Pastene, L.A.. Goto, M., Kanda, N., Zerbini, A.N., Keren>. D. Watanabe, K., Bessho, Y., Hasegawa, M., Nielsen, R., Larse F.~n,d Palsooll, P.J. 2007 .
Radiation and speciation of pelagic organisms during periods of global warnling: the case of the common minke whale, Balaenopteraacutorostrata.
Mo/eai/arEcology 16: 1481- 1495.
Tanmra, T., Matsuoka. K., Bando, I .,Mogoe, I. Konishi. K., Mori, M., Tsune.kawa, M.. Okan10to, K., Funasaka, N .. Sakajiri, H., Yoshida, Y.. KU!llagai.
S.,K.inmra. K., Takamatsu, I.,Xomgai , T., Sasaki, S., Kuwa oka, J. and Ogawa I. 2007. Cmise Report of the second phase of the. Japane>e Whale
R.eseareh Progrnm tmder Special Pen nitin the \Vestern North Pacific (JARPNII) in 2006(pan I) - Offshore compooeni - Cntise report of the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permi t in the Western North Pacdlc (JARPNII) in 2006 (part I) - Offshore componen t.
Paper SC/59105 presented toth e l\VC Scientific Conuuittee, May 2007 (unpublished). 26pp .
•uras hima I.. Koba yashi.. M.. Asakuma, S , Uemura, Y.. Arai. L. FuJ.:ud1.K.. Saito. L Mogoe . I. , Ishikawa, H .. Fuk·ui. Y. 2007. Chemical
characterizatio nf the oligosaceh.1rides in Bryde's whale(Ba/aenopteraedem) and Sei whale (Ba/aenopleraborealis) nlilk.Comparati\'eBiochemistry
andPhysiology. Part B 146: 153- 159.
*Watanabe. H.. Tateno, H., Kusakabe, H , K.amiguchi, Y., Fujise. Y., Ishikawa, H.. Ohstmli, S. and Fuk-ui, Y. 2007 . Fertilizability and C'hrO!llosolllill
Integriy of f rozen-thawed Bryde's Whale (Balaenopteraedem) Spermatozoa lntracyto plasnlically Injected into Mouse Oocytes. Reproduction, Fertility
tUidDevelopment 19 (1): 306. (Proceedings of the Annual Conferenc e of the Internationa l Embryo Tra11sfer Socie.ty).
•w atanabe., H., Tatet10, H., Kusakabe. H., Matsuoka I., K.amiguchi. Y.. Fujise,Y., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi. S.and Fuk·ui. Y. 2007 . Fertiliza bility and
ehromosomal integrity offrozeo-thawed Bryde's whale (Ba/aenopteraedem) spern1atozoa intracytoplasmically injected imo mouse oocytes Zygote 15:9-
14.
22
154 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Yoshida, H., Kato, H., Kisbiro, T., Miyashita, T., Iwasaki, T., Minamikawa,S., Ryono, T., Tabata, S., Morita, Y., Sato, H., Okamoto, R., Toyoda, Y.,
Nakamura, G.,Ebistti, T., Nakai, K., MatSUto, A, Nishiwaki, S.and Kawahara, S. 2007. Cruise report of the second phase of the Japanese Whale
Research ProgramunderSpecial Perntit in the WesternNorth Pacific(JARPNII) in 2006 - Coastal componentoff Kusbiro. Paper SC/59101 presented to
theIWCScienti fic Comntittee. May2007(tu>published).43pp.
Kawahara, H. and Hatanaka, H. 2007. Concept of the ecosystem models developed in JARPN II Program Paper SC/59/011 presented to the IWC
ScientificCommittee.May 2007(unpublished).6pp.
Kawahara, H. 2007. Mult.spe<·t:ype ecosystem modelling in the JARPN II offshore survey area. Paper SC/59/012 preseoted tothe IWC Scientific
Committee, May2007(unpublished). 9pp
(2008)(7)
Baudo, T.,Kato, H., Kisbiro, T , Goto, M., Yasunaga, G., Saito, T.,Tabata.S., Morita, Y., Okan1oto, R.,Maeda,H., lnagaki,M.,Nagat>uka, S., Ebisui,T.,
Nakai, K., Matsumoto, A., Gokita, AandKawahara, S. 2008. Cruisereport of the Seoond Phaseof the JapaneseWhale ResearchProgramunder Special
Permit in the Western North Pacific (JARPN II) in 2007 - coastal componentoff Sanru:u. Paper SC/60106 presented to the IWC ScientificCommittee.
June2008 (unpublished).27pp.
'Bhuiyan, M.M.U .. Suzuki, Y., Watanabe, H.. Hirayama. H.. Matsuoka,K., Fujise. Y.lshikawa. H., Ohsunti,S. andFulmi, Y. 2008. Attempts at in vitro
fertilization andculture of in vitro matured oocytes in sei (Balaenoprera borealis) and Bryde's (B. edem) whales. Zygote 16: DOl
I0.I017/S0967199408004887.
""Diruk~aNw.a~Ando. II.Goto. M., Kanda. N., Pa.stc:nc,L.A . and Urauo, A. 2008. tvlolccular cloning of urea tran.sportcrsfrom the kidneys of baleen and
toothedwhales.ComparaTiveBiochemislly andPhysiology.Part B 149(2008): 227-235.
'l•hikawa, H. and Shigenrune, H. 2008. Comparative Experimentof Whaling Greoades in the Japanese Whale Research Programunder SpecialPermit
(JARPA and JARPN).Jpn.J. Zoo Wild/.Med. 13(1): 21-28.
Kishiro,T.. Kato, H., Yoshida, H., Miyasbita, T..Iwasaki, T., .Kanaji, Y., Ryono, T., Tabata, S., Morita. Y" Okan1oto, R., Maeda, H., Nagatsuka, S.,
Ogawa, N.,Nakai, K., Ebisui, T..Matsmnoto,A.. Gokita, A.. Kiwada, H. andK:nvab.ua, S. 2008. Cmise repon ofthe secondphase of the JapaneseWhale
ResearchProgramunder SpecialPemtit in the WesternNorth Pacific(JARPNII) in 2007 · coastal component off Kushiro. PaperSC/60/07 presentedto
theIWC Scientific Committee, Jtme2008(tmpublished). 33pp.
Matsuoka. K.,Otani,H., !soda, T., Wada, A., Kumagai, S., Obshima, T., Yoshimura,I., Sugiyama, K., Aki,M., Kato,K., Bhuiyan,M.M.U.,Funasaka.N.,
Suzuki, Y.,Sudo. R., Motoha.sh,iY., Mori, M., Tsunebwa , M., Inagake, D., Murase, H. and Ogawa, T. 2008. Cmise reportof the Second Phaseof the
Japane£eWhale Re>earchProgramtmder Spec.ialPemtit in the Western North Pacific (JARPN II) in 2007 (Part I) - offShorecomponent. PaperSC/60/05
preseotedto theIWCScientificCommittee.Jtme 2008(unpublished).40pp.
*Obishi. K.. Fujise. Y. and Mamyama, T. 2008. Brucellaspp. in the western North Pacific and Antarcticcetaceaus: a review.J. CeraceanRes. Manage.
10(1):67-72.
[2009](61)
Goto, M..Kanda, N.,Pastene, LA . Bando, T. andHatanaka,K 2009.Differencesin cookiecuttershark-induced body scarmarksbetweenJ and 0 stocks
of common minke whales in the western North Pacific. Paper SC/J09/JR28 presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee Expert Workshop to reviewthe
JARPN II Progratlllllf..Yokohan1a.Japan,January26-302009 (unpublished).7pp.
Goto, M.. Kanda.N.. Kishiro,T., Yoshida, H., Kato, H. and Pastene. L.A. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA analysis on stock structure in the westernNonh
Pacific common minke whales. Paper SC/J09/JR29 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee Expert Workshopto review the JARPN II Progranune,
Yokoh.1111J3a,pan. January26-30 2009(tmpubhshed).IOpp.
Goto, M., Kanda, N., Kisbiro, T.. Yoshida, H.. Kato. H. and Pastene.L.A.2009. Further ntitochondrialDNA analysis on stock structure in the western
NorthPacificcommonminkewhales.Paper SC/61/JR7 presentedto IWC Scientific ComntitteeMay 2009(unpublished). lOpp.
Goto,M., .K.111dNa.. and Pastene, L.A2009. Update of the mitochondrial DNA analysis on sub-stockstructutheJ stockcommon minkewhalesfrom
theJapanesewaters.Paper SC/61/NPM4presentedtoIWCScientificCommittee May 2009(tmpublisbed).Spp.
Goto, M , Kanda. N. and Pastene, L.A.2009. Stock structure scenario of common minke whales from the Japanese waters as revealed by genetic data.
PaperSC/61 /l'<' 9 presented to IWCScientificComntitteeMay2009 (unpublished). 3pp.
Hak:nnada, T. 2009. Examimtion of the effects on whale stocks of future JARPN II catches. Paper SC/J09/JR36 presented to the 1\VCScientific
Committee Expe:nWorkshop to revie\,,.the JARPN ITProgramme , Yokohama , Japan. January 26-30 2009 (\mpublisbed). Slpp.
Hak:nmda, T., Matsuoka, K. and Miyashita, T. 2009. The numher of western N<r>th Pacific comn>on minke whales (Balaenopreraacutorostrata)
distributed in JARPN II coastal survey areas. Paper SC/J09/JR8 presented to the IWC Scientific ComntitteeExpert Workshop to review the JARPN II
Progranune,Yokohama. Japan,January26-302009{tmpublished). 12pp.
Hakank1da, T.•Matsuoka,K.andMiyashita, T.2009.Distribmionandthe numherof westernNorth Pacificcommonminke.,Bryde's, seiand spermwhales
distributedn JARPN II Offshore e<>mponensttuvey area.Paper SC/J09/JR15 presented to the IWC ScientificCommittee Expert Workshopto reviewthe
JARPN IIProgramme. Yokohan1a.Japan,January26-30 2009(unpublished). 18pp.
Hakam.ada, T. and Bando, T. 2009. Morphometric analysis on stock stnocture in the \\'esternNorth Pacific common minke whale (Balaenoprera
acutorostrata).Paper SCIJ09/JR27 presented to the 1\VCScientific Comntittee Expen Worksbnp r\eew the JARPN II Programme.Yokohan13,Japan,
January26-302009 (unpublished). !pp.
Hakamada,T. 2009. Additionalanalyseson the effectson J-stock of future JARPNII common minkewh.'llecatches. Paper SC/61/JR9 presented to IWC
ScientificCommittee May 2009(tmpublished).4pp.
Hakamada, T. and Baudo. T.2009. Further morphometricanalysis on stock structure in the western North Pacific common minke whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata.Paper SC/61/JR6presentedto1\VCScientificConmtitteeMay 2009(tmpublished). 4pp.
Hakamada. T.. Miyashita. T. and Hatan.'lk,aH.2009. Examinationof the effects of planned takesby Japanese small-type towhaling on '0' and T
stockscouunonmiuke whalesin thewesternNorthPacific.PaperSC/61/0 15 presentedto 1\VCScientificConmtitteeMay2009(unpublished). 53pp.
•Hiwasa. M., Suzuki, Y.•Watanabe, H.. Bhuiyan. M.M.U., Matsuoka, K.. Fujise. Y., Ishikawa, H., Obstmti. S., and Fukui. Y. 2009. Effects of Semen
E'tenders and Storage Temperan= on Characteristics of Frozen-Thawed Bryde's (Balaenoptera edenr)\VhaleSpermatozoa. J Reprod. Dev. 55. 599-
606.
lsltikawa, 2009.JAPAN: ProgressRepon on the KillingMethodof Whales in the Sec-ondPhaseof Japanese\\'h.'lleResearch Programin the Antarctic
Sea (JARPAII) and Northwestern Pacific Ocean (JARPNII). Meeting of the NAMMCO Comntittee on Hunting Methods. Marine Research lnstitule.
Reykjavik, Iceland. 2009/4/23.
Kanda.N.•Goto, M., Kishiro, T.,Yoshida, H.. Kato.H. andPastene,L.A. 2009.1ndividual identificationand mixingof the J and 0 stocksaroundJapanese
waters examined by nticrosatelliteanalysis. Paper SC/J09/JR26 presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee Expen Wortshop to revthe JARPN II
Progranune, Yokohama,Japan,Janu:uy26-302009(tmpublished). 9pp.
23
155Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
Kanda, N., Goto, M.. Kishiro, T., Yoshida, H.. KatoandPastene, L<\. 2009Micro:~1t aeallsisoerninkewhales in the western North Pacific.
Paper SC/J09/JR30 presented to the !WCScientific Comntinee E""rt orkshop to review the JARPNll Programme.YokohanJa,Japan, January 26-30
2009 (unpublished). 14pp.
Kanda, N., Goto, M. and Pastene, L.A. 2009. Stock structure of Bryde's wles in tl1ewestern North Pacific a> revealed by microsatellite and
ntitochondrialNA analyses. Paper SC/J09/JR31 presented to the 1\VC Scientific Committee Expert Worlcshopto review the JARPN II Progranune,
Yokohann,Japan.January26-30 2009 (unpublished). 8pp.
Kand.1.N., Goto. M.. Ye>hida. H. and Pastene, L.A. 2009. Stock stmcn11eof sei whalesin the North Pacific as revealed by nticrosatellite and
ntitochondrialNA an.-llyse.sPaper SCIJ09/JR32 presented to the 1\VCScientific Committee Expert Worlcshopto review the JARPN II Progranune,
Yokohama.Japan.January26-302009 (unpublished). l4pp.
Kanda, N .. Goto. M. and Pastene, L.A. 2009. Genetic characteristSpertn whales sampled during JARPN ll from 2000 to 2007 a> revealed by
ntitochondrialDNA andnticrosatellite analyses.Paper SC!J09JJR33presented to the IWC Scientific Committee ExpertWorkshopto review the.JARPN II
Progranune, YokohanJa,Japan,January 26-30 2009(unpublished).5pp.
K.111da, .. Goto, M.. Kishiro, T..Yoshida, H., Kato, H. and Pastene, LA. 2009.Fllfther microsatellite amlysis of commonminkewhales in the western
North Pacific.Paper SC/61/Spresentedto IWCScientificCommittee May2009(tu1publ!ishe)d. 14pp.
Kanda, N., Goto, M,Kishiro.T.,Yoshida.H.. Kato.H. andastene.L.A.2009_Updateof the analyseson individual identification andmixing oandhe J
0 stocksof conunon minkewhale around Japanesewaters exantinedby nticrosatelliteanalysis. Paper SC!61/JR5presentedto !WCScientificCommittee
May2009 (unpublished). l4pp.
Kand.1, N., Goto, M. and Pastene, L.A.2009.Updateof the microsatellite analysison sub-stock stmcture of theJ stock commonntinke whales from the
Japanesewaters.PaperSC/61/NPMSpresentedto 1\VCScientific CommitteeMay2009(unpublished). 9pp.
Kishiro,T.,Yoshida,H., Goto, M., Bando, T.and Kato, 2009.Methodologyand smve:yprocedmeunderthe JARPNII - coastalcomponent ofSanriku
and Kushiro-, with spec.ial emphasiswhalesamplingprocedures. Paper SCIJ09/JR3 presented to the IWC Scientific CommitteeExpen Workshop to
reviewtheJARPN II Progranune,Yokoham.,1Japan.January26-302009(unpublished). 27pp.
Kisbiro,T.,Yoshida,H., Tanmra,T.,Konishi,K , Kanda,N., Okamoto, R.and Kato, H2•~0 Relation•hipbetweenbody size,maturity, and feedinghabit
of common ntinke whales off Kushiroin autunmseason, from 2002-2007whale santpling smveys under the JARPNII coastal components off Kushiro.
Paper SCIJ09/JR13presented to the IWC Scientific Comntittee.Expert Workshopto revi"w the JARPNll Programme, Yokohama,Japan. January26-30
2009 (unpublised).25pp.
Kiwada, H., Kmnagai, S. and Matsuoka. K 2009. Methodology and procedure of the ·dedicated sightSIUVeysin JARPN ll --()ffshore and coastal
component ofSanrik'landKushiro-. PaperSC/J09/JR2presentedto the IWC ScientificComntitteeExperiWorkshop to review theJARPNII Progranune.
YokohanJa,Japan.January26-302009 (tulpublished). 16pp.
Konishi.K. Kiwada, H., Matsuoka,K . Hakantada,T. and Tamura, T. 2009. Density prediction modelingand mapping of cotmnon minke, sei and
Bryde's whales distribtion in the western North Pacific using JARPN ll (2000-2007) data set. Paper SCIJ09/JR19 presente.d to the 1\VCScientific
ComntitteeExpert Workshopto reviewthe JARPNII Progranmte. Yokohanta,Japan,January26-302009(unpublished).20pp.
Konishi K ,Tanmra,T., Goto, M.. Bando, T., Ki>hiro,T.. Yoshida. H.and Kato, H.2009. Trendof bh1bberthicknessin conunonntinke,sei andBryde's
wh1.les in the. western North Pacific during JARPN and JARPN II periods. Paper SC/J09/JR20 presented to the 1\VC Scientific Committee Expert
Workshop to reviewthe JARPNll Progranuue, YokohanJa.Japan. January26-302009(unpublished).4pp.
'Konishi.K , TarntlfaT., !soda, T Okamoto,.. Hakamada, T., Kiwada, H. and Matsuoka, K 2009. Feeding str.llegiesand prey consumption of three
baleenwhalespecies withinthe Kushir<rCurrent Extension.JournalofNorthweszAtlallfic FisheryScience42:27-40.
•Lee, E.. Bhuiyan, M.M.U.. WatarJabe, H.. Matsuoka, K. Fujise.. Y.. lshihwa. H. and Y.l2009. Production of clonedsei whale (Balaenoputra
borealis)embryos byint=pecie s sonJaticcell nucleartran5ferusingenucleatedpig oocyres.J Ver.Sci.l0(4): 285-292.
•Matsuk-ura,R., Yasuma, H.. Murase, H., Yonel'lki. S., fli!Jamoto, T., Honda, S. and Miyashita, K 2009, Measurements of density conttast and sound
speed contra.rfortargetstrengthestinJationofNeocalacopepods (Neowlamts crisrams) in theNorth PacificOcean.Fish.Sci.75: 1377-1387.
NL11suokaK, . Kiwada,H.. FujiseY. and Miyashita. T. 2009. Distribution of blue (Bal'aenopteramusculus). fm (B. physalus), hnn1pback(Megaptera
novaeangliae)andNorth Pacific right (Eubalaenajaponica)whales in thewestern NorthPacific ba>edon JARPN andJARPN II sighting surveys (1994 to
2007). SCIJ09/JR35 presented to the IWCScientificCommittee ExpertWorlcshop to revi-ew the JARPNII Progranune. YokohanJa. Japan. January26-30
2009(unpublished). 12pp.
Mori,M., Watanabe,H., Hak.'11d1aJa.T., TanmT..Konishi, K.. Murase,H. andMatsuoka, K 2009.Developmentof anecosystent modelof the western
North Pacific.Paper SCIJ09/21 presented to the IWC Scientific CmnntitteeE"''ertWorkshop to reviewthe JARPN II Progranune, Yokohantl. Japan.
January26-362009(unpublished).49pp.
Mori,M.. Watanabe, H., Hak-anJad, ., Tanmra, T., Konishi, K., Murase, H. andMatsuoka,K 2009.Developmentof an ecosystem modelof the western
North Pacific. NAMMCO Scientific Comntittee.Working G<oupon marinemanuual.sa:ndfisheries in the North Atlantic: estimating consumption and
lllOdellinginteractions.NA.i\1MCO.MarineResercbInstituteSC/16JMMFI/09, 49pp(uopublished). Iceland.April 2009/4115-17.
Murase, H., WatarJabe. H.. Yonezaki. S., Tamura, T., Matsuoka. K. Fujise. Y. and Kawahara. S. 2009. Methoandoproc.edmes of cetacean prey
surveys in JARPN II --()ffshoremponent-. Paper SCIJ091JR7 presented to theVCS:ceiotific Comntittee ExpertWorkshop to review the JARPN II
Progranuue,Yokohank1 , Japan.Janu1. !J26-302009(unpublished).llpp .
Murase, H., K.1waltlr$.,Nagashima,H., Onodera,K , Tarnma, T., Okamoto, R., Yon:aki,S.Matsul. .R~lMtananti, K ,lvliyashita,K , Yoshida,H.,
Goto,M., Baudo, T., liJagake, D., Okki, M., Okarnma, H. and Kato, H. 2009. Estimation of prey preference of comn1onminke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostraia)inacoastal component (offSanri) of JARPN II in 2005 and2006.Paper SCIJ09/JR10presentedto the IWC ScientificComntittee Expert
Workshop to reviewtheJARPNII Progranuue, YokohanJa, Japan.January26-302009(tm.published). 15pp.
Murase, H., Tanmra,L !soda, L Okamoto.R..Yonezaki, S.,Watanabe, H., Tojo, N.,M1tsulrura,R , Miyashita,K, Kiwada,H..Matsuoka,K ,Nishiwaki,
S.,liJagake, D., Okazaki,M., Okamura, H., FujY.eandKawa!Jara, S.2009.PreyprefeJrencesof comnton minke(Ba/aenopteraacurorostrala,)Bryde·s
(B. edeni)and sei (B. borealis)whaleinoffshore component of JARPN II from 2002 to 2007. Paper SCIJ091JR18 presented to the IWC Scientific
ComntitteeExpert Worlcshopto review the JARPN II Progranmte,Yokohank1,Japan,January 26-302009(unpublished).3lpp.
'Murase, H., Ichihara. M.. Yaruma, HWatate t,Hb., Yonezaki. S., Nagashim.1,H.. Kawahara. S. and Miyashrta,T.2009. Acoustic charac.terizationof
biologicalbackscatterings in theKuroshio-Oyashiointer-frontalzoneand subarcticwaters of thewesternNorth Pacific inspring.FisheriesOceanography.
18(6):386-401.
'Mllfase,H., Nagashirna,H., Yonezaki. S., Matsul.-ura,And Kitakado, T. 2009. Application of a generalized additive model (GAM) to reveal
relationshipsbenveen environmentalfactors anddistribution5of pelagicfishandkc~et:StudyinSendai Bay, Japan.ICESJormwl ofMarineScience.
66(6):1417-1424.
Murase, H.,Tarrn1r,.1T.,!soda, T..Oka:moto.R.,YonezakiWatatt,~ Hb.Tojo,N., Matsui.'Uf, ., Miyashita,K .Kiwada,H .Matsuoka.K . Nishiwaki,
S., liJagake, D., Okazaki. M., Okantura, H., Fujise, Y..and K. . 2009.Prey preferences of conmton minke(BalaenopreraaCllrorostrara, )Bryde's
(B. edem)andsei(B.borealis)whalesinoffshorecomponentofJARPN!l from2002 to2007. NAMMCOScientificCommittee WorlcingGroup onmarine
24
156 Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Agenda item 10.2
mamn11ls and fisheries in the North Atlantic: e.fimating consump tion and modelling interactions . NA.MMCO. Marine Research Institute SC/16/MMf l/11 ,
31pp (Wlpublisbed). Iceland. 200914/15-17.
Nishiwaki, S.. Otani,S. and Tanmra , T.: Movement ofBryde' s wb.11esin the western North Pacific as revealed by satellite tracking experimen ts conducted
under JARPN II.Paper SC/61107 present ed to IWC Scientific Conuninee May 2009 (unpublished ). 7pp.
Okazaki. M ., lnagake,D.. Masujima. M.. Murase, H.. Watanabe. H.. Yonezaki , S., Nagashima H.. Matsuoka , K. Kiwada, H. and K1wahara . S. 2009.
Oceanographic conditions of the western North Pacific hased on oceanographic data during the JARPN II. Paper SC/J09/JR34 presented to the IWC
Scientific Conunirtee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN IIProgramme , Yokohama. Japan, January 26-30 2009 (unpublished). 13pp.
Pastene, L.A., Hatanaka, H., fujise , Y.• Kanda . N., Murase. H., Tanuua , I .. Miyashita . T. and Kato, H. 2009 . The Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Pemlit in the western North Pacific Phase- II(JARPN II):origin, objectives and research progress made in the period 2002-2007, including
scientific considerat ionsor the next research period . Paper SC/J09/JR1 presented to the IWC Scientific Conuninee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN
IIProgramme, Yokohan13, Japan, January 26-30 2009 (unpubli shed). 73pp.
Pastene. LA , Hatanaka, H., fuj ise, Y., Kanda. N.. MuraseH., Tamura, T., Mori, M., Yasunaga, G., Watanabe , H. and Miyasbita, T.2009. Response to the
'Report of the Expert Workshop to Review the JARPN 11Progrannne'. Paper SC/61/JR Ipresented to IWC Scientific Conunittee May 2009 (tmpublished).
2lpp.
Tanmra, T., Matsuoka, K and fujise , Y. 2009. Methodology and stuvey procedure tmder the JARPN II -offShore component- with special emphasis on
whale sampling procedures. Paper SC/J09/JR4 presen ted to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee Expert Work<hop to review the JARPN II Programme ,
Yokohama, Japan, Jantk1l)'26-30 2009 (unpublished). 16pp.
Tamura, T., Konishi, K , !soda, T., Okamoto, R. and Bando , T. 2009. Prey consump tion and feeding habits of colll1ll0nntinke, sei and Bryde's whales in
the western North Pacific. Paper SC/J09/JR16 presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN II Progranllll<.
Yokohan13, Japan. January 26-30 ~009 (unpublished). 36pp.
Tamura, T., Konishi, K..Goto, M., Bando , T., Kishiro,L Yoshida, H., Okamoto, R. and Kato, H. 2009 . Prey consnmption and feeding habits of common
minke whales in coastal areas off Sanriku and Kushiro . Paper SC/J09/JR9 presented to the I\VC Scientific Conunittee Expert Workshop to review the
JAR.PN II Programme, Yokohanm , Japan, January 26-30 2009 (unpublished).l &pp.
Tamura, T.. Kubotera, I ., Ohizumi,H., Konishi, K and !soda, T. 2009. Feeding habits of sperm whales and their impact on neon flying squid resources in
the we;tern North Pacific. Paper SC/J09/JR17 presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee E..xpertWorkshop to re\>iew the JARPN II Progranuue,
Yokohan1a, Japan, January 26-30 2009 (unpublished). 22pp..
Tamura, I ., Konishi, K , !soda, T., Okan10to, R. and Bando. I. Prey consumption and feeding habits of common ntinke, sei and Bryde's whales in the.
western North Pacific. NAMMCO Scientific Conunittee Working Group on marine m.·unmals and fisheries in the North Atlantic: estimating consnmption
and modelling interactions. NAMMCO. Marine R=ch lnstirute SC/161MMFI/07. 37pp (unpublish ed). Iceland . 2009/4115-17.
Tanmra, T., Konishi , K ,!soda, T.. Okamoto , R., Bando, I . and HakanJada, T.2009. S<>meexanlinations of uncertainty in the prey consun1ption est imates
of collllllon minkesei and Bl)'de's whales in the western North Pacific. Paper SCI61/JR2 pre=ted to IWC Scientific Conunittee May 2009 (Wlpnblisbed).
24pp .
Ianmra , I. ,Ota!li. S., Isoda, T.. \Vada, A., Yonezaki, S., Mori, M., Tstmekawa. M.. ful:utomK., Nakai, K , Sato, H., Nonrura,L Nagatstlka, S., Umatani ,
M., Koyanagi. T., I akamatsu, T., Kawabe , S., Kandabashi, S., Watanabe, H.. KtmL1!'al S., Sato, H.. and Ogawa, 1.2009. Cmise report of the Second
Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Pernlit in tlte Western North Pacific (JARPN II)in 2008 (Part I)Offshore compon ent. Paper
SC/61104 presented to IWC Scientific Comnlittee May 2009 (unpublished). 49pp .
'Tsuki, K., Sato, A., Kaneko , H.. Yasunaga, G.. Ft~i,s Y. and Nomata, H. 2009. Compar ison of physiological ly sigrlificant inlidazole dipeptides in
cetacean• sampled in Japanese Whale research (shon paper). Sci. Rep.Hokkaido Fish E'P.Sin. 74:25-28 .
Watanabe, H.. Yonezaki , S., Kiwada, H., Kmnagai, S.. Kishiro, I ., Yoshida, H. and Kawahara , S. 2009. Methodo logy and procedure s of oollllllon minke
whale's prey stuveys in JARPN II- Coastal component of Kushiro- . Paper SC/J09/JR6 pre=ted to the IWC Scientific Conunittee E..>q>erWt orkshop to
revie.w the JARPN IIProgramme, Yokohama , Japan. Jaotk1l)'26-30 2009 {unpublished). 12pp.
Watanabe. H., Yonez:tki, S.. Kiwada. H.. Kumagai , S.. Kishiro, T., Yoshida , H. and Kawahara. S. 2009. Dis1ribution and abundanc e of prey species and
prey preference of common minke whale Ba/aenopteraaczrtorostrata in the coastal component of JARPN IIoff Knshiro from 2002 to 2007. Paper
SC/J09/JR 11 presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN IIPrograntme , Yokohama. Japan. January 26-30 2009
(unpublished). 37pp.
Yasunaga, G. and Fujise, Y. 2009. Temporal trends and factors affecting mercury levels in common ntinke, Bryde's and sei whales and their prey species
in the western North Pacific. Paper SC/J09/JR23 presenred to tlie IWC Scientific Committee E.xpen \Vorkshop to review the JARPN ITProgramme.
Yokohan13, Japan, Jantk1l)'26-30 2009 (unpublished ). 13pp.
Yasunaga , G. and Fujise , Y. 2009. Tempora l trends and factors affecting PCB levelsinbaleen whales and environmental samples from the western North
Pacific. Paper SC/J09/JR24 presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN II Programme, Yokohama , Japan January
26-30 2009 (unpublis hed). l Opp.
Yasunaga, G. and fu) ise, Y. 2009 . Accumulation features of total and methyl mercnry and selertium in tissues of common ntinke, Bryde's and spenn
whales from the western Nort h Pacific . Paper SC/J09/JR2S presented to the IWC Scientific Conunittee Expert Workshop to review the JARPN II
Programme, Yokohama. Japan, January26 -30 2009 (tulpublished). llpp.
Yasunaga, G. and fuj ise, Y. 2009. Additiona l analyses of tentporal trends and factors affecting mercury levels in c.ommonminke , Bryde's and sci whales in
the western North Pacific. Paper SC/6 1/JR3 presented to I\VC Scientific Conunittee May 2009 (unpublished). 3pp.
Yasunaga, G. andfujise , Y. 2009. Additional analyses of temporal trends and factors affecting PCB levels in baleen wb.11esfrom the western North Pacific.
SC/6 1/JR4 presented to IWC Scientific Conmlittee May 2009 (unpublished). 5pp.
Yasunaga , G., Kato, H., Kishiro . I ., YoshidH.,Nishiwaki, S., Saito, T., Tabata, S., Okamoto, R., Maeda , H., Nakamtua , G., Inoue, S., Otani, S., Iwasaki,
T., K.1naji, Y., Mogoe , T., Murase, H., Wada, A., Nakai, K., Matsumoto , A., Gokila. A., Yamazaki. K , Oikawa, H., Onodera , K.. Shiraishi, K and
Nagashink1. H.2009. Cruise Report of the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Pernlit in the Western North Pacific
(JARPN II) in 2008 - (Part II) - Coastal compon ent off Sanriku. Paper SC/61/06 presen ted to IWC Scientific Conunittee May 2009 (unpublished). 24pp.
Yonezaki , S., Nagashima, H., Mnrase, H., Yoshida, H., Bando, T., Goto, M , Kawahara , S. and Kato, H. 2009. Methodo logy and procedures ofstuve ys of
prey of common minke wb.1les JARPN II -Coastal component of Sanrik-t.lPaper SC/109/JRS presented to the IWC Scientific Comnlittee Expert Workshop
to re'i "'''the JARPN IIProgramme, Yokohama, Japan, January26 -30 2009 (tulpublisbed) . 6pp.
Yoshida, H.. Kishiro, I.. Got.o, M., Bando. T.. Tanutra, T.. Konishi.K., Okamoto , R. and Kato. H. 2009. Relationship between body size, marurity, and
feeding b.1bitof cOllllllonntinke whales off Sanrilm in spring season, from 2003-2007 whale sampling surveys under the JARPN IIcoastal comp011en1off
Sanriku. Paper SC/J09/JRI 2 presented to the IWC Scientific Conuninee h'pert Workshop to review the JARPN II Progranm>e. YokohanJa. Japan. January
26-30 2009 (unpublis hed). 20pp.
Yoshida , H., Kato, H.. Kishiro, I ., MiyasbitaI. ,Iwasaki, T., Kanaji, Y., Yasunag a, G.. Oikawa, H., Ryono, T.. Tabata, S.. Okan10to, R., Maeda. H..
Ma tsumoto, A., Ogawa, N., Nagatstlka, S., Inoue, S.. Himta, H., Gokita, A., Matstmaga, H. and Yamasaki, K.2009. Cruise Report of the Second Phase of
25
157Annex 156
IWC/62/20
Age,uda item 10.2
thoJapaneseWhaRe;e;uProgram1l1lduSpecial PvmitW e>tm~ottb Pacific(JARPNll) i(P<ll) - C<»><OillpOloffKuo!W·.o
PaperSC/61105 pn<mted toIWCScientificCo~l.ly2 W01pUblisbed.)lOpp.
Appendix2
Protocol for access samples/dam from rbe Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), Tokyo,Japan under Procedw 'e B
(JCRJ\16 (suppL)):in press
(same as page 14)
26
158 Annex 157
157. “Statement by H.E. Yasue Funayama, Vice-Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, Japan, underAgenda item 3”, IWC/62/28 (2010)
IWC/62128
Agenda item3
Statement by H.E. Yasue Funayam a,
Vice-i\Iinister ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan ,
under Agenda item 3
(submitted by Japan)
Mr. Cbainnan,distinguished Commissionersanddelegates,
Japanbas beenplayinga constmctive role in thenegotiationto redressthestate ofconflict in IWCsinceits
59thAnnual Meetingheld in Anchoragein 2007. This i!because ourcountry tppOrts the spirit of the
International Convention for the Regulationof Whaling, and the.principle of ensuringthe protection and
recoveryof depleted whale. stocks and conductingwhaling operations for abundant whale stocks in
compliancewithsustainable catch limits calc.ultaed basedonscientific advice. This is thecoherentpolicy
wefmnly maintainandapply to allmarinelivingresources.
The IWC has been engaged in intensive and very difficult discu, considering variousdeep-rooted
problems it faces, to recover its ow11func.tion as a resources conservation aent organition.
Basedonsuch discussions,on Apri122of this year, theproposedConsensusDecisionwaspresentedbyIWC
Chair, Ambassador Cristian Maquieira and IWC Vice-Chair, AmbassadorAnthony LivetpOOl. This
proposal actually containselements that areverydifficult forJapanto accept, however, I appreciate it asthe
oneandonlyrealistic approachtosavethepolarizedIWC. Therefore, ourdelegationcametoAgadirwitha
strong determinationto discuss tbis proposal in earnest tmtil the last moment. I would lthisto take
opportuntiy to extend our sincere appreciation to AmbassadorMaquiera and AmbassadorLiverpool for
havingpresentedthe courageousproposal.as wellas to SirGeoffreyPainter, for theSupportGroup,
'A~ hissplendid leaders.ip
Japan has been actively and positively contributing to the Future of the IWC process, havingoffered a
numberofconcessionsafterverydifficultcoordination ofourdomestic concernedparties. Forexample, we
have expressedourflexibleattintdeto accept: caich linlits substantially reducedfromthe present level for
the I0-yearinterin1period; enhancedmonitoringcontrolandsurveillancemeasuressuchas an international
observerschente. a vessel mouitoringsystem,a DNAregistryscheme;as well as participationin a series of
conservationprogramswbichJapanhasbeenavoidingas areflectionof theconfrontati\~\th iWnCin the
past;providedthatthewhole agreementwouldbefuiandbalanced.
However,in spite of thevigorousandconstructivediscussionfromlastweek,theConmlissionhas notseena
waytore.acha consensussofar.
62·28.doc 1 24/06/2010 17:46
159Annex 157
IWC/62/18
Agenda item3
Wehaveto facethe causeofthissimarionandfindthe wayforward.
Oneof the keye.Jementsis to focusdiscussions and infonnation based onscience. However, attendingau
annualmeetingof theIWCfortheflrsttimeIwas aghastatthe fac.tthatevenwhalingwhichhasno problem
v.~ tustainabilityfromthe scientificpointof viewis deniedhereat theendof thedayonlybecause.public
opinionoes notaccept it, althougheachcountryadvocatestheimportance.of conservaiton andmanagement
of whale.resourcesbased on the scienad\~. ceIt shallnever be regardedas scienceio insist thatnot
evena singlewhale canbe allowedtobetaken in the.nameof"conservationof whales". Weshouldpledge
to respectscience, precisely becausethereare fundau1entaldifferencesin positionson whalingan10ngthe
Parti.
Moreove,r I believe that fmding an acceptable point of coe, recognizingthe differencesin each
other's position\~ew s ould be proofofman~r nternational communi. I recognize thatthereare
opinionsuch as"No whaling except for indigenoussubsistence whaling is acceptable" and, ''Notevena
single whaleshould be taken" witIWC. However, to continue to requestelinlination of whalingand
sticking to suchpositionsmeansthebreakdownof theFuture of theIWCprocess, oursublimeattempt.
believe each member country should cooperate towards accomplishment of the shared objective of
appropriate conservationofwhaleresourcesandmauagen1entofwhaling.
Whatisneededisforparticipatingcountriestohavea dialoguefromabroader perspective, beingdisengaged
fromintolerantdomesticpolitics, inordertorevitalizeortantinternationalorganization,theI\VC.
It is for this reasonthat Japanhas beenadvocating that our discussions should be basedon the Chairand
Vice-Chair'sproposal, and keepii~ positive and flexibleatt.. However, it is regrettable that there.
are some menbers au1ongthe concernedParties, who are not accepting it as a basis of otlf discussions,
regardingit asunsatisfactory.
Japansincerely e.xpectsthatall concernedPartieswillcontinueto makeeveryeffortto achieve a consensus
decision. followingtheapproachpresentedintheChandVice-Chair's proposal.
Thankyou.
62-28.doc 2 24/06/20 10 17:46
160 Annex 158
158. Government of Japan, “Statement on the Future of the IWC”, IWC/M10▯/SWG7
IWC/M10/SWG7
St:tt(>m(>nton th(>Futul'(>of th(>IWC
Sm:tll Wol'ldng G1·oup on th(>Futlll'(> of th(>IWC, 2-4 Mnrch 2010, St. P(>t(>B(>:tch, Flol'id:t , USA
GoVERNMENT OF JAPAN
L First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Sir Palmer, the Chair of the Support Group, IWC Chairmau,
Ambassador Maquieira and tht>IWC Secretariat for their efforts made thus far conct>ruing the Support Group tasks_
Since the 61" Annual Meeting the process to achieve a compreht>US:iagreement on the issue of the future of the IWC,
started last October with the consultation an1ong the 12-membt>r Suppo1i Group including Japan, ainling towards
00
completion at the 62 IWCAnnual Meeting scheduled for Jooe, this year_
2. As a product of a series of SG meetings, the Chair's Repoti was published as ofFeb.22 , this year. Undt>rthe vision of
improving the conservation and the management of whale populations , it dt>monstratesan innovative framework for a 10
year interim period during which different whaling categories shall bt>removed and whaling activities will be authorized
with catch linrits reduced from the current levels_ For all IWC membt>rs, the critical issue we should focus upon is the
appropriate approach for conservation and management TI1e idea to set asidt>, for a certain period of time, the
categorization of whaling that does not contribute at all to this endt>avoris extremely innovative and logicJapan
would like to pin our hopes on the potential that this new framework could bring the IWC out from the state of
dysfunction and restore its normal function as a mulWateral resource management organization_
3_ However, this 'Consensus Decision' draft has not bt>enagreed yet, even by Support Group members_ Especially, I
understand that there still is a big gap on the issue of catch limits among membt>rs. Japan hasbeen as active and flexible
as possible in trying to reach agreement, including on the issue of catch linlits_ Therefore, I would like to dt>clarethat
Japan will continue our diplomatic efforts toward the adoption of this draft docun1ent by consensus, in ordt>rto realize the
nonnalization of IWC_
4_ I have repeatedly pointed out in the past that we should go back to the principle that we had agreed when this process was
initiated_ In other words, all members would accept some eompromise but enjoy some benefits by agreeing on the
consensus package. Through this solution, there is neither unilateral vidory nor unilateral complete defeat Both
pro-sustainable use nations and anti-whaling members can engage in consultation on an equal footing_
5. Among IWC signatories ,there exist ftmdamental differences in their positions, regarding whalItisobvious from the
history that resolution of these differences is extremely diffiTht>refore, tmder tht>process for «the future of IWC",
we must set aside one's own principles and adopt a package of agreement by consensus, even if it didn't fully satisfy
everyone_ Without any reference to the principles, we have to put the highest priority on avoiding a crisis for the IWC_
6. Japan has madt>a series of major compromises in this process of "the fttture of IWC"_ For instance, although Japan 's
basicstance regarding scientific research is that it is a right of our cOtmtryclearly provided for inArticle VIII oftht>ICRW,
161Annex 158
IWC/Ml0 /SWG7
and that it should not be infringed, we have accepted and engaged constructively in an open discussion on this matter for
the sake of this process. To date, we have expanded the target species and sample size of research whaling. However,
to cooperate with tins processwe have discussed the reduction ofti1e catch internally and made a specific proposal for the
reduced figure without sacrificing ti1escientific credibility of our research. With regards to the sanctuary, in principle,
Japan opposes ti1eestablishment of sanctuaries without scientific grotmds. And yet, to form consensus, we are not
opposing tllis idea, as we consider it as an acceptable compronlise.
7_ Within the c.tUTentprocess, adltering to a proposal that completely negates the other parties' ftmdamental position is a
total contradictionof the intention and ilie spirit ofthe process, and as a result it could lead to the collapse of the process.
Itis quite regrettable if there are members in the group ti1atstick to demands that clearly will not see agreement at the end
of ilie day and will simply invite conflicts. Such proposals are utterly unacceptable, as they will underuline the
ctmuilative restilts and efforts made tirrough negotiations among SG members and tirrough diffic.ult adjustments of
domestic opitlions.
8. Ftrriliennore, there is anoti1erimpmtant issue. TI1e ac.sof harassment and interferenc.e by Sea Shepherd to Japanese
research vessels. In the published "Consensus Decision" docmnent, there is a paragraph showing comnlitment of IWC
members to ensme safety at sea. Japan places itnportance on fttlfillit1gsuch conllllitment A munber of resolutions
have been adop ted in the part which condenllled obstructive acts. However, acts of harassment and itllerference by SIS
have not subsided. Rather, ti1eyare gettit1gmore radical and malicious, year by year, ti1erebyc.ausit1gactual dan1ages.
Dtrrit1gthe meetit1gtilis tin1e,I wotild like to have an opporttmity toshow you one of the actual attacks (acts of harassment
and interference) by S/S that occtuTed tllis season. I am sme that you will be convinced how their activities cotild
jeopardize the safe navigation of vessels and tlrreaten the lives of the crewYouwill see with yotrr own eyes that their
acts are exceedingly dangerous .andtimt the Intemational Conlllnmity shotild never allow su ch deeds.
9. If I nmy repeat, Japan's it1tention is to carry out ti1ediscussion cool-headedly and constructively for the diplonmtic
solution of ti1eissues concemit1g the process for the fttttlfe of IWC. I hope iliat all other members will show flexibility
accordit1gly.
162 Annex 159
159. Matsuoka K, Hakamada T, Kiwada H and Nishiwaki S, “Abundance estimates and
trends for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) inAntarcticAreas IV and V
based on JARPAsighting data”, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (forthcoming)
J. CETACEAN RES.MAN.,JGli. (SI'fiOAISSUfi) 3. 75- 94.20 11 75
Abundance estimates and trends for humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) in Antarctic Areas IV and V based on
JARPA sightings data
KOJI M ATSUOKA, T AKASHI 1-JAKAMADA, HIRO SHI KIWADA, 1·\J ROTO MURASE AND SH IGETOS HI N ISHWAKI
T!te lnslilule ofCetacean Researc/1,4- 5, Toyomi-c!to, Cl111o-ku,Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
Contact e-mail: malsuoka@celaceanjp
ABSTRACT
Sighting survey data from the Japanes e Whale Research Program under Special Pcnnit in the Antarctic (JARPA) arc analy sed to obrain abundance
cstim;ttcs for humpba ck whales (Megaprera uovaetmgline ) south of 60°S. The surveys were conduct~2900005austral stmtmcr
seasons {mainly in Janu ary and Fcbmary); the survey areas altematc d betwee n Area IV (700E- l300E) and Area V (1300E to 170°W) each ycat·.
P1imary sighting ctfort totalled 293,811 n.milcs over 6, 188 days. Abundance esrimatcs arc obt:1ined usil)g srandnrd line tnmsect ;umlysis m..:thods
nnd the program DITANCE . Est imated densities of hum pback wh11lcswere hjghcst east of the Kerguelen Plateau (800E-1 20°E) . Abund ance
estimulcs for Area IV rnnge from 2, 747 (CV = 0.153) in 1993/94 t= 0. 123} in 200 1102, while those for Area V range fmm 602 (CV
= 0.343)in1990 /9 1 to 9,342 (C V =in.2004/05. ll tc estimatsimilato those obtained from the Intcmntiona l Wha ling Cornrnisskm 's
IDCR-SOWER surveys, which were conducle d in Arcn IV (iu 1978179, 1988/89 und 1998/99} and in Area V (in 1980/8 1, 1991/92 and 200 1102-
2003 /04). Estim<Ltedrmrotcof increase for Arca IV (16.4%; 95% CI ..-9.5- 23.3%) and Area V (1=.1.7- 22.6%) arc.:Ilsos imilar
to those obtained from the IOCR-SOWER surveys. The totnl nbinAreas IV nnV based oth.most rece nt JARPA surveys (20 03/04 nnd
2004/05 combined)is37, 125 (95% =l2 1,349- 64.55theco nfidence intcrv<ILincorporntcs estima ted additional variance. Resu lts ofscvem l
scusitiv icytests arc prese nted tlmt su. atcs of abund ance and ;wnot apprcc inbly affected by facasdiftercnt approac hes
to deal with survey covemge (whinsome cases was poor or included gaps). Changes in tinwhich survey strata were covered and
potential ctl"ects arc investi gated usin g a nested GLM approac h; a QAJC model selection clitcrim 1suggests a prefere nce for not attempting to adjust
for such changes. Und er various sens itivicy approac hes. tile point estimates of increase rates are not greatly affec ted for Area JV, Although they
drop by typica lly a hamost app roaches for Aren V, they ncvc11hclcss rcn11i1n wilhin the conf1dencc limits of the base case estimate of 12.1%
per year (95% C l -...1.7- 22 .6%) . The presented results thus sugges t that the estinul.tcd almnclanec of huicrca~cdwh:1lcs in Area IV has
rapidly . Although there an increase indicated tbrV~it is neither ns mpid nor as precisely1~k1.gtneseresults toget her with
the similar rates of increase estimated from coastal surveand eastem Australin for Breeding Stocks D and E respectively, and given
dcmogmp hic limitations on the increase rates possible for closed populations olhnmp baek. whales. the hypothes is is advanced dmt whales fi-orn
Breeding StockE may hav e shithchfeeding distribut ion westwa rd as their rmmbcrs have incrCilsCd, perhaps to take adva ntage of the higher
densi ticsk1ilto be tbund to the wes t.
KEYWORDS: AIJUNDANC E ESTIMATE; ANTARCT IC; HUMPB ACK WHALE : JARI'A; SU RVEY-VESSE L; TRENDS
INTRODUCTION
of Breeding Stocks D and E have been estimated , based on
There are several genetic stocks (genetically differentiated data from off Australia, to be increasi ng at annual rates of
populations within a sp ecies) of humpb ack whales in the around IOo/o-10.2%, SE = 4.6% by Bannister and Hedley
Southern Hemisphere. The Internation al Whaling (200 I) and at 10.6%, SE = 0.5% by Noad et a/., (20 II ). In
Commissio n Scientific Committee (IWC SC) has addition to the conservat ion valueor continued monitoring
hypothesised a totalof at least seven Breeding Stocks, which of the abundance and trends of these stocks, continued
it hascalled Stocks 'A', 'B', ... 'G' (IWC, 2005) and is still monitoring is also important because the stocks provide an
working to refine this. The population named Breeding Stock excellent opportunity to improve understand ing of the
D has its breeding grounds in the waters off western dynamics ofba leen whale populations recovering from low
Australia and in smnmer is believ ed to be found mainly in levels.
Area IV, south of 60'S. Breeding Stock E which has its There are two ma jor sources of systematic sightings data
breeding grounds in the waters off eastem Australia and in the Antarctic; one of these is the IWCs IOCR/SOWER
some of the south Pacific islands, is believed to be found cJUises (e.g. see Malsuoka era/.,2001), which are considered
mainly in Area V south of GO'S in summer. later in this paper. The other and the focus of the present
Humpback whales were heavily over-exploited during the paper, is the sightingcomponent of the JARPA (Japa nese
last century. Allen (1980) estimated that at the end of Whale R esea rch Program under Special Permit in lhe
commereial whaling, the stocks of this species had been Antarctic) programme. The stated objectives of Ihe JARPA
reduced to 2% of an originalpopu lation of 130,000 animals. programme were: (a) elucidation of the stockstructure of the
More reeent evaluations as part of the IWC Scientific A ntarctic minke wha le (Balaenaptera bonaerensis) to
Comm ittee's Comprehensive Assessment are ongoing, but imtlrove stock manageme nt; (b) estimation of biological
results reported to date, when summed over the seven parameters of the Antarc tic minke wha le to impro ve the
Breeding Stocks , suggest an original abundanc e of about stock managemen t; (c) elucidation of the role of whales in
125,000 whales reduced to a minimum of about 4% of that the Antarctic marine ecosyste m lhr ough whale feeding
number by the mid-1960s (e.g. IWC, 2009; Jackson el a/., ecology; and (d) elucidation of the effect of enviromnen tal
2008; Johnstone/ a/., 201I; Johnston and Butte1wo rtl1, 2005; change on cetacea ns (Government of Japan, 1987; 1996). In
Johnston and Butterworth, 2007; Zerbini et a/., 2011). order to address these four objectives,.IARPA compr ised a
Fortunately, signs of reeovery are now evident for many, combination of sighting and lethal sampling surveys. This
nlthoug h notall, ofl hese stocks. In particular, the abundance programme took place each year from 1987/88 to 2004/05
163Annex 159
76 Mi.TSUOKA N 11M~UNDANCE ESTIMATESAND TRENDS
during the austral summer. JARPA was designed to alternatestimationof trends and the extent of inter-year valiability
surveys in Antarctic Areas IV and V in each of the sixteein lca labunda nce.
yearsof the full-scale research period.
Sightings dntn collected by the SVs (dedicated sigh ting
vesse ls) andSVs (sighting and sampling vessels) during SURVEY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTIO N
JARPA h ave been used to estimate abundance and As noted above, JARPAcomprised a combinatio n of sighting
abundance trends of blue whales (Bmnch eta/., 2004) and and lethal sampl ing surveys. In order to try to obtai n
other large whale species (Kasamals u era/., 2000; Matsuobiologica l samp les representative of the Antarct ic 1ninke
e/at.2005:1; Matsuoka eta/., 2005b). Abundance estimates whale populnrion, random sampli ng method was adopted
for Antarctic minkc and humpback whales have also been within a line transect sightingey design. The sighting
presented to annual and intersessional meetings of the IWCnd samp ling surveys were conducted by two or three SSVs
Scientific Commiltee (e.g. Hakamaera/.2006; Matsuoka proceeding along predetem1ined tracklines. A dedicated SV
et a/., 2006) including the recent review of the JARPA was introduced from the 1991/92 seaso n. The JARPA
programme (IWC, 2008). During these meetings, concems surveys have been conduc ted in a genera lly consistent way
were expressed on certain aspects of the work, particularsince 1989/90. This paper inCO\llOratesdata from the eight
the potential effectthe sampling component (of Antarctic full-scale surveys in Area IV (1989/90, 1991/92, 1993/94,
minke whales) of the JARPA surveys on the abundance 1995/96, 1997/98. 1999/00, 2001/02 and 2003/04), and the
estimates of this and other spec ies or wha les (e.g. Wadeight in Area V (1990/9 1, 1992/93, 1994/95 , 1996/97,
2008). The review Workshop recommended further wo~nd 1998/99, 2000/0 1, 2002/03 and 2004/05) . Details of the
made a number of specific suggestions (Table I). surveys' design and some modificat ions over time are given
The primary objective of this paper is to prese nt anain Nish iwaki/a/. (2006) and in appdix I of Hakamada
of the humpback whale sightings data in Antarctic Areas rel a/(2007). Implications of some of these modifica tions for
1\!!V t~ht!!! i!~~~~! Qt~Jt;V !'!~!~!QtI!!!l Qf!~!! !!!!1'!§\!Q r b!\~!ml ~~d~!b!Q1~~!1tf!;~ !el~i~~c\l~~l!d
the IWC Scientific Couunittee. To facilitate understandinlater.
of the estimation procedures and the inte1prctation of results,
some details of the JARPA survey procedures are provided Rcscarcll arca
below, with further details set out inappendix I of HakamThe research area and geograph ical sub-divisions are shown
in Fig.I. Althoug h JARPA covered the Antarc tic sec tor
eta/. (2007).
Aseco ndary objective of this study is to compare JARPbetween 35'E and 170'W south of 60•S. the analyses in this
abundance estimates in the feeding grounds of Areas TVandpaper focus on IWC manageme nt Areas IV (70"E-1 30"E)
Vwith those in the breeding ground migrat01y corridors and V (I 30°E-l70•W) since this allows them to be restrieted
in the waters off both sides of Australia. (Bannister andto data colleed in the same months (Janua l'y- Felm1ary)
Hedley, 2001; Paxton eta/., 201 I) and eastern Australia over the full set of crAreas.I.~nd V were divided into
(Noad eta/., 2011). two sectors (wcstem and easte rn) that were further divided
In addi tion, the paper will compare abundance estima teso northern(60'S to 45 n.milcs from the ice edge) and
in Arc:1sTVand V obtained by JARPA with those obtained southern (from the ice edge to 45 n.miles away) stmta. The
by the IWCs IOCR (International Decade for Cetnce11n westem sector of Area IV includes a separate Prydz Bay
Research) and SOWER (Southern Ocea n Wha le and stratum. For this sector, north and so uth strnta were divided
Ecosystem Research) research programmes . Under these at66•S . The eastetll sector of Area V includes the Ross Sea;
programmes, dedicated sighting surveys (primari ly aimed for this sector the north and strata were divided at 69•s.
Anta rctic minke whules) have been conducted by the IWC
in the Antarctic annually from 1978179 to 19(IDCR) Monthl y coverage
and then from 1996/97 (SOWER). An overview of Although the JARPA research period ranged from the end of
IDCR/SOWER surveys is given in M~stuokttl a/. (2003). November to March ineachseason, regular research inAreas
One of the features of JARPA is that, unlike the TVand V was concentrated inJanuary and February (Fig. 2).
IOCR/SOW ER progranHnes, surveys have been repeated in This coincid es with the peak migration period ofhu mpbaek
the same area and in simi lar months every seco nd seasowhales to Antarct ic feeding grounds (Kasa 1natsu et a/.,
over a long period . The JARPA surveys can thus fllcilitat1996).
Tobie I
Listofn.-nJcnc.liaotin1provemetoc..ti•narcsof nhtmdnnccof lnlml>bnckwhnlesITOIIl thcJARPAsmvcyst"ro1n1hc IWC Sciemilie Co•n•nitrcc
(IWC, 2008) ond priorily o1hAdvisorGroup.
Tnsks
Priority RcmOlrks
I. Estimatiofdt!tcccinot\(n-;sin~Kin1hccaswh~r che H Addressed; Tobie 6a. 6b (Abundonc<); Table 7 (Tread)
11\IIJlbCI'of dch.-.ction issmnll)
2. lnvc.stigu,ionofscnsiJX">11all 'csscls toestinJact eMfectFohumpbk awhales.darnhadnlrb~cypnolcdfornvcssds
scir11widthnnd 1nennschoolsize
3. Variuncstimacifrom1hcSSV d:11n M Tol>c;,ddrcsscd in futurtwor\c
4. Sensitivity;maly.siswithapprop•iate weightingand/orbMor:cAddressed: T"6o, 6b nnd7
S. Ab1da•~ estimar<..-tas)f;,bund:tCgapsbetweentwo L Addrc.<scd; Tobie 6a, 6b ""d 7
str:acrl0
6. F.xtrnploofllcatsity i1Hounsurveyed an:as li Addressed; Tnblc 6o.
weresmvcyt..'<l
8. ll$timationofllddv~inncc M P:u(·i:tllyaddrcssc<lT:obh:7 nnnlyStwilmili7.cGLM
9. RcvJseestim;Hcsofmmnal incrca:;crate:meiltsCV followMng ,\dd •'Cssoo:Table 7 :u><9lb
su,sgcstit'II1\.S..g.
164 Annex 159
.CE.iiiCEAN RES. MANAG!i. (SPECIAL ISSUE) 3, 75--Q4, 20II 77
Research vessels Order of thesu.-vcys
Relevant information on the vessels used is given in TabThe order in which strata were surveyed within the main smvey
2. Kyo-mane No.I (KOI), Toslri-maru N(T25)and Tos!ti period (January-February) is shown inFigs 3a and3b forAreas
maru Nn. II? (TI R) operated as SSVs for the surveys froTVanrl V respectively. Abundance estimates are based on single
1989/90 to 1997/1998.Kyosi11-maru No.2 (KS2) engaged coverageofd1e blocks shown in Fig. 3 in the season concemed.
exclusively in sighting surveys (SV) 1995/96. Yusill
mal'llYSI) was used from the1998/1999cruise replacing Trackline design
the TIS and Yusi11-maru No.2 (YS2) was used from the The track line was designed to cover the whole research area
2001/2002 cruise replacing T25. and was followed consistentl y throughouthe JARPA
70'E 80'E 90'E 100'E 110'E 120'E 130'E 140'E 150'E 160'E 170'E180' 170'W 160'W
60'S
62'S
64'S
66'S
68'S
70'S
72'S
.<' ..\.~::\
74'S ...
76'S
Humpback whale: SSV
78'S 1989/90
68'S
70'S .•{...
>.. .. \
74'S
-~·\
76'S Humpback whale: SSV
78'S 1991/92 1992/93
70'E 80'E 90'E 100'E 110'E 120'E 130'E 140'E 150'E 160'E 170'E 180' 170'W 160'W
so·s·~::::::::=::::~==::=~=~=~~::::~=;::=~:::==;:::~-~
62'S / \ \ j\
.. \ . I '
64'S ~i':i't::""C::...-7 "7. 'c::hr-<"1~-.::._
66°5 /
68'S
70'S
72'S \....
74'S
76'S
Humpback whale: SV
78'S 1991/92 1992193
Fig. 1.Ptimary searching elTon(thassociatedprimarysightings (circleW~\t liAlrnsIVnndV
wittheicc cline(dotted)dmin1989/9t2004/0JARPAsmvcysThe areas norsurveye1995/96, 1999/00,
2001/02ndz003/0seasonsan::shadedgrey. SSV= Sighting andsampli=Dcdicmcdsightingvessel.
165Annex 159
78 MATSUOKA et a!.: ABUN DANCE ESTIM ATES AND TRENDS
70"E 80'E 90'E 100"E 110"E 120•E 130"E 140"E 150"E 160"E 170'E 180" 170'W 160"W
so·s:r;:::::::;;::::::::;;~=;;~:::;;::::;;;=~:::::;+::;;,=~::;;:::::~~:::::::=:::::::~:::::::=;----,
62"S
64"S
66"S
ss·s
70"S
72"S
74'S Humpback whale : SSV
76"S
1993/94 1994/95
78"S
70'E BO"E 90'E 100"E 110'E 120"E 130"E 140'E 150"E 160"E 170"E 180" 170'W 160'W
so·s
62"S
64"S
68'S
sa·s
70'S
72'S
74"S
Humpback wha le: SV
76'S
1993/94 1994/95
78"S
70"E 80"E 90"E 100' E110"E 120"E 130"E 140'E 150'E 160"E 170"E 180" 170"W 160"W
SO'S
62'S ;\
64'S ; ,
66'S \ ?
68'S ..
•
70"S
72'S
74"S
76'S Humpbac k whale: SSV
78"S 1995196 1996/97
70"E BO"E 90 "E 100"E 110'E 120'E 130'E 140'E 150"E 160"E 170 "E 180' 170"W 160'W
so·s r;::::::::::=;:::::::=;;;;::::;:~::::::::=;;=+==~:::::::~~=;:::::::::::=::::::::~~~
62'S I .
64"S
66"S
sa·s
70"S
72~S ( •
74'S ;; f ..
·. ."
76 'S Humpback whale : SV
~,- >···-~.
1995/96 1996/97 .-<~
78'S ···-----.·.:..:.:.
Fig. I (pat1 2).
166 Annex 159
J. CEiiRES. MANAGE. (SPEC75-94, 2011 3, 79
70'E
60'S
62'S
64'S
66'S
66'S ..r-·"·
70'S
72'S
···-.~,~.
74'S
76'S Humpback whale: SV
78'S 1997/980 1998/99
70'E
60'S
62'S
64'S
66'S
66'S .........v
70'S
72"S
'••,(":.
74"S .'· •
76'S
Humpback whale
78'S 1997/98 1996/99
70'E
60'S
62'S
64'S
66'S
68'S .·:·.
1..----._ ,.--''l
70'S
~,~·-~·.{
72'S ,.,.
74'S
76'S
Humpback whale : SSV
1999/2000 2000/01 f ~ ' ~ , ;,
78'S
70'E
SO'S
62'S
64'S
66'S
68'S
70'S
72'S
74'S
76'S
Humpback whale : SV \'.....
78'S 1999/2000 2000/01
l'I(pa3).
167Annex 159
80 MAT SUOKA et rtf.:ABUNDANC E ESTIM ATESAN D TRENDS
74"
76"S Humpback whale: SSV
78"S 2001/02 2002/03
70"E BO'E 90"E 100"E 110"E 120"E 130"E 140"E 150"E 160"E 170"180' 170"W 160'W
so·s
62"S
70'S
74'S
76"S
Humpback whale: SV
78"S 2001/02 2002/03
70'E BO"E 90"E 100"E 110"E 120"E 130"E 140"E 150"E 160'E 170"E 180" 170'W 160"W
~-s~;;==~~~~===;~=+== ==== =; =~== =..==~~====~
62'S
64'S
66"S ..··-
····•.....
68"5
70'S
72"S
74"S
76"8
Humpback whale: SSV
78'S 2003/04 2004/05
62"
64'
66"
68"
Humpback whale: SV
78"
2003/04 2004/05
Fig. l (pan 4).
168 Annex 159
J. 0:7iiCEAN/1/;MAN,IGF..(SI'HCW. ISSUliJ, 7$-94, 2011 81
Date (day/month) additional SV (KS2) operating in closing mode (i.e. NSC ns
11/12 26112 10/10 25101 09/02 24102 10/03 25103 above hut without lethal sampling of whales) were allocated
1989190j. :At !
19901~~t to the survey. From 1998/99, the SV (KS2) introduced the
passing mode option{NSP in IDCR-SOWER notation) i.e.
191 19~ the vessel did not approach the whale af1erthe sighting was
1992193• e .* ;eew
19931941 made andsearching from the barrel continued uninterrupted,
1994/9~ except rhar in some special cases, such as sightings of blue
5 n rS ? whales, closurewas effected once t.hevessel came abeam of
1995/9~6!
199619 the whale. During a 12-hour survey day, the observers
1997/98 alternated between normal closing mode (4 hours) and
199819 1 S? Qi ts£ passing modes (8 hours). For the SV these modes are
199912000t
2000/01 denoted asSVC and SVP hereafter.The SSVs followed the
SV at adistance of over 12 n.miles to avoid any influence of
2001/0i sampling activities on the SV's sighting survey.
200210
2003104 A researcher on board recorded all the infonna tion on the
2004/05 whales sighted. The sighting record included thedare andhe
timeof thesighting, theposition of the vessel, a clussifiearion
rig. 2. SlaJtClldatesorJARPAsurveystbr;~bUI'C ~d~nnmcenf of survey mode and sighting (primary or secondary), the
humpbu::kwhalesinArensIVandV. angle and distance from the vessel of the initial sighting, the
speciesand school size, the estimmed body length and other
information as for theIDCR-SOWER cruises. More details
surveys (Figs I <md4). The saw-tooth type tracklin.e for rhe of these procedures are given inNishiwaki e/ af.(2006).
southem strata was chosen to allow for a wide area covemgc.
The starting points of the trackline were selectealrandom ANALYTICAL I'ROCE DIJRE
from 1 n.mile intervals on lines of longitude. Truckline way
points were systematically set on the icc edge nnd on the The procedure applied here to analyse the sightings daw is
locusof points 45 n.miles from that edge in southern strata, similar to that used for the IWC/IDCR-SOWER surveys by
:md on this locus and the 60'S latitude line in northstr~ta. Brunch and Butterworth (2001a; 200 1b). To provide 'base
Nishiwak i e/ a/. (2006) provides more details. case' estimates of abundance:
(I) distances and angles are con·cctcd for possible bias by
Sig htin g survey procedure
1\vo or three SSVs travelled in parallel (7 n.miles apart) on using the resultsof the distance and angle estimation
each predetermined tntckline . The SSVs surveyed at a experiments;
(2) the sighting rate is obtained for each day;
standard speed of 11.5 knots. The survey was conducted
under what were considered optimalresearch conditions for (3) smearing parameters are obtained by Buckland and
Antarctic minke whales (i.e. when visibility was over 2 Anganuzzi's (1988) method II;
(4) g(O)is assumed to be I;and
n.miles and the wind speed was <25 knots in the :southern (5) sightings datn arc pooled each season and across strata
strata,20 knots in the northern strata).
The SSVs interchanged tracklines each day 10 avoid to the extent necessary for reliable estimation of the
effective search half-widthw,, using either a hazard rate
possible bius associated witha fixed location in the pair or or halt:no11al model) and the mean school size (E(s}),
triplet oftracklines.ghtings of whales were classified into
primary and secondaoy sight ings. Primary sightings were based on standard line transect analysis methods using
the program DISTANCE (Thomas eta/ ., 2005).
those made under normal searching mode; secondary
sightings were those made under orlter modes (e.g. during The sections below set out furtheo· assumpt ions made to
closingor chasing modes or off effort). In eflecr, the sighting obtain base case estimates, followed by descriptions of
surveys by the SSVs were conducted under normal closing sensitivity rests in which one or more of the base case
mode (NSC in IOCR-SOWER notation as described in specificationsMd assumptions are varied.
Nishiwaki e1 a/., 2006) i.e. after a sighting was made the
vessels appo·oached aschool of wholes to confirm species Data selected tor the analysis
and school size; this mode is denoted as SSV hereaftet: Size oft l•eresearch area
One of the three SSVs behaved as a SV from the 1991/92 The surveys covered the region between the ice edge and
to 1994/95 cruises . From 1995/96 three SSVs and an 60"S, The open wnter nrca for each strat\mtor each survey
Table2
Spcciticutionsof1hcrcsc.archvcs.sdsusedtlwtheJARPAsui'Vcys.
I<)·Q·mctrNffo.1Qslli·uuwuNo.15 'Toshi·m<ilto. 18l'ltshin~Ymu s(hrl.~,N o2 Kyohi~11um N1o.l
CtJIIsigll JKNG S.ICG Jl'MQ JLZS JPl'V JFHR
Resistelength (m) 69.1$ 68.37 63.20 69.61 69.60 68.t8
Molded brc;;dth (m) 10.30 9.90 9.90 10.10 10.80 10.80
Groq._rcgish:rl<aciOg 812.0& 739.92 758.JJ 720.00 747.00 372.00
13arrleight (m) 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 tS.OO 17.00
IJ.SO IJ.SO 10.50
lOPheigh! (m) 10.00 10.00 8.00
Uppct br'idt;chcishr(m) 10.00 10.00 to.oo
Oow hci~ (h l 6.110 6.00 6.20 6.$0 6.50
M(IXimumcominuousoutpm(hJJ) s.ooo 3.600 3.500 5,280 5.2&0 2,100
169Annex 159
MATSUOKA et a/.: ADUNDANCE ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
82
(a) Area IV
60'S 1969/90 6o•s 1991/92 60'S 1993194
NW NE NW NE NW NE
5 2 5 1 5 2
SW SE SW SE sw SE
66'S 3 1 66·s 3 2 66'S 3 1
PB 130'E PB 130•E PB 130'E
70'E 4 70"E 4 70"E
1997/98 ,S 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04
60'S NW NE 60 KW 60'S NW NE 60'S NW
1 3 1 N2EI 1 2 1 N2EI
SW SE sw SW SE sw
4 2 4 53EI 4 3 4 s: J
66'S PB 130•E 66'S PB 13O"E 66"S PB 130'E 66'S PB 130"E
5 e-...L 5 ._§._
70'E 70"E 70'E 70'E
(b)Area v
so·s 60'S
Fig. 3. Smvcy order by strata. (a) Antarctic Area IV ofJARPAsurvey from the t989/90 to 2003/04 seasons.
(b) Antnrctic Arcn V ofJARPA survey from the 1990/9 1 to 2004/05 seasons. Key: NW ""No rth-West,
NE - North-E:c". SWSouth-West, SE - South-East (Ross Sea), PB- Prydz Bay.
was calculated using the Marine Explore Geog raphical the case of Antarctic minke whales (Hakamada eta/., 2007),
Information System version 4 (Environm ent Simula tion data were pooled here. This is because the limited number
Laboratory Co, Ltd, Japan). The ice edges and hence ofsight ings made of humpback whales required the inclusion
boundaries between the northern and southernstrata differed of as many sightings as possible, as in the case of the IOCR
for SVs and SSYs because their surveys were notcompletely SOWER based abundance estimates for species other than
synchronou s, so that the ice edges they encountered differed.the Antarctic minke whale (Branch, 201 1; Braneh and
This resultsin slightly difterent stratum areas for the two. Butterwm1h, 200 Ia).
For abundance estimates developed combining data over the
SSY and SV modes, the averages of the two area sizes for ABUNDANCE ESTIMATI ON
each stratum are used.
The methodology used for abundance estimation is described
UJJsurveJ'ed area in Branch and Butterworth (2001a) and has been accepted
Some small parts of Area IV were unsurveyed on four of the by the IWC Scien tific Committee in the past. The program
cruises, with theroportions not surveyed listed in Table 3. DISTANCE (Thomas et a/.2002) was used to implement
These 'gaps' (see Fig. I) arose because of the retreat of the this. The basic fonnula is;
ice edge after survey of the more northerly of the two strnta
concerued had been completed, necessitating re-location of P= AE(s)n
(I)
the trackline for the more southerly stratum. For base case 2wsL
abundance estimates, these gaps me treated as having the where,
same density as the more northerly stratum. This is because
P is the estimated abundanc e in numbers in the stratum,
densities tend to be higher closer to the ice edge, and these
gap regions are more typical of meas more distant from the A is the open ocean area of the stratum,
ice. Note that such 'gaps' differ from instances where
E(s) is the estinnrted mean school size,
covera ge of a sutvey was poor or incomp lete because of
shortag e of time and/or bad weather. The conseq uences for 11is the number of primary sightings of schools,
abundance estimates of each of these eftects are addressed
further below under 'Sensitivity Tests'. w, isthe efteetive striml~twidt hor schools, and
L is the primary search etTort.
S ur vey modes
Sight ings data collected under SSY, SVC ami SVP modes The CV of Pi s calculated using the approximate tonmrla:
were combined for the estimation of the mean school size
and effect ie search half-width for schools. Although CY(P)• {CY(i)' +{CY(£(s))) 2 +{CY(w) f (2)
separate estinwtes are obtained for each of these modes in
170 Annex 159
J.CETtiCEtiNRES.MANAGE. (SJ'b"CJ,LI ISSUE) J75 94.20 1I 83
(i) Tnble3
lh..tk:fCC1lUl£C1hcopenoceanal"een)orsmvcycdinAtca1Vsurveys.
f'crccnmgcofur~ rotsmveycd
1989/90
1991/92
1993194
1995/96 9.2
• ActuaWl ayPoint 1997198
(iceed9eand 45 n.miles 1999/00 4.5
fromaceedge) 2001/02 2.7
• EstinatedWayPoint 2003/04 10.0
(asice edge)
(C)
approachwasusedforangles.Moredetailsofthemetl10dol0b'Y
(ii) may be found inBmnchandButterworth(2001b).
1hmcntion distance
The conventionnl truncation distance for perpendicular
distancesofs ightingsestimated for Antarcticminke whales
is 1.5 n.miles (Branch and Butterworth, 2001b). However,
because of their larger body and blow sizes, humpback
whalescan beseen much further fro•n vessels thanAntarctic
,....;""" ""'... h#'loln... T h ..,...a~........~n...•~~-..-.~a.....:....._ ...
IU III"'f'YIl~I,I ll !i;i dtI IUliVUUVV\.OU\~UIll0U I.;I\1(6/1JU
a/. {200Il to tnmcate such 1hat about 5% of the data are
Fig.4.Tmcklincdes~ igsomhcrnstnua.(i)(A):sawtoothshapetrncklinc
wil.intet'vsf fourdegreelongicudc. SoudlCmwnypoints(WI)s) we.rc excluded, has therefore been applied as in Branch and
set on rhc ice·cdgeand nonhcm WPs(110111\cbmoundawac set on Bu tter.vorth {200la). with results rounded to 1he neuest 0.3
n.miles.Accordingly the perpendiculardistancedistributions
the locus ofpoincs4Sn.m.lies fmm~dgc.( O)hentheiccedgewtU
encounteredbeforerc:tehingnplannedsouthemWP(estimatedWP).tltc were t:IUnacted at 2.7 n.miles.
researchvessels stoppsm'\'cyin:.ndmovedto theni!XtburdC~~ree
lon!!itudinlnintervallinealonaich~ds::(in TO - topmandown
mode).Thi!ntherl.!scarcvcssl.st reeddirectionnr\resumedthe Smearing pamme/ers
Smearingparameterswerecalculated foreachcmiseto make
survey(BC inNSC and BlinNSPnoodcs)northw:ord(.C): WhenIheicc
l!dgc was nor Ct1COUl1¢lrtdre.1china planned southcnl WP, the allowance for errors in eslimates of distances and angles
I'C.~t vcsrs~hloppedsurvcyiug:)Odll Vcd$OUth(iTO- copn ul; following B ranch and Butter.vort:h(2001a). The sightings
do\Yn- n'K>do) the lons,itudinlalincrhrough•he WPuntil the vcuclsdata arc sme<Jrde before their truncation to give11,and then
l!ncountrcche ko.cd~.cThen the researchVI!'Severseddirccrion
ondresumed lhc $urvcy(BCitNSC (lndBPin NSP modes)northward. used in theestimation of theeffectivesearchhalf-width (w)
and the mean school size (E(s)) for input to equation {I).
(ii) In thecaorsurveysin the RossSe<1,.smvcy wnscontinued on a
biscc;fCJlOJilcrhr icn;1es•i•n:tsedsomhemWP.If thrimeelapsed Radial distance and angle data were smeared in the
tromchcestimatedWPcoth¢trueWI)ontheicecd;ewasovertwohours. conventional manner by using Method II of Buckland and
i'revisedmackline wn.sseFroanthe •n•c WPto the n.:xrWPonrht Anganuzzi (1988) and then grouped into intervals of 0.3
nonhcn1bou1adruy.
n.miles for estimating w, values.ForAntarcticminke whales,
smearingpamm e1ersareconventionallyestimatedsepamtely
for·each stratum f1-omthe datu. However, due to the lower
Under the assumption of distribution log-nonnality, 95% numbers of sightings of humpback whales. some pooling
confidence intervflls for the abundance estimates arc
calculated as (PIC, CP) where Cis given by: was necessary here to obtain robust estimates from the
Buckland andAnganuzzi method. The sme<uingp<m l meter
1 values reported inTable4b were thus obtained frompooled
C =exp(Z 0 025tog.(l +{CV(P)} ]) (3) sightings {including sightings with both conl"irm ed and
unconfirmed schoolsize) sepamtely for each cruise.
nnd
Z . represents 2.5-percentage point of a shmdard nonnal E.Qectiveset1rd1lw(f:.,idtlr
0 025
distribution. More details of 1he analysis methods may be The smeared and truncated sighting data for schools were
found inBucklandeta/. (2001)andBranchandButte1worth g•oupedinloinle•vals of0.3 n.milestoestimatethe<'l.e ection
(200la; 2001b). function.Ahazard rate model with noadjustment terms and
a hnlf-normal•uodel were considered as potential detection
Correction oft he estimated angle and dis1m1ce functions. The beUer model w~s selected by AIC in each
Tobeable todetectandifnecessarycorrectforbiases in;mglc case; g(O) was assumed to be I {i.e. no schools present on
anddistanceobservations,experimentsusinga1-ndrareflecting the truckline were missed).
buoy were conduct ed byeach vesselduringeachcn1sie as is
tile cnse for the IOCR/SOWER cruises (the experimental Mean school size
methodology is described in Nishiwaki eta/., 2006). Linear The method regressing the logarithm of school size against
regression modelswereused to examine possibledifferences the delectionj(y). asdescribedbyBucklandeta/ .{2001)wns
betweenobserved andtrue{obtainedfromradar)distances for used to estimate mean school size (E(s)). If the regression
eachplmfonnforeachC1 11ise{Table4a).Inordertocorrectfor coeffic ient was notsignificant at the 15%level, themeanof
such biases, the estimated distance was divided by the tlteobservedschoolsize wasinputtoequation{I). Note that
estimatedslopeof a regressionthroughtheoriginif thisslope pooling across survey modes 111eansuse of school size
differed signiticantly fi-om l at the 5% level. A similar estimates for SVPmode which maybiastheestimateof E(s)
171Annex 159
84 MATSUOKA e1 a/.: ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
Table 4a Table 4b
Estimutcdobserverbia.c(;c;xpn.-.sscd as mullcoiTecliofactors) in Smearing pammeters foreacstra\unusedin abund;mccstmi:-~t Uintn.
distanceandnt1glecsrinmtt'oJARI'Asutvcysfrom1989/90 to2004/05. fo:ng~cs:u·cdegrees. while fo1·distancesthe valuesgiven arc propo11ions.
PJ(f\rm AreaIV Area V
Barrel Upperbtidgc Season Angle Distance Season Anglc Distc:c-~n
Sc;15on Vessel Dist;mcc Angle Distilnce Angle 1989/90 4. 978 0.308 1990/91 3.963 0.257
199 1/92 6.58 9 0.266 1992/93 4.6 16 0.396
19S9190 KOI n.s. 0.930 n.s. 0.872 1993194 5.82 1 0.356 1994/95 6.4 1I 0.206
TIS ll.S. 1.047 n.s. n.s. 1995/96 5.742 0.273 1996197 7.732 0.214
T25 1.099 ll.S. 1.075 ll. S. 1997198 5.612 0.231 1998/99 8.710 0.281
1990191 KOI n.s. 1.051 0.953 1.064 199912000 6.769 0.233 2000/0 1 6.559 0.307
200 1/02 5.289 0.233 2002/03 4.106 0.174
T IS n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 2003/04 7. 10 0.188 2004/05 6.486 0.250
'1'25 0.882 n.s. 0.961 n.s.
1991192 KOI 0.930 n.s. n.s. 0.950
TI S n.s. n.s. 0.960 n.s.
T25 n.s. n.s. 1.070 n.s. downwards. Only sight ings for whic h school size was
1992/93 KOI n.s. 0.942 1.083 0.941 confirmed were used to obtain these estimates .
T IS n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
T25 n.s. 1.056 n.s. 1.082 Population rate of increase
To estimate rate of increase in anArea, an exponential trend
1993194 KOI 0.863 Jl.S. n.s. n.s. was assumed with the following error struclure:
TIS n.s. 11.5. n.s. n.s.
T2S n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.057
P,.~(3exp( ay) + v,.•P.,~ P.+ "•·' (4)
1994/95 KOI ll.S. n.s. 1\.S. 0.933
TI S n.s. n.s. 0.934 n.s. where
P,and P.are 1hetrue and survey estimated abundances in an
T25 0.940 n.s. 0.902 H.S.
Area m season y,
1995/96 KOI n.s. n.s. n.s. 11.5.
TIS ll.S . n.s. 1.110 0.956 a is the instantaneous increase rate,
T25 0.889 II.S. 0.905 1.040
KS2 n.s. 0.905 n.s. 0.898 (3is abundance for seasony = 0,
1996197 KOI 0.822 n.s. 0.844 n..
u,.reflects survey sampling error, and
'11'8 0.711 n.s. n.s. ll. S.
T25 0.799 n.s. 0.773 1.036
KS2 0.789 0.951 0.662 1.050 v,is the error assoc iated with additional varianc e, which
a·rises from an inter-annual variation in the proporti on of
J99719S KOI 0.842 n.s. 0.746 n.s. whales in the surveye d area at the time of the survey.
T IS 0.902 n.s. 0.788 n.s.
T25 0.729 n.s. 0.914 n.s.
In order to take the additional varia nce of abundance
KS2 0.876 n.s. 0.788 ll.S. estimates (CV, , )as well as the survey sampling CV into
11
1998/99 KOI 0.902 n.s. 0.956 1.057 account, the negative log-likelihood function minimised to
T25 n.s. 1.053 n.s. 1.065 estimate is:
YSI 0.923 n.s. 0.968 n.s.
KS2 0.928 0.950 n.s. n.s.
I~ [ · 2 2]
1999/2000 KOI n.s. 11,5. 1.050 n.s. (a,{3,C )~fz/., Lo.gI"V (P..) +CV,,."'
T25 n.s. 1.081 ll.S. ll.S . y
(5)
YSI 11.5. n.s. n.s. n.s.
KS2 n.s. 0.930 n.s. n.s.
+ 2: g(~ 1. o)g -(fj)-ay)'
2000/200I KOI n.s. 1.051 n.s. n.s.
T25 n.s. n.s. 1.062 n.s. ,. 2 {c v ~c J+c} v,,,],
YSI n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
KS2 1\.S. n.s. n.s. 0.86 1
Estimates of standa rd errors for and CV"'"were obtained
200 1/20 02 KOI 0.957 0.92 1 0.957 n.s.
T25 0.95 1 n.s. 0.960 n.s. from 1he associated Hessian (Jnfonna lion matrix), with CI
YSI n.s. ll.S. n.s. n.s. estimates assuming a /-distribu tion with 6 degrees of
KS2 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
freedom.
2002/2003 KO I 1.073 n.s. n.s. n.s.
YSI
1.05 1 1.037 1.058 0.938 Sensitivity tests
YS2 1.050 u.s. n.s. n.s. Altemative estimates of'e.Uectivesearch lw/fwidt/7
KS2 Jl.S , ll.S . ll.S. 1.088
The base case selects between the hazard rnte and half
2003/2004 KOI 0.957 0.92 1 0.957 n.s. normal models for the detectio n function for cruise
YSI 0.951 ll .S. 0.960 n.s.
YS2 11.5 . n.s. n.s. Ll.S. stratum/set-of-strata combin ations. For sensit ivity tests,
either all fom1s are set to half-nonna l or all to hazard rate.
KS2 n.s. n.s. n.s. Ll,S.
2004/2005 KOI
1.113 1.096 1.044 n.s. Inclusion of traclrlines tlwtfollowed the con/ours ~/' etihe
YSI 1.029 0.939 1.024 0.9 19
YS2 1.102 1.061 11.5. n.s. edge
KS2 1.084 0.966 1.064 n.s. In practice, some of the tracklincs obtained where the saw
tooth type trackline desig n approac hwas used, were nearly
~n.~ idicntcs notsignitic:1nt:115%level. parallel to the ice edge (e.g. SW and SE strata in Area.!YL_
172 Annex 159
J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. (SPECIAL ISSUE/75-94,2011 85
This could lead to overestimation of abundance because of Area V: 1992/93 NE over 6S"-69"S (2002/03; 2004/05)
possible higher density close to the ice edge. As sensitivitArea V:2000/01 SE over 69"-71"S (1992/93; 1994/95;
tests to examine the effectf tracklines that followed the 1996/97; 2004/05)
contours of the ice edge, two datasets were developed : one
that excluded pmtions of tracklines that followed the Area V: 2004/05 NW over 130"-148'E (1998/99; 2000/01;
contours of the ice edge (Option B), and the other one that 2002/03)
excluded all tracklines not parallel to lines of longitude
(Option C). Given the small numberofsightings in the SW The effecl of'survey modes cmdsurvey timing
and SE strata inArea IV on earlier cruises, only seasons froTo investigate the extent of effects of the survey modes (i.e.
1997/98 onwards were considered. SSV, SVC and SVP) and timing of the survey conducted in
each stratum (which differed in some years because of
Unswv eyed areas and incomplete coverage differences in the order in which the strata were surveyed)
Two approaches have been taken to attempt to bound the on estimates of population increase rates, GLM analyses
uncertainty associated with tl1e treatment of 'gaps' in were unde11aken. ln the Prydz Bay stratum in Area IV and
coverage as defined above for the base case estimates: theSE stratum in Area V, no sightings of humpback whales
were made for some of the cmises. Hence a Poisson en·or
(I) the abundance contributions from these gaps are set to stmchire was assumed for the GLMs. A hierarchy of such
zero (i.e. whales in such gaps at the time of surveying models was evaluated for each Area. As discuss ed in
the more southerly sh·ataare considered as ones already Hakamada et al. (2007), because stratum areas vary from
effectively counted in the earlier surveying of the more
northerly strata, as these whales would subsequently season toseason asa result of different ice edge locations, it
likely have moved further south); and is not immediately obvious whether such approaches should
(2) thedensityin a gap isassumed to bethe same as the higherbe based on the density or on the abundance in a stratum,
and arguments can be offered to support either approach.
densityinthestratum immediately tothe south, rather thanHowever density is perhaps the more obvious choice and
that immediately to the north asthe base case. furthennore Hakamada et a/. (2007) found little difference
The implications of incomplete to poor coverage of certain in results for the two approache s for minke whales.
strataas a result of time shortage or weather factors also needcordingly the analyses here are based only on density.
consideration . Selection potentially more serious cases to
examine was guided by inspection of the cmise track plots Model (i): logE[n b (y,a)] = log ( w,,_.J,.,,
in Fig. I, and instances where a review by Wade (2008) '' E,._)s)
suggested coverage to below' in thesense of less than about (6a)
50%. However, because for humpback whales, the data for
+ log(D,,"(O,a))+ay
SSV and SV surveys are combined, only cases where
coverage was incomplete or poor for both these two survey 2
modes were considered further. Further, following Model (ii): logE[n .b,(y,a) ]- log;:·.::~)')
consideration of the extent of the poor coverage together
with the contribution from the stratum concerned to the (6b)
abundance estimate for the complete Area for that cruise, +log(D,"(O,a))+ay+ M
sensitivityto instances of poor or incomplete coverage in
Area V for theSE stratum in 2002/03 and the SW stratum in 2w L )
2004/05 was deemed likely to be slight and further Model(iii): logE[nw• y,a )]=lo g(~E,...,(s)
calculations for those casese not pursued. (6c)
For the remaining cases, the approach followed to
examine sensitivity was as follows. For the base case
estimates of abundance, the extrapolated density for the 2
(nearly) unsurveyed portionf a stratum is taken to be the Model (iv): logE[n .w(y,a) ]= log( ;, ·,.: ··")
same as that in the surveyed portionf the stratum. For an ,...,()
alternative to this, tile average of the ratio of the densities in (6d)
these two portions of the strahlln on other cruises was +log(D,.,.,(O,a))+a y +M +a*T
evaluated (in the case of d1is humpback analysis this amounts
Where:
to considering the ratio of sighting rates, as values of other
inputs to the calculation density are common), and this y is the season,
was used insteadto extrapolate the density in the snrveyed a is the stratum,
to that for the (nearly) unsurveyed portion for the season in
question. The development of such averages did not iHclude E[n,'"(v,cl)]is the expected nwnber of sightings in stratum a
daw from eve1y other c1uise,as consideration was also given in seasony,
tosimilarities of ice-edge configurations between the c1uisew,. sthe effective search half-width for seasony and stratum
The strata for which such alternative computationswere a,
condt!cted, together with the other cruises used to develop
the average ratio required shownin parenthe sis, were as L,..s the primary searching distancefor season y and stratum
follows: a.
Area JV: 1995/96 SE over I00"-- 1OS"E (1989/90; 1991/92; E(s),,is the estimated mean school size for season y and
1997/98; 1999/00; 200/04) stratuma,
Area V: 1990/91 SE over 69"-71"S (1992/93; 1994/95; D (v a)is the unbiased (i.e. f'reefrom the survey mode
1996/97; 2004/05) et' ·dfn;it;f'r ~asln) and stratuma,
173Annex 159
86 MATSUOKAeta/.: ABUNDANCE ESTIMAfES AND TRENDS
a is the popu lation 's exponentia l rat e of inc rease, wi th th e observed number of sigh tings. Add itional varia nce
M is the mode factor for SSV and SVC sur veys standa rdis ed has not bee n consi dered in the se analyses .
The middle day of the su rv ey period in eae h str atum was
to SVP,
ca leu late d and categorised into gro ups as a ba sis to specify
Tis a catego rica l var iable re lated to su rvey timing tha t is T for models (iii ) and (iv) above . T he groups in bo ld letters
defined be low, and below are in clud ed in the interce pt of the altern a tive models
a*T is an interac tion be tween the stra tum a and timing T conside red (i.e. the effect oft hose gro up s is set to zero in the
ca lculat io ns).Because the estimat e o f a seemed to be
factor s.
sensitive to the defi nitio n ofT fo r AreaIV in pa1iicu lar, five
The firs t tem1 on th e righ t-h and-side as known as th e offset. group ings were cons idered :
It uses va lues ofw, and E(s) pooled over modes , so that all
inputs requi red are listed in Tables 5a and 5b . The al)l)ro ach (I) T ~ I:Dec 15- 31; T ~ 2: Jan 1-15; T~ 3: Jan 16-31; T
used here makes the ass ump tion that the variances ofw and ~ 4: Feb 1-15; T ~ 5: Feb 16- 29; and T ~ 6: M ar 1-15
E(s) are relative ly small compa red to the varianc e assoda. ted (Grouping Tl)
Table 5a
Abundance estimatesforhumpb11ck whnlcsinArc<tIV(southof60°S) from th~ 1989/90 to 2003/04 JARPAcmiscs. A= size of I'C.'i·ccnhtn~cnumberof
schoolssightedonprimnryeffort(truncarcdataperpendiculardistanceof2.7 n.milcs aftSlll iCga)~=primm)'searchingclistan.:c11',thectlCctivcsc:uch
h;llfwdth(lmzrmlrntcmodelcslimatc,orhnlfnonnal ifshowninitalics)E(s)= rn~e schoolsize;Lr-=csriamtcclclcnsity (individuals/100n.mik-sj);P=cslimmccl
abundance.
Season Stratum A (n.milc') L(n.milc) niL *10~ CV w, (n.milc) CV E(s) CV D(in d.) I'(ind.) CV
1989/90 NW 222,563 21.2 1,987.6 1.067 0.297 0.996 0.226 2.000 0.093 1.071 2,383 0.331
NE 219,245 20.0 1,964.4 1.018 0.448 0.727 0.426 1.750 0.082 1.225 2,687 0.522
sw 35,878 10.4 2,518.3 0.411 0.391 0.937 0.201 1.804 0.056 0.396 142 0.412
SE 41,143 1.0 1,362.2 0.073 0.732 0.937 0.201 1.804 0.056 0.071 29 0.761
Pll 36,488 2.0 831.9 0.240 0.482 0.937 0.201 1.804 0.056 0.231 84 0.526
Total 555,317 54.6 8.664.4 0.630 0.215 0.959 5.125 0.302
1991/92 NW 219,713 41.7 2,482.7 1.680 0.231 1.052 0.202 1.929 0.062 1.540 3,383 0.265
NE 216,299 16.0 2.173.9 0.736 0.300 1.005 0.14.1 1.803 0.049 0.661 1,429 0.317
sw 37,191 19.7 2,237.5 0.880 0.350 1..179 0.171 1.680 0.082 0.536 199 0.368
SE 39,732 17.0 2,281.7 0.745 0.378 0.746 0.327 1.870 0.051 0.905 360 0.424
PB 36,569 1.0 607.5 0.165 0.730 1..179 0.172 1.680 0.082 0.100 37 0.755
Total 549.504 95.4 9,783.3 0.975 0.150 0.984 5,408 0.188
1993/94 NW 233,289 43.7 4,160.7 1.050 0.191 1.220 0.122 1.614 0.068 0.694 1,619 0.208
NE 163,982 30.5 3.175.1 0.960 0.290 1.874 0.171 1.774 0.079 0.454 744 0.310
SW 39.755 24.8 2,377.7 1.043 0.338 1.381
0.157 1.571 0.070 0.597 237 0.354
SE 41,353 7.0 2,258.9 0.310 0.315 1.381 0.157 1.571 0.070 0.179 74 0.334
PB 34 .506 4.0 1,077.0 0.371 0.688 1.381 0.157 1.571 0.070 0.211 73 0.701
Tol•l 5 12,885 110.0 13,049.4 0.843 0.138 0.536 2,747 0.153
1995/96 NW 149,17 122.2 3,530.5 3.461 0.171 1.126 0.070 1.543 0.037 2.347 3,611 0.176
NE 230,473 45.8 2,979.7 1.537 0.280 1.076 0.119 1.826 0.079 1.304 3.007 0.289
sw• 89.825 54.5 2,851.2 1.911 0.318 1.468 0.118 1.909 0.050 1.293 1,100 0.336
SE 33.980 27.6 2.039.9 1.353 0.246 1.248 0./54 1.893 0.087 1.029 348 0.267
Pll 25,970 0.0 1,321.8 0
ToHtl 250.1
529,354 12,723.1 1.966 0.123 1.524 8,066 0.142
1997/98 NW 217,645 191.6 3,367.2 5.690 0.200 1.829 0.071 1.870 0.035 2.924 6.365 0.204
NE 219.602 107.2 3,622.7 2.959 0.367 1.681 0.085 1.658 0.040 1.465 3,217 0.369
SW
31,615 171.3 3,432.5 4.991 0.157 1.5.11 0.064 1.767 0.030 2.944 931 0.161
SE 34,374 25.2 3.195.9 0.789 0.218 1.549 0.168 1.555 0.090 0.395 136 0.239
PB 4,407 2.0 490.0 0.408 0.758 1.533 0.064 1.767 0.030 0.204 9 0.761
Total 507,643 497.3 14,108.3 3.525 0.123 2.099 10,657 0.166
1999/2000 NW* 229,368 54.7 2.825.3 1.936 0.193 1.347 0.1/3 1.532 0.066 1.098 2,519 0.204
NE 226,272 160.7 3,550.8 4.525 0.208 0.828 0.170 1.538 0.032 4.203 9,510 0.228
sw 44,362 106.3 2,336.7 4.549 0.245 0.579 0.222 1.710 0.039 6.839 3,068 0.274
SE 34,175 165.1 2.704.3 6.105 0.191 1.447 0.068 2.133 0.054 4.613 1,576 0.195
PB 21,288 1,244.7
3.0 0.241 0.610 0.579 0.222 1.710 0.039 0.369 78 0.651
Tolal 555,964 489.8 12,661.8 3.868 0.110 3.013 16,751 0.143
2001/02 NW* 222,449 252.2 3,043.6 8.286
0.191 1.259 0.071 1.941 0.035 6.371 14,171 0.196
NE 244,921 238.2 3,27 1.6 7.281 0.206 1.286 0.061 1.754 0.032 4.937 12,093 0.209
sw 32,199 386.8 2,321.8 16.658 0.176 1.201 0.053 1.870 0.027 13.164 4.239 0.178
SE 35,955 63.5 2.885.2 2.201 0.257 1.090 0.097 1.672 0.057 1.755 631 0.266
I'll 28,472 0.0 1.033.7 0
Ttlt<ll 563,995 940.7 12,555.9 7.492 0.104 5.520 31,134 0.123
2003/04 NW* 243.849 241.2 3.236.6 7.452 0.249 /.334 0.0:>1 1.680 0.026 4.728 11,529 0.248
NE 218,072 278.9 3.738.5 7.460 0.137 1.495 0.050 1.666 0.025 4.152 9,053 0.140
sw 38,976 389.3 2.275.2 17.11I 0.112 1.417 0.063 1.886 0.021 II.315 4,410 0.117
SE 38,952 448.2 3,633.2 12.336
0.139 /.489 0.039 1.643 0.019 6.911 2,692 0.134
PB 37,537 2.0 508.5 0.393 1.294 1.417 0.063 1.886 0.021 0.261 98 1.2%
Tol:~l 577,386 1359.6 13,392.0 10.152 0.077 4,812 27,783 0.115
*Includingareanotsurvcycclas indicated in'li:tblc3.
174 Annex 159
J. CE7,Cf:AN liES MIINtiGE. {SPECIAL /SSU/;J3, 75 94,20 II 87
Ta.bl..:5:b
Abundance estimates fol'humpback whales in Area V (south of 60°S) ti·om the 1990/91 to 2004 /05 JARPA cmiscs. The noration is as fm·Table Sa.
Season L (n.milc) nl "'I02 CV w,..(n.milc) CV EM cv D (ind.) P (iml.) cv
1990/91 NW 239,688 1.0 2,726.8 0.037 1.096 1.189 0.163 1.303 0.087 0.020 1.111
48
NE 343,822 0.0 2,498.9
sw 64,431 21.7 1,635.0 1.328 0.369 1.189 0.163 1.303 0.087 0.728 469 0.387
SE 188,136 1.0 1,670.0 0.060 0.961 1.027 0.138 1.546 0.070 0.045 85 0.973
'l'otnl 84 I,077 23.7 8,530.7 0.278 0.343 0.072 602 0.343
1992 /93 NW 325,648 5.0 2,299.3 0.217 I.428 O.i/2 0.156 2.000 0.083 0.305 993 1.435
NE 343,822 9.0 1,661.5 0.542 0.858 O.i/2 0.156 2.000 0.083 0.761 2,654 0.868
SW 59,450 5.0 1,907.4 0.262 0.485 O.i /2 0./56 2.000 0.083 0.367 218 0.506
SE 210,194 4.0 2.256.3 0.177 0.644 0.7/2 0.156 2.000 0.083 0.249 523 0.653
Total 944,113 23.0 8,124.5 0.283 0.482 0.465 4,38 8 0.623
1994/95 NW 209,990 14.0 3,229.4 0.433 0.747 1.793 0.083 1.658 0.055 0.200 420 0.749
NE 314,697 26.1 2,554.1 1.022 0.411 1.320 0.147 2.000 0.115 0.774 2,437 0.430
sw 39,911 41.6 2,469.0 .687 0.200 1.793 0.083 1.658 0.055 0.789 315 0.2 10
SE 73,180 5.0 I,293.0 0.386 0.519 1.320 0.147 2.000 0.115 0.293 507 0.531
Total 737,778 86.7 9,545.5 0.909 0.200 0.499 3,678 0 .307
1996/97 NW 288, I97 1.0 2,784.6 0.036 1.679 1.520 0.194 1.632 0.117 0.019 55 1.694
NIO 337,779 14.0 3,I33.4 0.446 0.356 1..!81 0.190 1.700 0.062 0.274 926 0 .375
SW 53,960 17.5 3,124.4 0.560 0.369 1.520 0.194 1.632 0.17 0.286 162 0.394
SE 187,983 6.0 2,098.5 0.286 0.500 1.38/ 0.190 1.700 0.062 0.176 331 0.5 15
Total 867.919 38.5 11,140.9 0.345 0.230 0.170 1,474 0,274
1998/99 NW 314,7(k~ 2.0 997.0 0.201 0.660 0.639 0.419 1.684 0,078 0.264 832 0.786
NE 328,037 4.9 652.8 0.751 0.669 0.575 0.560 0.773 0.074 0.505 1,655 0.876
sw 48,333 30.8 2,333 .5 1.320 0.431 0.639 0.41 9 1.684 0.078 1.740 841 0.500
SE 25,709 34.9 1,561.0 2.233 0.145 /.046 0.128 1.787 0.082 1.892 504 0. 167
Total 716.787 72.6 5.544.3 1.309 0.202 0.535 3,831 0.430
2000/01 NW 271,089 43.2 3.751.9 1.153 0.389 1.368 0.128 1.762 0074 0.741 2,016 0.396
NE 348,535 44.3 3.941.1 1.124 0.293 1.668 0./32 1.956 0.071 0.659 2,297 0.305
79,594 30.5 3,152.9 0.968 0.224 0.780 0.418 1.645 0072 1.035 815 0.362
sw
SE 148.828 0.0 3,320.2
Totnl 848.046 118.1 14,166.1 0.833 0. 189 0.605 5,128 0.215
2002/03 NW 266,687 12.0 2,777.2 0.432 0.393 1.291 0.126 1.548 0.094 0.259 69 1 0.404
NE 345,003 58.0 5,077.1 1.142 0.181 1.902 0.87 1.672 0.050 0.502 1,732 0.188
0.852 0.331 1.291 0.126 1.548 0.094 0.510 406 0.342
sw 79,376 18.8 2,209 .8
SE 69,872 3.0 2,111.9 0.142 0.489 1.902 0.087 1.672 0.050 0.062 44 0.493
Total 760,938 91.8 12.176.0 0.754 0.144 0.378 2,873 0.157
2004/05 NW 278 ,28 1 19.5 970.0 2.015 0.780 1.688 0.199 2.050 0,075 1.223 3,405 0.79 1
NE 336,130 85.8 3,381.8 2.537 0.196 1.295 0.080 1.583 0.460 1.551 5,214 0.309
1.437 0.232 1.686 0.099 1.099 564 0.270
SW 51,373 16.0 856.7 1.873 0.135
SE 212,181 10.0 8,158.7 0.123 0.575 1.295 0.080 1.583 0.460 0.075 159 0.629
Total 877.965 131.4 13,367.2 1.064 9"l42 0.337
(2)T~ I:Dec15-Jan l5;T~2:Janl(; rT-~331:Feb l- RESULTS
15;and T ~ 4: Feb 16-Mar 15 (Grouping 72)
Distribution of humpback whale sightings
Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the primary searching effort
(3) T~ I: Dec 15-Jun 15; T~ 2: Jan 16--Fcb 15; and T~ 3:
Feb 16-Mar 15 (Grouping 7J) (grey lines) and positions of humpback whale primmy
sighlings during the 1987/88-2004/05 JARPA cruises. The
(4) T =\:Dec; T = 2: Jan; T ~ 3: Feb; and T ~ 4: Mur pt·imary seurching effort covered the resemch area quite
(Grouping T4) thoroughly . Humpbo ck whales were widely distributed in
Areas IV and V, und were more frequently sighted in Area
(5) T = 1: Dec and Jan and T = 2: Feb and Mur (Grouping
IV. They were rarely found in the Ptydz Bay and the Ross
T5) Sea, but were observed in southern strata as far south as the
QAIC (Burnham and Anderson, 1998) rather thun AIC was ice edge. Estimated densities were highest betw een SO'E and
120'E in both lhe northern and soulhcm slrata; lhis area
used to select umongst these models und ulternatives for
specifying T because it can be applied to GLMs with over corresponds to the eastern side of the Kerguelen Plateuu.
There were relatively few sightings in the longitudinal sector
dispersed Poisson errors. QAIC is defined here as
between J30'E and 145'E.
(7)
Abuudancc estimates
Tables 5a and 5b show abundance estimates (P) of humpback
where L is likelihood of the model without over-dispersion , whales in Areas IV and V respectively, by seaso n and
c is the estimated over-dispersion puramcter and p is the stratnm. The tables also show the total number of the primmy
sightings after tJUncation (11),open ocean area (A), primmy
number of estimable pmameters including the over
dispersion parameter. searching effort (L), niL, effective search half width (w),
175Annex 159
88 MATSUOKA el a/.: ABUNDA NCE ESTIMATES AND TRENDS
Gsightings.duling the 1989/90- 2004/05 JARPAsurveys in Areas IV and V whichare usedin the
analyses ofthis paper.
91/92
NW ~
WlliJ
~
WillhJ
2.7
2.70 2.70 2.7 0 2.7 0 2.7
Perpendicular distance
Fig. mnddetectionprolmbiliry functions(AIC-b::J.dscselection IJcrwcen hazardrateandIHJIf.-nonnal tOnns) tOr lnnnpbuck whales tOr the
1989/90 to 2004/05 !ARPA surveys. These results ore tor data combined across the SSV,SVC and SVP survey modes.
176 Annex 159
J. Ct>TACEANlitiS. MANAG/i . (Sf'J, 75-94, 2011 89
estimmed mean school size (E(s)), estimated whale density
(D: whales/100 n.miJe.o,-a2n)d the CVs for each estima40,000eumpbackwhale
primatyeffort and associated primary sightingsck Area tV
schools whales used fore estimates are plotted. I. ,g
Abundance estimates in Area fV rnnge from 2,747 (CV "'30,000
0.153) for the 1993/94season to 31,134 (CV = 0.123) .,r the
2001102 season (Table Sa).en V, nbundance estimates I
range from 1,474CV ~0.274) for the 1996/97 season tocs20,000 I
9,342(CV = 0.337) for the 2004/05 season (Table 5b).c'he
most recent abundance estimate for Areas IV (2003/04.£)
season) and V (2004/05son) combineis 37,125 (cV ~ 10,000 fl!
0.288, where this computation also takes account of the ?
estimatesf additional variance). Fig. 6 shows the detection ~
probability functions in relation to perpendicular distancoi B ~
from the trackline in nautical miles that were used for them t/1..mg ...<.<Da>O
analysesy cruise and stratum (or combination of strata); la ~ ~' ~ ;g ~' l1!~ S;~!1!0 8
there are no obvious indications of modelmis-specification,\!!~ \!!~ ~"'~~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ~
nor of any trend towards distributions wWt sharper peaks "'"'"'
near the trackline in the earlier years. 20,000H"mpbackwhale
c AreaV
A bundan ce trends ,g
Fig. 7 shows the abundance estimates in Areas IV and V5.000
plotted against survey season; for comparat ive purposes,
estimates obtained usingSOWER data (Branch, 20) u, j
arealso shown. An increasing trend in abundance isevident000
forboth Areas IV and V, more clearly so for the form::l
Annual rates of increase estimates from the JARPA su~veys
using equation) arc 16.4% (95= 9.5-23.3%) for Area
IVover the 1989/90 to 2003/04 cruises, and 12.1% (95% Cl.00I f
• 1.7-22.6%) for Area Vver rhe 1990/91 to 2004/05 I t I ~
cruises. The estimate for rvis clearly significantly 0 Q ~
~ (')Ill m M Ill m 8 t/1
positive; the result for Area V is also significantly above~ ~ ~ 01!~ ..,$" ~ 0 0 ~
zero, but notclearly as that for Area IV.l'he additional "' ~ i i ~' ~' ~ ~"' ~ ~ 0 N N
CVs are estimated as0.309 and 0.437 tor Arens IV and V Seasons "'
respectively (Table
fig. 7.Abundanceestim;1tcsforhumpbackwhalesinAre.uIV:mdV(sou1h
Sensitivity tests ()( 60"S).whichweresurveyedprim.n.rildyu1ingJanuarytoFcbruaty,
Altemmive estlnwtes ofefiective search half-width from oheJAHPAsmveys t98318oo2004/!lS<imoromtlw:
The effects on abundance estimates at the Area level,Vcrticol lincsshow95% cOflfidcnccintervals. by ohe tilledcircles.
alsoon annual rates of increase, compared to the base case
for thesend the following two setsnsitivity tests are
shown in Table 6a and 6b, with differences in estimates of
precis ion and the associated additional variance shthe base case and nny alteration in the 111teof incrense
Table 7. estimate are small (Table 6a, 6b and 7).
Thereare occasional instances of a large difference, but
viewed overall the average chge in the abundance The e,lfofsurvey modes and survey timi11g
estimates from the base case never exceeds 5%, and anyble 8ashows the observed numbsighti SSVg,.~C
alteration the rate of increase estimate is below l%.nd SVP surveys, as used for input to the GLM models
equation (6)1,by season and stratum. Table 8b shows the
f11dusionoftmcklines thaifollowed the contours (!/'theicefor each model and estimated instantaneous anr1ual
edge ratesof inc:rease for Areas IV and V with their 95%
These tests apply only to Area IV, and are somewht•tcoo1fidence!intervals. Compaof the abundance trend
restricted becauseinsufficient data to allow them toestimatesn' Table 6a, shows broad agreement for Area
conducted for the first four seasons of surveys there. For theoint estimatare high ond in the 16- 20%
subsequent seasons, thesermltive treatments makee range. 1-low.:ver,this is not the case for At·eaV, for which
differen on avcntge to abundance estimates (Table 6a), andpoint c:stimatesble 8b m·e less th:m half that for
~ls hove little impact on the estimated abundtonce trendase case. Nevertheless, all the Table 8b estimates fall
(Table7).Thus there is no definitive indication that includingis for the corresponding base case estimates
tracklincshat followed the contoursthe ice edge in in Table 7.IC selects the more parsimonious models.
estimating humpback whale abundance and trends choosing only surveymode amongst the covariates
introduces substantial bias. considered, and then only for Area This does not
necessarily llllcan that survey timing or the order in which
Uusun,eyed areasm! iucomplete covemge thesn·atawere surveyed has no etl'ccton estimates, but rather
Results for these sensitivity tests miJTorthose for the use of insufficient infonnation content in the data to
altemativc functional fornlSto estimate effective se-archhalfhn effect. For Area Ien if the (changing)
width: the average changethe abundance estimates fromrderor surveying strata is taken into account, allhough the
177Annex 159
90 MATSUOKA e1a!_: ABUNDANCE E~TIMATES AND TR ENDS
'J:1hlc 6a
Abundanceand annualrateof increase(ROI)cslinmtcs forArc·nlV forthebase cnscandsensitivities.
Average% ROI Change tium
l)fchnngc (%) basecase (%)
Season 1989190 1991192 1993/94 1995/96 1997/98 1999/00 200 1/02 2003/04
Base~:.1sc 5,325 5.408 2,747 8,066 10,657 16,751 31,134 27,783 16.4
Haz:m.lratemodel 5,325 5,666 2,331 8,05 1 I0,537 17,233 31,108 25.8 18 16.1 -0.3
0% 5% - 15% 0% -I % 3% 0%) - 7% -2%
Halt:..n..ormalm odcl 4.04 1 5,183 2,747 8,066 11,205 12,632 32,844 27,708 17,2 0.8
-24% -4% 0% 0% 5% -25% 5% 0% -5%
Tracklinc Option [)• 5,325 5,408 2,747 8.066 10,705 14,685 30,713 29,376 16.4 0.0
0% - 12% - I% 6% - 2%
TmcklincOptionC 5,325 5,408 2,747 8,066 11,034 14,146 30,484 34,224 17. 1 0.7
4% - 16% -2% 23% 2%
Gapnbundancc=O** 5,325 5,408 2,747 7,467 10,657 16,479 30.359 24,924 15.9 -0.5
- 7% -2% - 2% -10% - 5%
Gap abund<nc~ scm tm below** 5,325 5,408 2,747 8,578 10,657 18,145 31,730 31,905 17.2 0.8
6% &% 2% 15% 8%
il<1or covcmgcCOITCtcions**• 5,325 5,408 2,747 8.279 10,657 16,751 31,134 27,783 16.4 0.0
3%
3%
•oue tothesmnll number ofsightingstherewere insutli(.i:cntttoevaluateoptionsI3and Cforthe 1989/90to t995/96sc11sonsthenvcmgcsquotedfor
thesesensitivities referto1997/98to 2003/04seasons.**1995/96, 1999/00, 200 1/0nnd2003/04 scnsons.•~•sE ~trt11 im1995/96 season.
Tnblc 6b
Abundanceestimatesandannualrates of incn.'.t.lsctOrAreaV tOrthe basecaseandsensitivities.
Avemgc% RO I Change from
Sc0s1on 1990i91 1992/93 1994/95 1996/9 7 1998/99 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 of change (% ) basec,.sc(%)
Bnsc case 602 4,388 3.678 1,474 3,83 1 5,127 2,873 9.342 12. 1
Haz:udnne model 5,396 1,460 4,734 2,873 12.2
523 3.592 3,994 9.067 0.1
- 13% 23% -2% - I% 4% -8% 0% -3% 0%
Hal~-nomwl model 602 4,388 3,785 1.474 2,302 4,824 3,415 9,342 125 0.4
0% 0% 3% 0% -40% -6% 19% 0% - 3%
Poorcovcrngccorrections• 770 4,386 3,678 1.474 3,831 5,518 2,873 11,466 2.0 -0.1
28% 0% 8% 23% 15%
*SE stl'l<ll.1990/91, NE stmtu1nin1992/93. SE stmtumin 2000/0 l, N W m1dS\Vstmtai112004/05sc;1sons.
Table 7
Gstimatednnnual instmttancous rates of c:xponcntial increase, towithetheir stuiHn.lrderrorsa95% contidence
intervals, forbase case nndotherdetection limctionselectOrAreas IVund V,respectively.a is the insumtnncrate
of increnscCV .nisthe CV corresponding to theudditional variam.-cassociatedwithnbm1dnnec estimiltcs.
0 SE(o) 95%C JLL 95o/oCIUL cv.., SE(CV,.,)
Area IV
13nsccase 0. 164 0.028 0.095 0.233 0.309 0.102
HnzanJrate 0. 161 0.033 0.082 0.24 1 0.374 0.114
Halt:. om1al 0.172 0.027 0.105 0.238 0.296 0.097
Opl ll 0. 164 0.028 0.096 0.233 0.304 0.102
Opt C 0. 171 0.028 0.103 0.239 0.302 0.103
Gap ;~mbv=O 0. 159 0.028 0.089 0.228 0.313 0.103
Gapabun=below 0.172 O.D28 0.103 0.24 1 0.306 0.103
Poorcovcrngccorrections 0. 164 O.o28 0.095 0.233 0.309 0.102
ArcnV
IJas~as.c: 0.121 0.043 0.0 17 0.226 0.437 0.167
H;l7..:trrdate 0.122 0.045 0.012 0.232 0.469 0.1&1
Half-norma! 0.125 0.040 O.o28 0.222 0.386 0.168
Poorcoverage corrections 0. 120 0.043 0.014 0.225 0.440 0.162
best estimate of the rate of increase drops, the lower 95% selected only for Area IV, but the change to lhe estimated
confidence limit remains at or above I0% as for the base rate of increase is negligible, and the mode f<tCtor estimates
case. For Area V the results inTable 8b do barely admit the themse lves sugges t SVC and SSV density estimates only
possibility of no increase within their95% Cl's, but withone
slightly (and not significantly) grc.1ter than those for SVP.
exception, taking survey ordering into account increases ForArea V,a likely reason for non-selection of these factors,
estimates of the rate of increase compared to the QAIC which suggest somewha t lower densities in SVC and SSV
sclected model. modes compa red to SVP, is their associated high estimated
Under QAIC, inclusion of survey mode as a factor is standard errors.
178 Annex 159
.CEliiCEAN RES. MANAGE. (SPE:CitiL ISSUE) 3. 75I 94, 201 91
TableSa(panI) TablSa(pon 2)
Observednumbersof sighti(tnmcatcat 2.7 o. milespcrpcndhu;lm·Observednumbersof sightings(tnmc:ucda11miles pcrpcndiculur
distance after smcmbysurvey mode used for input to the GLMs distan::~fstmc:~r iynurvey mode used tOrinput to the GLMs of
equation (6) inArea IV. equation(6) in Area V.
AreaIV bySSV ArcuiV SVC Arc.IVSVP AreaVbySSV ArcnVSVC ArcuV SVIl
Stmhlm u...~ Strmum Stmtum "c..~ Stmtum uv. Stratum u.,.. Str:1tum
"·"" ""'
1989/90 190/91
NW 21.2 NIV 1.0
NE 20.0 NE 1.0
21.7
sw 10.3 sw
SE 1.0 SE 1.0
I'll 2.0 1992/93
1991/92 NW s.o .w 0.0
NW 42.0 NE 3.0 NE 6.0
NE 16.0 sw 1.0 SW 4.0
SW 13.5 SW 6.8 SE 3.0 SE 1.0
SE 9.9 SE 5.7
PIJ 0.0 Pll 1.0 1994/95
NW 6.0 NW 8.0
1993/94 NE 10.0 NE 17.0
NW 33.5 NW 10.0 sw 26.6 sw 15.0
NE 16.9 NE 11.0 SE 3.0 SE 2.0
SW 17.3 sw 6.9
SE 6.0 SE 1.0 1996197
PIJ 3.0 Pll 1.0 NW 1.0 NW 0.0
NE 12.9 NE 1.0
1995/96 sw 8.0 SW 8.6
NW 101.4 NW 20.7 SE 6.0 SE 0.0
NE 33.0 NE 13.0
1998/99
SW 34.7 sw 19.6 NW 2.8 NW 4.7 NW 3.6
SE 20.6 SE 7.0 NE 16.8 NE 4.5 Nr; 0.0
PIJ 0.0 Pll 0.0 SW 15.6 SW 3.0 SW 11.7
SE 30.1 SE 0.0 SE 4.0
1997/98
NW 149.9 NW 28.7 NW 8.7 200011
NE 80.2 NE 24.6 NE 1.0 NW 29.3 NW 5.0 NW 8.9
sw 129.8 SW 17.7 SW 20.9 NE 23.6 NE 8.0 NE 12.2
SE 17.9 SE 5.0 Sl! 1.0 sw 11.8 SW 3.6 SW 14.9
Pll 2.0 PB 0.0 PB 0.0
SE 0.0 SE 0.0 SE 0.0
1999/2000 2002/03
NW 40.6 NW 4.0 NW 10.0 NW 6.0 NW 1.0 NW 5.0
NE 93.9 NE 23.0 NE 43.0 NE 3.0 NE 14.9
SW 76.5 SW 8.0 SW 21.4 NE 39.6 2.0
SE 86.2 SE 21.3 SE 58.0 SW 15.0 SW 1.6 SW
Pll 0.0 PIJ 0.0 PIJ 3.0 SE 2.0 SE 0.0 SE 1.0
2004/05
2001/02
NW 195.0 NW 16.0 NW 41.0 NW 8.6 NW 5.7 NW 5.0
NE 178.9 NE 18.0 NE 40.0 NE 46.0 NE 7.2 NE 22.8
SW 261.1 SW 29.9 SW 96.6 SW 15.0 SW 0.0 sw 2.0
10.0 SE 9.0 SE 0.0 SE 1.0
SE 52.3 SE 1.0 SE
Pl3 0.0 Pll 0.0 Pll 0.0
2003/4
174.9 NW 33.0 NW 33.0 Abund ance estimates anclabundanc e trend based on
NW
NE 198.8 NE 27.7 NE 52.6 JARPAdat a
sw 293.8 sw 31.7 sw 64.3 As noled earlier, the JWC Scientific Committee has made
SE 280.2 SE 38.8 SE 128.3
PB 0.0 Ptl 1.0 I'll 1.0 several suggestions lo improve abundance estimation of
Antarctic minke (and by inference humpback) whales from
JARPA surveys during previous meetings, particularly at
the recent review Workshop (IWC, 2008). Table I shows
the recommended work by the workshop and how these
DISCUSSION suggestions have beenaddressedintheanalyses of lhis paper.
Distribution of'humpback whales Itshows lhat al high priority items have been considered as
Humpback whales were widely distributeinAreas IVand have mosl medium priority items. We believe that these few
remaining medium priority items seem unlikely to gatly
V,with higher concenlralions in Area IV,although Ihey were
rarely found in Prydz Bay and the Ross Sea. There were effect the estimates of abundance and trend presented here,
relalively fewsightings in the longiludinal sector from 130'Ethough lhey will be considered in tl1e fulure.
to 145'E, which coincides wilh a gap in krill distribulion Although the informaion content oftl1e dala to determine
(Murasc et a/., 2006). However, the development of a inter-mode differencesis poor, the results of sensitivity
analyses undertaken here provideo basis to question the
quantitative approach tothe comparison of humpback whale
distribution to krill distribution and oceanographic featuresooling of the data across survey modes (SSV, SVC and
in the researchrea is bend the scope of the present paper. SVP) for the base case abundance estimation. The same
Itwill be invesligated in the future. conclusion follows for the effect of including data from
179Annex 159
92 MATSUOKA e1 a/.: ABUNDANCE ESTlMATESAND TRENDS
Table 8b
QAJCundestimatedannu:dinstantaneous rateof I.!Xpnocntinlincrease inAreas IVand V.is rhccstimntcdovcr·dispcrsion
pnramcrcrT.he lineinboldindicatesrhemodelselected by QAIC.
Model QAlC LIQA1C a SE(n) u 95%LL a 95%UL
Area IV
(i) 13.76 119.89 1.03 0.199 0.017 0.166 0.233
(ii) 14.35 118.86 0.00 0.201 0.018 0.165 0.237
(iii)withTl
14.44 124.05 5.19 0.199 0.019 0.161 0.237
(iii) withT2 14.24 121.85 2.99 0.203 0.018 0.166 0.239
(iii)ithT3 14.20 120.29 1.42 0.202 0.018 0. 166 0.238
(iii)wit hT4 14.14 123.03 4.17 0.195 0.018 0.159 0.231
(iii) withT5 14.10 121.01 2.15 0.201 0.018 0.165 0.236
(iv)w ithTI 13.72 140.1I 21.25 0.159 0.029 0.11 0.218
(iv)withT2 13.46 138.06 19.20 0.159 0.029 0.101 0.217
(iv) withTJ 13.28 13 I.34 12.47 0.176 0.025 0.127 0.225
(iv)with T4 13.63 163.61 44.75 0.172 0021 0. 130 0.215
(iv) with T5 13.68 127.65 8.78 0.177 0.021 0.135 0.219
A.-caV
(i) 11.08 78.29 0.00 0.066 0.034 -0.001 0.134
(i~ 10.58 82.25 3.96 0.056 O.o35 -0.015 0.126
(iii) withTl 9.24 97.91 I9.62 0.050 0.036 - 0.022 0.122
(iii)wi thT2 9.89 90.89 12.60 0.046 O.o35 - 0.023 o.II 6
(iii) with T3 9.82 89.44 11.15 0.045 0.035 - 0.024 0.115
(iii)withT4 9.01 96.03 17.74 0.054 O.Q35 - 0.016 0.124
(iii)withT5 10.85 82.57 4.28 0.057 0.037 - 0.016 O.IJO
(iv)withT I 4.97 138.14 59.86 0.167 0.053 0.061 0.273
(iv)with T2 5.21 131.09 52.80 0.161 0.050 0.061 0.261
(iv)w ith T3 5.77 I18.01 39.72 0.158 0.051 0.260
0.056
(iv)wit h T4 7.24 I12.24 33.95 0.088 0.046 - 0.004 0.180
(iv}w ithT5 10.07 91.96 13.68 0.062 0.048 -0.034 0.158
tracklincs that followed the contours of the ice edge in the surveys makes realistic (and reasonably precise- Table 7)
analyses. The impacts on overall estimates of abundance and estima tes of additional variance achievable- something that
trend of the choice of function al form for the detect ion is scarcely possible for the lesser numbers of!DCR-SOWER
function, and of some instances of survey gaps and poor surveys , and this has important implications for reliabl e
coverage, are small. estimation of preeision. If the estimates determined in this
The greater differences between the base case and GLM
paper are used, although the IOCR-SOWER estimates
estimates of rates of increase forArea V than for Area IV is change only s lightly, their Cis do expand (Table 9b). They
not altogether surprising. Itis readily evident from inspection
of Fig. 7 that while the data for Area IV give broadly
Table9a
consistent indication s of a steady increase, for Area V the
estimate from the final2004/5 survey is highly influential in Compmison of JARPA and IOCR~SOWER (Bnmch, 20 11) ab1.md.:mcc
estimatesof lmmpbm:kwhalesln Ar<!nsIV andV.
determining any point estimate for rate of increase (a feature
also of the IOCR-SOWER results for this Area). The point JARt'A tDCR/SOWER
estimates themselves are high given the estimate of Clapham
et a/. (2006) of a maximum demographically plausible Se~son Estinmte cv Estimate cv
annual increase rate for humpbaek whales of !0.6% .
However, it shou ld be noted that the lower 95% Cis for this Al"ca IV
I978179 1.102 0.46
rate for the base case and sensitivities inTab le 7 are all below t988/89 4,167 0.53
t989/90 5,325 0.302
this bound, although only bare ly so for some cases. The
possibility of immigration and changes in distribution (see 1991192 5.408 0.188
1993/94 2.747 0.153
Conclusion) warrants further investigation. 1995/96 8.066 0.142
1997/98 10.657 0.166
Compariso n with IOCR-SOWER estimates I998/99 17,938 0.18
A comparison of the list of JARPA and IOCR-SOWER 1999/00 16.751 0.143
200 t/02 31,134 0.123
estimates of abundance in Table 9a, and the correspond ing
plot in Fig. 7, shows the results from the two sets of surveys 2003/04 27,783 0.115
to be entirely consistent. Area V
The mtes of'inerease inAreas IV and V,as estimated from 1980/SI 1.876 0.60
1985/86 622 0.50
JARPA and IOCR-SOWER results are also similm (Table 1990/91 602 0.343
9b). Rates of increase estimated from JARPA data are 16.4% 199t/92 3.310 0.34
(95% CI = 9.5--23.3%) inArea IV and 12.1% (95% Cl = I.7- 1992/93 4,388 0.623
1994/95 3,678 0.307
22.6%) inArea V,which compare with rates estimated from 1996/97 1,474 0.274
IOCR-SOWER data of 14.9% (95% Cl = 10.0- 19.7%) and
1998/99 3,831 0.430
12.8% (95% Cl = 8.7- 16.9%) for those two Areas 2000/01 5,127 0.215
respectiv ely (Branch, 2011). However Branch's estimates of 2002/0) 2,873 0.157
precision are based on estimates of additional variance of 2003/04 13.246 0.20
zero. Importantly the greater frequency of the JARPA 2004/05 9,342 0.337
180 Annex 159
1. Cli 7"AC/i,IN. MANAG!i . (SPI:Cftii.IS.1.75- 94. 2011 93
Table9b ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS
Comp:~r ofARo nAUIKII CR-SOWER(Bmnch, 2008)oucsofincrease
estimates in ArensIV and V. The valuesmarked IDCR·SOWER nrcos We wish to express our gratitude to Doug Buttetworth and
estimatedby13mu ~.0;8. \':hosecs.thnntcs~t Jerezero Jrboth anonymous rev iewers for their constructive suggestions to
these Arens; those m11rkodII)C'R-SOIVIJI! revise Bmnch's r<:Sutlsimprove a previous version of this paper. Ourgrt<i~teuadso
int<lrpotntthe buscnsc~smttit«Q:fsV--"obtaineforcnchofthese to Luis A. Pastenc and Toshihidc Kitakado for their help in
Areast1·om rhc annlyses inthispnpcr(sccT;Jblc 7).
the preparation of this paper. We thank all researchers,
caprains, office rs and crew members partici1a>ting in the
Pmgl'ilnune t>eriod(0/ M/Y)Esri•n:nc95%CtLL 95%CJUL
JARPA surveys. We also thank Seiji Ohsumi, Hiroshi
A reoIV Hatanaka and Yoshihiro Pujise for useful comme nts on the
JARJ'A 31/12/89-01103104 0.164 0.095 0.233
IOCR-SOWER 28/12178-221021990.148 0.081 0.215 analyses,Trevor Branch and Susan Johnston in the provision
of some infonnation, and alsoAtsushi Wadn, Shako Ohkawa
ArC':t
JARPA OJ/I1191- 08/03/00.121 0.017 0.226 and Tomoko Haseg awa for their help with figures.
IOCR-SOWER
I7/12180/-28/02104 0.122 0.053 0.191
R£Ft:RENCES
AJlen.K.R. 198Co,sen:ation(mdMwwgf:ment~lWlm/ U~siersityof
nevertheless still reflect somewhatgreaterprceisionthnn do WoshingronPress. SenttieBut1crwotandCo., London. ix+IIOpp.
Bannister. J.L. :md Hedley. S.L. 2001. Sonthem Hem&rOUJJIV
rhe JARPA estimates. The reason for this is that the IOCR humpback wholes: theirsmmsfromt·cccruncrinlsMem.Qmum.d.
SOWER Stttveys extend over a longer period oftitne. M11s.47(2)::>87- 98.
Branch, T.A. 201I. Humpbock abundance sonth of 60"S from three
Comp:ui son with western and eastel'n Austt·alia com)Jicte circumpola'ofsu•vey.s.CettrccauRC'.sMmwge. (.tiJMcial
estimates issue3):xx- xxx.
Branch. T.A. andButterworht, D.S. 200Ia. Estim;ananccsouchbud
Thf}abundanc e si~mn! ~ f!1m11pback wha- ~eoffwestern of60°S lbrcelaceonSJlccicssighted J'OJ:n(cntlyon the 1978/79to I997/98
Australia bnsed on an aerial survey conducted in 2005 is
IWCIIDCR-SOWER sigh1ing survJ. 0/lu<'tttmRes. Muna3(3):
13,145 (95% Cl = 4,984-38,72 6- Paxton eta/ ., 2011). The 251-70.
annual rate of increase.for this population has been estimated Branch,T.A. anButtcrwon,hO.S. 2001bSomhcnt Hemisphereminkc
at iO.IS% (SE = 4.6%, see Bannister and Hedley, 2001). Off whales:standardised nbundoncc estimates fi-omthe 197Sn9 to 1997/98
IOCR·SOWI!RsUIVeys.J. Cetnc<llll . a11ag.(2): 143-74.
eastern Australia the abundan ce estimate based on datn
collected in 2004 is 7,090 (SE = 660) and the rate of increase Branch. .A.. Matsuoka. K.andMiyilShjtaT..2004.Evidence forincrcnses
in Ant:ut:(ic bluewh:IIesonBaycs:immodelling.Mm: M(mrmnl
is estimatedat 10.6%(SE= 0.5%) (Noad eta/., 2011). These Sci. 20(4): 726-54.
quite high estimates of rates of increase are consistent among Buckland, S.T.,Andcrson.D.R.. Bumhnm.K.P., LMkeBo~her,D.L
::wdThomas.L. 2001Introduction to DislSampfiug:Estimnting
surveys conducted inbreeding areas and migratoty corridors
and those carr ied out in Antarct ic feeding areas (IOCR Abrtndftnet?o/Biologi<'<rlPopulOxfordUnvic~i tI'C.SSford.
UK. vi-.xv+432pp.
SOWER and JARPA). Bucklnnd,S.l:and Ang,:nzzi. A.A. 1988. Con•vatisortot'sm.....ring
Estimates of abundance in absolute terms off western and mcrhods in rhe analysis of minkc sighring.stln.ta from IWCIIDCR
Anrnr.lci( cn1sies. Rep.;,,,,What38:257-63.
eastem Australia are lower than the estimates for Antarctic Bu111ha,K.P.andAndersonD, .R. 19Mod,•/Seh•tioumulhtfi•reu·et.;t
Areas rv and V.One possible explanation is thatthe surveys
nt low latitudes are conducted inspecilie migratory corrido Proc-ti<-u/lu}iou, ·Tiwot't'lkApJ)I'O<K.hSpt'inN~w•VYork..
35Jpp.
which may not cover all the aduUs migrating. Furthemlot'c, Clapham, P.. Wade.P.nrldZcrbin.iA. 2006. Plausible r;;uesof population
recent studies conducred in rhe Western Antarctic Peninsula growthin humt bacwhalesrevisited.llnrlCJ58/SH4prcscmcd10
th.1\VCScictuilie CommitteM:ty2006. St. Kitts;mdNevis, Wesl
region (McKay eta/., 2004) and in the NorthAtlantic (Smith Indies (unpnblishcd). 12pp. J.l'apcravoiloblc from the Omc-e of this
eta/., 1999) have suggested thatsome portions of humpback
Jottnml].
population do notrerum to ll1eirbreeding grounds evety year. Government of!3pan. 1987.The re.«,orchpion for the fensibility snldy on
The possibility of sex-biased migrntion to breeding grounds "heprogramtOr~sear cnhtheSoudtcntlicmis)Jhcrcminkcwhaleand
foprclin1inaycs¢r ~rthhmarineccosyn.:itt c~lltarctie'.Paper
has been suggested ( Jenner eta/. , 2006), which also would SC/08711prcscnlcd to the JWC SciemificCommittee Special Meeting
imply that surveys in migratory corridors do not cover
complete populations; this warrants further invest.igation. toConsidetheJatJancResc:;t.rcllhcnnit(FeasibiliCambridge.,
DecemberI987(unpublished). 36pp.fl'aJ>Cr available rromthe Onieeof
Therefo re the lesser abundance estimates in lower l~t tie thisJournal].
surveys off western nnd eastern Austrnlia compared with Govenuncnt of Jnp:m.1996. 1'hc 199n..-sc p:n~fcrtheJa)H'lnesc
Wh:1k Researchl)rogrnmundeSpccia' l•cnindlc Antnrtcic, flapcr
those obtained for theAntarctic feeding grounds ofAreas IV SC/48/Sf-presentedto1\VCScicmitic ComminJun~J~6. Abcrck:cn
and V do not necessarily indicate inconsistency.
(unpublished). Ilpp plusa<ldcndum.[l'apcr availoblc fi'Omchc Oilice of
thisJoumlll].
Hak;unado,T.. M:llsuok;a, K. NlshlwoiaN. 2006. An update oi'
CONCLUSION Antarctimi•kcwhale abundatlcc estim;\lcbased011JARPAdata.Paper
SC/D061J6presented to the JARI'A Review WorkshOI>,Tokyo, 4-8
In summary, humpback whales in Area IV are increasing at
Occcmbcr2006 (unp\tblishcd). 34pt•)Jh•s :.1\l'prcav:i ble
an apparent ly high mte. Although there is also an increase tfomthcOmec ofl hiJoumaiJ.
indicated for Area V, it is neither as mpid nor as precisely HukilmadaT... MntSon.K.nndNishiwaki,S. 2007. Improvets of the
estimated. Given that coustal surveys indicate that Breeding JARPA:tbundancccstin"WuofAnwrcticminkcwhnlesbCiseodnJARPA
Review M..l:.!tinsrmicndmion.o. ;Pi.lJKSrC/59JIA'I pco th~ed
Stocks D a nd Eare both increasing at an annual rate of about JWCScientifiCo•m,it. t~ay2007, Ancl>ol-ag.,cUSA(unpublished).
10%, which is close to the maximum possible
24pp. [l'aper nvailablc from the Office of thisJournal].
demogrnphically, the greater rates of increase (from both the lntcmationaWlmli~n Conunis:sion. 2005. Report of thSc~•Hitk
JARPA and IOCR-SOWER surveys) estimated for the Area Conunince.Annex H. Rcponof the sub-commiucc on othl.r!Somhcm
licmisphcrwh:tlcstoc..1. Cetac:ermRc.r.>.kltmagu7:235-44.)
IV feeding grounds compared to Area V may reflect a lntcmnrion:Whniing Commission.200&. Reportof thlntcl'sC-i"osn:tl
distri butional shif t of the increasing numbers of Breedin g
Wortshopto ReviewDntanndResultsfromS1>ccinl Pennit Rcscmchon
Stock E humpbacks towards Area IV, perhaps to take Mi.nkcWho.tki:lslchcAntnrcict.4-8Dccembet·2006.J.Cf!ffl(·tton
advantnge of higher concentrations of krill there. Rt•s.MmuiJ:e.(Suppi.JI0;4I I -45.
181Annex 159
94 MATSUOKAel a/.: ABUNO;\NCE. GS'l'IMAI'GSANrl TR E. DS
lntcmaliona l Wlmling Comm issi2009 . Rcpo11 of 1hc Scicmilic 2006 (unpublished37pp. lP3p<:;lV:.lilablc lfoOOicl or this
Cornmiuec.A1l1lCH. Rcpon of th$Ub·COI'1'Imionother South-:1'1\ Joumol).
Hemisphere whale stockJ. Cetm·eanRe•. M"''"l>"(·SttII :220- M0t1suok0\,K.• H<Jk01d'a... Kiwada,H.. Nishiwaki, S. ilndi..u111S
47. 2005b. Disliibution and abundofcspcnn wha le-sin J\mi Cltic
J~kcson,..Zetbini.A., Cln.phamConsl:ti cR.•Garrigue,C., H:tuscr, Arcos IIJE.tV, Vand VI\V(35°E- 145°W). Paper A&D7 pi\Ithelltcd
N.. l'oolc. M. and Boker, C.s. 2008. l'rogt~two-stock c"tch C~cl>a Assesment Research Pl"nning (CAR l') workshop. Mntinc
~lleoeio n1odclforreconstniCii•tgpopul:llionhistoriesofeast AustraOiolo~ l;abcratory, Swope Ccn1cr.Woods Ho!c..MA,~:3M:u-ch
oud Occa11io.Poper SC/60/SH 14presen1t 0 t'e<WC Scic11tfitc 2005.
Comm iucc, June 2008, Snnoiogo, Ch(u11p~uhbcldi)2pp. [Pnpcr McK•y. S., Sirovic, A.. Thick ..D.. Abel)',N.W.. Chesler, t>.T.. Bll.dcbrond,
:wailable Ji·lhOllicc of1his Joumo:1l]. J.Wiggias,:S.,Mool't!,S.:tndMcDonald,M.2004.Combinacous ~tic
Jenner, K.C.S., Jc11ner,M.N., Salgado Keno, C.P. a11dBrasseur, M. 20sigh1ingsurvey ttndsen iceroinv:ri.galhlseasonal prcscncl.!of
J)rclimin:u'y analysis of samplingbinsesof sex1woseasonsof lnnnpb:tckwhai((.'egaptera IIO,'flf!llglhcWcst~inJmnw.rclic
biopsy samples for breeding stP~pe:SCr/A06ii'IW20 prcsem10 Pc:ninsufa.Pap..:rSC/S61E26pr\:.Scntcdto1hc IWCScientil'C.ouunilh.
the IWC Workshop on Comprchc11sive ASsessment or Somhcm July 2004. Som:nto. holy (unpublished). 9pp. [Pnpcr ovuilnblc !Coonthe
Hemisphere Humpbock \VItnleHo~ "· TliSmanio. 3-7 Apri2006 Ollicof this Jottn>ol).
(unpubl ished). 6pp. [Popcr availab le from th< Otlice ofohis JoMumsc. 14.Kiw~o H.,Maosuoko, K. ond Nishiwaki, S. 2006. Results of
Johnsron,S.E.,Zerbini, A.N. ond llunenvonD.S.2011. A Bayosion lhcccl~l cp'(.smv~y usin::echo sounder in JARPAfrom 1998199to
approach roassess the scatns ofSourhem Hemisphere htunpback wh"lcs200412005. PaperSCID06/J21 presented 10 ohe JARPA Review
(Megapte utwttelmgl wiah~)appli("'.itotn to breedingsJ.ck G. workshop,Tokyo,4- S December 2006 (unpublished). 15pp. (P:tpct·
Cemcerrnll~Msanage.{.'fJ~da 3i:JX-X;\ .ue :ovl~ob Tom the omcc of this Jonma l).
Joltnaton.. S.J. and Buu ctWOJ1h, D.S . 2005l'l$S~s:sy.fcut-em Nishi\Yl'Jki,S., lshikown, 1-1.and l'ujise. Y. 2006. Review of S.:!nerol
WCSfnnd cnst Ausrrulinn brct.-dingpopnl:nions (stocks D and E) ofnlcthodology ondsurvey 1>roccdurcumkrohc JAR!'A.l'apcr SC/006/12
Soulhem Hemisphere humpback wholes. Paper SC/571SI·II5 presented Jli"Crcdro theJARPAReviewWotkshOi·lTokyo.4-8 Dc«mbcr 2006
101hJWCSciemificCommiucc. June200.5.UlsoKotca(llrlpublislwctJ). (unpublished). 47pp.[l':tper availab le fromohc OOicc of ohis Jountol).
25pp.[P.,por available from dtc Otlicc of this Journal). Noad,M.J., Dunlop, R.APo10n,D.oud Coto, D.H. 2011. Abso•luocoud
Johnston,S.J. and llutterwonh.D .S.2007. Corrcctcdasscssmc111rcsuhsrelolivc abundaesrimarcof Austrnlioncast coosr humpbocl<wholes
lhl! Souchcm Hemisphere hnmpb:.ck whnlc breeding stocks D ;md G. (M~gap/~ IIOa{t1"'II...n~~)~crwRes. A·lrmagC".(spr:cifll lS.fll('J);
I'"Jl<rSC/59/SH2 presented to ate IWCSdcnrific Commincc, May 2007xxx-xxx.
Anehorogc, USAunpublished). 5[Paperavailable from the Olli<c ofP:u<tOIIC,.G.~tcdlcS.L.~ndOonnistcr.J.L. 2011. Grouhlln~>book
this Joumal]. whnlcs: the-ir scatus from nndl:md-b:1sc~urvc otsWesren1
Kusamatsn,f~oJoyce. G.G.• Ensor. P. :md Menuo1.1996. Curtelll Ausrn•li200S.J. CeWt'f!fmlle-s.Mmwgl!. (.f{JlJ)::u- -xxx.ue
occun -cnccofb nlccu whales inAntorctiflcp.bu. JVhCammu Smith,T.D.AllenJ.,Cl;,phamJ>J.l-l:munond.P.K~ton ,3..L~nen,
46:293-304. E.lien. J., Mnlliln. D.. Pi'.JSigtujunsso n, J., Ste. . nnd'T
K:.samatsur..Mntsuoka. K. mtd Hoknmnd T.~2.00. lntctspcciric 0 icn. N. 1999.oceo•t-busin-widc nl."lliH'ccnpwrcth~North
rclalionshi i)S in o\ntotthew'h:~ locu1mnityin thAut:t'iCtic. Ati;H1th:umpback wha(AIC'gflptuomermgl. Maar) mMmal Sd.
l'olm·Bioi. 466-73. 15(1): 1-32.
Matsuoka, K., Ensor, P.. H•kamaT.. Shimada , H.. NishiwoS.. Thomas.l .. l:t:okc• .I.L.. Sttindbcrg. S.. Marn.ckl~n.SdT.,
Ka.s:an1ar.,anti Knto. H. 2001,Overview of theminkc wh(lltsighti Borchers..L.,Audctson ,R.Ilumh:tll>.K.r.. HeS.LondtPollord,
swvcy in 1\VC/IDCR ond SOWER Antawic emiscsti·om 19781710 J.H. 2002.OiSionce4.0. Rclcase2 . Rcsc.,rch Unitifepulnoion
2000101. Popcr SCI53/IA6 presented to the IWC ScicnoiRc Commincc,Asscssmcnr.Univ~rs iftyt Andrews. UK. lAvailabf,e from:
July 2001,ndon( unp11blishcd). 75pp. [Poper nvniloblc from the Ofhtrp:Il/~1'tllVJ',( (I,U$kf(lflUl(t/('t'l],
of thisJoum;;•l). Thomas L.,Laokc. J.L.. Sorindbcoj;, S., Morqncs, F.F.C.. llucklond, S.'l'..
Matsuok::.a K.. Gnsor, J>.,Hakamadt1.T., Slti1nad:», H., Nishiwaki.Borchers, D.l.., Anderson,.Burnham, K.J>.,HedkS.L.,Pollard,
Kasamatsu. F. and Koto. H. 2003. Overview ofminkcsightin~s J.H.. 13ishop, J.R.Il. ond Marques. T.A. 2003. Oismnce 5.0.
surveyconduc oncI~CIIOCR ond SOWER Antarctic cnoiscs li·on> Research Unit for WildliiC PopulatAssessmen U n~v<:nity of
1978179ou2000/I.J.Ccmcrou Res.MJtnJ 5(~)t•7- 20 I. St Andrews, UK. [Available fromhlt:/p/hlll,lwpa.:. m-:.uIkl
M ntsuokn., K., H:•knnl!lda_T.• Kiwnda, H., Mumsc. H. and NishiwukiJisf~ lml<j.
200SnAblHl~miccim:re.oscsoflm1;ebai\:Cn,..,holl!sintheAutorl.!4Wade. P.R. 2008. Repo" ofohc lmor.;essionnl Workshop to Review Dntn
on the sighling survey during J:tpa\Vh~e ltscureh Progron1 ond Resullstl'01nSpceinl Pcnnit Rcsea•e·h on Whal< i~ cite
(JARPA).Glob.{:.),.iron.9(2): 105-t5. AntnrdieTokyo,4-8 Dcccntbt:r2006.AnnexF.Arcvh.·woft heIL"'vcwgc
Ma1suoK,aK., t·lak.anmda,T., Kiw<tda, l'i., MurJsc, H. ::1ndNishiwaof.s1rna1and the sequeofesurveys relative to the icc edge during
2006. Distribtuion and s1and:ndiz.ed:tbund:mcccstimaccsof humpb:1JARPA.J. CeffuV!mlRcM.t~ua gSu.p!J10: 442-44.
finon~ blue wh"lcs in lhc Antarctic Arcos IIIE. IV. V ond VIW Zctbiui, A.N., Wof:.Engel, M.. Andriola. A. and Kinos, P.G. 2011. A
(35°IH45 °W) south ofoo•s. Paper SC/006/17 presentedIOohc Ruycsion:ISSCSSillorlhc con.sc rvnsrarusorlnunpbnckwhnll.!'s
lnterscssional Workshop to Review Data an4J Rcsulls li·om Special(i~h-gaIp II'llglllt!in1hcwl.!.sSoutJ1Arl;uu0\.!c::m(13rccding
PenniR~'S.enhocMink:cWhalesintheAntarc tiky~,4-8 D\."Cl!nclrb StockA).J. Ct:lareRa. Mmmgc. (l'{X:<:ialJ): xxx-xxx..
182 Annex 160
160. Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 (Cth)
Australian Antarctic Territory
Acceptance Act 1933
Act No. 8 of1 933 as amend ed
This compi lation was prepared on 7 November 2000
taking into account amendm ents up to Act No . 216 of 1973
The text of any of those amendmen ts not in forc e
on that date is appended in the Notes section
The operation of amendm ents that have been incorporat ed may be
affected by application provis ions the set out in the Notes section
Prepared by the Office of Legislative Draftin g.
Attom ey-General's Department. Canb ena
Ausv f.marc TeiTAccepT1933_ WD02.doc 09/06/2005 11:25 AM
183Annex 160
Contents
1 Shorttitl[seNote 1)..................................... ...............................1
2 AcceptanceoftheTerritor[seeNote 2]......... ..................... ...........1
Notes 3
AustralianAntarcticTenito1 y AcceptanceAct 1933 iii
184 Annex 160
An Act to provide for the acceptance of certain
territor y in the Antar ctic Seas as a Territor y under
the authori ty of the Common wealth
1 Short title [>eNok I]
This Act may be cited as thAustralianAmarcticTerrito1y
AcceptanceAct 1933.
2 Acceptance of the Territory [seeNote2]
11lat part of the territory in the Autan:tic seas which comprises all
the islands and territories, other than Adelie Land, situated south of
the 60th degree south latitude and lying between the I60th degree
east longitude and the 45th degree east longitude, is hereby
declared to be accepted by the Conunonwealth as a Territory under
the authority of the Commonwealth, by the nau1eof the Australian
Antarctic Territ01y.
AustralianAmarcric TerritoryAcceptanceAct 1933 1
185Annex 160
Notes to the Austral ian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933
Table of Acts
Notes to the Australian Antarctic Territory
Acceptance Act 1933
Note 1
The Australian Antarctic Teniro1y Acceptance Act 1933 as shown in thi;.
compilation comprises Act No. 8, 1933 amended as indicated in the Tables
below.
Table of Acts
Act Number Date Date of Applica~ ,on
and year of Assent commencemen t savig or
transitional
provisions
Ausualian Antarctic Territ8, 1933 13 June 1933 13 June 1933
Acceptance Act1933
Ausualian Antarctic Tem1or42, 1954 1Nov 1954 1 Nov 1954
Act 1954
StatutLaw Revision Act 216, 1973 19 Dec 1973 31 Dec 1973 Ss 9(1)
1073 ond 10
Australian Antarctic Territo1yAcceptance Act 1933 3
186 Annex 160
Notes to the Australian AntarctiTerritoryAcceptance Act 1933
Table of Amendmen ts
Table of Amendments
ad.=added or inserteam. =amended rep.=repealed rs.=repealed and substituted
Provision affected How affected
Title ........................................... am. No. 216, 1973
s.3............................................ rep. No. 42, 1954
Australian Antarctic Ten ·itory Acceptance Act 1933 4
187Annex 160
Notes to the Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933
Note 2
Note 2
Section 2.- For the Proclamation fixing 24 August 1936 as the date for the
coming intooperation of the United Kingdom Order-in-Council placing the
Australian Antarctic Territory under the authority of Austsee Gazetre
1936, p. 1553, or Statutory Rules 1901-1956, VoL V, p. 5505.
Australian Anwrctic Tenit01y Acceptance Act 1.933 5
188 Annex 161
161. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate, Senate, 1 December 1948, p. 3695
(BillAshley, Minister for Shipping and Fuel)
~
...!:lrr
',t~~~.l&
..7l='~''
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
Senate
Official Hansard
No. 49, 1948
Wednesday, 1 December 1948
EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT
SECOND SESSION-FIR ST PERIOD
BY AUlliORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
189Annex 161
WhalingBiU 1948. (1 DEOEMD~ 1048.] Whaling Billl948. 3695
in a public mental institution, and· in a Bill (on motion by Senator AsHLEY)
private mental institution simultaneously. read a first time.
Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland
Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.32]. SECOND READI~O.
-According to the definitions paragraph, Senator ASHLEY (New South Wairs
a " qualified person " cannot be a person -Minister for Shipping and Fuel)
in a private institution.That means that [5.37].-I move-
if, {Qr reasons best known to the people
concerned, a patient does not enter an That the bill be now rend o.second time.
instjtution which comes within the defini The purpose of this bill is to amend. the
Whaling Ad 1935 in o.rdcr to meet the
tion of a ~·men tnattution", but goes requirements of the J:nternational Con
to a private hospital, he is not a qualifievention for the Regulation of Whaling,
person for the purposes of the mental which was signed at Washington in
in!'ltitutionbenefit. December, 1946, and to which Australia
Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - was a party. That convention consoli
Minister for Health and Minister for dated a number of earlier international
Social Services) [5.33].-The defini agreements aimed at regulating whaling
tions contained in the schedule relate activities generally in order to avoidthe
only to the position of the Common
wealth and the States. This measure extinction of whaling as an industry . As
merely authorizes the execution of an a result of unregulated whaling opera
agreement between the Commonwealth, tions the stocks ()f whales had been seri
ously depleted before the last world war.
on the one hand, and each of the States The cessation of whaling activities in th&
on tlte other, and it relates only to instwar years did not have the effect omak
tutions of the kind defined in paragraph ing whales plentiful once more as had
9of the schedule conducted by the State, .been hoped. Therefore, international
or in receipt of a grant for maintenance action is necessary to preserve th.e whal
from the State, and approved by the ing industry, and it is desirable that Aus
Commonwealth for the purpo. of tht> tralia should co-operate with other coun
agreement. We shaH provide a new tries in their efforts in that direction.
definition. It may be similar to this The bill -contains a1umbcr of protec
one. Workmen's compensation cases tive provisions which strengthen the re
may develop into mental cases as quirements of the 1935 act. It provides
the result of trauma or injury, and
an employer or insurance company ma.~ that grey whales shall be included in the
be responsible for all the fees. For the list of protected whales. Provisi.on is
purposes of this bill, it <Ioesnot matter also made for the minimum whale lengths
·very much what definition we may give for catching purposes te be fixed by regu
to " qualified person" in another context.lation and for the accurate measuring of
Senator O'SuLLIVAN.-That has only such lengths in lieu of the previous
been inserted for explanationpurposes~ method of estimating them. Under the
Washington Convention payment of a
Senator McKENNA.-I said in my bonus to catching crews is not permitted
second-reading speech that private mental in respect of undersized or lactating
hospitals are not provided for in this whales. The bill also provides, as a safe
bill, but, for the sake of giving informa guard ·against illegal activities, for con
tion to the Senate, I went on to give a tinuous inspection while whaling opera
picture of what would be done. tions are in progress. Other prpvisions
Bill agreed to, and passed through its relate to the reporting of whales lost sub
remaining stages without amendment or sequently to their being killed and to the
debate. treatment of dead whales and whales used
as fenders.
WHALING BILL 1948.
Bill received from the House of Question re.soJvedin tl1e affirmative.
Representatives. Bill read a second time, and passed
Standing and Sessional Orders sus through. its remaining stages. without
pended. amendment or debate.
190 Annex 162
162. Seas and Submerged LandsAct 1973 (Cth) pp. 4, 6-7 (Secs. 6, 10A, 10B, 11)
-/A
ATTOR NEY
G ENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT
Seas and Subm erged Lands Act 1973
A<l:'io.161 or 1.973as •mtndtd
Consohdat«<w$force on 8 November 1999
(wcludeamtodm<nts -upto Act No. 20 of 1994)
Pr<p3ttdI~ OflicofLegisllltive Drafting,
Attoouey-General'•Deportment, Canbena
191Annex 162
Parn Sot-ereginty,sovereiandrighbofeorurol
Dhision1 Thetenitorialsea
Se:tio5
Par t II- Sovereigoty,sovereign rights and rights of
control
DiYision1- Tbe territorial sea
5 Inrerpreratiou
IntillsDivisth~t~nifoti aeanstentenitorialseaof
Australia.
6 Sovereigntinrespe-ctof territorialsea
ItisbythisAct.declaredand enactedthatthesovereignty inrespect
ofthetenitorialsea,andinrespectof theO\<eit andin
repect ofitsbedandsubsoil, isvesteexercd ~isytbe
Cro\m inright oftheColllealth.
7 Lim tiofle,.t.it SMi[;"Not e2]
(I) TheGovernr-Generalmay,fromrimeto time,byProclamation
declare,notinconsistentlywith2eofPartIofthe
Convention.the.limitsofthewholeorpartof theterritorial
sea.
(l Forthepu1p0sesofsucha Proclamationt,heGovernor-General
may, inparticular,detennineeitheror bothofthefollowing:
(a) thebreadthof theterritorialsea;
(.) thebasel.fromwhich thebreadthof thetenitorialsea, or
ofmy partofthetertrilsea.isto.measured.
S Dedar~toiuofWstorirbays andW~stroirtaters
\VheretheGo\mor-Genernl issatisfied:
(a) thatabayi• anhistoricbay,hemay,byProclamation,
declarethatbay tobe anhi<toricbayandsball,bythesame
oranotherProclamation,definethesea-ward limits of that
ba yor
(.b) thatwatersarehistoricwaIDa)byProclamation,
declarethosewaterstobehistoricwatersandsball,bythe
sameoranother Proclamation,definethelimitsof!bose
watets.
4 Seasa11SubmergedI..onAct1973
192 Annex 162
Parin So\~ ,sovereign rigaDdrightofcontrol
Dhi>.ion lA'I'e. :lsivec~ zone
Section lOA
Division lA- The exclusive econOm <k zone
lOA So,·ereigu rightsin respectof enl usin economic zone
Itis declaredandeuacledthatthe righlsandjtuisdictionof
Atu.tr.ilnitsexclusiveeconomiczonearevested inand
exercisablebytheCrowninrightofthe Couuuonweallh.
lOB Limirs of exdusiYeeconomiczone
Thecrovemor-General may. from limeto time,byProclamatin
declare,notinconsistentlywith:
(a) Articl55or 57of theConvention; or
(b) any relevantinteationalagreementtowhichAustraliaisa
party;
thelimisofthe\vhole orofanypartoftbeexclusiveeconomic
zoneofAustrali.a
lOC Chartsof limits of txdusiYee-c onomiczone
(I) The Ministermaycausetobepreparedsuchchartsas heorshe
thinl<fitshowing any matterrelatingtothelimitsoftheexclusive
economiczone.ofAustralia.
(2) Themereproductionofac<>po y.fapaper prllJlOrtto becertified
by theMinisterto beatruecopyofsuchachartis pt;mafacie
evidenceof anymattershownon thechartrelatingtthe limitsof
theexchtsi\: economiczoneof Australi.a
6 SeasandSubmerged Lands Act 1973
193Annex 162
Sot-ereigmy,'ereigrigheandrit~sofconb-oPm n
The contin tanl~ Dnis.io-o 1
~ t iou 11
Division 2-Th e-continental shelf
11 Sonreign 1ights inrespect of continental shelf
ItisbytbisAc.tdeclaredandenacted ththesovereign righof
Australiaasacoostal tateinrespectof thecouriuentalsbelfof
Australia,fihe pwposeof•"!'loringitandetploitingitsnatural
r•'- - ,..__ ..1~1.....ndexercisablebtheCrov.u inrightof
I.U C"'-'VU VI.C"<IJ.I.U.
11 Limi ~tf continental shelf
TheGovernor-Generalmay,fromtimeto rimebyProclamation,
declare,notinconsistentlywithArticle 76oftheConvention or >llY
relevantinternationlaagreementtwhichAustraliais apartythe
limitsof·the.wholeor any partof thecontinentalshelfofAustralia.
13 Chart s oflimi t. of continental shelf
(I) TheMinistermay came. tobepreparedandis,-uedsuchchartsas he
thinksfitshowing anymatterrelatingthelimitsofthe
conriuenllllshelfof Austr.lia
(2)Themere.production ofacopyof apaperptuporting lobecertified
bytheMinister to beatruecopyofacbartprepared tmderthis
sectiolsprimafacieetvi enceofaymatt ershownon thechart
relating tthelimitsof thecontinetrtalshelfof Aus.ralia
&as andSubme>eg dLandsAct1973 i
194 Annex 163
163. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debate , House, 4 April 1979, pp. 1481-1482
(Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister)
Whales and Whaling 4 April 1979 REPRESENTATIVES 1481
significant number of females are still being
tabled in Parliament on 20 February 1979. I
killed at work s throughout Australia. wish to outline the background to the Inquiry's
Nonetheless, I believe that the overall perspec establishment and the Government 'sresponse to
tive is such thatthere will not be a move from the repon. There is a natwal community concern
wool prodll~ intn beef,from grains into wool about an activitywhichthreatensthe extinction
and now the reverse, and therefore there should of any species, particularly when it is directed
be some stability in eachofthe major sectors of against a species as specialnd intelligent as the
agriculture oriented to expon. whale and where there is a fear that the con
From that I would conclude that there will be tinued existence of these special forms of wildlife
an adequacy of supply both for the domestic are threatenedbycontinued exploitation.
market and to satisfy the world markets to the The harpooning of these mammals isoffensive
to many people who regard killing them as in
degree to which a secured base for future exports consistent withthe ideals of mankind and with
has been attained in multilateral trade nego
tiations. Therefore , the loerm prospect is that out serving any valid economic purpose in miti
they are subject only to seasonal variation. Theregation.On the other hand , the livelihood of a
will be a capability of supply both for expon number of Australians depended on whaling.
markets and to satisfy domestic demand . A whaling station operated from Albany in
Domestically,the Australian Meat and Livestock Western Australia for many years. It was of long
Corporation is currently involved in a marketing standing imponance to that region. Australia's
exercise demonstrating to the housewife the policyon whaling has been to maintain an active
extent to which there is in this country a qualityrole on the International Whaling Commission
and price of meat that is certainlymore than to regulate strictly whalingactivity within the
competitive in terms of the Australian economy rules of the Commission and to ensure the con
when compared with that of any other country. tinuance of whales as a renewable marine
As a result I would hope that in spite of some of resource.
the fears that are being expressed, the average Given these differences between the whaling
housewife will realise that the present price level
is cenainly not excessive, particularlyif com industry and conservation considerations, and
pared with price increases in many other com also the considerable debate as to what was hap
modities. Foodstuffs are abundant in Australia. pening to whale populations, the Government
They are of a quality which has helped most decided that the appropriate course was to com
mission an independent inquiry to examine every
Australians to have the physique and general aspect of whaling. The Government has now
qualities of which Australians traditionally have completed consideration of the repon and has
been proud. I hope, therefore, that housewives accepted all the Inquiry's recommendations. The
do not now take meat from their families' tables Government is to prohibit all whaling within the
simply because of an immediate price increase. I impending 200-mile Australian fishing zone, in
believe that there is reason for Australian pri cluding any extension of the zone to include a
mary products, panicularly meat, to continue to fishing zone off the Australian Antarctic
be eaten in abundance by all Australians. I hope Territory.
that they can continue todo so. The Government upholds the central con
LEGAL AID COMMISSION OF THE clusion of the Inquiry into Whales and Whaling,
AUSTRAUAN CAPITAL TERRITORY namely, that Australia should pursue a policy of
Mr VINER (Stirling-Minister for Employ- opposition to whaling and that this policy should
ment and Youth Affair)-For the information of be pursued both domestically and inter
honourable members, I present the interim nationally through the International Whaling
annual repon of the Legal Aid Commission of Commission and other organisations. The
the Australian Capital Territory for the year Government will continue to be an active
ended 30 June 1978. member of, and to suppon, the International
Whaling Commission and to suppon efforts to
WHALES AND WHALING revise the 1946 International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling. In particular we will
MinisterialStatement seek the eJttension of the Commission's charter
Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon - Prime to the conservation of all cetacea. Satisfactory
Minister) - byleave-On 20 March 1978, I an substitutes are readily available for nearly all
nounced the establishment of the Inquiry into whale products. Therefore , the importation into
Whales and Whaling, to be headed by Sir A11st.ratiaof all whale products and goods con
Sydney Frost. The report of the Inquiry was taining them are to be banned from I January
195Annex 163
1482 REPRESENTATIVES 4 April 1979 Whales and Whaling
1981. Subject to normal budgetary consider Imust say that thisisa welcome change of atti
ations, government funding for rese~ hn tude. I thinJc.itrue to say that .idue tc;com
whales will be continued at no less than present munity concern. 1take this opportunity to con
levels. gratulate those conservation groups that have
fought such a good fight to win approval for
Arrangements will be initiated soon to im wllat now appears to be a bipartisan attitude on
plement the Government's decision on the re whaling. Operation Jonah is to be congratulated,
pon. The Whaling Act 1960, which is basically as are Friends of the Earth and other conser
concerned with the regulation ofwhaling, is to be vation groups. These are much maligned organ
repealed and appropriate protective legislation isationsItis amazing how often- -
to succeed the Whaling Act is to be developed
for discussion with the States. A little later, the Mr Martyr-Get out!
administration of this protective legislation is to Mr COHEN- That interjection isquite typical
become the responsibility of the Minister forSciof the honourable member. But as he has now
ence and the Environment (Senator Webster) . seen, the view of such organisations was right
The Government's decision represents a change and the Government's view was wrong. It has
in policy from one of conservative utilisation of taken some years for the Government to come
whale stocks controlled by international agree round to the view that these groups were putting
ment to one committed to a vigorous and active all alongthe line. I am not saying they are right
policyof protection of whales. This change in all the time. The honourable gentleman who
attitude has been influenced by community con interjected was one who accused these groups of
cern not only in Australia but throughout the being communists and fellow travellers. He
world for the need to preserve these unique vented all sorts of vicious spleen on them in the
creatures. House. The Government is now agreeing with
them on this issue, about which they were right.
I am sure that this change of policy will be Finally, it has turned out that their view is the
favourably received by most Australians. The community view.They are to becongratulated .
Government's deliberations have been im
measurably assisted by the hard work and dedi From 1948 to 1974 the IWC presided over a
cation of many individuals and the conservation continuing decline in the larger whale species
organisations, in particular Project Jonah. I such as blue whales, fins, seis and humpbacks.
would like to pay tribute to Sir Sydney Frost forThe humpback whales of Australian waters were
the dedication and thoroughness with which he vinually wiped out during the 1950s and 1960s.
A similar fate had met the Australian right
conducted the Inquiry. Allwho have read the re whales more than a century earlier. By 1972 the
pon willagree that itis a well reasoned and com whale resou.rce situation was so critical that the
prehensive document. I present the following
paper: United Nations Conference on the Human
Whales and Whaling- Ministerial StatementApril Environment called for a 10-year total mora
1979. torium on commercial whaling. Under this
weight of international opinion, the annual IWC
Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed: meeting shortly afterwards agreed to set quotas
That the House tnoteof the paper . for individual whale species for the first time, to
differentiate between male and female sperm
Mr COHEN (Robertson) (3.11)-The Oppo whales for biological reasons, and to implement
sition welcomes the statement of the Prime Min an international observer scheme. But United
ister(Mr Malcolm Fraser) and supports him in States sponsored resolutions in favour of an ab
the action that he has taken. It is excelltosee solute moratorium on whaling were narrowly
now that Australia is to prohibit all whaling rejected by the IWC in 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Finally, in 1974 a new managemen t procedure
within the impending 200-mile Australian
fishing zone, including any extension of the zone put forward by Australia as a compromise be
to include a fishingzoneoffthe Australian Antar tween pro-whaling and anti-whaling members
tic Territory. Wewillcontinue suppon for the In was accepted by the IWC, plus immediate bans
ternational Whaling Commission and hopefully on commercial hunting of blue whales, hump
an end will come to all whaling. As the Prime backs, right whales and bowheads. Briefly, the
Minister said, satisfactory substitutesre avail new approach to whale harvesting adhered
able for all whale produets. It is good to see thamuch more closely to the idea of maximum sus
from 1 January 1981Australia will prohibit the tainable yield for each species, that is, the aim of
imponation of whale products and that funding maximum harvesting without decline of whale
for research into whales willcontinue. stocks. The Australian amendment of 1974 not
196 Annex 164
164. “Opening Statement by the Australian Commissioner, 31stAnnual Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission, London, July 1979”, ITEM 2, IWC 31
ITEM 2
IWC 31
OPENING STATEMENTBY THE AUSTRALIANCOMMISSIONER
31ST ANNUALMEETINGOF THE INTERNATIONALWHALING
COMMISSION, LONDON,JULY 1979
Mr c~irman, Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I regard it as a great honour to serve as Australian
commissioner to the International Whaling Commission. I am
also very conscious of the fact that although the task of the
commission has eased a little as a result of the activities of
the Technical Committee, much remains to be done.
Since the last meeting of the Commission , the
Australian Inquiry into Whales and Whaling conducted by
sir Sydney Frost has made recommendations based on a
comprehensive investigation of national and international
evidence. The Government accepted the recommendations of the
Inquiry and I will refer to this in more detail later.
Both domestically and internationally, Australia will
pursue a policy of opposition to whaling. In its proposed
200 mile fishing zone, Australia will prohibit all whaling and
the Austral ian Government is now committed to a vigorous and
active policy of protection of whales, through the
International Whaling Commission and other appropriate
organisations.
Senator J.J. Webster, the Australian Minister for
Science and the Environment will be responsible for the
implementation of legislation reflecting these important
Government initiatives.
This change in emphasis from one of the conservativ~
utilisation of whale stocks to promoting a policy of banning
w~alin agd protecting whale populations has received
wtdespread support both in Australia and overseas.
. To most Australian Aboriginal communities whales are
an1mals of special significance. Although some coastal
~ommuniti do stake other marine mammals, such as dugong, there
ls no history of a sustained subsistence take of small
cetaceans or of the large whale that once moved, on their
annual migrations, in large numbers through Australian waters,
waters in which whales are now to be protected.
197Annex 164
2.
Later, Australian-builtwhalersvessels tooperatedia offshorem Euand from bays
along the coast. By the mid-1850s the exploited whale stocks
had been so reduced that most operations had ended, but some
humpback and sperm whaling from shore stations persisted.
Since 1963 only one Australian land-based whaling station has
been in operation, taking only sperm whales in Division 5. ThP
whaling company closed the station at the end of the 1978
season, its profitability having been eroded by mar ket
uncertainties and increasing costs. There is evidence that the
numbers caught in some years substantially exceeded sustainable
levels . The need to protect the stocks of both male and female
sperm whales in Division 5 was recognised by the IWC at its
Special Meeting in Tokyo last year and is a salutary lesson of
the time needed for such stocks to recover from
overexploitation.
In the last decade there has been a remarkable
increase in world interest in cetaceans. People who may never
protection. hThisprepublic concernmedireflectsctirecognitionwhaleof the
evolutionary significance and special nature of these
wide-ranging marine mammals. Whales are also seen as symbols
of a far larger need - the need to conserve and protect marine
ecosystems themselves.
The growth of public awareness in Australia has
paralleled growing international interest stimulated by
concerned individuals and groups.
The Australian Government, which has a good record in
nature conservation, recognised the need for a thorough
investigation of this matter. The Prime Minister announced in
November 1977 that an Independent Inquiry would be held into
whales and whaling and later appointed Sir Sydney Frost as
Chairman with broad terms of reference. The Inquiry held
public hearings in the State capitals of Western Australia, New
South Wales and Victoria and in Albany, the town near which the
only whaling station in Australia then operated.
extremely Thimportant partmmiof itsd work was to attendpers. theAn30th
Annual IWC meeting and the preceeding Scientific Committee
meeting in Cambridge. Sir Sydney and two of his staff also had
discussions with a number of experts both in the United Kingdom
and the United States of America.
In December 1978 the Report of the Inquiry was
submitted to the Government. It is my pleasure to table a copy
of the Report.
198 Annex 164
3.
In February 1979 the Report was tabled in the
Australian Parliament and in April 1979 the'Prime Minister
announced acceptance of the recommendations of the Inquiry. A
coPY of that announcement has been distributed.
The central findings of the Inquiry that Australia
should cease whaling and pursue a policy of opposition to
whaling were based on an assessment that:
there is a real probability that whales have the
potential of high intelligence;
there is a growing community opinion that it is wrong
to kill whales;
in the very near future, substitutes would be
developed to replace all whale products used in
Australia;
the method used to kill whales is inhumane; and
the populations of some species are drastically
reduced and that even with the advent of the new
management procedure, there are still risks to the
maintenance of the place of some species in marine
ecosystems or even to their long-term survival.
The Australian Government considers that it is
extremely important for Australia to remaim a member of the IWC
and continue to support ~nd partic ipat e in the wor k of the
Scientific Committee.
In line with its new poli c ies, Australia requested
that the following items be i ncluded on the Agenda for this
meeting:
A world-wide ban on whaling; and
Consideration of the implications for whales of
management regimes for other marine resources.
The Australian Government is convinced that the IWC
presently is the most competent organisation for the
international management of cetaceans and will seek to
strengthen i t by advocating membership of other nations. The
Government will also continue to be active in the review of the
Convention. While seeking an end to whaling, the Australian
Government recoqnises the proolems that arise for some
nations. However, an overriding and immediate consideration is
that species should not be put at further risk.
199Annex 164
4.
My Government appreciates the special problem of
subsistance whaling where some harvesting is agreed to be an
essential component of the culture of native people. However
Australia does not believe it is in the long term interests of
indigenous people to condone catch levels which place
endangered species at further risk.
200 Annex 165
165. Environment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999 (Cth) pp. 331-338
Conservation of biod iversity and heritag e C hapter 5
Species and communiti es Pan 13
Whal es and other cetaceans Dh "ision 3
Section 224
Dhi sion 3- Whale s and other cetacean s
S ubdi Yision A- Application ofDhision
224 Application of Dh-i sion
(1) Thi s Division extends to acts , omission smatters and things
outside Australia (whether in a foreign cmmtry or not), except so
far as the contrary intention appears.
(2) A provi sion of this Division that has effect in relati on to a place
outside the outerlimits of the Australian Wha le Sanctuary applie s
onl y in relatio n to:
(a) Australian citizens ; and
(b) persons who:
(i) are not Australian citizens ; and
(ii) hold pennanent visa s under the Migration Acr 1958 ; and
(iii ) are domiciled in Australia or an external Territory ; and
(c) corporations incorporated in Australia or an external
Territory ; and
(d) the Commonwealth; and
(e) Couunonwealth agencies ; and
(f) Australian aircraft ; and
(g) Australian vessels: and
(h) members of crew s of Australian aircraft and Australian
w ssels (including persons in char ge of aircraft or ,-essels).
(3) This Divisi on applies to a vessel as if it were an Australian vesse l
if :
(a) the vessel is a boat within the meanin g of the Fisheries
i\!a nagement Act l991 ; and
(b) a declaration , tmdec subsection 4(2) of that Act, that the
vessel is taken to be an Australian boat is in force.
Environment Protection and Biodivers icy Consen>ation Acrl999 331
201Annex 165
Chap tE-r5 Con<ref"Vationof biodi versity and heritage
Pru·t 13 Species and comnmnities
Division 3 Wha les and other cetaceans
Section 225
Subdhi sion B- Au stralian Whale Sanctuary and important
cetacean habita t areas
225 Au stralian 'Vhale Sa nctua i')'
(1) TI1eAustralian Whale Sanctuary isestablished in order to give
fonnal recognition of the high level of protection and management
afforded to cetaceans in Commonwealth marine areas and
prescribed waters.
(2) TI1e A ustralia n Tf'7rale Sanctuary·comprises:
(a) any waters of the sea inside d1e seaward botmdary offue
exclusi ve economic zone , except:
(i) waters , rights in respect ofwb.ich have been vested in a
State by section 4 of fue Coastal Warer;s(State Title) Act
1980 or in the Norfuern Territory by section 4 of fue
Coastal Waters (Northern Terricory Title) Act 1980 ;and
(ii) watefs within the limits of a State or the Norfuern
Teni tory; and
(b) any waters over the continental shelf , except:
(i) waters , rights in respect of which have been vested in a
State by section 4 offue Coasta l Water;s(State Title) Act
1980 or in the Northern Territory by section 4 of fue
Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980;and
(ii) waters within the limits of a State or the Norfuern
Territory ; and
(iii) waters covered by paragraph (a); and
(c) so much of the coastal waters of a State or fue Nruthern
Territory as are prescribed waters.
Note: This subsection is subject to subsection 5(3).
116 Pre sc ribed water s
(1) The regulations may declare the whole, or a specified patt , of the
coastal waters of a State or the No rtl1ern Tetrit ory to be prescribed
waters .
(2) Before the Governor -General makes a regulation under
subsection (1),the Minister must obtain the agreemetlt of the
relevant Minister of the State or the Norfuern Tenitory .
332 Environment Protection and Biodiversi ry Conser vation Act 1999
202 Annex 165
Conservationofbiodirers ityand heritagChapt ~r
Speciesandcomnnmities Pan 13
Whalesand otbercetaceans Dids ion 3
Section 227
227 Coastal waters
(1) Section 15B of theActsInterpretaTion Actl901 does not apply in
relation to this Division.
(2) The cooffalII'Oterof a State or the Northern I eaitory are:
(a) the pan or parts of the teai tosealthat are:
(i) within3 nautical miles of the baseline of the territorial
sea; and
(ii)adjacent to that State or I eaitory: and
(b) any ntarine or tidal waters that are inside that baseline and
are adjacent to that State or I erritory but are not u-ithin the
limits of a State or that I erritory.
No:e: Gen-erallthebas.elinei!.th:est asil'Ocomical ride along cbeeoa::>t
but it abo includeslines encba~.andindemations thatareuot
baY$and suaight ba!.etines thatdepart &-omthe coast.
(3) Any part of the territorial sea tisadjacent to the Jervis Bay
I erritory is, fore purposes of subsection(2),taken to be adjacent
to :NewSouth Wales .
ns :\liDister ma~ · ake dedantion for coastal waters
(1) lf the Minister is satisfied that a law of a State or the Northern
I erritory adequately protects caceans inthecoastal waters. or a
part of the coastal waters, of the State or Territory, the Minister
may make a declaration accordingl y, whether or not those coastal
waters or thatpan are presml>ed waters.
(2) A declara tin must be in writing.
22SA Import ant cetacea n habitat areas
(1) The Minister may. by legislative instrument. declare a specified
area in the.Australian Whale Sanctuary to be an important cetacean
habitat area
(2) The regulati ons may specify criteria to be applied by the Minister
in determ ining whether to declare an area to be an intportant
cetacean habitatarea. lf regulat ions are made for !he.purposes of
this section the Minister may declare an area to be important
cetacean habitat area only if he or sissatisfied that the area
meets the criteria prescribed by the regulations.
EnvirommmlProtectionandBiodiversityConsen'Gfion Act 1999 333
203Annex 165
Chapter 5 Conservation of biodiversity and heritage
Part 13 Species and communities
Dhis ion 3 Whales and other cetaceans
Section ?29
Subdhi sion C-Offence s
229 Killing or injuring a cetacean
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person takes an action; and
(b) the action results in the death or injury of a cetacean; and
(c) the cetacean is in
(i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal
waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the
Northern Territory for which a declaration lUlder
section 228 is in force); or
(ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale
Sanctuary.
Note 1: Chapter 2 of thCrimmal Code sets outhegeneral principles of
criminal responsibi lity.
Note 2: This sectiodoes not applyinthe circumstancedescnOed in
section231. A defendant bearan e•idential burdenrelation to
those circumstances. Seesubsection 13.3(3) ofCrimmal Code.
(1A) Strict liability applies to paragraph (l)(c).
Note: For strictliabiliseesection 6.1 of tCliminal Code.
(2) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not
more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or
both.
l29A Strict liabilit y for killing or injuring a ce tacean
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person takes an action; and
(h) thf':~rt iP.Stllst ithf' ruwh or injury of a c.etaC'f'a;nanrl
(c) the cetacean is in
(i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal
waters, or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the
Northern Territory for which a declaration Wlder
section 228 is in force); or
(ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale
Sanctuary .
Note 1: Chapter 2 of thO ·tmmal Code sets outhegeneral principles of
crintinal responsibility .
334 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
204 Annex 165
Conserva tion of biodiversity and heritage Chaplet· 5
Species and communities Par t 13
Whales and other ce.taceans Dhisio n 3
Section 229B
Note2: Thissectiondoes notapply inthecircumstancesdescribedin
section~31 A.defendantbears anevidentiaburden inrelation to
thosecircumstances . See subsec.tion 13of the Criminal Cede.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (l)(a), (b) and (c).
Note: For str tliab' i eei~ection 6.1 of the Criminal Cede.
(3) The offence is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding
500 penalty units .
229B Intenti onall y taking etc. a cetacean
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person takes, trades , keeps , moves or interferes with a
cetacean ; and
(b) the cetacean is in:
(i) the Australian Whale Sanctuary (but not the coastal
waters , or a part of the coastal waters, of a State or the
Northem Territory for which a declaration under
section 228 is in force); or
(ii)waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Whale
Sanctuary .
Note 1: Chapter 2of the Criminal Codsetsout thegeneral princ.iples of
criminal responsibiliry.
Note2: Thissectiondoes not applyinthecircumstances descnl>edin
section 231. defendantbears anevidential burdeinrelation to
those circumstances . See subsec.tion 1of the Criminal Cede.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).
Note: For srrictliobi/il)•,see section 6.1 of the Criminal Cede.
(3) The offence is punishable on conviction by imprisomnent for not
more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding 1,000 penalty units, or
both.
(4) In this Act:
interfere with a cetac.ean includes harass , dlaSe , herd, tag, mark or
brand the cetacean.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 335
205Annex 165
Cha pter 5 Conservation ofbiodi.-ersi tyand heritage
Part 13 Species and communities
Dhision 3 Whales and other cetaceans
Section 229C
trade a cetacean:
(a) includes :
(i) buy the cetacean, agree to receive it rmder an agreement
tobuy , agree to accept it tmder such an agreement or
acquire it by barter; or
(ii) sell the cetacean, offer it for sale, agree to sell it, havit
in possession for the pwpose of sale, deliver it for the
ptupose of sale, receive it for the purpose of sale or
dispose of it by barter for the ptupose of gain or
advancement ; or
(iii) cause or allow any of the acts referred to in
subparagraph (i) or (ii) to be done; but
(b) does not include export the cetacean from Australia or an
external Territory or import it into Australia or an external
Territory.
Note: Forprovisionsrelatingtoexportor import seePart 13A
229C Sn ·ict liabili ty for taki ng etc. a cetacea n
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) the person takes, trades, keeps, moves or interferes \>ltih a
cetacean ; and
(b) the cetacean is in:
(i) the Australian Wllllle Sanctuary (but not the coastal
waters, or a part of the coastal waters , of a State or the
Northern Territ01y for which a declaration under
section 228 is in force); or
(ii) waters beyond the outer limits of the Australian Vihale
Sanctuary.
Note 1: Chapter2of the Criminal Code setsoutthe generalprinciplesof
crinlinal responsibility.
Note 2: This sectiondoesnot applyinthe circunlSlaJlcsescribed in
section 231A defendantbearsanevidentialburden inrelation·to
thosecirC\IImlance.sSeesubsection 13.3(3)othe Criminal Code.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (l)(a) and (b).
Note: For strict liabilseesection 6.1oftheCriminal Code.
(3) The offence is ptmishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding
500 penalty tmits.
336 Em,ironmem Protection and Biodiversil)' Conservation Act 1999
206 Annex 165
Conservation of biodiversity and heritage Chapt er 5
Species and communities Part 13
Vlhales and other ce.taceans Dh-ision 3
Section 229 D
229 D T rea tin g cetacea ns
Treating tmlawjillly killed or taken cetaceans
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
(a) thp pPrSon tn>al<;nr.Pt.arP.a; anrt
(b) the cetacean has been:
(i) killed in contravention of section 229 or229 A; or
(ii) taken in contravention of section 229 B or 229C.
Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Crimi11al Code sets out the general principles of
c:rimina1responsibility .
Note 2: This sec.tion doesnot apply in lhe circumstances described in
section 231. A defendanbearsan evidential burden in relation to
those circ:utmtanceSee subsec.tion 13.3(3) ofCriminal Code.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) ispunishable on conviction by
imprisorunent for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding
1,000 penalty units , or both.
Treating unlawfiilly imponed cetaceans
(2A) A person conunits an offence if:
(a) the person treats a cetacean ; and
(b) the cetacean has been unlawfully in1p01ted.
Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Crimi11al Code sets out the general principles of
c:rimina1responsibility .
Note 2: Subsection 4B{3)of the Crintes Act 19141eacourt fina body
corporate up to 5 times the maxinmm amount the court could fine a
person under lhis subsection.
(?.B) An offence against subsection (2A) is pwrishable on conviction by
imprisomnent fornotmore than 5 yearsora fine not exceeding
1,000 penalty units, or both.
(3) In this Act:
treat a cetacean means divide or cut up, or extract any product
fi·om,the cetaceruL
Enviromnent Protection and Biodiversiry ConservaTionAct 1999 337
207Annex 165
Chapter 5 Conservation of biodivers ity and heritage
Part 13 Spec ies and conununities
Division 3 Whales and oilier cetaceans
Section 230
23 0 Poss ession of ceta cean s
Possession ofunlm>1illly killed cetaceans
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if :
(a) the person has in his or he,rpossession:
(i) a cetacean ; or
(ii) a part of a cetacean ; or
(iu) a produ ct derived from a cetacean ; and
(b) the cetacean 1135been :
(i) killed in contravention of section 229 or 229A; or
(ii) taken in contravention of section 229B or 229C.
Note: Chapter 2 of thCriminal Cade sets out the general principles of
criminalresponsibility.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by
imprisonmen t for not more than 2 years or a fine not exceeding
1,000 penalty units , or both.
Possession ofunlm lfilily imported cetaceans
(3) A person commi ts an offence if:
(a) the person has in his or her possession:
(i) a cetacean; or
(ii) a part of a cetacean ; or
(iu) a produ ct derived from a cetacean; and
(b) the cetacean , part or product , as the case may be, has been
rullawii.llly imported .
Note 1: Chapter 2 of thCriminal Code sets out the general principles of
criminalresponsibility.
Note 2: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914lets a court fbodya
personundertthissubsection.inmm amount the courtcouldfinea
(4) An offence against subsection (3) is punishable on convic tion by
imprisonmen t for not more than 5 years or a fine not exceeding
1,000 penalty units , or both.
338 Environme/U ProtecTionand Biodiversity Conse1VationAct 1999
208 Annex 166
166. Attorney-General Daryl Williams and Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander
Downer, “Changes to International Dispute Resolution” (News Release, 25 March
2002)
ATI ORl'JEY-GENERAL MINISTER FOR
THE HON.DARYLYII'JL LIAMSA..MQCMP FOREIGN AFFAIRS
THE HON. ALEXANDERDOWNERMP
NEWS RELEASE
25 March 2002
CHANGES TO Doi:ER..'NA TI ONAL IDISPt: IT RI SOLt:TI ON
The Anomey-General Daryl Williams and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander
Downer toda.yannotmced changes to the temlSupon which Australia accepts intemational
disputere~ol iuntmechanis, mparticularly as they a.pplyto maritime boundaries.
These changes relate pticularly to the Intemational Court of Justice (ICJ) and to dispute
settlement under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the.Sea (UNCLOS).
Australia has lodged a declaration accepting the ICJ and the Intemational Tribunal for the
Law of the Sea as venues for compulsory dispute settlement under the Law of the Sea
Convention. Australia was an original party to the Convention and ratified it in 1994.
Australiaem ain o~ne of only 61 countries outof the United Nations' 189 me.mbersthat
acceptthe con1pulsoryjurisdiction of the ICJ. Of those, the majority have made various types
of reservations to their acceptance of the Court'sjurisd iction.
Under the Convention, Australia may choose the dispute resolution bodies it prefers and
whether to ex.clude.certain areas, such as maritin1e delinlltation, from compulsory dispute
re~ luotn.
Australia has made a declaration excluding the setting of maritinle boundaries from
compulsory dlispute resolution.Australia's strong view is that.any maritin1e boundary dispute
is best settled by negotiation rather than litigation.
Australia's maritinle zones abut the maritin1e zones o:fIndonesia, New Zealand, Papua New
Guinea, the.Solomon Islands, France (New Caledonia, Kerguelel~nldaand Antarctica), East
Tim or and Norway. Australia is yet to resolve botmdaries with France,New Zealand and
Norway in the maritin1e area adjacent to AntarcAtct~tra hlaiaegotiated treaties on
}"'-'& u...&.UCU . U \.U.J....VVJ..&.UU'VJ. l<.'f-J.'OI'-"\...nl ·.JVIU I V.&.o>U <1-U.U'._,f.....
France (New Caledonia and Kerguelen Island). Negotiations are ongoing with New Zealand.
Att~tra laialso amended its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICJ tmder the so-called
'optional clse' of the ICJ Statute_Under the changes announced today_Australia will
continue to accept the jurisdiction of the Cotut, subject to the following exceptions:
• where the parties have agreed to other peaceful means of dispute resolution;
• where disputes involve maritime boundary delimitatior disputes conceming the
exploitatin of an area in dispute or adjacent to an area in dispute; and
• where a cotmtry has only accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court for a particular
purpose o:rhas accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the cotut for a period of less than
one year. Tlusunderp Ainsralia's view that actions relying on the compulsory
jurisdictio n the ICJ should be undertaken on the basis of a long-term collllllitment to
acceptance of tat.jurisdiction.
209Annex 166
Australiais,and rffilains c.onuuine d to the negotiated settlement of disputes. The ICJ and the
dispute resolution mechanislllSunder the Convention on the Law of the Sea play au important
rolein the.settlement of disputes.
The Govenun ent's view isthat every endeavour should be made to reach an agreed resolution
of disputes.
!\Iedia Contact:
Carina Tau-Van Bareu (Mr Williams) (02) 6277 7300/ 0419 423 965
Matt Francis (Mr Downer) (02) 6277 7500/ 0419 206 890
2
210 Annex 167
167. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties,
12 July 2002 (William Campbell) TR 45 - TR 53
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Official Committee Hansard
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES
Refe.-ence: Treat ies tab led on 18 and 25 June 2.002
FRIDAY. 12 JULY 2002
CANBERRA
BY AUTHORITY P.~.L~?..>IENT
211Annex 167
INTI.Rl'IEI
The Proof and Official Hansard trallScripts of Senate committee hearings,
some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint com
mittee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House. of Representa
tives committees and some joint committees make available only Official
HallSardtranscripts.
The Interne.! address is: http://wmv.aph.gov.aulhansard
To search the parliamentary database, go to:ttp: //searr h.aph .gov.au
212 Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002 JOINT TR 45
[11.28 a.m.]
CAMPBELL, !\Ir William 1\IcFadyen, First Assistant Secretary, Office of Internationa l
Law, Attorney -General's Depart ment
IRWIN, !\Is Rebecca, Acting Senior Adviser, Office of Internationa l Law, Attorne y
General's Depart ment
FRENCH, Dr Gregot·y AL1n, Directot; Sea Law, Environmen tal Law and Antarctic Policy
Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
RABY, Dr Geoffrey 'Villiam, First Assistant Secretary, Intem ational Organ isations and
Legal Division, Depariment of Foreign Affairs and Trade
TRINDADE, !\Ir Dominic, Legal Adviset; Legal Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade
CHAIR- I welcome witnesses from the Attorney-General's Department and the Department
of Foreign Affairs and!Trade to give evidence in relation to the Australian declarations under
articles 2871 and 2981 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 and the
Australian declaration under paragraph 2 of article 36 of the Statuteof the International Court of
Justice 1945.As you were all witnesses in the last hearing I will not go over the warning about
not giving faL5eand mi5leading evidenc.e. I am sure that you are aU aware that these are
regarded as proceedings of the parliament and should be treated accordingly. Would somebody
like to makesome opening remarks aboutthi5particular internationalinstmment?
!\Ir Campbe ll-- Before making some opening remarks, I note that the tabling of these treaties
was anticipated in a letter sent to you on 24 March of this year, stating that the declarations had
been lodged but that they would be tabled before the committ.eeas soon as possible thereafter.
They were lodged early, on the basis of the sensitive nature of the action, which is probably
something that we will get into afterwards. Having stated that, we welcome the opportunity to
explain to the conunitte.e these two iustmments: the declarations relating to dispute settlement
wtder the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which I will refer to as the Law of
the Sea conveutio11,or UNCLOS; and Australia's new declaration of acceptance of the
jurisdiction of the htternational Court of Justice, which I will refer to as the ICJ.
Before moving on to the two declarations, I would like to make a preliminary point about
international adjudication and arbitration in general, and that is that most if not all dispute
settlement by international courts and tribunals is based upon the consent of the states appearing
before them. That cou.5nt can be given in a variety of ways, as I will mention in relation to the
ICJ. However, in the absence of itsconsent, a state callllot be taken before au international court
or tribunal. In the absence of such consent by a state, no other state has the eight to bring a
dispute between the two of them before an international court or tribunaL The point I make is
that consent isundamen tal to intentationaladjudication and arbitration.
CHAIR- Soyou cannot havea tmilateralreferralofa matterto thecourt?
TREATIES
213Annex 167
TR46 JOINT Friday, 12 July 2002
1\'lr Ca mpbell--T hat is exactly right. Moving on to the UNCLOS declaration, which was
made on 22 March, Australia gave its consent to dispute se.ttlement in relat ion to the interpreta
tion and applicat ion of the Law of the Sea convention when it. ratified th1994.nvention in
Indeed Australia, together with New Zeauiil~dthe dispute settlement proceedi ngs under
UNCLOS when boothcowttries took Japan to an arbitration over southern bluefin tuna in 1999.
Whileall part ies to UNCLOS accept dispute settlement under the convention, the convention
allows states parties certain choices, and those choices are both as to the means of dispute set
tlement.nd also as to the exc.lusion of formai~f dispute from dispute settlement. The.
declarat imade.by Australia recently under the convent.ion relates to those two choices.
Tite purpo se of the first part of the declaration was to nominate the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea and the ICJ as preferred means of dispute settlement under UNCLOS . The
NIA sets out the other a~that were the subject of that choice, and I wil l not go into them
now. UNC LOS also enables countries to exclude specified forms of d:ispute from dispute
se-ttlement, and one of those e.xpr.xct.oins referred to in UNCLOS relates to the
determinationof maritime boundaries. Under its declaration , pursuant to that. provision,
Att~ral hasexcluded maritin1e botutdary disputes from compulsory dispute settlement under
theLaw of the Sea conventio n. That action was taken in line with the government 's view that.
maritime bounda:ries are best. resolved through negotirather than by resort to an
internationalurt or tribu113l. As a matter of statistics , of the.29 states parties to UNCLOS that
have actua lly nomina ted prefe rred dispute resolution mech11ihave made simil ar
exceptio ns relatio n to maritime boudi~utes.
Moving on to the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, deasais explained in the
NIA. a slate can accept the jurisdiction of tlte httematio nal Court of Justice in three ways . The
fu-st way a state donthis is by entering into au agreement with another country to refer a
particular dispute to the Intemational Cotut of Justice; that is referred to teclutically as a
compromis.The.second mechanism is that, in a treaty on a particu lar subject, a state might agree
that t ICJ will have jurisdiction over disputes arising under thathe example I just.
gaveof the declarat ion tmder the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is an example of that..
h1 other words , we b.we agreed under the UN Convention on the Law of lhe Sea that the ICJ
can be used for the resolution of disputes under that treaty. The third form that.nsent is
wtder artic36.2 of the statute of the ICJ-monly known as the optio nal cL1use-- a state
may lodge a declaratiowith the Secre-tary General of the United Nations, accepting the
jur isdiction of ilie cotut in relation to any other country making a similar dec.laration: that is,
there is an element of reciprocity. In making such a declaration , a state is entitled to place
conditions or exception s on its acceptance . If there is a dispute between two states, both of
whom have lodgeddeclarat ind1rt~e optional c.lause that coverdi~pte,then the ICJ
has jurisdiction over it.
Australia's previous declaration in 1975 tmder the optional clause was an opeitdeclaration ;
only included one qualification. The declaration made by Australia in March this year inserted a
muuber of further qualificatio ns. Those qualificat ions bring about a consistency with the
declaratioIjust referred to under UNCLOS , which excluded maritinte boundary disputes.
They alo bring about some conunonality with qttalificat ions that have been adopted by a
number of other cou ntries in relation to their ICJ declarations .
TREATIES
214 Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002
JOINT TR 47
The four qualifications are set out in the NIA. In short, the first qualification is where we
have agreed with another state to utilise another dispute resolution mechanism in relation to a
particuardipute;in that case, that other meam will be used and not the ICJ. That exception
was contained in the previous dec.laratiou. The second qualification coucerm maritime bowld
ary disputes between Australia and another state, or disputes concerning the exploitation of an
area in dispute or adjacent to an area in dispute. The effect of that exception, combined with the
UNCLOS declaration, is to precludcomp uL~or dispute settlement of Australia's maritime
boundaries.
I will give a bitbackgrotu1dabout our boundaries. We have some of the largest maritime
areas in the world, and we aLsohave some of the longest maritime boundaries. It is the view of
the government that the maritime botu1daries, as I mentioned earlier, are best resolved by
negotiation and not through resort to third party dispute settlement. All the current maritime
boundaries thatwe have settled with other cotultries have been agreed by negotiation.
Negotiation allows the parties to work together to reach outcomes acceptable to both sides for
the long term.
The third qualification is where another state accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ only for the
purposeof a part.icular dispute. That reservation emures that only countries that have the same
broad acceptancef the jurisdiction of the ICJ can take Australia to the international court tmder
the optional c.lause. The final qualification is in relation to cases where less than 12 mouths has
elapsed since another state accepted the jurisdiction under the optional protocol. This is
designedto protect Australia from litigation by cotmtries that have accepted the jurisdiction of
the ICJ for the sole purpose of bringing proceedings against Australia. Again, it relates to that
1~~P .f long-tP.m1 ;'t.anr.tth~jnr11 trlo
Notwithstanding those qualifications, Australia still accethe jurisdiction of the
Internationalurt of Justice in relation to most disputes. There has been quite a lot of reporting
thatAu~tarlihaswithdrawn from the ICJ jurisdiction; that is sintply not the case. Australia has
put on some further qualifications, but it has not withdrawn from the jurisdiction. h1deed, as
pointed outin the national interest ais, Australia is in the minority of only one-third of
United Nations members who accept ICJ jurisdiction w1derthe optional clause. Of the 190-odd
United Nations members, only 63 have made a declaration under the optional clause to accept
the jurisdiction of the court. Of those 63 states, a majority- that is, 46- have placed some
qualifications on their acceptance. Ifi could make a slight explanation, I thi.ukthe NIA refers to
61 states as having accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
CHAIR- Yes, it does.
1\Ir Campbe ll-- It is very much a matter of re.ading some dec.laratiom and documentation.
Some of those relate to declarations that were previously made in relationPerntaneut
Court of International Justice prior to 1945. \Ve have had a c.aitand arefairlsure
that the figt1i~63. The other point I would make is that the web site containing those
declarations is updated only every so often; it is not updated from day to day. We caru1otbe sure
that the figt1re is exactly right at the moment, but it would be fairly accurate. I will conclude by
saying that, consistent with its obligations under the UN charter, Australia is conunitted to the
peaceful settlement disputes. thi r~spect., the ICJ anddih~uteresolution mechanisms
w1der UNCLOS willcontinue to play an important role.
TREATIES
215Annex 167
TR48 JOINT Friday;12 July 2002
CH AIR- One of the exceptions applies where the parties agree to other peacefiJl means of
dispute resolution. Take me through that scenario. What happens when Australia and another
party agree some other means of dispute resolution which does not resolve the dispute?
1\Ir Campb ell- There would be. no resort. to the International Court of Justice in those
circmstances.
CHA IR- There.could not be,or the1:ewould not be?
1\Ir Campb ell- There would have to bea separate agreement to take it to the htternational
Courtof Justice in those circumstances.
CHAIR- So Australia could go back on its exceptions at any time?
1\Ir Campbell- It is always open to Australia to agree with another country to take a
particular disputehe Intentational Court of Justice. That was the first type of referral tha.t I
mentiond: under a so-called compromis, we reach a specific agreement to take a lll3tter to the.
International Court of Justice.
CH AIR- In broad terms, we have accepted thejurisdiction of the ICJ since 1975?
1\'Campb ei~ We ltave accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ virtually since its inception,
which was around 1947. accepted the jurisdiction of the Pemtanent Court before that.
CH AIR- So wltat was the point of t:hedate of 1975?
1\ICampb el~ That was the date o•ur previous declaration was made, but before that there.
was another declaration in 1954. Prior to that,a made ac.!aration in relation to the.
Permanent Court in 1940.
CH AIR- But this is the first time we have made an exception or declaration with respect to
maritime boundaries?
1\Ir Campb ell- No. h1 fact, the 1954 declaration made reservations in relation to certain
maritime matters.
CHA IR- What was the difference between that reservation and tlliscurrent declaration?
1\ICa mpbei~ The current declarwtion is certaincompree h1v~ein its dealing with
maritime bounaries, but bear in minodthat the nwitin 1e boundaries in 1954 fundamentally
relatedo the territorial sea only. The continental shelf was just developing at that stage; there
wasno concept of an exclusive econo:mic zone. Of necessity, our curreni~muchlaration
broader.
1\Ir WILKIE - Have we ever been taken t.about botmdaries?
1\Ir Cambel~ Yes, we have.
TREATIES
216 Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002 TR 49
JOINT
:\11'WlLKIE- What. was the outcome? Can you tell us abou t the case or cases?
l\I r Campbell- The case in fact concern ed the Timor Gap Zone of Cooperatio n that was
agreed under the Timor Gap Treaty with Indone sia . Portugal took Australia to the Internat ional
Court of Just ice alleging, amongst other things, that. the Timor Gap Treaty was illegal because
the occupation of East. Timor by Indonesia was illegal Howe,;er, Portugal could not take
Indonesia to the court , because Indonesia had not accepted jurisdiction under the optional
cIause. The argument put by Australia in that case, relying upon some earlier aut hority called
the Monetary Gold Case. was that Indonesia was what is known as 'an indispensable third
party ' to that action and the action cou ld not sensibly be decided in the abse.nce of Indonesia 's
prese nce before the courtc ui timately . that was the basis on which the court said it would not
exercise jurisdict ion o\·er the matt er, and that was where the matter was left.
!\It·W ILKIE- Is that the only case ?
:\11'Campbell- That is not the only case where Aust ralia has been before the International
Court of Justice .
i\It·WlLKIE- I mean over the maritime borders.
i\It· Camp bell- That isthe only case that I can recall over maritime boundaries. Tltere was
another semi-maritime matter. and that was when Australia took France to the Internat ional
Court of Justice in the mid-1970s over atmosp heric nuclea r testing in the Pacific . which had a
maritime aspect to it.
Seua tot·1\l AR.SH.ALL- You mentioned earlier that some othe r countries may be waiting for
this process , to take tiS to court on some of the boundary issues. I thought you indicated that
some other countries had ratified that agreement on the basis that they may be able to use that in
some disputed botmdary issue s with us, unless I misu nderstood .
i\11'Campb ell- ! do not think I suggested that.
Senator :\l ARSHALL- 1 am sorry. Do we have any unr esolved boundary issues?
:\11'Campbell- We ha.ve a mtmber of unreso lved boundaries - when I say 'unresolved ', I
mean bounda ries yet to be agreed with other cotmtries As I thinkisset otU in the :1\'L, e lta\·e
maritime bounda ries with seven countries. We have agreed our maritime boundar ies with
Indonesia , although the 1997 tre< ,w ltcyt isthe final treaty we nego tiated with Indonesia.is
yet to enter into force. We have some unresolved contin emal shelf boundaries beyond 200
nautica l miles with Franc e that we are yet to resolve, both in relation to New Caledonia. and its
possess in of Kerguelen, which is near Heard and McDonald Islands in the Southern Ocean. We
also, of cour se, have an unresolved boundary with East Timor, but we have pro visional
arrangements in place . At the present time we are in\·olved in maritime boundary negotiations
with New Zealand. where .we have maritime boundaries on four fronts , including between our
Antarctic po ssessions. We also have unreso lved boundaries witlt France and Norway in relat ion
to wher e they abut the Australian .J\ntarctic Territory . Tl1ey are.the unreso lved ones.
TREATIES
217Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002
TRSO JOr-IT
CH.-\.IR- This declarationv-asclearly pre-empt.ive, so who are we assuming is going to be
gin an action against Australia with regard to a sea botmdary delimitation?
l\Ir Campbell- I cannot r-lly ge-tinto the motive-sof why the declarat\\ 'lmade. There
was no acrual thre-at that I have se-en in any newspapers, or things like that, about Australia
being taken to courtover its maritime botu1daries. There were certainly a deal of writings and
papers being given by acade-mics saying that it was a possibility East Timor would take
Australia to the court over its maritime boundaries.
CH.-\.IR- We had not thought of a declaration prior to this? We had not thought it necessary
to make this exception prioto2002?
l\lt· Campbell- We ha\·e been considering for some time the question of the declarations
under UNCLOS, which have really been outstanding since we became a party to it in 1994.
both in re-lation to the forum for dispute se-ttlement and in relation to the question of which
exceptions under UNCLOS we would adopt. The govettt01ent has now made that decision.
l\·lI\ARTY ~ IT ANS-- In relation to the International Court of Justice, what is the starus of
the jurisdiction acceptance by cotultries like the United States and the major Europe-an
Connnunity powers? H an •they more-or less unreserved acceptance of the jurisdiction?
l\lt· Campbell- It might be useful if we provide to the conunittee the list of declarations
made by the countrie-s.We can do that very easily.
:lr 1\IARTI ':\'EVANS-Certainly the major ones would be helpful
l\lt· Campbell- We will prov~d hat list to you. The United States. France. China and the
USSR do not accept the jurisdiction of the international court. France and the United States used
to acc.ept the jurisdiction tu1der the optional clause. Most of the European countries. I think.
ha\-e made a declarat ion under the optional clause. Not all of them, but many. have
qualifications to it. For example, in our region C\ew Zealand accepts the-jurisdiction of the
international court with qualifications, some of which relate to resources in its maritime zone-s.
Indonesia doe-snot accept the.jurisdiction of the court tu1derthe optional calthou~a I s
mentioned earlier- it made a specific agreement with Malay-s ia to take a dispute over
so..-ereignty of certainands to the international court. That was heard by the court in June.
l\lr 1\IARTI ':\'EVANS- That would be quite usefiJLThank you.
l\lr WILKIE - This i~not a question; it is more a statement. but you may wtohcomment
on it. I would think you could understand that the international connnunity might say to
Australia.'You've had this in place since 1940. You've ne\·er had a judgment made against you
and two months befOre East Timor- the only cotultry likely to take action against you- you·ve
suddenly decided to exclude tltis from the court·s jurisdiction.' A cynic might say that it has
been done to prevent East Timor taking us to cotut and, therefore. it is in Australia's
international interests.
l\lr Camp bell- There are a number of points I can make or repeat. Firstly, East Timor has
said that its keen on ne.gotiation as a means of resolving these disputes. Secondly, this applies
TREATIES
218 Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002 JOINT TR SI
toallour maritime boundaries; wearenotjust talkingabout our maritimebounda rieswith East
Tintor; we do have unresolved boundaries. Thirdly,isthe view of the government that mari
time boundaries are best resolved by negotiation and not by resort:to international arbitration or
courts. To repeat another point: all our current boundaries with other countries have been nego
tiated.
Finally, the question of the acceptabili the boundary to both countriisvery important,
given that maritinte boundaries remain in place for a very long period. You are much more
likely to get acceptance of that boundary, and less tensir time, if i~done by agreement
as opposed to an intentational cot or tribunal. There have been cases- I can think of one
instance-- where cowttries have had a boundary resolved by arbitration and ended up with a
very odd result which way not have been in the interest of either country. The case I am
thinking ofisa boundary that was set by arbitration between Canada and France in relation to
someFrenchpossessions veryclosetothecoastlineofCanada . These i~la undsdupwithau
exclusive economic zone which was 200 nautical miles long and 1OY.nautical wiles wide. That
made it very difficult in relation to regulated fisheries in the area. The fundameisthatoint
the govenunent believes that wariti.rneboundaries are best resolved by negotiation.
CHA IR- Do you know whether East Timor as a nation has accepted the jurisdiction of the
InternationalCourtof Justice?
i\IrCam pbell- East Timor is not yet a mentber of thUN. Although it has applied foUN
membership, ithas to be approved in about September.
CH AIR- It has not enteFedinto any international instruments of that nature becaisnott
yet a member of theUN.
i\Ir Cam pbell- It is not yet a member. If you are a member oUN,hit follows tltat you are
also a party to the Statute of thernational Court of Justice. Once East Timor became a party
to the Statute of the International Court of Jti5tice, if it wanted to, it could ntake a declaration
wtder the optional clause that statute.
CH AIR-C urrently it has no status to refer a matter to the ICJ, anyway.
i\IrCam pbell- No, itdoes not. Let meput it thisway: isour view that they do not.
i\Ir WILKIE- But they ntay have inthe future.
Dr Ra.by- The expectation isthat thewilljoin theUN in September.
CHAIR-C urrently, as it stands today, theydo not havestanding to refer a matter t:o the ICJ?
i\IrCam pbell- No.
Senator KIRK- With respect to these maritinte botutdary disputes that we will now be
negotiating directly wi the other cotl!ltry, what will occur if agreement sintply camtot be
TREATIES
219Annex 167
TR52 JOINT Friday, 12 July 2002
reached? Is there an internal arbiuation process that we can agree to enter into if the ICJ is
unavailable?
Mr Camp b~ll-tIis still the governmevewsthat they are best resolved by negotiation.
but itis always open to the two coWltries to agree specifically to refer a particular matter.
including a maritime boundary delimitaiiOll,to either aespeceial arbitral tribunal like I mentioned
in relation to the St Pierre and Miquelon matter, or they could agree to refer it to the
International Court of Justice, if they wanted toeAiso, there is still a measure under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-.which istncntioncd in NI.A.to the effect
that if both countries are a party to the Law of the Sea Conventio11,either of those partie's could
refer the matter to a conciliation conuuission under the convention. That conciliation
commission could looat it but the views or decisions of that conciliation commission would
not be binding on either country.
CHAIR- Under the UNCLOS declmnion, if Australia is involved in a dispute with a
cotmtry that has not accepted either of our two preferred dispute resolution mechanisms, then
there is this demeclhanim~of an arbitration panel?
l\IrCampb~l lha-is right
CHAIR- What are the advantages odi~ad nvageofsa panel such as that?
i\Ir Campb• ll---1 tlllnk they are refeinpartin the NIA. One of the reasons th:>t
Australia adopted the futem ational CotJrt of Justice and the futernationa l Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea is that, firstly, Australia has knowledgeeof both of them, has been before them and
has seen how they operate and, secondly, they are both standing tribunals and Australia has
already contributed to their costs. If weetake a matter or somebody else takes us to the ICJ or the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, we do not have to bear the costs of the tribunal
and the judges. The other issue is that tl:ey are there, ready and available-
CHAIR- With etabl iedmles of procedure.
l\IrCampb~ ll-They can take matters quite quickly. Th.1t. situation is as opposed to, for
example, an arute7 arbitration tribunal under the Law of the Sea Convention, of which we
have had experiencein the southem bluefm tuna case. It takes some time to establish the
tribunaL Titere is quite aelengthy process of negot.iation with the COtlltlry with which you are in
dispute over some other substai~useas to who is going to be appointed to the tribunal and
things like that. The other issue is that the countries involved in the dispute have to bear the
costs of the mruting of that tribunal and the payment of the judges. They have to agree on how it
is going tbeorganised.
CHAIR- It is very expensive.
l\IrCampb~ i-T-her ere substantial practical advantages in going to the. ICJ and the
International Tribunal for the Law of the.Sea.
CHAIR- Why did we have to go to an arbitral tribunal unde7?arute.x
TRE."JJ ES
220 Annex 167
Friday, 12 July 2002 JOINT TR 53
!\1· Campbell--B ecause neither Japan, New Zealand nor Australia for that matter made a
choiceof tribunals under UNCLOS. We did have to go to themeclun~allwlhch was au
arutex 7 tribunal Although we sought. interim measures against Japau, the convention allows
that thosenterim measures be heard by the Intemational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
CHAIR- Is that in part.why this declaration is being made?
1\'rI Campbel l-- In part, the declaration was held off because we wanted to see how the.
International TribWlal for the Law of the Sea operated, not just in relation to our own case but
generally. It came into being only aibout two years after the convention entered into force. We
just wanted to see how that operated before Australia decided whether or not to accept its
jurisdiction. We did have experience before it. That is partly the. basis on which the choice was
made.
CHAIR- Thank you very much for your assistance this moming. It is very much
appreciated.
Pr oceedings suspend ed from 12.02 p.m. to 1.04 p.m.
TREATIES
221222 Annex 168
168. Government of Australia, Executive Summary, Continental Shelf Submission of
Australia, 2004, pp. 1, 11-13 <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_
files/aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_web_delivery.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
AUSTRALIA
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Submission
to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on
the Outer Limits of Australia's Continental Shelf Extending
Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Territorial Sea Baseline
Executive Summary
AUS-DOC-ES
223Annex 168
Contents
A Introduction ............................................ ..... 4
B Maps and Coo rdinates............................ .....5
c Provisions of Artid e 76 Invoked ........... .... 6
D Conuuission Members Who Provided Advice on the Submission. .... 6
E Outstandi ng Maritime Delimitations .... .... 6
F Region-by-region Overview .................. ..... 8
I. Argo .............................................. ..... 8
2. Australian Antar ctic Territory ........... .. 11
3. Great Au stralian Bight.. .............. ... 14
4. Kerguelen P lateau.... ............... .. 17
5. Lord Howe Rise....... .............. ... 21
6. Macquarie Ridge ..... ...25
7. Naturaliste Plateau... ..28
8. South Tasman Rise .. ... 31
9. Three Kin gs Ridge ... ..34
I0. Wallaby and Exmouth Plateaus........ ..38
G MapNotes ......................................... ... 41
Note from the Permanen t Mission of Australia to the Secret:ary-General of the
United Nations accompanying the lodgement of Australia's submission ............... ...Attacluuent
Annexes
Annex 1 - Tables listing the points defining the outer limiit of Australia's extended
continental shelf (Degrees, Minutes arndSeconds)........................AUS-DOC-ES-ANNEX1
Annex 2 - Tables listing the points defining the outer limiit of Australia's extended
continental shelf (Decimal Degrees)..............................................AUS-DOC-ES-ANNEX2
Continental Shelf Submission of Austra lia
Executive Summary AUS-DOC-ES
Page 1of42
224 Annex 168
2. Australian Antarctic Territory
The Australian Antarctic Territory comprises the part of the Antarctic continent and
off-lying islands lying between 45° E and 136° E, and between 142° E and 160° E.
The continental margin in this region, which formed during the break-up of
Antarctica, Greater India and Australia in the Cretaceous, is the submerged
prolongation of the landmass of the AustralianAntarctic Territory.
The outer limit of Australia's extended continental shelf in the region of the
2
Australian Antarctic Territory encloses an area of up to 686,821 km beyond
200 M from the territorial sea baseline. The outer limit of the extended continental
shelf is defined by 157 fixed points, of which:
• 60 are defined by the sediment thickness formula (article 76, paragraph
4(a)(i));
• 69 are de fined by arcs 60 M from the foot of the continental slope (article 76,
paragraph 4(a)(ii));
• 19 are defined by the constraint line 350 M from the territorial sea baseline
(article 76, paragraph 5); and
• 9 are points where the outer limit of the extended continental shelf joins to the
line 200 M from Australia's territorial sea baseline (article 76, paragraph 1).
Each successive pair of points is connected by a straight line not exceeding 60 M
in length.
The list of points delineating the outer limit of Australia's extended continental
shelf in the region of the AustralianAntarctic Territory is given inAnnexes 1 and 2.
The following provisions of article 76, as well as paragraphs 4(b) and 7, are
invoked to support the submission for the outer limit of the extended continental
shelf in the region:
-s ubparagraph 4(a)(i) and (ii),
- paragraph 5.
This region is affected by outstanding delimitations with France and Norway of the
overlap between the area of continental shelf of Australia, the subject of this part
of the submission, and any such area appurtenant to France or Norway that may
be included in a French or Norwegian submission to the Commission. France and
Norway h ave both indicated to Australia that they have no objection to such areas
being included in this part of Australia's submission, without prejudice to the
eventual delimitations between Australia and each of the two States.
Continental Shelf Submission of Australia
ExecutiveSummary AUS-DO C-ES
Page 11of42
225Annex 168
S
E4 E
ne
ti UR
i G -OC-
lm S
r U
A
C-ES-FI
oute DO
e -
th U
g A
n
owi
s
. y
· ..... ... r
t
rri
0 e
T
f ti
l ef r
slle s
State na
A
tatfon n
m a )
con!inen/41ntal ai a
edd96 tr m
. end(ld u s
ex extend A t
MI 2000 of of pottJntiaJ o 42
S ol t
IOO Epo'J(1' limitlimit fhe nt of
a; d o v 12
SCO AoOtaOf'l t81'9.as l
~ t '" Ov-....,e-dbotmdtuywinhanar;oaCtN'It
6!1 CO!W:O · es Page
M e -- - - -· reg t
AOO 00 200ll e no
2 IAFPara t o
200 00 Contormal n f
1 ridotratMetid te i H
0 (l ambtScandard ssa of i la n
l.phe a tio
ati!()f)#X)Sr sec
GASEIO n fn ut
baseline-i o A
f (sea
seQ o
ion lf
AusttAntarcticaetorW
offm Suuo she
lem1orial ·11fom l l.
line lim line na e la
M e sh
aC1fon08lt
Aus200M200Mne 20ral ni
enta Austra
-- _. = co i
Lines - t of
then
of co
it d
e
li nd
r e
t t Submission
u ex
o of
he Shelf
. Tarea Summary
e 4
u the
nd
Figa ConElleculive
226 Annex 168
- E
f E
o UR
G DOC-
FI S
ins S- U
i E A
O _.., -00>
prov DOC-
S
D the U
A
helf owing
s shelf s
Stare
ry
7) io
con$necnaJlinentaJ1t
err
port>al(INmj!:tlon T
76 l Vtll c
exrendexte~~ded ti
cl ar6CI•otM.r
t o1
Nmff Nl
r bOOI'Idtlly Antarc ap)
UNCLOSr9as a m
OVt(r OvtelLarld li is
- r t
·.- t
. -- - - - t
11m Aust 2
2000 van 4
1000 poch the e of
E i'tl it f rl 3
Protection sea of o es 1
soo 1 o e
Ol.ITISI a.as oepos in n
&oo ConitJ:f'Sand territorial11 Pag
2000s ' - o reg for
400 2001.1laralle bas.e/ineia M H
Coofofmal sea iR te
2\IO100 oklll'AF · n
r ron AttStAntarctn.s i
o 0 Lamburlnda m li SUtJe la section
S9fle re from ofde ftom a e
fk'feli 11' r (
GAS80 NM
• adjactmt
Aust200M200M200M01al fust
o
es lf
- = -
Lin she
l
ta
OS 76 ,) nen
L t
tlQ 350Mran
li(it) (UNCWSar 76 co Aus!Talia
e on of
lin OS
(outer OL -oimelehe
ts200M (N OS of
n /CDJ<iJHolr:tL it
poi 1) 4(aXi point m
. po (UNCli
xd parathicl<ness l)fC
fiAusrralia:Sa tr . Submission
760118 7S fO(mulai))rainte!
M ou
clPotJJtSedime609rG35cons<rainr Shelf
Arti The vo!<
~ "' - . in Summary
5 76
re l
u i ecutive
Fig rt
a ConExnental
227228 Annex 169
169. Government of Australia, “Note from the Permanent Mission of Australia to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations accompanying the lodgement ofAustralia’s
submission”, Submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(November 2004) <http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/
aus04/Documents/aus_doc_es_attachment.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
AUachmenc
:'\oterom rhe Permanent ~fusi ofnAustraliatothe Secretary-General of the
t;nited Nations nccompanying tbe lodgement of AusCrnliu's submissi on
229Annex 169
NoteNo. &9!:2.004
The Pennaneor Mission of .Ausmlia tc tl:teUnited Nations presentS irs compliments to the
Secretary -General of the United Nations and bas the Ioour to refetto lhe Subm ission tome
Commb sioo on the Llmlts of tile Co nUn.eutalShelfon tht Outer Umit s or Australia 's
Conf1nental Shill Erten mng Beyond 200 Sant~ l.laMiles from t.be Ten-itoria Sea Baselint>
(me Submission) lodged pursuant to anicle 76, paragraph 8, of dle United Nations Conventio n on
11leLaw of the Sea (UNCLOS) under cover ofNote No 881200<1of tbe same date:as this Note.
Australia _recalls the principles aobjectivessbar by the A.nllm:tic Ireaty and UNCLOS, and
me imponaoce ofme Anrarctic systiml and UNCLOS working in bannony andlhercl>y ensuring
the continuing peaceful cooperation, security and stabiliin the Aurarclic.area.
Australia notes also the relevant provisious oHJNCLOS, including itsarrjcle 7?. which provides
iT1teraliarhatme tightoftbe coastal Smre over tbecontinental .shelf dnotdepend on anyexpress
proclamation, aad recallthe decisions of Meetings oflhe Stares Parries ro UNCLOS and rherules
ofdle Commission on the Litnits ofrhe Continental Sb.elf(rbe Comnnssion ).
Australia has regard torhecircwnstances of thearea sourh of60 degree.sSoulb latitude and the
speciallegaJ and politicalslnms of AnLarct.ica under the provis.Wnof lhe AntarcticTreacy,
incbuling itsartide IV. and nores 1hat appur:t<?:UtJAntarctica there exist areas ofcontlllenta l
shelf the exti!n1 of wi.J.ichyetto be defined. 11is open tothe States c:oncemed ro submit
infolllli\ti<torbe Commission wbicb would not be examined by it for lhe time being, orto make
a partial submission not mcludiug such areas of conunenlal sbel( for which a snbmissio n may be
made larer, notwithstanding the provisions regarding the ten-year period esrablisl1edby article 4 of
Annex n to UNCLOS and tire subsequent decision on itsapplicafioo takeu by the Eleventh
Meeting of SlatesParties ro UNCLOS.
230 Annex 169
CousJ.Stent"-1thfirsoption.Austrareque l~rCommissionwaccordauce \nlhia rulesuot
rotakeany acuontartbe time bt!mgmrlltegaJd to the mfon1111mSubmJ~1 thnrrelllte!>
rocontineuJa1helappwtffinnr to Amarcricn.
The Pertna11!ti~-s ifAlll>tralrhe UnitedXarionrequ~ thrthis~orebe placed ontlte
website of theDrvision forOcean Affaiis aud the l.nw of rbwithtiLeremainderoftbe
e.xecmiv!.tnnmarofthe SubllllSswofulfilmeru of requiremenrof tlCofUUlissJou's
Rules of'ProcedW".e
The Permanent Mis.:.ioAustral leUn~itedNanons avail&u:.elf of !.hisoppormnity to renew to
fueSecretary-Generof rL.eUrurNatio he~3S'ittmncof rtslu,gbesrCOill>tderat.Jon.
:-EW YORK
Noverubt!100~
231232 Annex 170
170. Attorney-General (Cth), “Outline of Submissions of the Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth as Amicus Curiae”, Submission in Humane Society International
Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, NSD 1519/2004 (25 January 2005)
Ill THE FEDERALCOURTOF AUSTRALIA
NEWSOUTHWALES NON SD1519OF2004
DISTRICTREGISTRY
HUMANE S OCIETYINTERNATIONAL
Appellant
KYODOSENPAKU KAISHA
Respondent
OUTUNE OF SUBMISSIONS OF THEATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THECOMMONWEALTH AS
AMICUS CURI AE
fileonb:t~f b'Anome,ye~neray: COrrt.lcetenDU!e>
AustralianGovernmetnSOUdtor Fi~t 04 126020
so 61acbstree; Tele~o 02 6253 7412
e.anoACT26!!J- Fae&lm 02 6253 7334
DXS678ca.noerra
E-maD:[email protected]¥.au
233Annex 170
INTRODUCTION
1. In responseto thejudgment of AllsopJ of 23 November2004 [2004).FCA1510 the
Altomey-General seeksleave to appearas amicuscuriaefor the purpose of making
the followingwritten submissions. The Attorney-General wishes to relyon the written
submissions alone anddoes not seek to befurtherheard.
ISSUES RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S DISCRETION
Principles of international law relating to jurisdiction
2. Underinternational law, therightof a State to exercisejurisdiction depends onthere
beinga sufficiently close connectionbetween thesubject matterand the State tojustify
that State in regulatingthe matter. (See Jennings andWatts, Oppenheim's
International Law(9th ed, 1992) ('Oppenheim'), vol 1,paragraph136, pages457 -8).
Territoriality is theprimary basis for jurisdiction. Thereare also other bases,eg a State
may exercisejurisdiction, within its own tenrtiory, over its nationalstravellingor residing
abroad, since they remain underits personal authority.
3. A State's jurisdiction extends for certain purposesto adjacentmaritime zones,even
though thosezonesare not partof theState's sovereigntenritory. The United Nations
•Convention onthe Lawof theSea, doneat MontegoBay on 10 December1982,
(1994)ATS 31 ('UNCLOS') provides foran exclusive economiczone (EEZ) extending
upto 200 nautical milesfromthe tenrtiorial seabaselines of thecoastal State (Article
.57of UNCLOS). In its EEZ,the coastal State hassovereign rightsf<li'the purpose of
exploringand exploiting, conservingandmanagingnatural resources,and withregard
to otherac tivities fortheeconomic exploitationand explorationofthe zone (Article 56
of UNCLOS). In theexerciseof these rights, thecoastal Statemay take necessary
measures in theEEZto ensure compliancewith its relevant laws. Those measures
•include, forexample, boarding, inspection,arrest andjudicial proceedings(Artide 73of
UNCLOS).
4. The coastal State's jurisdiction in the EEZ is, thus, not as extensive as in its tenrtiory. It
hasonly sovereignrights for limited purposesand notfull sovereignty.
5. Parts of the seathat are not includedin the EEZ, tenritorl seaor in the intemal waters
of a State, or in thearchipelagicwatersof an archipelagic State, are the 'highseas'.
NoState hasterritorial jurisdictionover the highseas. Under international law,every
vessel sailingthe high seashas the nationality of theState whose flag itflies. The
vessel, and personsand thingsaboard the vessel, aresubject to thelaw of the flag
State, and are in general subject to its exclusivejurisdiction. (Oppenheim, paragraph
287, page731.)
Outlineof submissionsof the Attotrofllhe Convnonweal&l;asAmicusCuriae. Page.I
234 Annex 170
The Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT)and the adjacent waters under international
law
Claims to land territory in Antarctica
6. Australia considers that ij has sovereignty overthe AustralianAntarcticTerritory.
Australia and six otherStates' haveterritorialclaimsin Antarctica.Noneof these
claims is recognisedby more than a limited numberof other States. Onlyfour States
fonna[ly recogniseAustralia'sterritorial claim. TheseStates are Norway, France and
NewZealand, whoseclaimsare adjacent to Australia's, and theUnijed Kingdom.
7. Inorder to fonna legal frameworkfor activities inAntarcticato pwceedune11u cmbered
by arg;uments over thevalidity of claims to territorial sovereignty, the AntarcticTreaty
(Washington, 1 December 1959) [1961] ATS 12,wasconcludedin 1959 and entered
into forcein1961.
8. Article IV of theAntarcticTreatyprovides that nothingin the Treatyshallbe interpreted
asa renunciationof a claim, or as prejudicingthe position of any Partyas regardsits
recognijion or non-recognijion of anyotherState's claim, to territorial sovereignty in
Antarctica.In addijion, while theTreatyisin force. no new claim, or enlargement of an
existing claim, maybeassertedand noacts or activitiestakingplacewhile theTreaty
is in forcehall contitute a basisforasserting, supportingor denying a claim. Thus.
theAntarctic Treatyin effect providesfor a balance betweenpotentially competing
interests, bypreservingthestatus quoas itwasat the timeof theTreaty's completion.
Australia's claim precedestheentryinto force of theAntarcticTreaty.
9. Twenty-one of the 28 Consunative Parties to theAntarcticTreatyhave made no claims
to AntarcticTerritory to dateanddo notrecognisetheexisting claims. Thereare
currently 45Parties(consultative and non-consultative) in total. Japanisa
Consultative Party to theAntarcticTreaty. Japandoesnot recogniseAustralia's claim
to the AAT.
10. As a matter of practice, issuesrelating to territorial sovereigntyin Antarctica are
avoided by eachAntarcticTreatyParty regulating theactivitiesof itsown nationals in
Antarcticaand theconductof its scientific expeditions.
TheAnrarcr rc seas and claims to maritimezone:sin Antarctica
11. Article VI of theAntarcticTreatyprovides that nothingin the Treatyshallprejudice orin
any way affect therights, or theexercise of therights, of any State underinternational
lawwith regard to thehighseaswithinthe region below 60°South. Underthe Antarctic
Treaty no provision has beenmade for controllingwhaling in themaritimeareasbelow
6QOSouth. TheConventionon theConservationof Antarctic MarineLivingResources.
(Canberra, 20 May 1980)[1982] ATS 9 ('CCAMLR'), which dealswith fishing actiyijies
in the area, specificallypreservesthe operationof theInternational Conventionforthe
Regulationof Whaling. (Washington, 2 December 1946)[1948] ATS 18 (Whaling
Convention').
1Argemina ,Chile, France, New Zealand. Norway. and ::he UK.
Outliofsubmissioofthe Aft:ome.y-GrfllheComrnnealihasAmicusCuriae. Page2
235Annex 170
12. UnderUNCLOS,maritime zonesare attributableto any territory, including in the
Antarctic. Accordingly,Australia has establishedmaritime zonesoff theAAT.
Australia considers that this isconsistent with Article IVof theAntarcticTreaty. Other
-Statesneednot recognise this action. If a Statedoesnotrecognise Australia's claim to
1heAAT, ttfollowsthat it will not recognisetherelated EEZ.
13. Japan doesnot recogniseAustralia's claimto theAAT or its assertiornof anadjacent
EEZ. Accordingly,it considersthat thewatersadjacentto the AAT are partof thehigh
seas, and that Australia thereforehas nosovereign rightsin relationto thesewaters(ie
no jurisdiction over non-Australian vesselsor non-Australian citizensin thosewaters).
Rather, it considersthat Japan, as the flagState,has exclusive jurisdiction over
Japanesevessels, and personsand things onthosevessels, while they are in the
watersconcerned.
14. Japan would consider anyattempt to enforceAustralian lawagainst Japanesevessels
.andttsnationals, in thewatersadjacent to the AAT, tbe a breachof intemational law
on Australia's part.
15. Japan's responsewould reflect the factthat, in thepresent case, Australia would be
treatingas criminal conductwhich ~he Government of Japannot only doesnotregard
.asan offence, but whichitspecifically authorisedunderJapaneselaw,in accordance
withwhatJapan considersto be its rightsunderthe WhalingConven!ion. (The
Australian Governmentdoesnot consider that, evenif theauthorisation is consistent
with theWhaling Convention, this overridestherightsof a coastal State in its EEZ, but
Japan doesnot recognisethatAustralia has thoserightsin theareaconcerned.)
16. Further, enforcementof Australian law againstforeignersin Antarctic waters, basedon
uurisdictionderivingfromAustralia's territorial claimto theAAT and associatedEEZ,
•canreasonably beexpectedto prompta significantadversereaction fromother
Anta rcticTreatyParties. To this point, the Australian Government has not enforcedtts
lawsinAntarcticaagainst the nationals of otherStateswhich are Parties to the
AntarcticTreaty, exceptwhensuch personshave voluntarily subjected themselves to
Australia law (forexample, by applyingforpermttsundertheapplicable Australian
llaws), as eachParty has responsibility fortheactivitiesof its ownnationals under the
AntarcticTreaty.
17. Japan hasindicatedthat enforcement of Australianlaw againstJapanesevessels
wouldbe likely to give rise to aninternational disagreement with Japan. Similar
<disputescould alsoarisewith other countriesthat do not acceptAustralia's claim to the
AAT. To thispoint, Australia's claim to the AAT, althoughnot widely recognised, has
notbeenthesubject of a dispute irnan international courtor tribunal. Theobjeclof
Article IV oftheAntarcticTreatywas to avoid suchdisputes, bypreserving thestatus
quo withrespectto Antarctic claims. Provokinga disagreementin this instancemay
undemlinethestatusquo, whichwould be contraryto Australia's long term national
•interests.
Outlineof submissionsof the AttooflheConvnonwealt"lasAmicusCuriae. Page3
236 Annex 170
The AAT and adjacent waters under Australian law
18. In accordance with Australia's claim under international law, as a matter of Australian
lw, the AAT has been accepted as a temtOI)Iof the Commonwealth (section 2 of the
AustralianAntarctic TerritOI)I cceptanceAct 1933). Similarly, in accordance with
Australia's claim under international law, waters adjacent to the AAT have been
proclaimed as part of Australia's EEZ under the Seas andSubmergedLandsAct 1973.
19. As a matter of Australian law. therefore, !he AAT is an external territOI)I, and the
relevant waters off the AAT are part of Australia's EEZ. Accordingly, the relevant
provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act) apply to foreigners and foreign vessels in the waters concerned (section 5
of the EPBC Act).
Considerations relating to the enforcement of Austra lian law in the waters adjacent to
the AAT
20. Non-recognition of Australia's claim to the AAT and associated EEZ by other States, as
a matter of international law, does not preclude the application of the EPBC Act as a
matter of Australian law. However, the Commonwealth considers that it is a key
consideration to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to seek to enforce
that legislation in relation to persons and vessels with the nationality of the States
concem ed.
21. The Commonwealth Government considers that it is generally more appropriate to
pursue diplomatic solutions in relation to activities by foreign vessels in the IEEZ off the
AAT.
22. This is consistent with intemational practicwithrespect to Antarctica. As explained
above, the Antarctic Treaty has successfully operated to date on te basis that each
Antarctic Treaty Party is prepared to regulate the activities of its nationals in the region
subject to that Treaty.
Issues of practical enfo rcement: utility of injunction and/or declaration
23. For te reasons discussed above, the Commonwealth has not sought to itnercep~
board and arrest Japanese vessels engaged in whaling activities in the EEZ adjacent
to the AAT. (Attachment A sets out an extract from the brief that is given to each
Australian Antarctic Division Voyage Leader, providing instructions as to what they
should do in the event of sighting Japanese whalers in the EEZ off the AAT.) This is
apart from the significant practical and logistical difficulties of intercepting, and 1hen
successfully boarding, fast and well equipped vessels in the remote, vast and hostile
Southem Ocean environment.
24. In any case, iit were todo so, the exercise of enforcement powers would be based on
contravention of the offence provisions in the EPBC Act, and not on the existence of an
injunction and/or declaration.
25. Under Australian law, failure of the respondent to complywithan injunction would
constiMe contempt of court. However, since the defendant is not located in Australian
Outlinosubmissionsof lbe Attotney-lflheConvnonwult"asAmicusCuriae. Page.4
237Annex 170
territory,andhasnoassetsin Australianterritory,probably itwill ultimately not be
possibleto enforoeagainst thedefendant any ordersmadeby theCourt.
26. Itoould not beexpectedthataninjunction or declarationwould begivenany effect
under Japaneselaw. Generally, the courtsof a countrydecline to give effectto the
publiclaw,as distinguishedfrom privatelaw, of foreignStatesunlessotherwise
required byany relevant treaty. There is norelevant treaty in this case.
Although in such matterscourtsoften base theirrefusal toenforce foreignpublic law
upon considerations of public policy, in·international law a basisfor that widespread
practice is to be foundin theprincipte of territorialalfthority, from s thatit foUow
states have no right to performacts of sovereigntywithin theterritoryof other states.
For a state'spubliclawtobe enforced in another statewould-in effectinvolve the
performance ofactsof sovereigntyin foreign statesin derogation of the-ir territorial
authority. (Oppenheim, paragraph 144, page 490)
27. This is a reflection of thedistinction between thejurisdiction to prescribeconduct and
the jurisdiction to enforce, which dependson the presenceof a personin the
uurisdiction ofthe enforcingState.
Decis.ion on enforcement more appropriately exercised by Commonwealth
28. The Attorney-Genera lsubm ~sthat in the lightof thecon1lexfactors relating to the
enforcement of Australianlaw against foreign nationalsin relation to activitiesin the
EEl offtheAAT, it should beleftto theCommonwealth Executive to decide on the
.appropriate actionto betakenin such cases. This isparticularly sowhere, as in this
case,theCommonwealth has deliberately not taken enforcement action in thewaters
concerned(eg by interceptingand boardingvessels), andwhere it does not appear
that jdicial orderswould be capable of effective enforcement.
29. The Attorney-General alsonotesthat a substantv ie hearingof this case, theissueof an
injunctionand theissue of a declarationwouldbe expectedto harmAustralia's
relationswithJapanaswell as other AntarcticTreatyParties. Moreover, asexplained
.above, theinternational disagreementsand challenges that enforcement could prompt
·ould undermine the AntarcticTreatyand,ultimately, Australia's position~ h respect
totheAAT.
30. The Attorney-General askstheCourt to taketheseissuesintoaccountin theexercise
of its discretion.
OTHER POINTS
'Recognised foreign authority'
31. The Attorney-General does not consider thattheJapanese pem ~ for·scientific whaling
(JARPA) is a'recognisedforeign authority'forthe purposesof subsection7(1) of the
Anfarcfjc Treaty(EnvironmentProtection) Acf 1980('ATEPAct'). Accordingly,the
Attomey -General doesnot consider that theJARPA prevents theapplicationof
sections229, 229A, 2298, 229C, 2290 and 230of the EPBCAct. The Attorney
'eneral considersthat, asa matterof Australian law, thoseprovisions of the EPBCAct
.apply.
Outlineof submissionsofthe AttornlflheCoiTI'TInOweal&l:asAmicusCuriae. P:age5
238 Annex 170
Whaling Convention
32. TheAttorney-Generalagreeswith the conclusion of the Courtthat
whatever therightsinpublic internationallaw thatJapanenjoys under Article VIII of
tiheWhalingConvention, the contentof therelevant Australian municipal law can
be seen to be suchas toprohibit thekillingofwhales for anypurpose...
inthe.Auslrl.ilanWhaleSanctuar.y(For thereasonsalreadygiven , the
Attorney-General considersthatthe referencein thejudgment to 'Australian territory,
icluding theAntarctic EEZ' isnot accurate.)
33. Australia hasconsistentlyopposedthe Japanese'scientific'whaling program, in the
International Whaling Commission establishedby theWhaling Convention. However,
theWhalingConvention doesnot authori'se anyPartyto takeenforcement action
against anotherPartyfor breachof theConvention. Accordingly, Australia cannot
claimjurisdictionover Japanesewhaling vesselson the basis of theWhaling
Convention. Theappropriate way to deal with activitieswhichAustralia considersto be
contrary to theWhalingConventionis by diplomaticaction, in particularin the
International Whaling Commission.
34. Australia'sjurisdiction to prohibit the killing, taking etc ofwhales byforeign nationals in
Australia's EEZdoesnot dependon theactivities in questionbeinginconsistent with
theWhalingConvention. Rather.it relies on Australia's rights in relation to the natural
resourcesof theEEZandthe protection and pnese rvation of the marineenvironment,
as providedfor by UNCLOS. Theserightsariseby virtueof Australia's territorial claim
over theAATwhi ch, as explainedabove, is not widely recognised.
Meaning of' in the Commonwealth' in the Federal Court Rules
35. TheAttorney-General agreesthatthecase fallswithin thescopeof rule 1(1) of Order8
ofthe Federal CourtRules.
36. However,the Attorney-General submits that theexpression 'in theCommonwealth', in
rules n(a),(b),and(j)of Order 8, does not includetheEEZoutside theterrit!oiral sea
(12 nautical miles). Order1 rule 4 of the FederalCourtRulesprovidesthat. in the
Rules. unlessthecontrary intentionappealS, Australia or the Commonwealthmeans
theCommonwealthof Australia and when usedin a geographical senseincludes
external territories.
37. Paragraph158(1)(b)of theActsInterpretationAct 1901providesthat,exceptso faras
thecontraryintention appears, areference to 'Australia' or to 'the Commonwealth' shall
be readas includinga referenceto the 'coastal sea'. The 'coastal sea' isdefined in
subsedion 15(4)as including theterritorial seaof Australia andsealandwardof the
territorial sea, butit does not includethe EEZoutsidetheterritorial sea.
38. Thepresumption created byparagraph158(1)(b), thata referenceto'Australia' or 'the
Commonwealth' includestheterritorialsea,expands,ratherthan restricts, the ordinary
meaning of thosewords. Thatordinarymeaning doesnot includetheEEZ. The EEZ
isnot partof theterritory overwhich Australiahas sovereigntyas amatterof
OutlinosubmissionoftM-Attorne-y-Geofl lheCommonwealthasAmicusCuriae. Pagea
239Annex 170
intemational law. Rather, Australia may exercisein theEEZsovereign rightsin relation
to certain matters.
39. Wherea contraryintentionappears, displacingtheoperation of paragraph 15B(1Xb) of
the ActsInterpretationAct, therefore, generallytheeffectwbelthat 'Commonwealth'
or 'Australia' isbeinterpretedas not includingtheterritorial sea, not that thosetem1s
areto be interpretedas including the EEZ. ThosetemlSwould encompassthe EEZ,
only iitis clear fromthetemlS, o~he context, of theprovisionin which theyappear,
that teyareintendedto have that (unusual) meaning.
40. The AustralianAntarcticTerritoryAcceptanceAct 1933, andtheAustralian Antarctic
Territorycl1954, do not have the effectof extendingthemeaning of 'Australia' or 'the
•ommonwealth ' to include an EEZ off theAAT. They donotrefer to the EEZ;the
·concept of an EEZwasnotrecognisedat thetimethoseActswerepassed. Section
108 of theSeasandSubmergedLandsAct1973 (Cth) andthe proclamation of the
EEZ on29 July 1994also do not affect themeaningof 'Commonwealth' and'Australia'.
They establishthe proclaimed area as partof Australia's EEZ, forthe purposesof
AustralianJaw. Section 10A of the SeasandSubmergedLandsAct providesthatthe
rightsandjurisdictionofAustralia in its EEZare vestedin andexercisable by the
•rownin rightof theCommonwealth. However, noneof theseprovisionsdeclares the
EEZ to be part of theCommonwealth, or partof Australia,geographicallyspeaking.
41. Someprovisionsof the EPBCAct, includingthoserelatingto theAustralianWhale
.Sanctuary,expressly applyto theEEZ. Theapplicationof theEPBCAct to certain
activities in theEEZbringsthoseactivitieswithin thescopeof rule 1(I) - 'wherethe
proceeding concernsthe construction,effectorenforcementof anAct' -since that rule
is not limitedgeographically. However, theAttomey-General submits that thescopeof
applicationof the EPBCActdoesnot affect theinterpretationof theexpression'in the
•Commonwealth' in rules 1(a).(b), and(j).
42. An interpretationof 'in theCommonwealth' as not includingtheEEZ is also consistent
withthe extent ofAustralia'sjurisdiction as a matterof intemational law. Australia's
sovereign rightsin the EEZarerestrictedto certain matters. Australia cannot,
•consistendywithinternational law, applyitslawon other matters to non-Australian
nationals in the EEZ, except by agreementwith theStateof nationality. ForAustralian
•Courtsto exercisejurisdictiongenellyover actionsin its EEZ, on the basis that there
was jurisdictionin relation to 'anythingto bedonein theCommonwealth or ... thedoing
of any actin theCommonwealth'(rule 1(j)) by foreign nationals.would not be
·consistentwithintemational law.
Date: 25January 2005
Henry Burmester QC
Benjamin Dube
A solicitor employed by
Australian GovernmentSolicitor
Solicitorforthe Attorney-Generl
Outlineof submissionsAtt~oy.Geoa flheCommonwealt"lasAmicusCuriae. Page7
240 Annex 170
ATTACHMEN T A
Extract from instructions to Australian Antarctic Division VoyageLeaders
6.1.1 Sightings of whaling or fishing vPSse/s
Outlinedbelow are theproceduresto followin the eventthat eitherwhalingorfiShingvesselsare
encounteredwithin theConventionArea of the Commission fortheConservation of Antarctic
Marine U ving Resources(CCAMLR), or in the vicinityof Macquarie Island. The procedureswill
varyaccording to the typeof vessel encountered and/or theareain which itis encountered(see
categoriesand procedures outlined below). However,procedurescommonto all encounters
which should befollowedas a minimum include:
video recordingany communicationswith vesselsencountered;
attempts to identifythevessel - this should includeasking (by radio) thevessel to provide its
name, call sign,Lloyd's registrationnumber (also calledthe IMO number), home port and Flag
State(i.e. thecountrywherethe vessel is registered):
- confirming with thevessel itsposition and course(so that they are on record as knowing
wherethey are) andaskingwhat activitiesthey are licensedto undertake;
- obtaining photographsand videofootage(if possible) of thevessel from as many different
anglesas possible;
- photographingof theoverall vessel, with bow, portside, starboardsideand stem viewsand
close-upsof anyspecial features(e.g. name, identifying marks, etc), to assist in further
identificationof the vessel;and
- complet[nga VesselActivity Reportform al the timeof thesighting - thatprovides prompts
aboutwhich informationisneeded.
It is important to providean accurateanddetailed accountof anyencountersas itis possible that
this informationmay needto be subn ttd as evidencein legal proceedings at a later date.
Thev oyage leader, astheofficial representative of the AustralianAntarctic Division, isprimarily
responsible forcommunicationswithanyvessels encountered.
6.1.1.1 A whaling vessel within Australiafs Exclusive Economic Zone (including Australia's
Exclusive Economic Zone adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory)
The 1946ln temational Conventionfor the Regulation of Whalingallowscountriesthat are parties
to thatConven tionto grant special permits to their nationals authorisingthe killing and taking of
whales for scientificresearcn. Scientifpe~ t s issuedunder the Conventioncan only authorise
research on the high seas,i.e. in watersoutside anycountry'sExclusive Econom"icZone(EEZ).
Under theinternational law of thesea,all vessels are entitledto freedomof navigationthrough a
country'sEEZ. However,theyare subject to that country'slawsrelatingto the exploration,
exploitation, consevation andmanagementof thenatural resourcesof theEEZ.
ThewaterscomprisingtheAustralian EEZ- includingtheEEZadjacent to theAUlSrtalianAntarctic
Territory- have been declared theAustralianWhale Sanctuaryunderthe EnvironmentProtection
andBiodiversity ConservationAct 1999. It is an offence under thatAct to kill or causeinjuryto a
cetacean within the AustralianWhale Sanctuary.
Only Japan has issuedscientificpermitsunder theabove-mentionedConvention to its nationalsto
allowthem to undertake lethal research onwhalesin Antarcticwaters. TheJapanese
government's positionis that thesespecial permitsallow Japanesenationalsto undertakelethal
research on whalesthroughout all Antarctic waters including in the Australian EEZ off the
Outliofsubmissionsof!heAttorney-GoflheCommonweal"*asAmicusCuriae. PageS
241Annex 170
AustralianAntarcticTerritory. This is becauseJapandoesnotrecognise Australia's territorial
claim ·over the AustralianAntarcticTerritory andto the EEZadjacent to it.
The voyage leadershouldadvise .illlvesselsinvolved in whalingactivities within Australia's EEZ
that they are whaling withintheAustralian WhaleSanctuaryand in contravention of Australian
legislation. Theyshouldthenbe advised that their detailshave beenpassedon to theAustralian
authoritiesand be askedto leaveAustralianwaters.
Jaoanesewhaling vessels encounteredtn Australia's EEZadjacentto the AustralianAntarctic
Territoryare likely to claimthat they are whalingon the highseasin accordancewith international
law (see above paragraphs)andthat Australianlawscannot apply to them. As such, theymay
refuse to leave. If thisoccurs nofurther enforcement action should be taken.
Sightings ofwhaling vessels inAustralia's EEZshouldbe advisedin the first instance via
2
telephoneto Tom Kaveney of the Approvals andWildlife Division on 0409 127 808 Following
this, the Vessel Activity Reportform shouldbe emailed to [email protected] so that
otherappfOpriateaction canbe taken promptly throughtheAustralianAntarctic Division's
headquartersin King ston.
2The Approvals and Wildfife Divisionof !he Australian Govemment Departmentof the Snvironmentand
Heritage i.s responsible forwhales a- g issues occurringln Australia's EEZ.
Outlineof submissof~sAtt:otn!=y.GerfllheCommonweal" asAmicusCuriae PageQ
242 Annex 171
171. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd , FCAFC 116
(14 July 2006) pp. 1-3
Humane Society Intemational Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2006] FCAFC 116 (14 J... Page 1 of 13
~ Federal Court of Australia - Full Court
(Index] [Search] [Download] (Help]
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kai sha Ltd
[2006] FCAFC 116 (14 Jul y 2006)
Last Updated: 14 July 2006
FEDER<\L COL"RT OF AUSTRALL<\
Human~So d~tInt~rautnalInc v Kyods~npakuKaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - servicef originating process - service outside thejtu'isdiction
application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction - whether considerations conceming Australia's
intemational relations relevant to granterve out - Federal Court Rul0s8 r29 (Cth)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - injunction - application for leave to serve outside the jtu'isdiction
where ftnal injtmctive relief sought - statutory public interest injtmction - relevance of potential
unenforceabilitynjtmctive relief - fi.1tility
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conse1-vationAct 1999 (Cth) ss 3(1). 5(4). 225, 236. 475.
478
Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth)
ACCC v 4WD Systems PryLtd (2003) 200 ALR 491 cited
ACCCv Chen (2003) 132 FCR 309 discussed
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 applied
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpalw Kaisha Ltd [200l] FCA 664 reversed
Hospital for Sick Children (Board ofGo vemors) v Walt Disney Productions Inc [1968] Ch 52 cited
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc) and Ors (1986) ATPR 40-748 cited
ICI Ausrralia Operations Pry Lid v TPC {1992) 38 FCR 248 considered
Japan Whaling Association vAme,ican Cetacean Society (1986) 478 US 221 considered
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Company Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 cited
R v Bow Street MetropStipet~ Maiitrt; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1AC 61 cited
HlJL< \E.SOCIET YL'TER~; \.Oi\AL INC" k.'"DO SE:'\Ah'..U K<\ISHA LTD
http://www.austlii.edu.aulau/cases.'cth/FCAFC/2006/116.html 7/14/2006
243Annex 171
Htmtane Society Intemational h1cv Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2006] FCAFC 116 (14 J... Page 2 of 13
NSD 995 of 2005
BLACK CJ, MOORE and Fll\iKELSTEIK JJ
14 JULY 2006
SYDN EY
lNTHE FEDER<\.LCOURT OF AUSTRALL<\.
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGI STRY NSD 995 of1005
On app~lfrom thF ~d~raCourt ofAustralcnstitut ~da ing)judge
BETW EEN: HU llAN"ESOCIETY L~TER.~ATIONAL JINC
App~llnt
A..~D: KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
Respond~nt
JUDGES: BLACK CJ, MOORE and Fll\XEL STEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 14Jl.;y 2006
W'HERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Tite appeal be allowed.
2. Tite order dismissing the application for leave to se1veinJapanginating process
be set asideinlieu thereof it be ordered that the appellant have leave to serve the
originating application herein together with a copy of the amended statement of claim on
Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd at 4-5 Toyomi-cho Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Note: Settlement and entry of ordersinOrder 36 of the Federa l Cotut Rules.
lNTHE FEDER<\.LCOURT OF AUSTRALL<\.
NEW SOUTH W.<\.LESDISTRICT REGI STRY NSD 995 of 2005
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth!FCAFC/2006/116.html 7/14/2006
244 Annex 171
HumaneSocielylntemational1nc v KyodoSenpakKaish<Le~r20061FCAFC116(14L . Page 3 of13
On appeal from the dera l Court of AusJt constituted by a singlejud ge
BETWEEN:
HUMANE SOCI ETY INTERNATIONAL INC
Appellant
KYODO S~NPAKU KA1SHA LTD
R('s·pondl1nr
JUDGES: BLACK CJ, MOORE •nd FINKELSTEIN JJ
OA1't~: 14 .llJLY2.006
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR J UI>GMKNT
BLACK CJ AND t'INKELSTE!N .J
11\"l'ROUCTIOK
I TileCommoo\vcahhclaimssovereignty over tbeAustrolian AotarcticTcn·itory,but theclaim is
fonnally re<nisedby onlfourSlues, eachof which also hasa claimover paAnUtf('tiC.
Aw;t'lin·sc.lnimisnot recognisedbyotherStates, includingJapan.
2The.issuebefore the Court has comeabout in the following v:,ay.Thapublic interest
orgtlnisatioowithoCfits objectsas theprotectjon and<:Onsoftbeeuvtroruueutlt ba:;
commencedlhisaction ag_ainstlhe rtSpondent,a Japanesecompany, allegingthat i!Sfleet ofwtaalers has
beenunlawfully (tis,inbreachofa laof theCommonwealth}killininjuring. takand.dealing
withAntarctic rttinke whales p~Jof UteAustralian WhaleSanctuarydwt. isadtotbet
Austra.linnAntarcticT<:rritoty. Tam !;eek.;eclarationto thateffect andan injunction to
restroidi1rueonnw~o ionsIt applied to the JOtleaveto setveoutside thejurisdiction.
3 Tile FedclCoun can onlyexerciinpen<mamjurisdictionO\•ertbcJapanco~lpnaif tbc
appellant isjvenltt•ve under0 ofthe FederalCoun:Rulesto servethe application on the
respondent inJapan.ln the expane application for leavebefore theplimaryjudge.the appellant satisfied
eachoflhe~~ll.'~cdaditions forob1ajning leave n.amely: (I) theFedeml Cour1hadsubjtXt;-m.aner
jurisdictionover thedisplllc; (2) thedispute fellwithinoneof theda>pecifiedin 0 8 r I;
~md(3) the appeUamhada prima fuciecase forliefit seeks.At that point, leavetoserveshould
havebeengivenin the.ab.,.enceofsome.countervailing consAg<rl v Hyd(2000)201CLR552
at 575n)ejudge refused togrant ltortwo reaso1s1: sec HumaneSociety lmernativ K}VJdOiC
Se.t~p K <lkhL~tdpoo~J FCA 664 Eachofthereasonswas pu1forwardbytounsel foeAnoruey•
dcncral for theCommonwealth, following an invitation from the.judge beassistebyld
S\1brnissifrom the Execu1ivesininhis Hooour's v:•thmauecwas ofimpOnanceto Australia's
foreignelations: see Huma11eSocietyIntemationallnc vK'}o•doSenpalcuK(2004J:'CA 150.
4Two factors wt.de~isi 11rhejudge. Firs1,thatprosecution atone'mayup.Selthediploma1jc
status q1:ounderAntarctic Treaandbe conh)lry toAusm1lia's long tcm1nationalinterests-,
including itterests connecled with icsclatrntoterritorial sovereigntyto theAntarclic'. Second. that
the action$futile becauseof ;the difficulty,ifnot impo!;sibliity,ofenforcementofanycourt order':
1200:\FCA 664nt (27)and[28JThejudgealso snjdlhal: 'FuHlity wi.Llbe compoundedg tbel<i:.n
Court at the.centre internationaldispute (indeed helping tsuchadispute) between
http://www.austlii.edu.aulaufceses/cth/FCAFC/2006/Ii6.html 711412006
245246 Annex 172
172. Government of Australia, “Opening Statement, 58th Annual Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission”, IWC/58/OS (2006)
IWC/58/0S Australia
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA
Opening Statement
58thAnnual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
St Kitts and Nevis
Commercial Whaling
The Australian Government's policy is to pursue a permanent international ban on
commercial whaling through the International Whaling Commission(IWC) . Australia
will oppose any amendments to the Schedule to the Convention that would permit
commercial whaling to proceed under IWC regulation. Australia will vote against the
adoption of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS).
Australia asserts its right to participate in all RMS discussions. Australia remains
concerned that many member States have proposed flawed management controls on
whaling activities that are even weaker than the normal requirements they accept in
many other marine resource management organisations .
Article VII - Special permit ('Scientific') Whaling
Australia considers that the current programs of whaling under Article VIII undermine
the intentf the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling and the establishment of the
IWC's whale sanctuaries.The IWC has repeatedly adopted resolutions calling for an
end to lethal scientific whaling and for all members to use only non-lethal techniques to
study whales.
Australia's greatest concern remains JARPA II.t is with regret that we note that 853
minke whales and 10 endangered fin whales were killed in the first season of this
programme.
Australia considers that Article VIII programmes, in particular JARPA II, are
unjustified and unnecessary. We draw to the attention of the Commission that very few
peer-reviewed papers exist which are based on information collected from scientific
whaling programmes that can assist us in the management of whale populations.
Furthermore we draw to the attention of the Commission that a great deal of deal of
information is already available on whale diets and further data can, and should, be
obtained by non-lethal techniques.
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
While Australia opposes commercial whaling of any description, we consistently join
consensus in the IWC for continuing limited access of some indigenous communities to
whaling for traditional subsistence purposes. In our view, this exception needs to be
based on strict criteria, which limits access to communities whose traditional, cultural
and dietary needs have been recognised by the Commission .Any revision of these
provisions should only be done with great care.
247Annex 172
IWC/58/0S Australia
Whale Sanctuaries
Australia strongly supports the establishment of a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary and a
South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary and looks forward to continuing to build support for
these in the Commission. Together these two proposed sanctuaries will assist in
completing the protection of whales throughout the majority of the Southern
Hemisphere.
With New Zealand, Australia has this year submitted a paper to the Conservation
Committee on threats to whales in the South Pacific. We look forward to advancing the
sanctuary through discussion of the conservation merits of the proposal. Australia
remains convinced of the value of the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary to facilitate the
recovery of great whale populations, complementing the protection for species that feed
within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
Australia maintains its support for the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and considers that the
sanctuary needs to be retained to continue the recovery of whale populations.
Furthermore Australia notes that the sanctuary was established on sound scientific
findings in accordance with Article V(2) and has facilitated international, inter
disciplinary, non-lethal cetacean research programs that mustbe carried out over the
long term if they are to provide useful information on the factors affecting whale
populations .
The Australian Government also remains committed to national whale sanctuaries.
Australia's own Exclusive Economic Zone has been a whale sanctuary since 2000 and
we welcome the news that since the Commission last met Vanuatu has declared its
waters a whale sanctuary, increasing the area under protection for whales in the South
Pacific.
Transparency and accountability
Australia is a strong advocate of transparency in IWC annual meetings. The great
whales are a common global resource, and people worldwide have a right to hold us
separately and individually accountable for their fate. This can only be done by ensuring
that our decision making processes are transparent, not secretive, and that the
participationof non-governmental organisations and the media in annual meetings is not
restricted. Australia will vote against any proposal that seeks to limit the transparency
the IWC.
248 Annex 173
173. Correspondence, dated 12 December 2007, written on behalf of the newAttorney-
General to Allsop J, quoted in Chris McGrath, “Injunction granted in Japanese
Whaling Case” (HSI Technical Bulletin) pp.1-2 <http://www.hsi.org.au/editor/
assets/legal/HSI_Technical_Bulletin_Japanese_whaling_case.pdf> accessed
14 February 2012
HSI Technical Bulletin
Injunction granted in Japane se Whaling Case
1
Dr Chris McGrath
In troduction
The Federa l Coun has declared Japanese whaling in Australia's .1\ntarctic waters is unlawful
tmder rl1e Environment Protection and Biodive rsity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPB C Act)
and grant ed an injun ction restraining it. The result is me culmination of a series of decisions
since 2004 in rl1eJapanese Whalin g Case that have navigat ed the compl ex interplay between
intemational la\Yand Austra lian domes tic law applying to Antarctica and whalin g?
Despi te the declaratio n and injlmctio n issued in this case. ultimately enforcement of rl1e
prohibi tion against whalin g in tl1e Austra lian Wha le Sanctuary (AWS) und er ti1e EPB C Act
rests on ti1eshou lders of rl1enew Australian Go, emme nt. The Austral ian Govenun ent could
stop the whaling by the respondent Japan ese company by ordering an Austral ian customs or
fisheries Yessel to a1Test the Japanese whalin g company 's vessels operating in the A\VS
adjac ent to Antarctica. Prior to being elected and prior to the injunction being issu ed by the
Federal Comt. the Australian Labor Party conunitted itself to "enforce Australian law
3
banning the slaught er of whales in ti1e Australian ·whale Sancn1ruy"'. stating:
o It is illegal under the Envirownent Protec.tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
... to kill or injure a whale within the Australian Whale Sancnwy . Since 1999. more
than 400 whales have been killed in the Australian Whale Sancruary \Vithout a single
prosecution, despite these actions being illegal Australian law.
o The Attorney -General Phillip Ruddock. tried to block an action by the environment
group Humane Society Internatio n to get Federal Court enforcement of Australian
law, arguing that the prosecution of Japanese whalers would ''create a diplomatic
disagreement \vith Japan".
o A Federal Labor Government will enforce Australian Jaw prohibiting whaling within
the Australian Whale Sanctuary adjacent to the Australian Autarctic Territory ,
penalisingany whalers fotwd to have breached Australian Jaw.
In Januruy 2008 the Austral ian Govenun ent dispatched rl1e customs ...e-sse!.Oceanic
Viking. to monitor Japan ese whaling but stopp ed sho1t of intercepting and ruTesting tl1e
Japan ese vessels. The new Attomey -Genera l also remm.-ed of the previous go...-emment's
opposition to HSI's litigation but it remains to be seen whed1er the new Australian
Government will fulfil its elect ion commitment to enforce Aust ralian law against tl1ewhal ers.
T he liti gation
The case begru1 in late 2004 when the Hmnane Soci ety Intemati onal Inc (HSI)
conunenced proceeding s in the Federal Couti against the Japanese company mat conducts
whalin g in waters adjacent to Antarctica, including in the Australian Whale Sru1cturuy
1BSc, LLB(Hons). LLM, PhD, Barrister-at-Law . Junior counsel for HSI in the Japanese Whaling Case. This is
a shortenedversion of a paper presented at an EDONSW Seminar, ··can whaling in Autarctica be stopped?".
2ydney. 21 February 2008.
The primary citations of the series of decisions in this casHumane Society Intemational Inc v Kyodo
Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2004] FCA 1510; [2005] FCA 664; [2006] FCAFC 116: (2007] FCA 124; [2008] FCA 3:
[2008] FCA 36. Backgrowtd documents for this case, including court. documents . Sllbmissions, affida•·its and
maps, are av-ailable at http://www .envlaw.eom.au/whale.html (viewed 23 January 2008).
3 Rudd K and Garrett P, "Federal Labor 's Plan To Cowtter International Whaling" (ALP Media Statement, 19
May 2007), a\'ailablathtlp:l/www.alp.o r!!.aulmedia/0507/msenhloo 190.php (\·iewed 23 January 2008).
249Annex 173
2
(AWS) adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Ten·ito1y (AAT). As the Japanese company has
no registered office in Austmlia, to proceed against it HSI needed the permission ("leave") of
the Federal Court in accordance the Federal Court Rules and the principles of private
intemationai law.
Justice Ailsop refused to grant leave to serve the ong:mating: process after the then
Attomey-Generai, Phiilip Ruddock MP, submitted4to the Court that allowing: the case to
proceed would cause a diplomatic incident. HSI succeeded in its appeal against this refusal
and was granted leave to serve the originating:process. The Full Court held that diploma tic
and political considerations were in-elevant wl)ere, as here, the Parliament has provided that
the action is justiciable in an Australian court.) The majority of the Full Court, Black CJ and
Finkelstein J, also set out important principles for "public interest injunctions''. Broadly
speaking:the principle that emerges from the majority judgment is that the Federal Court may
grant an injunction tmder section 475 of the EPBC Act even if it may prove impossib le to
6
enforce where it serves the public interest objects of the Act by having:an edu7ative effect.
These principles ultimately bound the trial judge in the case, Allsop J, and led to the
declaration and injunction being:granted despite his earlier concerns about the diploma tic and
8
political implications of the proceedings and his findings on the futility of the relief sought.
After being:granted leave to serve the originating:process, HSI sought to effect service
through the diplomatic cham1el as nonn ally required by the Federal Court Rules. However,
this failed due to the Govemment of Japan refusing:to serve the respondent company because
of the government's non-recognition of Australia's jurisdiction over Antarctic waters. HSI
then sought and was granted an order for substituted service of the originating: process by
post and personal service 9
After service was effected by substituted service the matter came on for trial before
Allsop J. The respondent Japanese whaling:company did not appear at the trial and Ailsop J
proceeded to hear the matter in September 2007. At the trial Allsop J sought confmna tion of
the Attomey-General's views on the proceedings. In October 2007 the then Attomey
General, Philip Ruddock MP, confinned his opposition to the proceedings. However,
following: the Australian federal election in November 2007, the new Attomey-General,
10
Robert McClelland MP:
requestedthe Court notto place any relianceupon theviews conveyedto theCourton
behalfof theprevious Attorne-General.The ConunonwealthGovernment believesthat
thematterwould bestbe considered by theCourt without theGovermentexpres singa
vtew.
Allsop J did not acknowledge the changed views of the new Attom ey-Generai in Ius
reasons for judgment but ultimately granted the declaration and injunction sought by HSI
pmsua nt to the principles for public interest injm1ctions stated by the majority of the Full
Court. HSI has since effected substituted service of the orders, thereby enliveiung: the
potential for fumre contempt proceedings should the Japanese whaling: company refuse to
comply with the injunction.
4
Humane Society Intemalion al Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2FCA] 664.
5Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (20FCAFC 116; (2006) 15FCR 425 at
430 (13] per Black CJ and Finkelstein J with whom Moore J agreedon this point (a434 (38]) though
dissentingon thequestionoffutility.
6SeeMcGrathC,"JapaneseWhalingCase appealsucceeds" (2006) 23 EPLJ 333at333-335.
7
In accordancewith thedocketsystem usedin theFederal Court, after theappealthematterwasreturttedto
8llsop J forhearingofthetrial.
9In HumaneSociety International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2FCA] 664.
See Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (FCA7]124.
1°Correspondenc,edated 12December 2007, writtenonbehalfofthenewAttomey-General toAllsopJ.
250 Annex 174
174. Australian Embassy, Tokyo, “Australia Acts to Stop Whaling” (Press
Release, TK21/2007, 19 December 2007) <http://www.australia.or.jp/en/
pressrelease/?id=TK21/2007> accessed 14 February 2012
Press Releases - Australian En:ibassy, Tokyo http://www .atr;tralia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?id=TK21/2007I
Australian Embassy, Tokyo
1
1£8 ;t-A.~ J7 7*flii
Embassy address: 2-1-14 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8361 - Telephone: 03-5232-4111
Press Releases
Press Release Archive
Australia Acts to Stop Whaling
TK21/2007
19 December 2007
Followinisthe textaojoint Media Release by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable
Stephen Smith MP and the Ministerthe Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Honourable
Peter Garett AM MP on 19 December 2007
The Austra lian Government will formally urge Japan to end the slaughter of whales in the
Southern Ocean .
Japanese whaling vessels have alreaached the Southe rn Ocean and are expected to kill as
many as935 minke whales, 50 threate ned humpback whales and 50 endangered fin whales for
so called "scientific research".
Australia strongly believes that there is no credible scientific justification for the huntin g of whales
and is opposed to all commercial and "scientific" whaling.
That is w the Austra lian Government will step up efforts to end this senseless and brutal
practice, using a range of diplomatic, legal and monitorin g and surveillance initiatives.
DiplomaticEff orts with Japan
Austra lia will dramatically increase its diplomatic efforts with Japan.
• A Specia l Envoy on Whale Conservation will be appointed to convey our views to Japan and
increase ad strengthen dialogue at senior levels.
• In Tokyo, Australia will lead a coalition of anti-whaling countries in lodgi ng a formal protest
with the Japanese Government.
• The Foreign Minister and Environment Minister will also directly register their concerns with
their Japanese count erparts.
Intern ationa l Wha ling Comm ission
Austra lia will de our efforts at the International Whaling Commissio n (IWC), the place where
ruls on the conservation and protection of whales are made.
I of3
251Annex 174
PressRele<~ -sustralian Embassy, Tokyo http://www .atL<tralia.or.jp/eu/pressrelease/?id; TK21/2007
• The Government will develop its own proposal for improving and modernising the IWC
which will inclue closing the loophole that allows for scientific whaling.
• We will work to build and strengthen the coalition of anti-whaling countries in collaboration
with our allis.
Legal Av enues
The Government is giving serious consideration to a range of options for international legal action
against Japan.
• The Attorney General has withdrawn the previous Government's submission to the current
fede ral court case concerning Japan's whaling activities in the Australian Whale Sanctuary.
Monitoring and Surveillance
Australia will also act to collect evidence of Japan's whaling activities by monitoring the Japanese
whaling fleet using b oth aircraft and a surface vessel:
• An A319 a ircraft, operated by the Australian Antarctic Division, will make several surveillance
fligts during the whaling season.
• Monitoring and surveillance activities will also be undertaken using the Customs patrol boat
the Oceanic Viking, which will be disarmed for this wha ling surveillance activity.
The information obtained from the Government's surveillance activities will be important for any
legal action.
Australia values its extensive and mutually beneficial relationship with Japan. As irnany close
relationship there are some issues on which we cannot agree. One of the few issues on which we
fundamentally disagree is Japan's policy of und ertaking so-called 'scientific whaling' in the face of
widespread opposition from the Australian and international community.
Australia isdetermined to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan's whaling
practices.
Australian Whale Sanctuary htt p://www.enviro nment.qov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans
/prot ecting .html#aws !http://www .environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans
/protecting.html#aws)
Australian Antarctic Division http ://www.aad.qov.au/ !http://www .aad.aov.au/l
Archives
• 2012 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease-/?year-2012)
• 2011 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressreleasel?year-2011)
• 2010 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease-/?year-2010)
• 2009 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease-/?year-2009)
2 of 3
252 Annex 175
175. Government of Australia, Map of the Australian Whale Sanctuary (2007) < http://
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/pubs/sanctuary-map.pdf >
accessed 14 February 2012
100"E 120"E 1~D"E JOOE'
ll "N 10"N
ll "S 200
nautical ro·s
I:Ei:ijAustralianWhale Sanctuary
XI'S
.!l"S
Austraian
Antarctic
Territory (AAT)
9)'$
The~ VhalS:noiiJrdepsrctefct\ies ProOooe<bl)': N
W!hinAl.twa~rTh.Sandu"ate'b 20Miti::ol Dep.lr«rthe Etwk"onmVla~esOUroesA Scael 1:!6,000,000
leg;Et'l~lelnd'd!olteatl\lforvnenbtw...,.s,tral:f'l7ys Projo....,.._UICHie IICIIII-
).tisdict!hrt:at'A<isror.rl!ieroiled. comrronv.l\ aana.2007 Spto.fiOi,j,eel,olflliifi>iN-II
O. fi.IM O-de lte••..
l:_ - -======c===::::J:=w::u:::iU -jJ S"s::C::J:::=:L::=========-
,., • .., 100"E 161JE' 160'\V 1JI.YW12G'\V
253254 Annex 176
176. Australian Embassy, Tokyo, “Action on Japanese ‘scientific whaling’”
(Press Release, TK01/2008, 7 January 2008) < http://www.australia.or.jp/en/
pressrelease/?id=TK01/2008> accessed 14 February 2012
Press Rele.ases - Australian Embassy, Tokyhnp:l/www .australia.or.jple ulpressrele.ase/?id=TKOI/20081
Australian Embassy, Tokyo
f±8?t-.A JI7-~- - 7 !R
Embassy address: 2-1-14 Mila, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8361 - Telephone: 03-5232-4111
Press Releases
Press Release Archive
Action on Japanese 'scientific whaling'
TK01/2008
7 January 2008
Followingis tha joint Media Releaseby the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable
Stephen Smith MP and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Honourable
Peter Garrett AM MP, and the Honourable Bob Debus MP, Minister for Home Affairs on 4 January
2008.
Late last year, the Government announced a range of measures to put pressure on Japan to end
whaling in the Southern Ocean.
These ncluded new diplomatic initiatives to persuade Japan to cease whaling, reform of the
International Whaling Commission, investigation of the options for international legal action, and
monitoring and surveillance of Japan's whale hunt this season by the Oceanic Viking and an
Australian Antarctic Division A319 plane.
Since the announcement of the measures, Australia has already dramatically increased its
diplomatic efforts with Japan.
Australia led the largest international protest of its kind in Tokyo against Japan's scientific whaling
program, with the participation of 30 countries and, for the first time, the European Commission.
The Foreign Minister spoke personally to Japan's Foreign Minister on 21 December to convey the
Australian Government's strong opposition to Japan's scientific whaling program.
In addition, a Special Envoy on Whale Conservation will be appointed to convey our views to
Japan and increase and strengthen dialogue at senior levels.
This year, Australia willr efforts at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the
place where rules on the conservation and protection of whales are made.
The Government will develop its own proposal for improving and modernising the IWC, which will
include closing the loophole that allows for so-called 'scientific' whaling. We will work to build and
strengthen the coalition of anti-whaling countries in collaboration with other nations.
I of 3
255Annex 176
Press Releases - Australian En:bassy, Tok-yo http://www .alL<tralia.or.jp/en/pressrelease/?id=TKOI/2008
The Government is also giving serious consideration to a range of options for international legal
action against Japan.
The Attorney General has withdrawn the previous Government''s submission to the current federal
court case concerning Japan's whaling activities in the Australian Whale Sanctuary.
Australia will also act to collect evidence of Japan's whaling activities by monitoring the Japanese
whaling fleet using both an aircraft and a surface vessel.
This will be a surveillance activity, not an enforcement activity, the purpose of which is to obtain
photographic and video evidence for use in potential international legal action to bring an end to
Japan's so-called scientific whaling program.
As was made clear last year, the Oceanic Viking will be deployed for up to 20 days, a significant
portion of the current whale hunting season, to monitor the hunt. The Australian Antarctic
Division's A319 aircraft wiUbe staffed by the Australian Customs Service to make several
surveillance flights during the whaling season.
Since the announcement late last year of the measures that Australia will take, the movement of
the Oceanic Viking and the A319 for these purposes has been an operational matter.
The deployme nt of the Oceanic Viking has been, is now and will be determined on operational
criteria to maximise the prospects of a successful surveillance activity.
In previous years, the Japanese whale hunt has commenced in December and has continued
until late February or early March.
While the Government has welcomed the decision by Japan not to hunt humpback whales this
season, the Government remains opposed to all whaling and will continue to urge Japan to end
the slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean.
Archives
• 2012 lhttp ://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?vear=2012l
• 2011 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2011)
• 2010 lhttp ://australia.or.jp/en/pressrelease/?vear=2010)
• 2009 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2009)
• 2008 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2008)
• 2007 (http://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2007)
• 2006 !http ://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2006l
• 2005 !http ://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2005l
• 2004 !http ://australia.or.jp/enlpressre lease/?year=2004l
• 2003 !http ://australia.or.jp/enlpressrelease/?year=2003l
2 of3
256 Annex 177
177. Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd , FCA3, (15 January
2008) pp. 20-21
FEDERJ\L COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Humane Society lntern<ttional lnc ,. KyodoSenpaku Kaisha Ltd [2008] FCA 3
ENVIRONMENT - contravention by respondent of Enviromuem Pr01ection and
Biodiw.rsiConse.n' Dcti!o~9(Cth)
I'RACf iCE AND I'ROCEDU RE- public interest injunction- discretion whether to grant
relief - futility
Amarctic Treaty(Environmew Protection.r.1980(Cth) s 7
EnvironmentPrmecrion and Biodiversity CoJtrmion Act /99Y (Cth) ss3, 5\225, 229,
229A. 229B. 229C, 229D, 23Q 231, 238, 475. 4988
EvidenceAct/995 (Cth) ss 87. 88
Trade PracticeAcr1974 (Ctb ) 80
lmernaJioulaCOJH'eniionftreRegulmionofWhaling( 1948] ATS 18
Uuiu!dNationsCom-enJiotrott tLaw ofrheSea [1994] ATS31
Abebev CO<tunonweal (1t99) 197 CI..R510 referred to
Bass ••PermanemTrustee(1999) 198CLR334 referred to
CitTonvZUndel(No4) (2002) 41CHRR D/274 referred to
Mabov Queensland(No 2/(1992) 175CLR Icited
Simmuon 'Ausrraliatt PruderJJilaRegulmiouA.url(2006) i52 FCR 129 cited
TrUJhAboUJMororwaysvMacquarieh!fra.wrua ure lm•esrmem Manage.memLrd (2000) 200
CLR 591 referred to
\incemv Peacod< [1973] 1N:SWLR466 referred to
HUMANESOCII1TY INTii.RNATIONAL INCv KYODO SENJ> AKU KAISHA LTD
NSD 1519 Of 2004
ALLSO P J
·15JANUARY 2008
SYDNEY
257Annex 177
. 20 -
Inourophdon, iJ is nora groumlfor rejusiugan iujunaio11 Ihal i11'0idnoi
have lpraciical ~jft chn.e ir.\failur10Jrm•e a practical ejft.ct is because
rhedefendam disobeysit
52 Furt~ o nr cannot ignore the fUblic interest nature of the claim and the compk!te
recognition by the Parliame-nt oftllatype-of claim and of the lack of wide intemationaJ
recognitionof A uslralia's claim therelevant part of Antarctica: the majority oft.hPull
Coun reasonsat 154 FCR425 and [211- [241;and see also Ci1ron v Zundel (No ./(2002) 41
CHRR D/274at[2981- [3011.
53 In the tight of the reasonsof the majority of Llel FullCourt, I canno! conclude!hal the
practicaldifficult(ifnot impossibility) ofenforcement is a reas-onto withhold relief.
54 On the ma!erial placed before tbe Court, I am satisfied that the respondent has
contravened ss 229, 229A, 229B, 229C, 2290 and 230 of the EPBC Act in rela!ion to
Antarcticminke whaJesand fin whales by killing. injuring, taking and interfering wilhthem
and the tre.itng and possessing or them and by injuring. interfering with and treating and
possessing humpback whales and that. unkss restrained, it will continue to kill. injure. take
alldinterferewiththem, and treat and possessthem.
;5 Inall thecircumstances,theordersof the Coun will be:
I. The Court declares that the respondent has killed injured, taken and interfered with
Antarctic minke whales (Balaer.optera bonaeretuis)and lin whales (Balaenoptera
physalus) and injured taken and interfered with humpback whales (M egap1era
novaeatlftliae)inthe Australian \Vhale Sanctuary in conlr.Jetion of sections 229.
229A, 229B and .229Cof the EmJironmem ProJection and Biodi, •ersiry Conservmlon
Acr /999 (Cth),(the ·Act"), and has treated and possessedsuch whaleskilled or!al<en
in theAustralian Whale Sanctu:t'Yin contravention of sections 2290 and 230of the
Act without permissionor authorisalion undersections 231, 232or 238ofthe Ac.~
2. The Court orders that the respondent be reslr'ained from killing, injuring, taking or
interfering wilh any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenopiera bonaerensis). lin whaJe
(Balaeuopiera physalus) or hwnpback whaJe (Megap1era novaeangliae) in the
Australian W ha~ Sanctuaty, or treating or possessing any such whale killed 'Kena
258 Annex 177
- 21-
inthe Australian Whale SancLuary, unlesspennittedor authorisedun<rr-sections 231,
232 or 238 or LheEuviTonmeniPrmeciion nlld Biodiversity CoJtSen ation Acl /999
(Cth).
56 Neilherthe application norLhe amendedapplication containeda request foran order
foecosts. I Lusmakenosuchorder-.
I certify that the preceding fifty-six
(56) numbered paragJJaphs are a tr..:
c.opy of the Reason s for Judgment
herein of the Honourable Ju.s-tire
Allsop.
Associ-ate:
Dated: 1SJanuary 2008
Counsel for the Appli:cant: MrS GagclerSCwith MrC Mc.Grath
Solicitor forte Applicant: Environmenial Defender's Offire (NSW) Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent The Respondentdid not appe.ar
Date of Hearing: 18 September1JXJ7
Date ofJudgment IS January2008
259260 Annex 178
178. Government ofAustralia, “Addressing Special Permit Whaling and the Future of the
IWC”, IWC/61/9 (2009)
I\YC I6119
.\gend a Item 18
ADDRESSL'iG SU CH.!. PER..l\fiT WHALING_\_ 'I<>TBI fi-n.JR£ Of TBI m·c
Submi tted to fue IWC61 Discussions on fue funJ<e of the IWC
by dle Govemmem of Australia
The Intemational \Vbaling Commission (IWC) is dle primary forum for dle conserv atioo and =gemeot of cetac~an
populati01lS worldwide . In orderfor dle Commiss ion to deli\:eff~ti aseplsyible againsl this importalll
manda te, iiS operating processand mechanismsshoul d be stra tegically focused, collectiv ely mru:.aged and represem
coolemporary best-practice ..
0\-erdle past few~ades the IWC has assumed a leadersltip role in the science of cetacean conservatioo and
management . The Scientific Committee comprises a unique collective e:<peJtisand each year wod<s through a
crowde d and mp;dly expanding agenda ofurgem scienc e issues . The high standard and \"3lue of lhf collectively derived
recOilllllelldans of the Scientific Committ ee a.:ecemral to the Commission· s successful role.
At a time when the future of the IWC is beingcollective ly addressed Australia believes that it isthatwe take
$toc:kof oucscieotific successes and.insdoillgcOtlSlderhow we mightseek improvements and efficiencies in our
overall approach to sciencand research. Flllldamental to this will be a coosidera tian of an i.mpcoved. collecm-ely
agreed resolutiontothe contrm;ersia l and unresolved issues around special permit whaEqu.allyimportanlly , a
consideration of onr scientific process will pt O\odi.e a con te:n and a mechal!ism by which ou.ro\-.ra ll scientific needs can
be detemtined, prioritised. addressed and our progress monitored .
To initiate this process. Australia belie\-can reach agreement on allllltlbof key principles dlat would guide the
discussion on our approach to scienc e and pro;i :le a DX>demb,est-practice basis fur how IWC sci ence should be
undenaken. While these principles should, in spirit. atolthe IWC-related sc:ienlific acti\-ities of all members, our
intention is to focus the Commission 's anentionthecore, I\VC-rela ted science tmay be seeuto have a poteutial
impact on cetaceans, affect theu--orkingsandagendaof theCommissionand itcommittees, orresearchinitiatives
direclly linked to delivering again,"!dle core manda te.
Principle s foa ref ormed app roa ch:
the key sci entific prioritie s of the IWC that requireresolution shoul d be agreed collaborative ly by the
Commission
these priorit ies should be focused towards outcomes thatdeliver effec.tive collSelV-ation 31ldmanagemen t of
wbales
scientific activities should respond to these agreed priorities
scientific activities should baupon a precautionary approach
in all cases dle potential impact ou wbale populationsshould be assessed and minimised and \\ilere im,asin •
techniques are proposed,researchdesignshould employ imemationally recognised humane animal
esperimentation techniques (reductioo. replacement and refinement )
the proposed methods. scope and objectives of a research program should require app-""'1o1f the
Commission
research program; should be transparen t, inclusive and collaboraand encourage and euhan ce engagement
from scientistsfromdevelopingcow:un.es
rese.arch results should be pubhc and 1h.edata made availatoprornct e additional resea1ch and analysis
effecti'\-eprocesses to emurethe-coomnmicationof complicatedtechnical issuestoa non-science audience
should be developed and maintained
• sa entific activities should be subject tc a formalised. tranandragreed process of pa1odic review and
performance appraisal:inc.tudinga reqniremen t for research proponeniSrespond to rev1ew recomme ndations
approval and dle review of research should not be conducted by the proponen ttheresearch.
61-9Doe 1Si0612009()9:03
261Annex 178
These principlat basic elements of integrity and tr.u>;p~·esey aubt~-prcatieapproach.Many of tbe
scientific activities undertaken within the l\VC anady adhetheto~rinciples . Ccu.;equeutly , a process that
includes all core IWC-focused scientific andwhich is developed by agreement between member;. would
strengthenhe Ccmmissiou by increasing collaboration and andprioritisiuga~ady busy science agenda.
Equallyimportantl~uc abprocess would contribute.toremoving themostseriousoft~ 1outhatpresently
impedesthe CoOlllli!>,s work.
Special pemlit whaling has beetllOcontrovomial issue within the IWC for many,"Jwetllbe,·s have
recognied thatdivi.ousoverthis fonu ohv1lalingmustbe resolved. Inparticular,it isessentialthatany agreementor
package on the futtu·e of the IWC includes a specific comulitmeut that resolves the.dispute ove1·special pe1ulit whaling .
Withoutsucha commitmen.toue.of theIWC's mostcontroverisalissueswouldremain.a divisive problem.e.ffectively
\v·eaL~ tgeCoullllission'sctn..'W.date.
Inorder fo resolve the divisions over unilatpeltllwhaling, Austrapr~s that 1\VCmembers agree a
prinaple-basedapproachto aUscientificresearchundertheityof theCo1llisiou. Governmentsshould commit
to activitiel wheuauthotisedbytheCommission.
Inorder to implement such a process, three steps would be required :
I. a consensus-based apprh to determining key knowledge gaps, priorities for rese:uch that.address these gaps
ina practicalandoutcome.-focusedmanner,mechanis bm\Vilh thatresearchwillbedelivered. These
research needs ;,hould be direc.tlyre.levant to agreed matl3gewenl and cousetvatiou objectives of the IWC;
2. a process forassessingall scienceactivities against theapproachoutlinedin(1);
3. amechanismfortheCo1llllliso toreach adecision ououtcomesandrecommendatioserived :from(1) and
(2). Countries would agreenotto undertakescientific activities withoutCommission approval.
The details of this process would need to be de.ve.Joped cooperati vely by IWC members and agreed by consensus. This
process woulen::>t"atanyscientificactivity,,,.ouldbecollectiv-ely agreed, wouldhave strongscientific
wde-tpinnings, would beoutcome-focusedagainst agreedpriorities.wouldreceive aindependentpeerreview
and would support the cooservation and management. objectives which have been agreed by the Ccmulissiou.
61-9.Doc 2 1810612009:03
262 Annex 179
179. AustralianAntarctic Division in Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Pollution and Communities, “Antarctic territorial claims” (29 June 2011) < http://
www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-law-and-treaty/our-treaty-obligations/a…-
territorial-claims> accessed 14 February 2012
Antarctic ten:itorial claitm :: Australian Alliard ic Division b11p://www .antarctica.gov.au'antarctic-law-and-treatyfotu·-treaty-obligat...
Antarctic territorial claim s
Australia is amongseven nations that have claimed territoryin Antarctica.These claims are
based on disc:ovetyand effectiveoccupation of the claimed area. and are leg.al accordilg to ..,._ ___,__..
each nation's laws. Three countries- the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina - have
overlapping claimsinthe .Antarctic.
Son-.ecountriesexplicitly recognise these clairns; somehave a policy of not recognisfl g any
claims in Alltarcti and othersreservethe right to make a claim of town.
The Antarctic Treaty puts aside the pcXentiaJfor conflictover sovereignty by proViding that
nothing that occurs while the Treaty is in foroewill enhanceor djmiojsh territorial claims.
f!Amberstates cann()(make any newclaims wf~lethe Treatyisin force.
LookinnortnoverMawson Statiand
Austra lian Antarct ic Territory HOI'8t~ Haroour toKist-aStr31t.ltwas tne
nntANARE ataUonontneAntarcbccontinent
and1810cateo ontne. taattOfHoune Bay
Australian Antarctic Territory coversnearly 5.9 miiiKlnsquare kilometres, about 42%·ofoo a notsuhoe•nape dtroekoutcrop.C Doog
AAtarcticaand near1y80%of the total area of Australia itself. MCV81gfl.
The Australian claim is basedon a long historical association with this partof Antarctica Australia's Douglas Mawson (later Sir
Dougl asMawson) led a group of Australians and NewZealanders in the 1911 to 1914Australasian Antar<t:icExpedjtion, which had
bases at Convno rw.'ealthBay, south of Tasmania. and the Shackleton Ice Shelf south of Perth. This expediHonexplored extensively
along the coastnear the bases.
Mawson also ledthe British, Australian and NewZealand.AAtarctic ResearExpedttion (BANZARE) of 1929 to 1931. During this
~ tio Mnawson claimed what isnow Australian Alltarctic TerritoryasB-riish sovereign territory.Early in 1933, Britain asserted
sovereign rights overthe claimedterritory and pfaced theterritoryunder the authority of the Commonwealth of A.ulstralia.
Sovereignty overthe Territorywstransferred from Britain to Australia under the Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933,
wtajcll cameinto effectin 1936.This act stated:
Thatpart of the Territinthe Antarctiseas whichcomprises D/1the islands and territories, other thanAdefieLand,
situoted south of the 60thdegree south latitude ancflyingbet.,..en the 160!toderp-eeeast longitudeand the 45thdegree east
longitude, is herebydeclared to be xce pted by the Commonwealth as .:»Territory under the authorityof the
Commonwealth, by the name of the Austrolian Antarctic Territory.
263264 Annex 180
180. Special Committee of the US Senate on the Conservation of Wild Life Resources,
Report on the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, (19 September 1931),
pp. 17-21, 44-45
ZCOMOMJCor TBIE WHALING INDUBTBY WITS BBL\T!OK88JP
TO THE COHYENTIOHTBB REGULATIor WBALUfO
BES TVAILAB CLOEPV
265Annex 180
i ~
0 8
~fl R.15! ~~~· 1 J~ a
~. i 1
i tt , 1 • , !ii : : : c;alflt
r B .u t l
i I " : l
i.~~~ : . .. 1 , , ' :
rf.,B l r! c I
0 . .. 'r~:i~sl
.,,! .. ~~~ r ~~~:;.iiiii h~
=tf.U!l f ~ f
ll•-4( f;! ,a~ ~•! .
\!til I ;. l~ l l.o llhr
~~~~ · 2 J .. i r
1 f ~ f I
. E. l ..
•..•~· l r
tfiJ .I
f ·1hrtl•
"fl It I
:l·•: •;; I' .
's' ·.f.!l;·}f'~
lj'f!tttt .. l·tHt~. p-rU.lb.n~.h~lf
i "" ~
I ~ f
i·• hf · f
·PJ.i~ , ~ t II.. I
t• ( :~~~t~~ Hfli·~.U
266 Annex 180
;;
e e·
ft ii!~:' !.tu
s:!J.~ii al! ·! ~ I t
B I
I• ~ l
e g..~! "f
1 ~ ;i~~~ 1a(tft~i'lliHiibf!
~fl i (- - .1
(.'.f:f~~~ -sll .1,it~ !aJ11:tt n;
!! ;- i .. .
li·b ,fl f l f!if:·~:f ltlL
~~~.~~tu~E~nn~fth· a. f ~
.. . .;I .
t~tJ.~ rs, "' 1·1,.. ~~:tr !b,
Ia1t ~ G-1
~~~~ J .1 ~ ~el ~~~
~~;I· · ~ ..(lf.
r · l f.a!~~· 'Jit' JtUUn
f r.
;f !1[. ..·.. .l~f.
i I I .f1
_ r la. ra.rt&.iU!tU!n
. .
_ ~~f· '=-~
iu:trftt!iHJ•I~J~~, rllr •·r""ituint
1 ~~rs
. t!· ~"·:'•a-
!lf!J 1 Jfut
267Annex 180
~
C:
.h;(!
.
·
/l
ll~l~:fli.
.rtJ~,i.IIJ
.~: c
·
l;~.fi~ JIIdurhi~~n~i
U ~fl·~~
1 il"
·~ .
I
"I'd.Jh,J
·
illlitll1
·..-
-t
I.f11!J£l
·c
K ~P.
tl![!f~HiJIIIi
u~
ltHh!~ ~..sndh:~
j
·-
r·
t
~
a.!Ji[ti
ua·
llltU!!Itfi~f[a.~,!~,t
268 Annex 180
20
269Annex 180
I'.CO.NOJUC& OJ' ': WlU.LISO llliDUSTBY
21
etc. Bight whalea iuclud.i.Da:rth ~&@e whalea, Greenland whales,
10uthem right whalea,Puilic right. ww.Jc.aQd eouthern pigmy ri8ht
wbal• have beeome rare. Fear of uterminatioo of certaiD ~ ia
open11 expre.ed. Muy ~ the danger of thepreMDt rate of
uploltatio.o.o reduction osupply t.oa point that willenduprP,H8ellt
investment.. At_ pW"&Ued,the fiShery is wuteful. The mulillatenl
conveution pnnida for &tieotiJic etudiea, prohibite JQmng of \he
rarer apeeiee, !'eelutheeliceoaing of Teaselo~ting in the fi&herv
requires detailed infot111Atio~ &peaN killed,product& ol
manufe.cture and u complete u.aeof whal• killed as poe.sible.
The multilac.nl ooavention therefore repreaenta a verv impor1&nt
step for the aaeemblage of data for the guidance of the nations eon·
eeriled in ~ting tJUa fis~. safeguarding investment& and
.uauri.DgtheWll88 UM ofthe .hal• killed.
270 Annex 180
Eli.JUaiT8
U4Gt:a M S.o~. 'fo.-o.asr! orlraCo:,{Y&JI?Jollroa "Jaltll.r.Gct..a.Tor!Ir
--·~(i
&&POa? P&aaL~ aY Yaa I&COSD co•~to~ YO T•& 4&&&MaLT 0~ ~8&
~ •oa cc.•.:~••"'" #1'.........
Rapporteu-, , 11Bn.adland Sonra1)
The main •1bj-.1()(thtf! draer>nv~ntb ;.'-.~ttw ~ eomuU&&H it ~
eecwoe ~ ad·ptioo b1'&br &l'M~ ~ n~ (A crJUntn.t:. of crnJ"\1._
inkDded io PftYmt. iD lheU\~ o( &Mwbalinc induatr}' i&ail. thdfttruo ~ti
of aWlUftleof weallhavai~ \a L'1 .
Tbe ~7 po~ of thM ~~ in &M lut f•• yean. tbanb t.illlll'..v
~ .. iDeq~* and &ecfulique. bu raul&.ed in aa ever lara.rnu.a~
iD thr numbeF ol~kl'a killed. F..t!mate.obwDed fJ'Qm 'i"&l'i.c>uree.
abow ~ lor eevual _Ian ~ the numbe'r &&ken lur.l'uied Irum 21.000 ~
30,000 each -...xa. J'f)tJae.-...ora •Ucbbu ju.t et.o.ed theeD<>naoUII A«ure
ol ~.000 t... beeamen~
Put esperieoee abowa &he ~ty olm.Jl~ AA don toprev~ nte~1~u.etioo
r>i&be~cia w!UcA ue c&Udy lumk:d by IDOdun •ba.lftw .
Bio~ ue DDtu yd nry well a.equa.inted wil&b'-branch cJ ltCWaoeand il
il S.pcWble to detenD.IDe lbe nu.. ber olU... aniDMk whJeh could be ~ea
&llnuaDy without.~ U. .perieL In rie• oft~ tact. bownn. thai
ana.iza lf"W'- ol wba* are a.&r.dy ptadicallycdind. ii wDl be ~ toM~
U.O. ip'ri- wbicltitia gaJ pro6&eble tocap&.ute are es.poeed 1..-ioua~ ...
Tbe dnlt before you ia Ule ou&.eoloe ol •o~· lo le"26 .tM ..-ul&a£a.n
..tu.emblyre.olutioa al u-.eprniou.a year r.w lbe enaLioa of • eommdU. ol
271Annex 180
i • ~ ~
· t ,.
il ~ ~ ;111
.a f lf• · f thl;
~ I !~
· aft lf · u
a. r J.lt,.r
· · ,~JI.
i(li~rl• ~.~1s· f!Ji rts 1al
1 ~~ lb.
1. f
-... ·~f11. t! tl.:tisn
l~~~tJJ] l .
~~ lfahr.hl fll :a
~f.; : ·
!.:rl !t.. I! ·~~~~tf
R i ..v~ u~1 thf
r..ft I · 1( .o t
I' Sflrh (i.. ...~ h
~.::~~~lll_JI ... . f a.f ~
~ ~=jtn · -
r' ra. ~.
(t:(i 1 r!iJ! ltri1l 14!~ hfil
.
.. i r.•.i ~r....t
il•~:~~~ifi··l!'!rril:~~~~~; r · ;
i ftat~ · i &. 1 ~
il~: · · a.
: a.li r."";t~t
[~~ r;j !';
i'e:l s
5. ii1H~··- _ Jl
~~ifilri~ai .f~>~i~~
St:.-<4tf5£1 l:ni;[(f!hJeJ~~:rt~Ui!Jh~• iid;~hn
272 Annex 181
181. The US delegation’s report to the US Secretary of State (21 June 1937), pp. 1, 5-6,
13-15
No. London , ~une 211 ~937 .
SUB:n:;cT: Internr.ti on<U '?ba.l1n g Coll.1'crenoe .
The llonorable
The Secretexy of 3tnte ,
r,;llsh1ngton, 1 . •"' .
Sir:
I huvo the honor to re1'er to M7 report or ~e 9,
1957, .for\1fll' od1sllJJe texts of the Agre~ment 1'or
tte ~egulation of nb~ling , ns s1gned on 4une 8, to
gether ~lth oop~es of the Fina l Act s1gned at the srune
time nnd o~ the cocm~QuS is sued to the ~res. s
n1e Confe rence conv~ned on Yey 24 under the
choiri!lflnshlJ• o:r the H1eht Lonoroble m.lllol!l !:".t.~orr1s ,on
tanister of Ap;ricu lture and T'1sher1e>s . '1fr .orrison de -
l/ 11 vered the opcn1 ng addross, a COllY of" which is en closed ,
nnr1 I
273Annex 181
- 5-
poses o~ the ~e~nt ora to be proper1y
e1'1'eoted. .
Articl.e TI . :tt is bell.e ved tho.t all type a
or wbnllll{C exaept those p r nctioed by "nnt1 ves••
are c overed l.n this de1'1n1t1on .
Art l cl.o III . Th:1s provision ell3ures tbo.t
in~oot.ioJls oi' the pre&e-nt Ae;a rel'!l~ w ill. be
prosoo~ted by the respective Gover~~nts nnd not
by onpta i.ns oi' "hnl..i.n v~sGe l s or by company
o1"1"1o1"la . on 1.nqul.ry the t.mer1of\D del.cgati.on
was :1n1'ormea by ~mbers or tbe Dr1. ti.ah a.nd !ior
~oGion del.egutions tbnt no uuoh 1nrract1ons h~d
as yet be e n tried in their respecti ve ocurts .
Art~ol.e .TV. Tbe Coni'erence agreed to
o.t'f'OTtl :!'ul.1 t>roteotion to <~y r.h u l.cs n s well
oe to a.l.l.R1gb.t ub..,'ll.ee .th f•re lJe.L ~n no obJection
r~ised from nny r uart er ta the proposa1 by the
1
Amertoen de1eg a t1on (Oepnrtment s tel.,t.tre.m lJo .
Pl.~1 JUne ~. 3 p . m. ) :f'or tlle 1no1nslou of tbe
Crey \'lhal.e . Ini'orm.a. l discussion !"ol.l.o•lng the
session tncl ioat~d tba t 1.n CJAE:C .To.pan sboul.d
flooede to tbe .1\rE:\emen't , t htt t Government m1ght
poas1b1y enter o raserv~tion in r~gerd to both
of these V~J1et~es of wha1~s .
Ar't1c1e V . :tnveetisatlono wh.Loh huve been
carrioa on ovt'!r per.lod o1' yeo.rR by the "D11'J-
covary" Ccumn1 ttee nnd lli.cll.nr~ t'inuucott by
th o Col.onio~C'~VCD Jl.''len of t:he .Pol.kl.a.ncl r:;ll.ttlAlG.,
hnve shown 'tll n1> sexual. metu :x·ity is rc· 1ched ubcn
tn c t"fhal.e tttain.n t.lt~ f'ol.J. ow:inp: l.engths:
nl~ 1
274 Annex 181
- 6-
Bl.ue wlwl e. ..... ma~e. 74, :feet, ...inch~s~
f'etnal.e, -rrlfeet, 9 ir:ones;
m. n \ffiul.e .. -... mcle, e., fec"t , 8 inches ,
:f'emal.e. 65 f'eet , , 1nobes ;
fltmtpbeek whal.e ..... . 39 'iee t 1
Sperm whal.e ... mal e, 58 . 3 to 4l . o i"eet ,
1'~1::!, 29 to 1'~1; •
•U . 6
ThlUl tbe l.~ngths ~pcoified in .A.rtio~ Ve Qi' the
a~i:wnent f·m- proteotlo!! u.ra 11ell bel.o¥1 actual
llldturt ty l.e~tbs. I n th~ e"'e ~ 01' the fipenn
wht~~, e u 1eD.6tb of :55 :feet rtll ~ 1 t is believed 1
proteut al L feruoles ~nd a conside~le number o~
Jt \"t&S the Vie'9 of tre Goni'e ~.Hl. thEt esoh
of' the o antr coting G<lV-e:r-lrul.ents ::;hculobtain the
po\\'er to 1'1x size 11l!lita f'or eoeh o1' the ~pe c1 es
o:t \fhnU;s . It ;~ould be prer(n·eble theref'o:re :tor
t Le3e ~eugthe not to be ~~eDified in ~ Congression
al J*o't but 'that the i r detercrination abouli3 be l.efi
to joint regula~vns or the 'treasury and GoU!Il!a.roe
Depm·tm.euts , 'lllliehcan be modi .fie<t 1.-roro year to
yetu• 1n earner th et a.oe quatt:tproteot 1 on e<..1nbe given
when needed . According 'to expert opi.niou , the
ra1~ing o~ th e size limits .~n b,sed on sound bio -
pttrlilcuh.~ uged"ly by bo'tl! tl"te Bri ~1 ell ::~. !!Od\'Jegiu.n
deh:W-ititJns.,.
•-rticl a 'VT.. 'J."his ...rt1.~ col~.dl o::o~·:s.· o spcmd
erttele VII. '~~e intent t,.rtue Gon!"erenee
witli re spec t to this J...rt icl i s to li mit the Whalin g
~eason f
275Annex 181
-15-
ka&nly aware of the :ract tllat rapid d•velop~nt
of the Japanese whaling 1n<lustrr end unree t rtctec:l
operations by thetr fiosUil!; 1'">ctoriefl tJnd \'lbale
ontohers could impede tbe reel17oat 1on or the ends
envieoged by the pre5ent AGree~nt.
Tbe ~~ricon ae l egot1on VCO~PS the foLlo~ng genoral
ized observations on certain achtev~ment osf tbe Confer en ce!
1 . 'I'bis Agreement ensures the t oll parties concerned
will observe tbtilsan:e oper at ing season 1n Antarot i e \'late ,~·a
1'rom which cpproxlmat~ 9l y-?oi' the total annuel •-\'haleoil
product is obtained .
2 . By ra i sing t~ size l1mi ts oi'1mmn ture \Jbnlea,
ada 1t1onal but not rul~ protection ts ~f~orded to 1m~oture
~hales ot the aeve~al opeoies .
3 . The closing o1' t~e tropical nnu sub-tropioa~ wGtere
to whale f'1nh1ng nffords J:m: the 1'1rst titna 1n itn history
o QOasu.t•o or proteoti on to whales on their crtlvinR grounds .
It vppenrs tl\£\ tmuoh datu il.od ob .sr.rvaton ond reoettl'Ob Vi!Ork
o~ n ao1ent l t1c na~tre rc~1ns st 111 ~o be aone 1n order to
determine aoourotely the loo~tion o~ nLl 1mport , nt ce1v1ng
(';rounds.
!l!To rau some mP.oeure of pr otectl on to the :f~n r-llai.D1UB
!Tumpbaol whal.ea in those waters and needed protecfUon to
Jilue and Fin r.hb l.es .
o~ tbe countries rcprenented ot th1& Conrer enag , the
ones obv1ou al y .&lOst inter~sted werE>Grnat Dr1ta1n • Norwny
unu Cermany . r;hal in "",1ltboU{Itl not a r~jor induatry in
Great Drita~n, 1a on 1mnortant one and backed by poFerful \
1nterasta. The a1noere concern of th9 o1'f1o~ls of the
Br1t1ah /
I
276 Annex 181
-1.4 -
British tlinistry of '1ishet-if'S at the l~pid det>letion
o:f VJhale s~ooks no.1 tek1ng pl.e.oe IUl~ their des tre to
etroot : n 1ntet-noti unnl a gret:ment to regu. :l.~ the 1n
l1uutcy, \'lith the priln.!::rypur:tlose of' o onaervtng the
stook~ .ic nnot l:c uu:.tioned . The Erttinh Ch!lt~n. n
hmKJVer. vm·y fr~nkly otatfid t ha1: tltt7Y hu(t to "[)roo~~d
warily in cn'<1or not tc, ·roure too {!l'ea1, O])t>OB1tion on
tlt c pm:t o~ th e tr tulc tO\Ittl:'<lt.u'~tcr<:u rl hioh mi ght
restrict their · cti vi ties und inuetlt i~a pro:ti tt. .
'li"tb respect to llontay , the emphO.fliiJ uppear:.J to he
aometillut d l ff't'r""•n~"d the f'lllf.linc.e s i tuft tiof even
mol'e 1mrocdtate conuern to tllc:m. 1.~ th..; !!or.e~iun
deleg:ni.on stu ted, ~hnl1DG is one of' the ma jor industries
o-r their c~u.nt:t <nd c:f'toras oo(;uptttioQ to n ln.r~ t;ud
art1eulete ~abcn- gr oup. Th-e },orr.et?;ian ctlet:~tion llud
oonoiderttble de'1:a1led 1nfortn&t1on about the s ubject u llC!
expr(Wfted no 1llus1 ona u~» to the ultirnnte destl:uot1 on
(Jf l.'lliwn~ stocks , and 1nc!dcntfilly o1' the !!or ..:egian
ln duatry , tr the n1~sontunrest~1oted pra c tiees tu·e
oul.'ried on . 'l'b.ey see!ned , '..o eve1· , to be under const ant
#lpyn.·ehension oi" orit1oisl!l 1.nd possibl.Q frustr~.t1o nf'
tllf\1r Gf :f brts by th e \h-'l11n f!Y1;e:r-eatn 1n >.Jor·,.my Hnd
th6 Lnbo r groups .
'.l'he Gen.un1 ®le£!)tes gave the i:cvree:Jion or \:aiuc
~xperte on tue ~ubjcot . .bile tl 1eir wthl n!n~ intJustry
1D "" yet tn 1n:frmcy, <:er1:;.uny is tbe l ur getot sing).«:
ool.emJ'litro:f \lluol.a oll. .,nd \fh.nt the Ceronn l!elo~atto 1·!>
~eu. e1d to be l!t03t intel'f::sted in \VRB th\'! oont1.nu!lnoe of
3Vni l1.1ble cuppli es . '!'hey re~lie z, ho'f.cVer, tli t t1l 1o
supply i f->in jeovlfll•dy uult:::>& itlternTtt iun tJJ. c12asures 01·
r·estl:iction /
277Annex 181
-15-
reatrtction are put 1nto effe ot to nrev!:nt t11c tn
disorll'.:inate 4estruct1r.m oi' ~twles . \b1lt~ <lrrrinr;
tl~l' Cersnint>d tho 6is1.1not inrprcsslo thAt G~"7'1 "l.:ill
oper~tion ln reeuJ_t~ti nh~ nbaling 1n~uatry and in
conserv-1n te stocks oon 'bo •·el1ed UJHUI , :rro hieel e.
trul y intornat1onel ~sreemet n to thic DnU C~D ce ~de
e:rfeutive .
lt seems pl'obabl.o thet ·•orwrr]"\rlll make o2:1ef'f'ort
to hPV& tho '"l0l~111 C6onfere nc!'! convene ne-:o:t yearst
o::-l.o. \fhPtl.letthe Con:.ference tr.eet$1r. tOsl o or llot,
1t :>acns clear tb~t!'r o~ny, Great ~rl .in enu r.emany
desire thO Jnef!'ti.Jto. te..~ pgac e nen :.'f"Or, -.1tl!•
st1•o.ns hope thn t J"aptUl c.lso "ill n ttend .
Thet- mlf.lconsli:loro.b.leoor.m:en"t ln the r.cnron 'ress
on. thu tiPy tollo~int rh~ ~1t;Oin oe' tho J,grectH ,~n:l
th.ouwt t.he ortiolt'!a ~nta etti toriel~ ~1fZJ 1n egon~rnl.
merely recapitu~nt1on oi' thfl t~rm:s o1' the \{9"oomcnt ,
t1i theJqt;:-e~1one of Zl]lprovol•
~P-ro 1:s anclo:'led ..~b-ite.Pp t~\r, "1'1flC'elhmeous '!o ,
4 (19 :57)" • Juat nDOc 8 vEtllohle , 1o \lhich : ppcora tho t~7;'t
lloE>poctfully yours,
lierschr;>l V. J'olu~on.
1··1rst ~loe~tt:•Uy of 'l>tbnssy .
~l.er,e1 ,t enternetionol Conrer~no~
on ihN.1nr..
ncl.osurea : png_'2lG.
278 Annex 182
182. Letter from US Delegates Remington Kellogg and Loyd V. Steere, to Chairman of
the International Whaling Conference,A. T.A. Dobson (10 January 1944)
Enclosure (?)
BY BAND 1 , Grosvenor Square , W.l .
Jan~y 10, 1944 .
~ar ~ . t obson :
The American Delegation is in reo~ipt or
i.natruotions !'rom the Depart::1ent of State to
announoo t~ th9 International ~ ing ConCerence
that the Government o~ the United States has the
intention of caJ.ling an international 1rhali:1g
oo~erence in ~aahineton f.t the earliest
ravorab l e opportundty . It seems ap9ropriate
to make this an_~o~cement to you, in advance, as
Chairman of the Con!'erenee . '.i'he Cele6a tion will ,
of e~urse ~ make the annonncE!l:lent to tha Conrarenca
at its next meeting ., and will explaill ths reasons
whicb led to this decision.
RespectfuQly yours ,
Re~ton Kellogg
Cel egate
( Sgd . ) LOE V , STEERE
Loyd V. S'Ulere
Delegate
A. T. A. Dobson , Esq . ,
Chairman,
International r-heling Cor~erenc, e
c/a &inistry of Agriculture & Fisheries ,
23-25, Sobo S~uare ,
1; .1.
TW::l -'VT11
279280 Annex 183
183. Government of the US, “Establishment of Permanent Commission” U.S. No. 5
(21 November 1945)
I..:l. J o . ~
·.ave 1bcr 21 , 19 45.
Tl-:.e delegation of the United States o~ kl;erica ..,isl:&s to
present the follo,,in3 obaerv~>.t:. coonnsrning t;1e est:.c,lisnmen;;
of a permanent commissior: !or tne regu.latior. cf ":!$.ling for ~
consideration of the Conference .
The Governcent of toe Jt.ited :..tates or· J.::Ie::oica favors in
principle tr.e even to..~ aslta'oli s.umen t ~"Y incerna t:.iunal agreer.~.en;;,
of a standing coo;Jittee ~it:. p~owers to ma~c recocoenuatlons
regarding •.U.nim..un len~t:ns or wi:'..a.les,q..1otas 1 lengtl.s ot' seasons 1
protected species, sanctuaries , and noti.f.:.cc.t1on o1' take , such
recommendacioos to become effective ..lpon approval by the govern
ments parties to the agreement . t.,s the delegates are a•1c..re(
this is 1;1le plan followed 1r.. var-i,ous fiaber~ rree.. ties co wh, c
the uovern:neot of the linited ;:;cates of t.merlca ia a pal'ty an._
-.lll.cn it has under consideration . The adva.ltabes of this Jl • a,
whereby re~lations are proposed lJ;r &.n e.xj:'er-c international
oomcL.ttee on t:1e basi"' of scieut:!.i'ic r<~search ana are put; iu~J
errect by approval of each o~ the goverucenta concerned , ov~I
the present; c:et.lod of a new tr5a ty for eacl.: change or aetendr.!t ·"" ,
are obvio~s, part~c~larly in vie~ or tne necessity fer s~b~~t~i~~
eaco new -creaty o: tnis type to tl.!(; Utli.tcd ;:>-cates Senc..-ce , 'it.:1
the res ....lcint! delAys and ourdeu~ of dealing Hich admioiacratlva
routine placed upon that body .
\;bile tt.ia Govei'!liL.clt \~oulu , tuer-t:.fore , give 1'avorab~L
consideration to tnu estab-ia:Jm"-nt of an olH:>cti.vo adui!li:ltrat:..vco
macllinery !'or modif-;ing in specified ninor res;;x eta tiu to.LlS of
the internatiollal a0 r~cments on ch~ rvgulatio: - ~ w~lia 01 it is
not prepared at tct: p;reaent ti:4~ <o eut ... into ar.y a~r. ...::utc :o1
the estni>lisum~n tf an iqt(or'.Jatior.al collll.u:~s U.s.int: ;:-oviCI's ';o
modify the ter"'s of a.,ree:t.acnts •·l t h:>ut t •.e g_ovc,rn~o1en tsr.co::::n.,-;:;
having an opportwllt:r to consid"::- ana a;>prove o•· r·u,j.,ct such
suggested codifications b"f'orc. ta<~y becoae t::ffccci11c. :'tl.i.SGo-... rn
ment t.o~ld not under pres ocr; conc.i tiOl•~ be ciispo2od to eillpower
any such cor.tmlssion ';iO nmk" rJgulat.ions wuich ~iO"..l bcoo:Ge
effectivu without refereuce of sue~ rug~+ations to -chu several
parties to cbe agreom ..nts for their o.p;>roval prlor to uutry i'lCO
ef:fect .
Ic is higb:y desirable , ho•ovcr, thu-c tn~rub~ full
e.xpressiop of the opi~ions of the various goverru~enta st-c~nc~~ ·
tnis coni'erunce on tht:. dusirab:i,ll.ty of ult!..-.ste::..yostnbl1sh' •: c.
ooCI!Ilission '".licb 11:!.l}, serve £\S a permanent body to pt>ri'oru 0::1
a contiou:!,ng "basis ;JUCb fo..tncticns -'.lS•JB.";):>e necessazor anc.i a - .:;~•-
in connect i on witt) tlltl ro~lotion ot w;Jaling , ar••ong ·~hlchr;:_. ~
the ~upervisio nf ros~arc, h thu analysis and interpre-cation ~:
statistics , the de t ermination as to t_lc dat.,s on llhicb tno unL . 1
whaling quota shall bo duomcd to have bean rtacil&d , the prc.paration
of rO:Joomrnenda tion11 tor future: intern b.t i o.1ol Vlha.;.i.ng confcrc·nc"s
and to make :rugu:\.~. tiwoil;..in sp.:Jcif'ied l i ai ts as providt. L :.n
a convention , ~bien s:mll be effective apon ~pproval by tb~
contrac~ing governments .
It is det:med u.ndesirablu that thurt> shall be cstnbl~aw .<J any
commission which ...,auld purport to rc..present cnly tht> major <rr.&ling
countr1us . I t is not uelicwed t hut at: •..r''f.:ctiv"'cm:miasion in tL.ls
field shou l d bo l'ugardod as co.-npos'"d of ropresomto t!. v<Js of parti-::~lar
countrius , but as compos~d of tbe pc~so~s best qua~ifi~d to act in
tho intor~a t f gll countries concern~ for tho conservation~~ 1-st
utili~otion of tho rusource . However , it is re,..lizoc tr.h.t tbe
question. of clle c.:>mpoait i on of any such Intcrnuticnal Collilllissio:. •, o
,,haling is a matter for stud;r and for d~;ter.:-..i .ri~ntse.t lght on
or tn~ ~O~drs and functions conf~rr-o uupon it .
281282 Annex 184
184. Informal Inter-agency Committee on the Regulation of Whaling, “Memorandum to
the Commodity Problems Committee” (15 October 1946) p. 1, 7
••u ilratt.o{ :.L::airlc41 ,ropu5il.fGr tha l.ntmn~o.~Jonta.la11J~
_; IIIIil'GIKlo<UelUJI.f1.0D,lt~bor :<.,ot9/,6.
f"Wll<l• or ..ieTDlol;Jl.tha t'-6(Ar:.t .Ic'MJrk {or l.flUbt~ rtNI.\.LC>to.J.
0\l~nt .l.n
··""""l.4.n '-ll'olo!a.wAl.ch flU ~ called by 1il<J linlto4 ..lt.&haiD
t;;w\'5'n\ ;r wMW
.il ~~ L, • •• l<d'J - r;:, -u'll&lrtlan
283Annex 184
- '1-
··~
·t !t;1(I
t.rt1cl2
284 Annex 185
185. Letter from Acting Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, to Chairman of the US
Delegation to the International Whaling Conference, Remington Kellogg
(20 November 1946)
DEPAR T MEN T OF STATE
WASHINGTON
Wovember 20, 19~6
Dr. ltem:i.ngtonKellogg
Chai.rman,
Velegation of the United States
of America to the International VID.aling Conference ,
Sir:
In your capacity as Chairman of the United states Delegation to
the International Ythaling Conference to be held ln Washington , D. C.
beginning lJovember 20, 1946, I shall greatly appreciAte your communi
cating to the other members of the Delegatio n the position to be
upheld at tbis forthcoming meeting . The A:nerican De.Legation will be
guided by t.he following instructions and observations .
In the International lfuali.og Conference Paper TiiC/1 of October
23, 1946, this Government set rorth the matters on wW.ehaction ;;as
desired at t he forthcoming Conference . In the International Whaling
Conference Paper JJTC/3of October 23, 1946, thi~ G>overnment set forth
ius suggestions as to li"ha.t action is deemed desirable .
'l'heintention of tnis Government to call a Conference in Washl.ngton
for the purpose of formulating a. long -range conservation program to give
effective prot ection to existing stocks of whales was announced by the
American Delegation at the 1944 Conference in London and rea:f.firmed at
the 1945 Conference in London. lfnile it is expected that long-range
matte r swill be the major consideration at this Conference , it is
anticipated that short-range :natters will arise to ~ich the Conference
must give attention .
The major emphasis at this Conference will ..of course , be to provide
machinery for long -range conservation , but every effort should be made
to ensure that adequate conservation regula.tioDD are maintained until
such time as the long -range machinery may reasonablzy" be expected to
become operative . Tnis may necessitate the adoptio n by the Conference
of interim regulations .
Should interim arrangements appear necessa11r , you should devote
eYey:yeffort 1;Ql'lardassuring t!lat such interim conservat1.on regulations
constitute no substantial relaxation of the orovisions contained in the
Agreement o£ June a, 1937 for the Regulation· of Vlhaling , as amended by
the PTotocol of June 24, 1938, as amended by too Protoco l signed at
London on Nove:aber 26, 1945. Provi sion for add:itional illterim protection
of 'lfhale stocks , in accordance ei ther Vlith specific or gene ral instruc
tions set forth bel0'\7 or in accord Tlith the provisions of the Schedule
contained in the International i'.baling Con.fe::ence Paper TI'fC/3 , may be
included . However , it is not believed desirable for the American
~legation
285Annex 185
- 2-
.Delegation to support, :in the deveJ.o!fllent of such inte rim arrangeme nt s,
-fundamental departures • eithe r in substance or in character , from the
agreemen t s current~ operati ve.
In the development o:f l.oll,b-teim arrangementr:J for the conservation
of Tfbal.e stocks , the Amer-lcan .lJelegation shonld urge the Conference to
adopt the substance contained in tohe au. ~. Proposals for a ';'/haling
Convention" • as set forth i.n International. ~h.aling Confe1-.ence Paper TflC/3.
Homlver, shoul.d it become necessary for lhe American Delegation to depart
from. the substance of th.e 1Proposal.s 11or to take notion on matters not
specifically mentioned in the 1Proposals 1, it ·will do its utmost to
support t.he following principles :
l.. Ameri.can interest-s shonld not in any re3pect. be pl4ced at a
disadvantage as compared with the inte1-ests o£ aey other cmmtry .
2 . The priJTiary objective o! the Conference is to provide !o r the
conservation and develo pment of the whale stocks , with. a view to the
ul.tin:ate achieve®nt of a level of stocl<s iihich 'Will permi..t a susta:i.ned
capture of t.he maxill:um nllll'.ber ofwhales . Declines in any stocks through
over!'iah.ing should be arrested at the earliest praoticahl.e moment and
provisio n !or rebuilding all deplet~ socks should be made promptly .
) . Conservation 100asures should be based on scientific findings
and shoul.d contribute oirectly to conservation. objectives . l'.estr.tive
business or trade practices , disguised as conservation measures , and not
absolutely indispensab l e to effective conservation , should be opposed
vigorously .
4. Anticipated ®rld needs for \1hale oil should be met, Td\erever
possible , from 'lllhal.stocks not in imminent danger of depletion and to
the exten t and in a manner that iiill not pl.-ejudice tbe ultimate .success
of the objecti ve outlined in (2) above. On the basis o! present estimates
it 16 not believed that worl d shortages oi' fate and oil-s in 1948 and there
atte t• aemand general relaxatio n of prevailing restrictions on the taking
of 'Whales . Conversely , add:i.tional restrictions in the present regula t ions
.for Antarcti. c 1Thaling wtd.ch llould prohibit produc t ion of more 1iha.n 121000
blue Tlbale units per year after 1947-48 should be avoided . It i s desirable
that regulat ions :f'o r th e 1947-48 Antarctic season permit 1ilietaldng of
16,000 blue Tmale unit s.
5. T'ne views o..fthe A:nerican Delegation lfith reference t o Jaoanese
llhaling operations should conform strictly to All:erican stste1n.ents Or
policy to foreign government s, as reproduced in IIClOfPaper 5. The American
group should oppose detailed consiclera. tion or recoJdll!endati ons by th e
Conference on this issue .
6. 1Tith respect to embargo of w'na.J.i.ng•-easels , supplies and
equipment t o non-partie s to the l'lbaling agreements , the action of the
iiiDCrican llelegation will confOl'lll strictly to the policies eA."iJressed in
TICM.t>aper l.5.
7. The arrangements for the establishment or per.Jiallent organization
to facilitate changes in whaling regulations should avoid duplication of
fWlctions of exUting inwmational or national organizat ions , shoul d aBSU1"8
clo5e collabo ration with related international and national organizations
having
286 Annex 185
- 3 -
having functions with respect to l'lhale conservation, and should avoid
speci.al financial participation by ·t;he Cn!.ted States other than ex
penditures incidental to furterican representation at meetings o:f SQCh
boey . ..>uchmachinery should be so designed as to be susceptible of
incorporation with m; machinery without amend:lent of the i7hali.ng agree
ment , and at the earliest prac t icable date .
It iB the view o:f this Government that toe Commission should be
an autonomous mtit m.thl.n the framework of t<'O A. Tne "U ~. l:'raposals
for a '•ihaling Convention 11are draftea ...,_thtbia vi .ew m mb 1d,
IT.l.S recognized tl\at other goverom~: at t.irst ma,ynot be agree
able to t his suggestion . :sl\oulu. other gove1."0lllentspersist in their
disagreeoent the American representatives 1DBiYagree to the setting up
o! an independent conni.ssion Which woul.d be serviced by a secretariat
·.-.bosee>.1>6Dses might be paid by one of the participatine gove!mlents .
It is :felt that such expenses should not be ttholly borne by !'I'ivate
personB or groups and shoul d not be levied against the signatory
govemcents unl.ler aq scheme of proportiona:L contributions . In other
vrords, it is the aesire of tJti.s Government to make it as easy as possiole
for the Collllllission ultl.mately i.o come into relat ·Lonship Yl'i.ththe FAO.
'l'he!JeJ.egation should bear 1n mind that the general phi losopb;y of
the uritish Go~rnmant in respect to international o11anizations is
quite .favorable to the suggestions contained in ~;he \J. S. troposal.s" .
'£ha Lielegation should also be aware of tne fact Chat the Norwegian
Lelegation (headed IT.fthe ldinister of Foreign .Affairs) to the General
Asse!il b.f the United llations bas 'oeen.:....ostoutspoken in e!llpllasizi.ng
the desirability of keeping down the Ilt"ll1bof nS"Winternational
organizati ons and of merging many present internatiOnal organizations
into larger and fe;;er groupings .
8. Insofar as possible and practicab l e there should be provision
1
for encouragement and coordination of scieutific and technical information
and for excllange of such "in.i'ormation an:.-ong tile v!!..rious::~ati .ons
9. llrrylong -range agree lielnt should , insofar as possible, contain
provision «nereby certain or all of tae regulations ~ be amended by
administrative means and with the concurrence or less than elJ. parties
to such a.,:rreem.ent aa may be signed at the present Conference .
It is probable -chat other governments lfill ask t he Confel"ence to
take acti on on matters not contained in tl1e International. fihaling
Conference Paper IVfC/1 of October 23, 1946, in the Paper BlC/3 of
October 23, 19/~ 6nd 1n these instructions . In such matters , you will
be guided by the general princl.ples set forth ab;)ve . You will request
specific bstructions from the !lepartment (1) on matters on 11llich
Paper II-CI /3 and these instructions are not applicable, and (2) on
proposals, not specificall7 covered in T;iC/3 ana these instructions
Trhich relate to international trade in whale products, international
trade in waling supplies and equipnent , international business relations
ana pract1.ces , and production :-estrictions which are not llboll:r dedicated
to and essential for conservation and develop rnent of the wnale stocks .
You will , of course, reques"t; additional instructions if it should appear
that modi.Cication of these instructions in certain respects is necessary
in order to achieve more important concessions .
Should
287Annex 185
- 4 -
~oul. oroposals or polic;i_es be submitted fo r di scussi on or vOlie
which are cont rary to t he laws of the United .States, the Dele gation
shoul d make an appropriate statemen t explBining i~s ~ sitio inn the
matter under discussion . l!.X.Ceptas specll'l ca.Ily md1.cated in th ese
instruct i onB the delegate s are not authorized t ooi'i'er any trritten
or oral staten1ent "Wihc h might be ccostruod as corranitting th is Govern
ment to a <1eiinite course of action wtd.ch Tlould requ-ire spe cific
approval b,ythe Congress or t he rTesident or wnich ll!ight involve an
o"Oll.gation to expend governmental funds not previously appropriated_
anci allocated . ~ulddil:f litcor controversial point s arise to T<b:J..ch
there may appear to be no re ady solution, it is recOJ!liOOJldedthat the
guidance of the l.epart.me nt be sought; .
t>ince thi.s is a tecbnical meetJ.ng devoted to proble:ns in the fio ld
o.fTlh.ale conservation , it i s cons idered unllkel,y- that any matte r s of a
strictzy polit ical or dipla.aatic character 'llil.larise . HOileVC r should
such question s be introduced, the Delegation should :msiBt that di s
cussion be limited to -rmaling problei!IS, and if ne cessar.r, appropriate
instructions should be sought .from the Departrae nt .
In new o£ -me oif ic i al govei'lliOOntal cbara.cter of tm Conference ,
it is of the ut!nos-t importance that the United ~tates Delega tion represent
and advance th e offic ial views and ool:icie s of thi~ Govern111n2t. OUr
iJe!ega ti. on at the Conference must o!:course act as a unit in represen ting
ti-Je ent-ire United States and Ei:lould invariably present a sol i d front . kny
ai ver gent views among its members shoul d be reso lv-ed in pri vata meetings
of the Delegation , thus leav ing no possibility that embarrassing di.fl'erence s
of opinion llligbtappear in open discussio n . !he members will , o.f course ,
rep1•esent before the Conference the views of the Oovernnen t of the Un:ited
State s rathe r than those of the respe ctiva individuals or of ot•eanizations
or groups with 'llhich they m~ be a.fiiliated . As Cha.il'men of the Unite d
Staw s Del egation , you will be responsible for atlharence to the policy of
the United States by all :nembers of the DeJ.egation, and in the event of
a~zy division aroong the mell!bers of the Delegatio n on su.ch matters , your
decisio n sha.U be final and bind:i.n8on t he Delegatio n.
You are aut :lorized to delegate to an Alternate all authorit y hel d
by you in the event of your absence or inability to attend sessions o.f
the Conf eren ce or in any inst ances in which you are unable to exercise
"the functions of your positio n .
Upon completion of the Conferen ce T->U are requested to submit to
the Sec:retary of State an offi cial report cove ril:lg tile wor kor the
Delegation and "tm action taken by the Confere nce . Enclosed for your
convenience i s a suggested outline for the Llelegation Report which will
serve a:! a convenient checklist of i teillsto be covered anu also as:SUre
a certai n aegree of uniformity with rep:~r t s other American ae:legations ,
all of l'lltich 'Tillei ther be prlnted aeparately or 5UIIIIllarized i:n "the
Departmen t s Conf'erence Serie s. The oi'.ficial report should be suppl elll9nted
by a confidentia l report ...£there are any ot:1er items which , in ,your opinion ,
should be made a matter of confiden tial record . In order to .facilitate
thi s task it is recommended that a Secretary or other o!fice r of the
llelegation be made responsible fo1· all documentation , including the
reproduction and dl.S"tr:lbution of aocuments and Ulle IlUEberiog and assembling
of complete sets of Conferen ce and Delegation documents, both of wllicb
are to be submitted ·.-titth~ .Delegatio n Report.
You are
288 Annex 185
- 5 -
Youare authonzed to reveal the ISUlJstance of such portlona of
tb.ese or subsequent i..nstruotions as you may deen1 neces::rary or desirable
l'or purposes of negotiation . Suohdisclosur e should be :formaland in
Con£erenc:e or commi.ttee ses3:LOn only .
You and your colleagues undertake yow: respon61.blli:t1es r.ith the
aeB\ll'ance of my keen intereost and wolehear'-..ed svpport . I have every
confidence i.nt;h.e indi.vidual ability o.r tbo uolegat.ion members and in
tile capacity of the Delegation as a whol ~eunder your able leadership~
to :re.t'lect credi t on the United States in tru.s important undertald.ng .
Very truly youra J
Acting Secre tary of State
E.nclosure :
1. Outline fo r Delegation Report.
z. IVI0/1 o'f October 23, 1946
3. Hi0/3 o:f October 23, 1946
4. Ai,'Teement of June 8, 1937
5. Protocol of June 24, 1938
6. Protocol of November 26, 1945
7. IICRW Pap~r 5.
8. llc:R P\per 15.
289290 Annex 186
186. Hogarth W T, Written Testimony on the 60th Meeting of IWC before the Committee
on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 110th
Congress (10 June 2008)
''lUTTE l' TI STi l\IOl'il' OF
~lLLL ~'IT.HOG .~TH
l:.S. CO:\DIIS SIO!''IER TO THE Il\TER NATIO::"AL WHALI:'iG COl\11\IISSION
OVERSIGHT HE.~G 0 1'\
"60m .-\.'-U.U.l\IEETING OF THE Il'Ti ER..NATIO::"AL WHALING
C0:\1:\IISSION "
BEFORE THE
C0:\1:\IITTIE OX NATI .'lR..U.RE SOURCES
SUBCO i\11\IITTIE ON FISHERIE S, WILDLIFE , Al'i'DOCE.A ~.S.
t:l'lTILD STATE S HO USE OF REPRE SEJ.\1AT1' "ES
Jl.iNE 10, 2008
Intr odu ction
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you today about the upcoming 60mannual meeting of the
International Whaling Conuniss ion (IWC).
I am William Hogarth, U.S. Commissioner to the IWC. I recently retired fron1the
Federal Government after many years of service, and accepted the position of Dean of the
College of Marine Sciences, University of South Florida. With the support of
constituents and the Administration, I retained my position as tl1eU.S. IWC
Commissioner and continue to serve at tile pleasure of the President. Dr . Doug DeMaster
of tileNational Marine Fisheries Service remainsthe Deputy Commissioner . In 2006, I
was elected by consensusto assume tile role of Chair of the IWC and I continue to serve
in tllat position. I would like to itvery clear. however, tllat I am testifying today
exclusively in my capacity as the U.S. IWC Commissioner and not as Chair of the IWC
My testimony will provide background information on the IWC, give a history ofU.S.
whaling policy de\·elopruem, discuss tile tu<tinissues currently confronting tile IWC. and
discuss tile future of tile organization. U.S. positions on major issues for this year's
annual meeting of the IWC will also be included where appropriate.
International "11aling Commission
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was sigrind1946.
as a direct result of decades of o\·erbatvesting of tile great whale species of the world. Its
primary ptupose isthe conservation and management of tile great whales. The IWC \\'as
formed by the ICRW, and is responsible for managing the 13 great whale species
bow-head, Korth Atlantic right, North Pacirigh s~uthern right, gray, blue, fin, sei,
Bryde's, common minke, Antarctic minke, humpback, and sperm. The IWC adopts
regulations by periodically 3lllelldingthe Schedule to tile Com·ention (Schedule), an
1
291Annex 186
integral document to the ICRW,which lists measures that govem the conduct of whaling.
Amendments to the.Schedule must be based on scientific findings and require a three
quarters majority of those IWC members who voted. TI1eICRW contains provisions that
allow member cotmtries to object to Schedule amendments within certain time frames, in
which cases sucl1Schedule amendments do not bind the objecting country.
The IWC also allows for aboriginal subsistence whaling to help preserve aboriginal
cultures:and provide for traditional nutritional needs. This is done through catch limits in
the Schedule. The IWha~set catch linuts for whale stocks harvested by certain
aboriginal groups from the U1uted States, the Russian Federation, Denmark (Greenland),
and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
There are ctUTeulty 79 member cotmtries to the IWC,with the Comn:Ussionbeing split
betweenpro~o mmer icawhaling cotmtries and anti-coUllllercialwhaling cotmtries.
History of U.S. PolicyDen lopment
The United States was instrtmtental irl establishing the intemational framework that
directs the conservation and management of whales, which included.playing a lead role in
the negotiation that led to adoption of tAsa reflection of its leaderslup role in
the creation of the IWC, the U1uted States serves as depositary for the ICRW. The IWC
has been and will continue to be the primary forum for the toimplement its
foreign policy re.garcliugwhaling. This foreign policy is informed by three Acts of
Congress: thWb. l~gnConvention Act (WCA) of 1946, the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The Whaling
Convention Act implements the ICRW, including the objectives stated in its preamble.
Under tbe Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, dte Department of the htterior
listed spem1 whales and all baleen whales, except n:Unkesand Bryde-'s whales. This was
the first step taken by d1eU1uted States against conunercial whaling, as regulated by dte
IWC The first time the United States suppwordl\,~ coeunercial whaling
moratoritun was at dte 1972 Stockhohn United Nations Conference on Human
Envirorunent
The MarineMammal Protection Act lays out the basic US . domestic policy governing
the conservation, trade, and use of whaL~sguides US .policy in the IWC
Among other things, the MMPA establishes a moratoritun on the taking, commercial
harvest, and in1portat~uarifm aeunals and their products, subject to certain
exceptions suca~NativeAlaskan subsistence harvest of marine manunals. The MMPA
aLsostates Congress' desire for international whale conservation policy, advising that
"the Secretary [ofCo nunerce], through the Secretary of State, shall initiate the
amendment of any existing intemational treaty for the protection and conservation of any
species of marine mammals to wluch the United States is a party in~uchr to make
treaty consistent with the purposes and policies of this Act "
Efforts to conserve and manage whales through the IWC have proceededfuutevenly.
the early 1970s, many IWC members did not support a generalmora toritun on
commeFcial whaling.fu1974, dte United States accepted an Australian conlpfonuse to
2
292 Annex 186
develop a New Management Procedure that i.mplro1ented "selective moratoria" and
worked to mke thiapproach collSistent with sound principles of resource protection and
conservation as outlined in the.purposes and policiesA. The.IWC adopted
theNew Mau."lgemeut Procedure in 1974, in1plementing it in 1975. Th~•asn 1982,
ret.ult efforts the United States and others, the IWC inlplemented a conunercia l
whaling moratori to take effect in 1985/1986. Iceland, Norway, and d1eRussian.
Federatin have all tareserva trlodg~d object itothe moratorium, and tlms
are not bound by it. The IWC agreed to keep the moratoritun nuder review, based on
scientific advrce. TI1eIWC also agreed to undertake a comprehensive as.sessment of the
effectsf the moratoritun by 1990 at the latest, and to consider modification of the
moratoriumand d1e esiablishmeut of catch linuts. To date, d1e IWC has not completed
thi asessment, although d1eScientific Conmuttee has completed work coutributin;g to it,
such as tRevi~ M adagement Procedure (RMP) for setting lim.hit~
Over the ensuing years, the Ututed States bas continued to supp's po:ticies!PA
encouraging protection of large whale stocks, while also supporting aboriginal
subsitence whaling. High-level U.S. government officials have also issued statements·
that apply1ese.policies to whaling issues and enable U.S. delegations to address
contemporary management is.suesd1e IWC. In a 1993 Message to the Congress on
WhalingActivities of Norway, President Clinton stiated:
"The United Statisdeeply opposed to comuuercial whaling: d1eStitesd
does not engage in commercial whaling, and the Ututed States does not allow the
in1port of whale meat.or whale products. While some native Alaskans engage in
narrowlycirtuni ~bersubsistence whaling, iapproved by tl1eIWC tl:&rougb
a quota for 'aboriginal whaling.' TI1e United States also firmly supports d1e
proposed whale sanc.nmry in the Antarctic.
"TI1eUnited States has an eqtmlly strong comnutment to science-based
intemationasoutoin o global conservatproblem TI1eUnited States
recognizes that not everyttry agrees with our position against conunerciial
whaling. The issue at lmnd is the absence of a credible, agreed management·and
monitoring reginle that would ensure d1at conunercii~kept within a
science-based linut."
While still supporting the moratorium, statements like these allowed d1eU.S. delegation
to participate(and sometimes lead) good faith negotiations to complete the Revised
Management Scheme (RMS),which would regulate colll!llercial wb.11ing on baleen
whales.An RMS would include thRevi~ e dnagement Procedure, the scientific
component aopted by d1eIWC in 1994. It would also contain a fully effective
inspectionnd observation scheme to ellSure tha.t any subsequently agreed managemen t
measures wold be enforced. More than IS years of negotiations regarding the RMS
have reached an impasse, as declared by the IWC, in early 2006.
Current Issus Facing the IWC
3
293Annex 186
Unregulated Whalin g
Many issues need to be resolved at the IWC. One very serious problem is the fact that
unregulated scientific and conunercia l isoccurring.
The moratoritun on conuuercial whaling is a needed conservatio n measure to protect
whales. However, gien the continuation of whales bemg killed for conuuercial purposes
since the moratorium took effect in 1986, it.has become clear that the moratorium may
not be enough to achieve the.long-tenu conservation and policy goals of the United
States.
Article 8 of the ICRW allows member couutries unilaterally to grant.Special Penuits to
killtake, and treat whales for the purpose of scientific research. Although Ic.eland,
Japan , and Nonvay hau~e hisprovision ai different times since the conuuercial
whaling moratorium took effect in 1986, Japan is currently the only member cotmtry
conducting lethal scientific rese.arclL Although scientific whaling is legal tmder the
ICRW, many countries including the United States question the necessity of the lethal
research for WC purposes and object to conuuercial sale of the meat derived from the
research prograuts. The conunercial sale of such meat is allowed tmder the ICRW.
Scientific research whaling is not.regulated by the IWC and has been responsible for the
largest increase in the take of whales over the past ten years. In 1998, approxnua.tely 300
whales were taken tltrouglt scientific research whaling. Since then, this number has
increased to more than 1,000 year. The United States has continued to strongly
o:ppose.esearch whaling programs and believes that most scientific data needed to
intprove the management and to promote the recovery of large whale po:pulations can be
collectedthrot ngnllet lmaeau.~
Despite more than two decades of international conderrmation and IWC criticism of le.thal
rese.archprograms, tlte practice has escalated. Theexamined the problem of
scientific whaling for many years, and has found no easy solution. In order to prohibit
scientific whaling through legal means, a change to the ICRW would be necessary, or
relevant couutries would need to enter into a separate binding international side
agreement.\vith regard to scientific whaling
Small-Type Coa.sialWhaling
Every year since 1987, Japanproposed a Schedule amendment.to allow small-type
coastal whaling (STGW) for four coastal whaling operations , but these pro:posals have
consistently failed to gainecessary three-quarters majority needed for approval. The
United States and many other IWC members have not supported Japan's STCW proposal
becae .~f the commercial nature.of the proposal and because Japan·s STGW proposal is
ttot based on review and input from the IWC's Scientific Conuuittee. Any proposal for
the collUltercial h."tf whales shouldle~.te based on recommendations of the
IWC's Scientific Conuuittee, using the Revised Management Procedure for setting catdt
limits. No RMP-detenuined catch limits have been established for the stocks at issue in
Japan 's proposal.
4
294 Annex 186
South Atlantic Sanc.mary
The ICRW provides for the establishment of closed areas for the purpose of fostering the
conservat ion and recovery of whale stocks. The United States was a major sponsor of the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary adopted by the IWC in 1994. Since 2000, there have been
efforts to establ ish a South Atlantic Sanctuary to complement the Southern Ocean
Sancmary. The United States continues to support the establishmem of this sanctuary , as
it promotes the conservat ion and recovery of whale stocks.
Sancmar ies generaprvo~d.epportnn ities to conon-etb le~earch on undist urbed
whale stocks, including studies on their life history and population dynamics. The status
of most major whale stocks is either still deple-ted or wllmown. Therefo re, it is imperati ve
that t IWC make further efforts to establish sancmar ies and maintain existing ones to
allow for full recovery of all the.great whale stocks.
The Future oftheIWC
TI1e IWC 's polarization is compromising its ability to proper ly conserve and manage
cetaceans. This is not.surprising, considering the very namre of the.ICRW 's objective .to
conserve whales and manage their harve.st, which does not lend itself well to consensus
or even the requir ed three-quarter s majority for Schedul e changes. At the. 59° allllual
meeting in Anchorage , the IWC decided to begin discussions regarding the "Future of the
IWC 'llnoug h aul<c:~•oua mleewlg!halW<'-hdc.liu Ma1ch auc.lahp~omwg 60th
ammalm eeting of the IWC.
TI1e United States is committed to partic:pating in discussions on the fumre of the IWC,
and believes tIWC should be preserved as the premiere internat ional fonun for
resolving curren t conservatio n issues , coordinati ng critical research , and developi ng
internat ionagreeu1ent on whale conservat ion. It is imperati ve that the IWC achieve a
strongerevel of nctionality for the fi.1tureconservation and management of the great
whales.
The United States supports discussions on r of the IWC because we believe the
le.hal use of whales must be re.gulated and monitored by the IWC as the only relevant
interna tionmanagement body. TI1educussio n at the 60thammalm eeting regarding the
"Futureof the IWC " is intended to address the difficulties within the IWC and thereby
strengthen t body, and the United States will participate in these discuss ions. The
discuss ion .may lead to an intecsessiou._U process fotlawing the tueeting where m..'ljor
substantive issues are identified for ne.gotiation and possible resolution at IWC6 1 in
2009. TI1eAdministrat ion will need to evaluate the results of that process before
determini ng whether to lend pport to any particular outcome.
Con clusion
Indosing, Madam Chair, I would like to state that the United States ' position on whale
conservation and managem ent has not changed. We continue to support tl1emoratorium
on commerc ial whaling and will continue our efforts to end lethal scientific research
whaling. Moreover , we will actively participate in discussio ns on the fi.lttlfeof the IWC
to enstlfe that body 's effec.tiveness in ensuring the conservatio n and managemen t of the
5
295Annex 186
gr~twhales. I would like to thank the Subcommittee meandyour stafffot
supporting the conservation and management of whales.
6
296 Annex 187
187. Central Intelligence Agency,the Map of the Antarctic Region: The World Factbook
2009 (2009) <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
graphics/ref_maps/pdf/antarctic.pdf> accessed 14 February 2012
ANTARCTIC REGIO
..o"'-J> ...
/- ' -0--
• Ye-ar-round researc h stat ion
Scale I:6s,ooo, ooo ScluthlAtlantic
A.zimurilai Equai-Arta Projrcr;o,
ocean
tooo Kftomcters.
J00oM iles
l'N'to2BAntatttic: consu ltative countr ies haw
the Ufllmlsta1cshaveres.l"M.'d the rlgttt todoso}a nd
they 00 not recognize thed alnts of the odler countnes.
/ South Sandwiql lstand5
CLAIM _---
/ ~;.: >.:;:;;~
/ rj --Southern
Ocean
ARGENTINE \
..t~ !1<~1.· vinas. _CLAIMorcadas
<~ ~~ .SCOf:t.ll tARGE.NTitlA) \
bnnC~'dby'A SOUTHORKN£Y
JSI-4//'DS
SOU /TH //
INAUs S D~ 4 ('.t.:::e~e
1
McOooaldlslill'lds
"""""'""'
l ttdlatt
\~ aciflc
\ceatt I
\
FRENCH
CLAIM
"(CHIfO~I
0• / I
50t!th
~~ uific
o?e-an-
CHATHAM 1SLANDS
lftEWZ£ALIJ'1D)
southt>rn
L,Ce.tn
803412Al (R02207) 6-09
297298 Annex 188
188. “Order in Council placing Territory in theAntarctic Seas under theAuthority of the
Commonwealth of Australia-Sandringham, February 7 1933” (1934) 137 British
and Foreign State Papers 754, pp. 754-755
'i54 GREAT BRITAIN
And wher eas it is expedient to amend the definition
of the term '' Gazette '' in article 2 of the said Order :
Now, therefore, His Majesty by virtue and in exer cise
of the powers in this behalf by " The Foreign Jurisdiction
Act, 1890," ( ) or otherwise in His Majesty vested, is please d,
by and with th e advice of his Privy Counc il, to order,
end it is hereby ordered, as follows :-
1. This Order may be cited as " The Pa cific (Fugitive
Cr iminals Surrender) (Amendment) Order in Council, 1933."
2. The words Fiji Royal Gazette in the definit ion of
the term " Gazette " in the last line of article 2 of " The
Pacific (Fug itive Criminals Surrender) Order in Council,
1914," are hereby deleted and the following words are
subs titu ted the refor :- ·
W estern Pacific High Commission Gazette .
And the Righ t Hono urable Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, one
of His Majesty 's Prin cipal Secretar ies of State, is to give
the necessary direc tions herein accordingly .
M. P. A. HANKEY.
(•) Vol. LXXXII, page 656.
ORDER IN COUNCIL placing Territory in the Antar ctic
Seas u nder the Authority of the Commo nwealth of
Australia .-Sandringham, February 7, 1933.( 1)
At the Court at Sandringham, the 7th day of February,
1933.
PRESE XT : THE KING 's MOST EXCEL LENT MAJESTY IN COUNCH •.
WnEREAS that part of the t-erritory in the Antarctic Seas
which comprises all the islands and territories other than
Adelie Land situated south of the 60th degree of south
lati tude and lying between the 160th degr ee of east
longit ude and the 45th degree of east longtitu de is terr itory
over which His Majes ty has sovereign righ ts :
And whereas by " Th e Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act," () it is provided that the Par liament of
the Commonwealth of Australia i:nay ·make laws for the
governm ent of n.ny ter l"itory place d by the King und er the
authori ty of and accepted by the Comm onwealth :
And whereas it is expedi ent that the said territ ory in
the Antarc tic Seas should be place d und er the authority
of th e Commonwealth of Australia : ·
(1) L Q<ndQ<Gazette, February 14, 1933.
() Vol. XCH, page 1256.
299Annex 188
GREAT BntTAI~ 755
Now, therefore, His Majest y, by virtue and in exercise
of the power in that behalf in His Majest y vested, is
pleased, by and with the advice of his Pr ivy Council, to
order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:-
1. That part of His Majesty's domini ons in the
Antarctic Seas which comprises all the islands and
territories othe r than Adelie Land which are situated south
of the 60th degree of south latitude and lying between
the 160th degree of east longitude and the 45th degree of
east longitude is hereby placed under the authority of the
Commonwealth of Australia.
2. This Order shall come into operation on such date,
after legislation shall have been passed by the Parliament
of the Commonwea lth of Australia providin g for thE<
acceptance of the said territ ory and the government thereof.
as may be r.~.u. by proclama~;) iobn(2 the Governor
General of the Commonweah;h of Australia.
M. P. A._ HA NKEY.
(•) Date of proclamation , August 24, 1936.
ORDER IN COUNCIL am ending "The Gold Coa.st
Coumy (Legislative Council) Order in Council, 1925. "
London, June 26, 1933. ( )
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 26th day of June,
1933.
PRESENT: TH E KINO'S MOST EXCELL ENT 1\IAJESTY IN COUNC IL.
WHEREAS by an Order in Counc il bearing date the 8th
day of April, 1925, and known as " The Gold Coast Colony
(Legislative Council) Order in Council, 19"25 ,"(") provision
was made for the constitution of a Legislative Council for
the Gold .Coast Colony, and for the establishment of
Provincial Councils in the said Colony :
And whereas by a further Order in Council bearing date
the 7th day of February, 1927,(3) and known as "The Gold
Coast Colony (Legislative Council) Order in Coun<{ il, 1927,"
the provisions of the said Order in Council of the 8th day
of April, 1925, were amended as therein is set forth :
And whereas. it is e"-pedient to make further and other
provision in regard to the said Legislative Council and to
the said Provincial Councils :
(2) Stat~tor B•ues and Orders, 1033, page 2093.
() Vol. OXX I, page 208. () Vol. CXXVI, vage 27.
300 Annex 189
189. “Notes for the Minister for Whaling Luncheon, 14.6.38” (London 14 June 1938)
X:n
~t.cod. :s..nto
~ ,•wu~p,;~~,~ ..
i.e"~ :reer .I:
(
!Dc, =
t.ne.o;tto
or ~1;Jr Ic~kn"- r;nd 1-le
~ e;re not rl.t.lua ~ to ~ rl.1Jo UQ l.:n t.c nc#r rutu::-o••
J: w-.4 -t.hooo-=-111 Al.ooa ~:x.aetly 4 ::f=a::ec;o ~:r -
-~-
301Annex 189
10
tat. ,b
U.:aw
~ ··1~ a: ~ t~ p::" tc::l1:.0 ~ t c.l!:l. t;e
t J.. ltli-ho 1 ,.oll. ~ Ll
:..:»eJ.c: · ~ k o..ll.~I tJ\or:ou• ·-- o~ ot.'wr """'""""~
!'au e...-c..1:.ocrtr.....~t ! tt 1 t t:~ :1:.~t.~ .u - ::u1 eo;:>f!'0.4..ll.y
t o c.!'~ _, hlr.o DQt ..~...: - 'Z.,!r:::aA t '!" oo. ~ - t.::.c:~c
c. c: ·ico !»e.loo~h • y co; ~la:u o f the> ~~ o
• J'or , t'r.O ~ boi.n:-:rtu_..Ll
'lllllAl..in.!:.~.5 1'1.: is ~!.ion, ddch L-L~~
bol.or t;,.ooewltr...Sl.e-r.l..J e o-. t. ~ .:Lo.L•t..1.•m~
~~ .at.oe:c totha l~l t ti.a.h l'IOt 7 ~-~tign, 'bu.
ooaaa~ ~1 ~.ton~ !:oGocu.ibU • ~ t.bi.atar"7 o£ ~ ..un:.
.....::"'0:t:u~ wor..la.,~ r-ooo= rt;~ltl.a'U.oaol~ v. t. e...-e,,o..li..Jlb
rl,. b o.n~ ibl.~ et.ockt t.b:1t, ~ t.":ll:::c~ :sto ~
~ t ,or:eG.'xlliS"'D .ur.cmn in.:!UD tr:1 huJ-:...-'T~::: ~:~:.- a.
t.l.'ICJ.UI.1I~V'e c:::x;:;w.'Oa.dJnub t.~ t. .c:t:..c~cc:Dt
-:1-
302 Annex 189
.1..1~...- ud.l1 ~
bell.~... w:U.l: be
•
•
Sn•kot'
·}.C·~~;o:c; :T'I'C'.0::.0ol" ,_
en.~:- L:!!:n\.8
[ (;U\t . l ha.,•.~.el1..bct;-~ rt' '".f'A'1eot.'Ur"f! . ru.
1
cJo.t a CG'ft:r.nent 1a t'U"-....1-yC'da"7i.."l!!!!'da!.crtance-.or ~"toct::Ulg
t.bo~ ~t:r,. • e-M .1n"rlwe yqur ll!ll,;
...~ \.~· •• ....-4
t. bO't'cr.ynur ~ti.c:Jna are ~ aen: e,-,,111teft 1.t.
303304 Annex 190
190. HL Deb 4 March 2009, vol. 708, col. WA164
• ['.~cessibitity
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Conta~ ~u;:t
.parliament.
ISearchI
• Home
• Parliamentary business
• MPs. Lords & offices
• About Parliament
• Get invo_lv~
• Visiting
• Educa~]Qn
• House of Commons
• House of Lords
• What's on
• Bill& legislation
• Publications & records
• Parliament TV
·~
·~
You are here: Parliament home page >Parliamentary busin ePs~blications and Records ) Lords
Publications ) Lords Hansard> Lords Hansard by Date ) Daily Hansard
Previo Sestion Back to Table of Content•! Lords Hansard Home Page
4 Mar 200 9 Column WA164
In terna tional Wha ling Commiss ion
Questions
AskedbyLord Ashcraft
To ask Her Majesty's Goverfurther to the Written Ansv.er by Lord Hunt of Kings Heat{WAn 28 Jan<Jary
59), v.tlether the options to the Untted Kingdom and other member nations or the InternatiOnal
Whaling Commissio(IWC) in the non-p"Chairs' suggestiontheFuture of the IWC" on 2 February were
produre1nconsultaoo..oth dvtl sooety repres entatives to allow and review pnor to their
diStnbution . [Hll630]
l'be Minister of Sht e, Depof En10rgy and Climate C&aOep.,rtmenfor Environment , Food and Rural
Affa irs (Lor d Hunt of Kings Heat h): No, these sugg estion s were produced by the chairs of me lnt ematlonal Whaling
Commissionf!WC) and the so-called Small Worlcing Group (SWOVIImihatlrv der the terms of the
proces s agreed by the IWC for consideringthe meetmgand proceedingof the SWG and its subgroups ""'
oontidentland not open to r"presves of dvii sodety. Civil society wll, ho,..,ver, hato commentrtunity
and que stio n the chairs' suggest ions at the intersess1rwclv.t\1chv.(]l take place tn Rome from 9 to
11 March
Asked by Lord Ashcroft
To ask Her l"a)esry's Govev.llether any of the options pfor considerato the United Kingdom
catches for up to ftve years 1ntne South em Ocean sanctuary; (b) leg alose Japan's catches of coastal min lee
whales; and (c) legalise comhunting by Japan of mlnke l'l"lales, Bryde's \\hales, sel \\hales or sperm
whales m the North Paofic Ocean. [Hll631]
305Annex 190
lo<cl$Honoordm.t 'o<:• M,...201Mu02009 (pt0004)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath : Under the terms of Artlde Vlll of the International Convention on the Regulation cofWhalong,
Japan's lethal research takes of mlnke v.flales In the Southern Ocean and of mlnke , B!Yde 's, sei and sperm "fla les in
the North Padfic are, regrettably, quite lega l. Any dedsion by the l ntemattonal Whaling Comm ossion (! WC) to set
quotas for North Padflc I'll ale spedes (v.hether for highly looallsed use by the people of coastal communities In Japan
_...,ohave a tra dotion o~Al lng, or for Wider commerda l use) v.cu ld require to be framed as amendments to 111e
schedu le to the International Convention on the Regula tio n of Whaling, and could be brought Into force only by a three
quarter majority vote of those present and voting at a recognised meeting of the IWC. The intersessio nai !WC meeting
__.l,en w ll take place in Rome from 9 to 11 March has no po""'r to make such deds io ns.
Asked by Lord Ashcroft
To ask Her MaJesty s Government W\ether the 'Ch airs' suggestions on the Futur e of the lntematlonal Whaling
Commission• paper proposes a solution
4 Mar 2009 rColumn WA 165
th at v.ill end the large-sca le unilatera l catches current ly Issued under Speda l Penn its by Japan or otheorcountries
such as Iceland. [HL16J2]
Lord Homt of Kings Heath : Th e nght of any oontraatng Governmen t to the Jntemational Whaling Commission (IWC) to
Issue spedal perm Its and to conduct lethal research ..naling is enshrined In Artide VII! of the lntematlonal Convention
on th e Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The dhalrs' suggestions do not lndude any proposal to amend Artlde\nll. The
extent to v.t.lch current so -called scientific ...,.,aling rnay or may not be curtaias a resu lt of pursuing any of the
options advanced In the chairs' paper v.ill depend on the YOIJingness of those Governments currently pursuing such
operations to scale them back voluntarily, In exchange for other possible concessions. There WI>Uidbe no lega l recourse
lor the IWC If such voluntafY act.on ..,..re ever discontinued.
Asked by t.,o,d Ashcroft
To ask Her Majesty 's Government W\etherthe "Cha irs' suggestions on the Future ot the International Whaling
Com mission· paper contains a propos a1that I\OUid require Japan to cease Importin g ...,ale products f~om 1lther
countries lndudlng Iceland or Norvey or from any other nation that Issues spedal penmlts for its natoonals to
catch great v.hales. [Hll633)
Lord Hurrt of Kings Heath : No. Trade matters are .,.thin the competence of the Convention on International Trade In
Endangered Spedes and outside that of the Inte rnational Convention on the Regulation of Whaling .
Asked by Lord Ash cr oft
To ask Her Majesty's Government W>elher at the lntematlona l Whalfng Commission (IWC) meeting In Rome In
March and the annua i!W C rneebng In Madeira In June the United Kingdom v.lll oppose and vote agalnost any
options that deter resolut ion of urgent lssu.,s. [Hll634]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath : At the lntersess ional meeting of the Internationa l WhaUng Commission in Rome inoMarch,
the UK delegation v.ill seek to explore ...,etherany of the options suggested by the chairs in their paper coultl possibly
be viab le', viat>llity t>elng consi dered againthe requ irem ents that they are aChievable and v.ould guarantee In the long
term a significant reduction In t11enumber of ~'.ha lented and killed . At the annual meeting in Made ira, th" UK 1o,ould
not support the adoption of any measure ...,.,lch It considerprejudidal to tire conservatJon of ~'.hales.
Asked by IAN/ Ash croft
To ask Her Majesty's Government ....nether at the lnt ematlo nal Whaling Commiss ion (IWC) meeting In Rome In
March and the annuallWC meetin g In Made ira In JurJe the United Klngdom v.lll vote against options <:<onralnedIn
ti>e "Chairs' sugge stions on tne Future of the International Whahng Commiss io n· paper that I\OUid leg1allse
catches of v.flales either In the Southern Ocean Sanct'UafY or In the North Padfic Ocean to ensu re such options
are not agreed either by consensus or th rough an ab :stention by the United Klngdom. [HL1635]
4 Mar 2009 Co lumn WA166
Lord Hunt of King s Heath : Save through an amendment to A.rtide VIII-ofthe lntematlonal Conv"-ntlon on the
Regulation of Whaling (1..tllch oould probablyrequire the convening of a formal diplomatic conference to adopt It and
subsequent ratificationby all parties to bring ot into effect), the lntematlona l Whaling Commission has no po•..,rto alter
the legal status of ..nallng under spedal permit. The UK could agree to the legalisat ion of other fom1s of l'ohallng only If
It""' convinced that by doong so it I\OUid brin g about a significant omprovement of W\ale conservatlon in the long term.
Asked by Lord AshcroFt
To ask Her Majescy's Government Yotlettler they n.u.-ge other EUropean Union nations that are memb• ers of che
International Whaling Commission to oppose and vote against an y of the options that WI>Uidlega lise v.loale
catchers In the Southern Ocean sanctuaiY or the North Paofic ocean that v.ere ln duded In the non-p aper Chairs'
suggestions en the future of the IWC presented to the United Kingdom and other member nations of the
C~mmosslon on 2 FebruafY. [HL1660)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The options oncluded on the chairs' suggestions on the rurure or the rnternaoonal Whaling
Commission (JWC) are nol suff1dentty dear to enable a definitive evaluation of them to be m;ode. At the ontersessional
.-N..Nit-.. MtiiN'tIIl~lki!U.I'Idl1haru:rdltl!ld/.QQ3G4wo()()().(.h-··
306 Annex 191
191. HC Deb 18 July 2011, vol. 531, cols. 617 - 618W
Monda y Volume 531
18July 2011 No. 189
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OFFICIAL REPORT
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Monday 18 Jul y 2011
307Annex 191
617W Written Answers 18 JULY 2011 Written Answers 618W
Internati onal Whaling Commission At last week's annual meet ing of t he IWC the UK
made its opposi tion to Japan's 'scient ific' whal ing clear.
Mr Bain:To ask the Secretary of State for Environm ent.
Food a nd Rural Affairs whet her her Department has Mr Ba in:To ask the Secretary of State for Environment.
Food and Ru ral Affair s what ste ps her Depa rtment
any plan s to bring forwa rd proposa ls to increa se the plans to take to (a) promo te and (b) enfo rce the ban
tra nsparency of the governance of the Interna tiona l
Wha ling Comm ission. (66370] on comme rcialwha ling by all members of the lntematio nal
Whaling Comm ission. [66373]
Richard Ben)'On: A UK-Ied propo saL supported by
Richard Benyon: I attended this yea r's Interna tional
all oth er member states of th e Europ ea n Un ion . was
presented at this year"s an nual conference of the Whaling Com mission (IWC) meeting to demonstrate
Inte rnational Whaling Co mmi ssion (IWC). It set out a the UK G overnment 's comm itment to the work of the
numb er of reforms to improve the effect iveness an d IWC and ou r support for the moratorium on wha ling.
transpa rency of the IWC At this yea r's meeting the UK promoted the creation
I am very pl eased to report that the proposal was of whale sanc tuaries and the need for improved welfare
successfully adopted by conse nsus. The measures agreed and efforts to address enda ngered cetacea n populations.
will enab le the IWC to transform itself into a modern, including further action to be take n to save the critically
endan gered Western G ray Whale.
transparent and credible internatio nal organ isatio n.
Landfill: Recycling
Mr Bain:To ask the Secretary of State for Environment.
Food and Rural Affairs (I) what disc ussions her
Departme nt has had with the International Whaling D avid Mowa t: To ask the Secreta ry of State for
Environmen t. Food and Rural Affairs what esti mate
Comm ission on the enforceabil ity of thescientific resources
exemption : (66371] she has made of how much waste collected for recycling
(2)wha t her Departme nt'spolicy is on the appl icabilitywas sen t to landfi ll in eac h of the last five years. (64587]
of the scien tific resource s exemp tion in the rules of the Richard Benvon: DE FRA does not hold data on all
Inte rnational Whal ing Comm ission. (66372]
waste that is ~ol elct ferdrecycling but subsequen tly
Richard Benyon: Und er the internat ional conven tion rejected and sent to landfill . DEFRA 's Waste DataF iow
system provides data on waste collected by localaut horities:
on the regulation of wha ling. contract ing Governments www. wastedatafl ow.org
are able to issue "s pecial permit s" to allow whalin g for
scientific purposes. Japa n cond ucts this 'scientific'wha lingh e following table shows the to nnages of waste
legally undercur rent Interna tional Wha ling Comm ission collected for recycling or reuse from household and
(IWC) rules.Th e UK considers that such action severe ly other sou rces that were subsequently rejected at the gate
h ampers internationa l efforts to conserve and protect of the reproce sso r since 2005. Th is waste wou ld either
whales and unde rmines the IWC moratorium on be sent to land fill or incinerationfigure s for landfill
com merc ial whaling. alo ne. excludin g incineration . are not held.
Localauthority recyclingrejects
Source(tomres) Percentageof waste collectedfor recyclingand rejectedby
reprocessor
Household Non-house/wid Total Household Non-house/wid Total
2009-10 t83.913 4.084 187.997 1.94 0.47 1.82
2008.()9 t56.839 10.393 167.233 1.69 1.10 1.64
139,515
2007.08 134.441 5.075 1.52 0.52 1.42
2006.07 t25.895 1.118 127.013 1.56 0.12 1.41
2005-06 t05,617 4,692 110.309 1.54 0.47 1.40
Marine Conservation Zone (SNC Bs) and Marine Conse rvation Zone s Regio nal
Projects are working. Th e evidence used in the regional
project process includes data slied by national contracts.
Barry Ga rdiner: To ask the Secretary of State for with egiona lly and loca lly so urced data . and expe rt
Environme nt. Food and Rur al An-airs what quality know ledge. Minis ters wan t to make so und decisions on
assu rance processes will be ap plied to (a) enviro nmenta L
(b) soc ial and (c) econom ic data used in the Eng lish sits to take forward for des ignation. so we have. and
will cont inue. to ensure qual ity assurance proce sses are
Marine Co nservation Zone regional projects: and what put in place.
timeta ble has been set for the comp letion of such qua lity
assuranee processes. (64217] Th e indepe ndent Science Advisory Pane l has provided
scientific advice to the regional projects on the creation
Richard Benyon: Th e Government's policy is that the of an ecologically-{;()herent network and ecologicalevidence.
best available evide nce shou ld be used to identify sites The pane l has reviewed all the iterations and the draft
and conse rvation object ives.Thi s policy is set out in thereco mmendat ions of the regio na l projec ts. For soc ial
Gove rn ment's G uida nce Note I on the Select ion and and economic data . the impact assessment being drawn
up by the SNCBs and regional projects will be externa lly
Designatio n of Marine Co nservation Zones (MCZs ).
to which the Statu tory Nature Conservation Bodie s peer reviewed. In add ition. we have asked the regional
308 Annex 192
192. The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of ForeignAffairs, “International
Whaling Commission: United States Views” (7 June 1979)
4-~/2/4-
New Z al n<l Htgh C..,m,nu·s.H>n
Ic.lc!a.lHoo~
tr.,,',tlarictt
Lo•~a.m5WJYQ
Telr.phone: OJ-930F.('nF.l!ic:
"f'X4)3
7 Ju.'lJ979
The Secrotary oi' b~orei g Cfairs,
WELLINGTON.
Copy: The Director-General,
~linic of A-gicllture and F>Sh~ ',r1
Wellington.
~lashinrton otta••a
-~ ..-Tokyo Moscow
Nllkll'alofa Seoul
INTERNATIONAL 't.'HALINGCOMI>!ISSJO'f: UHTED s~.~V 'T-·;=s
Two membe:r.s ofthe United States delegation "tot1e I~"ter-
national WhalirJg Commission called on us rece!l y. e, B___
Aron, was in t he United Kingdom on the last le of n ~er e
tour of capitals which included \/ellington. The o .h r wac ~s;: !ce
Barnes.
309Annex 192
nature of
bec:au the ~Canadian delegati.
:a.•l- for CIIJI&das dissent .
We then discussed the prospects of success f
Mr'lttoriUIII 110t1on at the annualmeeting. Aron sa1
tibi,iJourldinghe had taken in capi tala be exp ted
~d. be a simple majority in 1'avour of a 110ra ri al.l
tile three-fourthsgmajorityatrequiredtifor a 110tion of tbi.a ua·tml'W.
Aron identified a number of the factors wbi
li'lll·l~avily w1th the Unit ed States in reaching i
r;~~~~-.,:.bPrincipalatamongst thesemmewas the kleve~~;f§~~~~~
r of whale products from non-Collllllissn
accepted reductions in quotas by the
-.!:~l'a; i;: im ports to the equi-lent perba
Iii !.'his action1Aron said, completely underiiJLIMocl
-~~ also evidence that Japan bad been
to oth er co~.mtries .t appears
as many as four whalers froa Japan.
also that there was a Japanese conn"'"~'~'"'
310 Annex 192
311312 Annex 193
193. The Secretary of ForeignAffairs to the High Commissioner in London, “International
Whaling Commission: Briefing” (29 June 1979)
313Annex 193
314 Annex 193
,.
"!."c<
tl:::l rtf11J
I!!!JiW r~,If
11' !·11i'~~~~Pfl.' lr.
f I 1 1.
. I [ !:Aii.hildi:t
. I·' ' ·:t ;J('Iff
.. .'f ;r' -iir pr··..
. ••. 111
. . · 1
· 11:"lf'fi•ft•(·
~,l
II'...
E
315Annex 193
316 Annex 193
317318 Annex 194
194. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Brief for the New Zealand Delegation to the
31stAnnual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, London, 9-13 July
1979” (9-13 July 1979) pp. 1-3
319Annex 194
320 Annex 194
321322 Annex 195
195. The High Commissioner in London to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, “Report
of the New Zealand Delegation to the 31st Annual Meeting of the International
Whaling Commission, London, 9 to 13 July” (20 July 1979) pp. 1-5
.R3.1S79
NwZc dll~
Ha!rm.::t.rk.tl
Lu 1 SWIY 4TO
Tdrphonc OJI)SHl hi:
Td:xl4>bo~
20 July 1979
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
WELLINGTON.
Copy: ~1ni stry of A"ricul ture an 1 n~ ie
WELLING1 ON.
Canberra Lima
Washington Nuku' lofa
Ottawa Paris
s_ ul
• .. Tokyo
Moscow
Brussels FR}
Santiago
31ST ANNUALMEETING 0£' 1'HE INm,;RNATIO' Al
WHALING CCI•~ ~SION
NEWZEALANDDELEGATIOJIR"!?ORT
323Annex 195
324 Annex 195
( )
325Annex 195
"Particularly sine the r troctu( l ·
proc dure (NJ4P), th0,...P. huv , be ni
the pr ci ion of some ass ::-:.l.tro,
remain, concern nR:
(i) the p,eog hic~l boundcricc 4, n•
between sto~ .~ ancl ln r lat~n1 i-n r.l'r;
"'hi h are pon1 ly· kno•t.1l forr..Jst : "
and sperm wh~ ~~; thl""c-fftct o
ident'flcation is al~o nnt ~no~~,
(11) the valid~ ~ttthe por 1 ti~·' u
sto'"'k classj ficat1on p:rocedu1·c
biolog~ca pl rametcrc. u ed ~n
(iii) +he longer tenn influcr.c 1 ,+
whaling activity by non--oc
(v) the effect of bio1ogic
Ce cean s ecies, a w
or b tween e cean
bro d at s
e.
326 Annex 195
327Annex 195
328 Annex 196
196. Conseil fédéral suisse, “Résponse aux questions déposé▯es par M. Aeschbacher
Ruedi” (Conseiller national, 20 février 2002) <http://www.parlament.ch/f/suche/
pages/geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20013754> accessed 14 February 2012
12102/ 10 01.3754L.Swue et pt cAI• bale.Cuna VtsbO~t.psarlem···
~
V L'Assembltie tederale -Parlemenl su sse
Curia Vista - Objets parlementaires
01 .3754 - Interpellation
La Suisse et Ia pechea Ia baleine
Depose par Aeschbacher Ruedi
Datede dep6t 13.12.2001
Depose au Cons ell na1ional
Etat des deliberations Ltquide
Texte depose
La Suisse a ratifie en 1960 Ia Conwntion intemabonale pour Ia reglementabon de Ia
chassea Ia baleine , et elle stege au sein de Ia Cotntemation ale de Ia chasse
aIa baleine (CBI). La delegabon suisse aupres de cette comlaisse une
tmpresston ambiguil : elle s'ecarte en effetde plus en plus de son attitude inttialement
biemeillante, ce que confirmencommentaires emanant de milleuxprochede Ia
commiSSIOn, mats egalement des medias. Je remercie le Consetl federal de bien
wuloir repondre aux questions suivantes :
1.Est-il egalementd'aque Ia participation de Ia auIa CBI dOll l.iser en premier
lieu Ia protection ella sul'lo1edes baleines et en aucun cas sel'lo1rles lnterets
economiques des pays qui conbnuent re~oendi queerhassea Ia baleine libre de
toutentra~oe?
2. Est-11pret. par le btais de sa dals'engager fermement en fawur du maintien
du moratoire pour Ia chaaIa baleine?
3.Enwe des decis tons qui seront prises lors de Ia CBI 54 en mal 2002a est-il pret
donnera ses representants des instructions leur imposant. dans leur participation et
leurs wtes ,de promou110irfermement Ia protectisur.~des baletnes dans une
perspectiwalong terme?
4. Le Cons ell federal sait-tl comment sont tuees les baleines, l.ictimes jad is d'une
chasse impitoyable pour des motifs commerciapour certaines d'entre elles.
man ifestement encore chassees auJourdllui malgre le moratolre? Juge-t-11ces
methodes cruelles de mtaemort compatibles awe les pnncipes ethiques et moraux?
5. Est-il arred~amlse sa parbe~pa1 aIoCBI en encourageant des initiatiw.s
progressistes et en l.isant !'adaptation graduelle de Ia Con\ention intemationale sur Ia
chassea Ia baleinaun emlronnement changeant et aux ewlutide !'opinion
publique?
1/ 4
329Annex 196
12102/10 01 3754 - La Set pkl,e'Ia bole.. e-Vost.Ol>leporien, •••
Dewloppement
Depuis quelques annees ,les representants de Ia Suisse au sein de Ia Comm ission
lntemationa le de Ia chaaIa balelne agissent davantage en quald"lntermedia~res
dans les discussions relabwaIa reprise de Ia chasse commerciaaeIa balelne, au
lieu de militer awe fermete pour Ia preservation des cetaces. Tantles m11ieux
specialises que Ia population comprennent et acceptant de moins; en mo1nscette
attibJde.
Le Japon et Ia Nol"ooBeg, les deuxseuls Etats pratiquant aaIa baleine,
s'efforcentpartous lesyens d'obtenlrla repnse de Ia chasse commerclaaeIa
baleine, et ne craignent pas pour ce faire de ades moyens peu adequats. Par
une aide economique ,le Japon a ainsi achete les 1o0tesde pays EmdewloppemenL et
Ia Nol"ooBgneegocie des suffraaIa CBI en echange de 1o0ixausein de Ia Conwntion
sur le commerce international des especes de faune etde ftore sauwges menacees
d'aXbnction.Ces deuxpays sont directament ou ind1rectement soutenus par Ia Suisse.
Le soutien indirect passe par un lraitement accessoire des probli!mes importanls et
des dangersawquels les cetaces sont exposes , ce que Ia delegation suisse semble
accepter. Le soutien direct prend Ia forme, en ce qui conceme le .lapon par exemple,
d'une approbation wrbale de Ia chasse cOtiere aux petits ce1aces.Cela est
particulierement choquant, car ce sontjustement ces deux pays qui ,par leur menees
douleuses, paralysenlles autres Etats membres de Ia CBI et empechent le
dewloppement de Ia protection des mammiferes marins qui s1mpose de longue date.
De plus,n n'a aucune preuw setenfifique de Ia possibilite memt3 d'une chasse et
d'une miseamort "humalnes• des baleines etdes dauphins .La CBI a discute de cela
durantdes annees. Les methodes de misea mort en \igueur onttoujours ete
contestees , et seuls le Japon et Ia Nol"ooBg,eles deuxEtals qui aIa chassea
Ia baleine, pretendent que les balelnes sont amort "humainemenr . Ces deux
pays chassent au moyen de harpons explosifs, doni Ia deftagration est circonscnte au
mimmum de maniere a preser.oerles chairs. La plupart des baleines ne mourant pas
lmmediatement, les Japonais utilisent une methode subsid1aire: une lance electrique
soumet les an1mauxa un nuxeleclrique durant dlxa quin:reminultes, jusqu'a ce qu'lls ne
donnentplus s1gne de l.ie. Les Nol"ooBgiensachewnanlmauxa coups de fusll. Ces
methodes ontde tout de temps ete filmlies etcommentees . Elles occasionnentde
longues et cruelles soulfrances auxba lelnes et susciten t l,ndlgnation chezl11omme.
Reponse du Conseil federalu 20.02.2002
LaConwntion intemabonale du 2 decembre 1946 pour Ia reglementation de Ia chasse
aIa baleine n'est pas uniquement un instrument de protection dElSbaleines : son
objectifes l de rendre poss ible !'exploitation durable des peuplemenls balemiers. La
convention ne protege lbale~n qesdans Ia mesure ou Ia protection permet aux
peuplements baleiniers de se reconstituer etalnsl "d'augmenter le nombre des
bae~ne souvant eire capturees" (citation du preambule de Ia conwnbon) . La
Commission lntemationale de reglementadon de Ia chasaeIa baleine (IWC ou CBI)
dans laquelle tous les Etats paatIa conwntion sont representes. s'est donnee
plus1eursoyens pour atteindre eel objectif, doni le plHSIcle moratoire
temporalre sur Ia chasaeIa baleine.
Lors des sessions de Ia CBIdeh~ga tuissn doit s'en Ienir au mandai qu'elle a
recu du Consell federal, lequel respecte le sens et l'esprit de Ia c:onwntion. IIest
legibme que Ia Suisse soutienne dans ce contexte les efforts "sant Ia reconstibJtion des
peuplements baleimers. Par contre, la delegabon n'est pas haaencourager les
efforts llisant une protection absolue des balemes: ce ne serail pas a~opIacble
teneur de con~oen.tion
Reponses aux questions paruculleres:
1.La cooperabonde Ia delegabon su1ssa Ia CBI respecta Ia lettre etl 'espritde Ia
conwntion. Cetteemlere llise Ia protecbon et l'accroissement des grandes especes de
cetaces pour permetlre une chasse durable de certains peuplennents dans le futur et
330 Annex 196
12102/ 10 01.3154u-SU>sseet Ia o&<;he• - C...Vasu-Ob.oeu oorlem···
permettre ainsa11ndustnebaleiniere de se dewlopper de maniere reglementee. Les
pa~ vsst!spartiasIa conwntion ne rewndiquent pas •une chassaIa baleine libre de
toute entraw· . Sognatairesde Ia conwntion , ils son! tenus de s'engager en fawur de Ia
conservationdes peuplements balemiers et. au coo Ia chasserede~endrait
possib la l'awmr , d'assurer Ia durabilite de Ia chasse .Dans le cadre de cette
conwnbon.leur interlatIa chassea Ia baleine est legitime.
2.Un mC>ratoiretempora1resur Ia chasse commerciatata baleine est en \1gueur
depuis 1986.L'opportunotede ce moratoire est reguherement recons1deree par Ia CBI.
La lewe du morat01reest lieaun certaonnombre de condibons definies: effectifs
suffisants ,stion modeme et rigoureuse des peuplemenls baleinie("RMS"),
mesures de contrOie.La lewe du moratoire n'est pas en discuss1on acruellemestll
a remarc·uerqu'une grande partie des activstesde chasta baleine echappent au
contrOiede Ia CBIet dona11nfluence llmitatiw du moratoire.
3. Dans Ia lormulauon du mandat de Ia delegation suaIa CBI, le Conseil federal
s'en bent Ia teneur de Ia conwntion. Celie demiere definit les taches de Ia CBI comme
suit fixer des reglements sur Ia chasIa baleine (especes protegees et non
protegees ,aisons de chasse et de protection. eaux ouwrtes et fermees , tailles
minimales pour chaque espece, engins de capture,nombre mal<imum de pnses, entre
autres), Emcourageretorganiserdesetudesetdes enquetes surles balemes, fraiteret
diffuser h!s resulaace sujeL
La positione Ia delegation suisaeIa CBI dolt etre en aocord awe les principes de Ia
polibque del'en~ronne muenItSuisse defend sur son temtoJTeet dans d'autres
Instances lntemationaes. Celie politique dootrespecter d'une maniere generate le
principe de l'el<ploitabondurable des ressources naturelles .
4. La del{!gation suisse rappachaque reunion de Ia CBII'eldgence salon laquelle
les methodes de misea mon des baleines doivantetre aussi rapides et aussi
indolores que possib le, quels que scient les acti\<it.esde chasse . Cependant. meme si
les appareils acruellemeadisposition sont correctemen1utilises , cette rewndication
ne peut etre que parbellement satisfa1tedans les conditions de IaaIa baleine.
La Sulsos~soutient toutes les mesuresanta amellorer les methodes de chasse. Elle
a,par example,JOUeun rOledeterminant pour que Ia methode de miaemon awe ce
qu~ est conwnu d'appeler Ia lance elee1rique, methode ublisee par le Japon. soil
abandonnee; elle s'engage aussi pour que des ameliorations s01entobtenues dans te
cadrede lla chassa des fins de subsistance (chasse frad1tionnelledes peuples
indigim poe~reur subs lstance).
5.La SUis.se a souwnt pris 11nibatiwou soutenu des lnterwnbons pour une re\<isionde
Ia conwntion. Ma1s,jusqu'a present. ces interwntions n'ont encore jamais bi!ntificie du
soutiend•~ autres Etats parties. La Suisse mainbendra son engagement dans le futur
pour que Ia CBI poursu lw une polibque \<isant un haul niveau de protection de toutes les
especes de cetaces et de leurs biotopes.
Documents
Bullebn ofliael -les proces-wrbaux
Chronolo!;1ieIoces-wrbaux
Date Conseil
22.03.2002 CN La discussion est reponee.
19.12.2003 CN En suspens depuis plus de deuxans ; classement
l/4
331Annex 196
12J'02110 013754 -u S..U...Iap6Cho i Ia bal001e- Cuna Vosu - ot,jets oorlem···
Consell priorltaire
Conseil national
Coslgnata ires (18)
Baumann Ruedi BOhlmann ceote Chappuos l•liane Cuche Femand
Oon:z2Walter Donnond Beguelln Marfyse Genner Ruth Graf Ma.,a GUnterPaul
Hollenste•n Pia Jui2BtErwln Menel!'ey.Saii3J)'Mne-Cathenne Pednna Fabio
Rennwald Jean-Claude R<klinKathy Sluder Heiner Waber Chnsoan
W<ederltehrRoland
Descrlpteurs (en aUemand): .e.de
Mooressaugeller Foschfang blolog:schVte~al Jtagdvorsch r~rschutz
Indexation complementa lre:
52
Competence
OOparterrent de reconome
(£FE}
Voos l!teici: Parlenensuisse > Recherche > Geschaefte
0 Le Parlerrenl SUI~·e 3003 Berne~sum, Dsclai!Tef
332 Annex 197
197. The Committee for Whaling Statistics (ed), International Whaling Statistics IV
(1933) pp. 36-37
DET NORSKE HVALBADS STATISTISKE PUBLIKASJONER
INTERNATIONAL
WHALING STATISTICS
IV
EDITEDBY
THE COMMITTEE FOR WHALING STATISTICS
APPOINTED BY THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT
OSLO 1933
333Annex 197
36
given the oil production per calculated blue-whale (see Tab le No. 6 in
editions I and II , and Table No. 10 in editions III and IV). The
following statement is an extract from these ta bles.
Table k.- Average production of oH per blue,-whale unit. 1)·
Other
Yenrs. Georgia. gt'Ollmls in Afrlcn. Wulvis l3ny. At·ctic.
1 1 Antnrcti c. f
Bnrrels.:) n m·rels. nnr rels. Barrels . B:ltrels.
1924-25 87.5 85.0 - - -
1925-26 84.0 84.8 - - -
1926-27 96.4 91.1 - - -
1927-28 106.4 92.8 - - -
1928-29 108.2 98.3 - - -
1929-30 ll 0.7 109.6 59.0 61.8 74.0
1930-31 100.07 105.6 76.3 - 74.0
l 93l - 32 92.9 102.6 81.2 - 74.0
1) Oth er whnlcs tn 1reduced to blne·wllllltl equlvnlcnts on the Iollowiug; IJn1 bluc-whnl~
2 fln-whnlas = 2 h humpb acks= sc\-whnles. ') l3nn c/Gton. (l ton = 1,010 kg.)
It will be seen from the ta ble th at from 1925-1926 onward there is
a di stinctly increasin g tenden cy in oil product ion for tho vario us grounds
-a tendency which is most pr·onounced in southern seas. This trend of
development is closely bottnd up with th e greater degree of perfection
attained in whaling equipment and the more up-to-date method s em
ployed in th e utilisation of the whale.
As it may be of interest to hav e a list of the prices of whale oil
for a number of years , we are appending a table of prices from 1885.
Table I.- Whale oil prlces in the year s 1885- 1931.
'Whale oil No. ].. -Pri ce per ton.
£ sh.
1885. 2:1. -
1886. 18. --
1887 . 20. -
1888. 22.-
1889 . 22.-
1890. 21. -
1891 . 17. -
1892 . 20. --
1893 . 17. -
1894 . 16. 10
1895. 16. 10
1896 . 16. 15
1897. 16. 15
1898 . 1G. 5
1899 . l6. 10
334 Annex 197
37
- -- -
'iVhale oil prices (continu ed).
Years. Highest. Lowest.
.(;
Ban·els £ sh. "" sh.
JHOO. included 22. 15 21. 5
1901 . }}
1902. }) 21. 10 19.-
}) 22. - 19. 10
1903 . 20. 10 ]7. 10
1904. >) 16. - 14.-
1905. }) 15. 10 13. lO
1906. 23. 10 15. 10
1907 . }) 24. - 21.-
1908. )) 23. 10 17. -
1009. >} 20. - 18. -
1910 . l) 24. - 19. 10
1911 . )} 23. 10 18. -
1912. )) 23:- 17. -
1913. )) 23. 5 21. -
1914. )) 24.- 19. 10
1915. Naked 25. - 21. -
191(). )) 32.- 28. 10
1917 . >) 59. 10 -18.-
1918. » GO.10 53. -
191'9. l) 77. -- 58. 10
1920. » 90.- 82.-
1921 . )) 47.- 27.-
1922. l) 33. 10 31. -
Hl23. >) 34.- 32. 10
1924. l) 40.- 33.-
1925. l) 37. -- 34.-
1926. l) 34. - 30.-
1927. ·I l) 30. - 26. 10
1928. 31. 10 28.-
1929. 29. 10 25.-
1930. 26.- 17.-
1931 . 15. ~ 10.~
--~-- - ·-·--- ·------ ---- - -
In Int ernational Whaling Statistics the whalh1g equipment is indicated
only through statements of the number of shore stations, numb er of
floating factories, and the number of catchers. For the Norwegian
whaling industry there exist returns covering a number of years of the
composition and size of the whaling fleet, given in gross tons. For the
whaling fleets of other countries we have not succeeded in securing
C<?mplete returns, other than for one or two recent years, but we hope
to be able to procure them, and shall then revert to the matter in
a later issue of the statistics.
By mean s of the Norwegian returns we can get a more accurate
picture of the development of whaling equipment when we calculate the
average tonnage per catcher and per floating factory . Y\Tehave done
this for the yea,rs 1916, 1919, 1921 and onward (see table m on next page).
335336 Annex 198
198. The Committee for Whaling Statistics (ed), International Whaling Statistics XVI
(1942) p. 27
DET NORSKE HVALRADS STATITISK E PUBLII<:AERON
IN T ERNATIONAL
WHALING STATISTICS
XVI
ED IT BY
THE COMMITTEE FOR WHALIN G STATISTICS
O SL O 1942
337Annex 198
27
Tabfe _:k.-W hallng resu lts for th e va rious coun tri es 1909/ 10- 1938/39.
Oil product ion. Perce nt age figures .
~
t: ~ -, _ "' ,. c e-. c!: ;; ..,.,
Ye~n1 -::s ~> ;<! -::s :a "' ... -£ ,. ·;;. .. "::: 3 ·a, ~3
.... ~ !1:1 6~ ~' ~ ~ "., ~ ;.<; ~ !:1 i! rl) ;Sr7)
·-- ___::_L ' - ""
1909-10 100.0 8.3 - 22.6 4.6 0.6 - - ? - 63.9 - O.G ?
11)10-.ll 100.0 11.1 0.8 20.5 1.9 - - - ? - 64..0 - 0.8 - - - ?
1011-1 2 100.0 7.0 0.6 18.0 2.1 0.2 - - ? - 71.0 - 1.1 - - ?
1912- 13 100.0 3.1 0.6 16.7 1.7 - - - ? - 77.0 - 1)0.9 - - ?
1914- l!i 100.0 5.7 0.7 16.6 2.3 - 0.5 - ? - 69.2 - - - - 8.0
)!)15-16 100.0 6.7 - 29.0 0.8 0.4 - - ? - ae.s -·· 0.4 - - 6.4
1016-17 100.0 8.0 - 32.9 1.9 - - -- ? - 57.2 -- 0.5 - - 7?8
19l7-1R 100.0 8.5 - 33.9 1.8 - - - 'I - 39.0 - .,. - - 16.8
1018-19 100.0 5.9 - 25.5 1.6 - - - ? - 45.4 ·- - - - 21.7
1919-20 100.0 5.0 - 33.8 l.l - - - ? - 51.7 - - - - 8.4
1020- 21 100.0 6.7 - 30.0 2.1 1.0 - - ? - 69.1 - - - - 1.1
1922- 23 100.0 6.6 - 30.7 1.6 O.G - - ? - 5).!) - - - - 8.9
1923-24 100.0l 4.9 - 36.0 1.4 0.5 - - ? - 53.8 - - - - - 4.2
1924-26 100.0 4.7 - 33.4 0.9 0.3 - - ? - 57.4 - - 1.8 2.7
1925-26 100.0 4.7 - 33.0 1.3 0.3 - - ? - 57.5 - -- - 0.9 2.3
1026-27 100.0 5.0 - 32.6 1.3 0.4 - - ? - 57.9 - - - - 2.8
1!)27- 28 100.Q 5.1 - 30.3 1.1 0.6 - - ? - 60.5 - - - - 2.4
1928-29 100.0 5.1 - 27.2 1.0 0.2 - - 0.4 - 64.2 - - - - 1.9
1030-3 1 100.0 2.4 - 30.7 0.4 0.3 - - 7 - 64.1 - - - - 1.1
1931-82 100.0 IS.3 - 87.0 0.9 2.3 - - 2.2 - 62.6 - - - - 1.3
1!)32-33 100.0 2.1 - 45.3 0.3 0.1 - -- 0.8 - 50.6 -· - 0.3 - 0.6
1933-3 4 100.0 2.5 - 46. 1 0.5 0.1 - - 0.9 -48.4 - - 0.5 -- 1.0
1934-35 100.0 2.0 - 47.9 0.6 0.1 - - 1.6 0.1 46.1 - - 0.7 - 0.9
1!135-36 100.0 2.6 -43 .2 0.3 0.1 - 0.1 2.6 - 40.5 7.2 - 0.6 - 2.8
1936-37 100.0 1.5 - 40.0 0.2 2.5 1.9 0.1 5.9 - 37.1 5.6 - 0.5 - 4.7
137-38 100.011 1.4 - 35.- 0.2 0.2 10.2 0.1 11.6 - 32.1 3.2 0.2 0.3 - 4.G
1038-39 -J - -· - - - - - - - - - - - -
) l'OrtiiS$ nncl German prod nd ion.
1 blue-whale ,_ 2 fin-whales = 2¥2 humpba cks = 6 sei-wiJales. Table l. below
gives the average yield per blue-wha le unit on the \ru.rious groun ds for the years
1929/30- 1938/39.
L1 p.t·evious pub lications of Iu tem ational ~a l ing Statist.ics the trend of
these figures has been poinrod out. It is here necessary only to refer to the
differenue in the yield per blue -whale unit in the Antarctic as compared to the
other fields. On the whole itmay be said that this di!ferenco is due to the grea.t.er
sizeof the whale in the Antarctic tha n in northem waters and the Pacific, but
a.lso to the oil in the Antarctic being oxt.ractod from the tneat as well,
whereas in other waters 'the meat is used part ly for human consumption, par tly
preserved for anima l food. Fina lly it may be mentioned that the difference is
due to the fact that in some waters, for instance off the coa.sts of Chile, Peru
and ltfexico, the whale is very emaciated. It keeps to these waters during preg
n~ncy and is then leaner than when in the Antarctic.
The high percentage of oil obtained near certain parts of the coo.st of Africa.
is largely owing to the wha.les killed in those waters being chiefly humpb n.cks.
338 Annex 199
199. Allen K R, Conservation and Management of Whales (University of Washington
Press 1980) pp. 96-100
T
D
00
A Washington Sea Grant PublicatioButterworths
Distributedniversity of Washington Press
Seattle
339Annex 199
lJO
levels, or by one which maintained separate but comparable
populations at different levels. The present procedure is not very
satisfactory in this respect, since its objectivisto bring all populations
as rapidly as practicable to obout, or rather above, the MSY level, and
to hold them there. Populations which are newly exploited, or above
MSY level, will be progressively reduced to this level, and there will
thus be some opportunity to study changes in them. Populations below
the MSY level will be fully protected, so that although they will move
up to this level there wUIbe very limited opportunities of obtaining
data on them during this period. In particular, acquisition of data on
pregnancy rates and on oge distributions is dependent upon the
availability of dead animals, and little of this information can be
obtained in the absence of exploitation.
An example of the difficulty of obtaining useful dota from a
population which is being held stable is provided by the Icelandic fin
whale stock. This has been held more or less stable for about thirty
years, and as a result we have quite a good measure of its current
replacement yield, but we know nothing about how its characteristics
have changed with its size. Consequently, it Is impossible to make any
reliable statement about tho relation of the current level of this stock to
the MSY level.
ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The preceding section has discussed a number of the problems
which arise in the application of the present management policy of the
IWC.1tmay be Interesting to consider some possible alternatives.
Ten-year Moratorium
The proposal that there should be a ten-year moratorium on all
commercial whaling has attracted wide-spread interest, and it received
almost unanimous support at the 1971 Conference on the Human
IWC,and althoughtockitlhas not been accepted, the existence of thist tl1e
procedure.ontribut ed substantially to the adoption of the present
If this proposal were adopted internationally, and became fuUy
operational everywhere, it would protect all stocks of whales. As faras
the la:rgenumber of species and stocks which are a.lready protected by
the IWCare concerned, this would have virtually no effecl. It would, if
fully enforced, extend protection by closing down whaling operations
by nations outside the IWC. The available evidence suggests that very
few,if any, protected animals are now being taken in these operations,
but tho possibility exists that some of them, particularly the pelagic
whaling by small combined catcher-factory ships, could at some time
make serious Inroads into one or more localized stocks of badly
depleted species.
A moratorium would extend protection to the species and stocks
currently classified by the IWC as sustained management or initial
340 Annex 199
,
management. Opinion as to whether this is desirable dopends, of
course. on whether it is believed that the population levels aimed at by
the JWC are high enough, and whether its procedures are offectlvely
maintelnlng them. The re can be no queslion !hat extension of
protectin in this way would insure against any errors of assessment
under the !WC procedure resulting in stocks being exploiled which
should be in a protected category. On thu other hand, it is very
questiona ble whether stocks to which thls risk applies-I.e,those in the
upper levels of the Protection Stock category-would be significantly
endangered by contin ued catching for a timeat levels Ukely under !WC
procedures.
Another importan t aspect of the problem concerns the manner in
which a general ton-year moratorium could be arranged. The only
existing international treaty under which this could bo done isthat
governing the IWC. U the Commi"ion did adopt a ten-yoar moratorium
this would not bebinding on nonmember nations, and the possibility
would remain that these nations would continue whalins- There Is also
the possibilitythat present member nations might leave the
Commission in order to be frco to continuo, or tha t other nations not
now engaged in whaling might decide to enter a field which no longer
appeared so competitive. Tho sequel to the Stockholm Conference has
also shown that a simple international agreement that whaling should
cease has little practica l effect, even when widely supported by
governmen ts.
A general cessation of whaling would have an immed iate effect
upon the acquisition of further knowledg e of whales, and, in particu lar,
of knowledge concerning the manner in which the stocks were
changing under universal protection. A la~g pert of tho data used at
present, both in tho estimation of vital parameters . anIn !he
determination of stock: abundance indices, oro derived from whaling
operations . Under omoratorium, theflow of such data would come to
an end. Fortunately there has been a substantial increase recently in the
resowces devoted to whal e research of other kinds, partkularly to
much needed work on live animals. However much work of this ldnd
expands, it seems unlikely tha t it will be adequate to replace the
particular kinds of data obtainable from whaling operations , and at the
end of a ten-year moratorium littlefinn information can be expected to
be available as to tho effect on most stocks. Without this information ,
there willagain boa wide diversity of opinion as to whether , and
under what conditions, whaling should be resumed.
Experimen tal Manage ment
During the Bergen Consultation on Marine Mammals it was
suggested that, as on oltemative to the presen t procedure, a system of
experimen tal management should bo developed. This would require
separate but comporoble stocks to be monoged in different ways, so that
the effects on their biological chorocteristlcs could be observed. For
example, some stocks might be protected, others held at a constant
level, and still others reduced significantly. Such a scheme might
341Annex 199
96
provide much more datailhon some density-dependent effects. It might
also have the advantage, for the industry, of allowing concentration of
effort withincertain particular areas, and reduce tho distances the fleets
had to travelto obtain their catches.
Adoption of such a scheme would imply acceptance of the concept
that some stocks could be reduced significantly below !he optimum
level. This might lead to political difficulties, however attractive the
scheme might be in other respects. It is therefore important to examne
how much stocks would need to be reduced in order to produce
changes which could be detected. In planning such an experiment it
would be necessary to know the expected answers to the following
questions:
• How long would it take to detect any change under the proposed
procedure?
• How long would it take to measure the ra~eof population change
with any desired degree of accuracy?
• What would be the population level at tho end of the experiment?
The answers to these·questions would depend mainly upon the
variability of the Indices of abundance. A survey of the variability in a
number of sets of siglhtingsnd CPUEdata (Allen and Kirkwood,
1976a) suggests that under preseut conditions the coefficients of
variation (.D./mean) are likely to be, at best, cbout 0.2 for CPUEand
0.1 for coastal sightlngs.
Table 6.2 provides estimates of the answers to the above questions
for a stock declining at an annual rate of either 5%or 10% of its initial
stock size,and for wlhich the indices of abundance have a coefficient of
variation of 0.2. Section A shows the time which would be required to
have either 0.8 or 0.95 probability of detecting, with 95% confidence,
that achange in abundance had occurred, and the level, relative to the
initial, which the popula tion would have falln to by that time. Section
B shows the time required, and final population level, for the rate of
decline to be estlmated, with 95% confidence, as being within ± 10%
and ± 50% of the true value. The annual rate of change of 0.05 was
chosen as representin g the maximum likely to occur in an increasing
population, whl!e 0.110is alikely maximum for lldecrellsing
population.
It will be noted that the more quickly the population changes the
sooner is thoexistence of a change detected. but the lower the
population level which will have been reached before this occurs.
Estimation of the rate at which the population is decreasing obviously
requires a longer period, the time depending upon the limits of error.
To achieve estima tes with limits of error of even ± 50% requires a
period of tho order of ten years, and a halving of the population.
Estimates with an accuracy of ±10% require much longer times and a
reduction of the population to levels so lowas to be clearly
unacceptable.
342 Annex 199
99
Table6.2 A. T"unerequind to hAvo0.8 and 0~robab oEdotottys chaoges in populo·
lion abundaneo ancll.vels .....:ihGond altha period.
B.Time required to oblaln est!matH of roJeof within~~and ~5~
accuracy. •nd the 6noI popul• llon level.
Re$ull$!rom 1\llcn and Klrkwoad (1976&).
Rateof Probability Time Final
Change of detection (yeara) Population 'lfo
0.05 0.8 13 54
~~ ~M 15 49
8 48
0 .10 0.95 10 39
l.lmU• of
error
B. 0.05 •o .t 42 12
0.05 :o.s 13 54
0.10 :!.0.1 26 7
0.10 10 .5 9 4·3
Adoption of such an experimental management policy would only
beworthwhile if thoro could be a firmcommitment that the experiment
would be continued for the necessary period, even though it involved
reducing the population to an unpalatably low level. It would have to
be accepted that tho oxpcriment would only be discontinued if
unexpected rasults started to appear. Acceptance of such a program
would callfor a very clear realization that ilwas going to reduce soma
populations to levels vory signi ficantly below those aimed at under tho
present IWC policy.
An Alternative Strategy
All the three policies discussed, the present IWC policy, a ten-year
moratorium, and experiment al management, have advantages and
disadvantages. Itis interesting however toconsider again the essential
features of an acceptable whale management slnltegy, and to examine
some procedures which might help to meet these requirements. Some
of these essential features are:
A. Catch levels (including :rerocatch) should be based on the
scientific data, using a clearly defined procedure so as to
minimjze politicel bargaining.
B. Populations should proceed towards, and stabilize at levels
whlch are above the M SY level by number.
C. Changes in catch levels from year to year should be as gradual as
possible, so as to provide conllnulty; major jumps should be
avoided.
0. Population levels should change while under exploitation so as
to provide data which can be used to improve mauagement
procedures.
E. Different degrees of uncertainty In the population estimates
should be recognized in fixing corresponding catch limits.
343Annex 199
100
F. The way in which the scientific data are used in determining
catch limitsshould be realistic in relation to their accuracy.
A strategy which would meet most of these essential features
could perhaps bedeveloped somewhat on the following lines:
A. The basic princl:ple should be that all stocks were permitted to
increase, unless it was demonstrated that this would lead to a
reduction in the available yield.
B. Catch levels should be calculated as proportions (less than 1.0}
of the current replacement yield.
C. The proportion of the replacement yield to be taken should
depend on the population level relative to the original level. The
lower tho relative size, the smaller the proportion of the
replacement yield which could be talcen.
D. The proportion of the replacement yield to betalcenshould also
contain a factor based on the reliability of the estimate of
replacement yield. The poorer the estimate. the lower the
proportion to be taken.
E. Stocks below an appropriate proportion of the original level
should be classified as protection stoclcs,nd no catches should
be taken from them.
F. Unless significant new information or concepts were available, or
there was evidence of an unexpected decline, stocks would bo
reviewed in depth only at intervals of several years.
344 Annex 200
200. Gulland J, “The end of whaling?” (1988) 120 New Scientist 42, pp. 42-45
• Nfw~I H Oo:lotlll<
~ ------ -- -- --- -- -~~~~~------ -- ---------- -- ----
!. The end of whaling?
The bnn on comm erci al whalinwas a temporary measure to allow mort time to asstss
the hnpnct on wholes. The questionstilto beres ol•ed Is ho'V to mana~t,• ba la nce ween
the Interesto:f thwhaling Industryand thr cons erv•on~>ts
John Gu,lland
N 1982 the Internat ional Whaling Commi&sionvoted for
I a moralorlum on all commercial whaJing. Many people
welcomed this. nnale nd to whallng,lS """'"'victory
forcons.rvation. I1wu neithpruens o~the IWC, and
as thetum implies, the moraloriumwas to be 1 temporary
to aivc scientists time to remove doublfi&uouor~stended
sustai11ayields,numberorwhalesandsoon. Inanycase,
stvcn1 countries have manaacd to continue whabynt
exploilin&the small prIhe JWC'snJies. Jr conservation
means cns:urincthat ettches are ktpl within reasonable
boun~ snd that depleted whale stoelu are aUowed to
recover, the main Yictotiu hadbeenwon tartic:r.1fcon.ser·
valionmeansa.sensibbalan b~tweenChecunent use 1r
r<!<>urc,eond eonservlnalt forpossible use in the ruturt, the
mounonum wu h11rdlya major viclory. Some, myself
included. considerh a setback.
To <rndem.tnd this it is necessaryto loc:>kat thethansea in
whale cotches and stock sites and at the woy the lWC oper·
ales. The hislory or An1arcl c wi~well known (1ee
Figure 1). AI first, whalers caught matnl'y blue whales (the
large51species), switchinl in tum to the smaller fin, sel and
minke whales •• the)'depleted the larger species.Cftllury. Cdptcotdtd thenumofbarulofoilflICI/tomlt
tamontt.many countriesth:anthe lar&actoryships ona free-for-all «aclr-whalt
the open seas, are steadiera steady catch does not
imply a Jleady population. dtetUltl.A crude figure of "catch per day worked" "'ill,
Unfortunately, 11b difficult to know wl111is hlthe..,fore, decline less quicklstoeIIelf;used with
the numbers In many whale stocks. Theveycwhales elu tion, howev<r,provld a~sseful Indication or the
come close to the coast or California on their mth ansulnthe siz.eIn an exploited stock.
betwe,.n reedln4 arounds In the Bering Sea and bruSimple population models ean prediet the changes th>t
lagoons in Mexrco. An observaconvenient point cahappen when a steeIse~ploi thede.re boscd on lhe
counlthem as they swim by, With due al.lowancefocommon tcoloeical observation that, other things being
th•l pus In the nlthl, or In poor visibility, weequo.l, unexplolted populations lend to remain at a fairly
c!lim"e or the population. IIOCI<such as the rieconst.. l kvel. But If they ue reduced below this level, by
whalos orr South Arric1, can be counted from theexploitation ror eumple, the numbers will increase at a r31e
providedtheare•tobtcoveredb nottoolarge.Whalewatch- detenniued by the dHTcrc.encbetween the reproductiverate
on their tall nukes; withsmallpopulations whlch tlon ot the llock abundance) and the natura death rate.er
under close observation somethinallkeete census oAmon& whales. there Is evidence that u numbers foil the
vidual•) can be buill up,ie.sweecan r«oanlse lndiand breed more onllisaeuplsiblethat the natural deather,
These methods do not work well tor the latte Anrate falls, lhoudltextremely difficult to measure. l'h<
stocksspreadovertVU(spaee o(theSoutht:mOeetn. Eve.n t:videncthequantitatie-xlt:nt tts~thll n&tis,
if a scienti!l could identify an Individual Onor however,somewhat confilItdepends amona other things
from, uy,iiS DNA an encou~terorperhaps haifa dozeon lnterp"'tlnJ tones on the wax plugs that whales have In
whales uch day from a population of more than aaltheir tart. wh1challow one to detennlne the •8e or whales
million minke whalesmeans Itwould take a verylona1nd, len con<luslvely, the all• at which they matu1ed and
meet the same whale l"ic e. For these oceanic stost.arted to breed.
really no aood substitute ror the dala from commercIt whaler$ lake an amount equal to the difference bellvoen
Ina, or • survey operation on 11lmllar 102le(and ala simllar;:,,.ilurrilie.nofwhalesbotnand dylns,t hestockwillbe nntained
cost). For most wha lOodrecords exist of when and where:;: ai IIi turrentl e\<tl.When the population reaches\he limits its
they were eau&ht,and In moat cuwe:abo h•ve error·envfibhmencan earl)',or \luocks •re verysmell, lhis
statlslics-how many days the catcher boats spend sust1lnable yield willbelow, perhaps even approachins <ero.
The number or whalesseen per hour b closely propoII wilbeat IU hiJhesl at some intermed111estock site,
lo the numberr whales present, so one midl t expedependlna on how reproduction 1nd mortality changes with
ca1ch per day to be .Proportional to the local detheme, of tho population. The simP,IUI theory predicts
perh l~o10the sott or the llock as a whole. 1owthat thlt •mu lrnum suslllned yield' will be when the
cateher h not searchina ror whales1Uthe time; thepopulation stands at half the unexplolted level, but for
top~rs de1,nd handl1 whale once •een. As the sJwhales It II probablf rather hl&her.Because or the doubu
dechnes,the number ofwhalesmissedduringthis"lost"Ibout how..,produclron and mortalitychaIhe site or
345Annex 200
•J
whale1,whlc~ we can count rca.Jon:tblyaccunte ly, it issome
7 pereent peryu.r,which b 11the top end of the ncceptcd
ranaeorprobable valuesfoI netincruscIn population1his
mly atfinlhave been due to whalescomin&'" from soua
other aru, but it it difficulsuthow immis.r2tion could
explalawhy the Ioereasebascontinued :u " studyf3te.
For most stocks we have to rely on indirect "'ethoc:isto
estimate how numbers have chanr.edhessentially exlf3rQ·
latlos from a.sscssmenls mQde whilt e stneks Wf!b<m~
exploited. Beforetbe mid-1960sno such ass.c.u•nuiSIC't),
but Ia 1960 tht IWC rullsed that it nerdrd better qu•n
tltaUvoadvice. and set up a tom mlttcc of thrre scientists to
adviseIt Thothru,lccreued to four thfollo ywe. nhen
I joined, had to bo "qualified lajopuloti on dynomics >ud
drown from countri.. not ena•&• in pelagic wholingin the
Anl.llrctic", to quoto the eornmission. The report of the
Comrnlllco oflluee &•• •he IWC l«hniq uu for •mu iug
the stocks, and It hu lncreulna)y ba><dcotth limits on the
mulmuru susta.ined rtdcL
The tumln, poict rc whole eonservotionn probably be
dated to the ate 1960s, when the IWC brought thr c31rh
Umlts for the Aotarctie ba.leeo whales ioto linr:with tile:
recommeadat1ons of the Committee or Tbrccf·llmhs whi<:h
were bc:lowthe utlmates or cunc nl su.sta.tyield. Since
thea, the total numberor whales throu&hul lhc wotld h;u:
probably locna.scd. thoutlhitpattlcubttumin' point n•,r
bave come a tittle Iacwbco tbc coromiulon also brooghl
catch timitsforrperm whalulntotioe "ith scientificfindint-'·
Unfortunately, boc.useof tho problems of dlrtcl ob« r·
valloD, wecan only $Upposethat wbaJenumbe11area,oing''P·
Itis cot ao observed fact. Bull wouextremetr 11orprisrd
If tl:tetotal w<is)ltof wbti<S hod not beeo intrUJing for thr
P>-!110or U yun. Two poP<~l• thlboaesn,whoIrsofthe
Ant.a.rcticand 1he sperm whaJtt, dominate the totaL l1tr((
aoimaJs number weU overa million~ovet)'sn1:flttc. tnt:~r
increases hewouJd be enough tooutweigh nny dccre In~~(S
tb~.smallestock.s.
Some doubts1unound thedru amic~o sr~r.wrhm:~roe,m·
the popul11tion,i.luuclto estimate accurately how far tlat!OnJbeeeu.se of their soestruetutcEvr:niC thett:1-1e
t<Ptoducti•< rat< might be out>trippina the natural duthpleoty of fearales obout. •oy hrovy fisbina or l>r&<m>l<!,or
rate. Jfo,..e. vcr, lbc SciComroinec or the lWC did • sUe to main\aio 1 succcs.srulharc:rn,could invoh•e lou •"'
acne ~Jset outinthecommis.sion'.38th report, that for treproductive rate. Th is mhavt bc~o bappenic&'" wtuc
rninkc wh11.lcthe raor ni~I.I\iUn3Us-taincdyic.Jd wouldJtock1 foe.umplc in the North P'aeifie, i19705,thour..h
most li~cl by between I and 4 per cent of the tollll the eidence isnoconclusive And ;tnydfecth Ukcly to h;,,·e
population. d.isappta.rcdonce tbc catcbc.s were greatlt r.cd in the
(fc-:-.tchu u.eecd tsu~t:'li lent.ltee stocks will mld·l9701 :t.odthe younscr m:l!te3ehed an ftlat which
dtcrus-e. Many sc,ries or Sli\tisticsor the:c"'tch (3.lUthey could sucxtufuUy ke<p h>rems.
commercial QPCr.llionssho'thisdecrease clurty (sec Ficurc Dout>u, but or • dill'rr<nt type, abo surround the mink<
2). Thc•e ate fewer u:a.sonable estlmates of abund.ornce
uncxploittdstocks tten us wheth er depletedstock docs
increase in the absence of further uploitat1 on, and to g.ivca
dirttt estimate or the difference between rates of
reproduction 11ndn1tunJ morta1i1y.Some of the estimates
that arc avail:.blc show thai pro1tocbdcan iocrta.sIa
th~u pt~•\d aeometric p•ttem. For t!K S.:.uth Arricao rl&hl
Hu~IC'k
• Mink•
Fn .!l•l
Ft u- Jas•J.olttlhfAnrorcrJwltclrroJI'Mfltr ll'(crlllftU
J(p/fttrltt Ia,ontJ
346 Annex 200
,. ......, Otttlbet ,,..
whal< in the Southern Oc<an(se<Bo• I~ Not many were
takenintheAnlartlitbefore 1970, arul Or><ml&hte•pect that
they ),aveb<enb<nefitingfrom rtduccd competlliooi the
depletion or thelart w~bau, especially the blue whale,
which like the minke feedspttdomloanon krilwell south
towards the ke cdc<, michl have released more food for tbe
minku . There was11suucstlon that mioktJ were maturin&
Ullitr,but thisis probably aaanef.aetor the doll. The
ineruse of mink ts (end Indeed allolht rdated belief that bill
hu inctused slnee the 1930s) r<maios 1 hypothesis . In any
ca.sceven If the minke whalt1 bave not beaefited from the
decline or the other speclu, the catches siaee 1910 tan have
had only o min or effect on 1 populatioa now eatlm1ted to
number well ovl!' half 1 miUioo.
If weett PI th•t ibe threat to theciof wbale stocks
has been removed. thea numbers arealmost certainly
incttnin a. The tunaioina ca1t(v.ith rew minor uce:p
lions, intludio J perhaps bowheads Ia the North Padfic aod
mink< whales off nonh crn Norway) bav. beta talCr.om
$locksthai eao easily sustain them. So why does wballns
continue 10 anract so much atteatioa7Why bu the
membership of the JWC doubled siooe the arealdays of
AntarctiWhal ni~? hy hu the cumber of people comlliJ to
the •nnual meehng> iocruscd fourfold (to weUover 200 lo
rea:nl yean), lneludiDJ obsuv era fromSOODODIOvtrD•
menlo! oras oisaticn s7 Why should she atteDdaace at theJ-'I""IJII n ltbrott Yf(.f"'rArh011011sperm ¥holmt
P<Wtd,. /91/
Scic:ntiCQmmh1n have.fnc1t:tudtiom ''tn 1961 (whttl
the · e•udastudi.. or the Antarcticnotb were beiDa struc1ure or the IWC, how It bu evolved over the years, and
reviewed, •nd when the declsioosaiTect ed both tbe lona·tum
existenceof the stocks and IDDUalcatcbes ofaevctal thousandpcdal positloa that wholes hold In the environmen tal
fin wholes) 80 or more two decades laterJwbea the ltlllinOVemenL
m&Mgement poiou 11 luue were appare a y a haodflll of The JWCwu iaitially a wbalen' club. By the 1930s, most
mink< whales)? wbalen recoaaiied that the Aatu ctic stocks were runninc
To 1n s~t tbesc questionlwe oeed to uoderataad tho Iato trouble, aad that aewasaneededltthe ladustry were
1: How many mlnkes are there In the AntBictic?
INK.Ewhales are lhc smallestor uth, dlmcuJtyoroedaawbalcs,mo..... eouTillines~mllm est«be Il>p•nm
M beteen wh<J-<>otyI a>ttm lonolshipo ao10011Thomoot.-olJIUVtl" oot lo 1970 of l3 000 In Asea IV. (The
eompN'td"i1b up :21ruehtl forlbcblu11tcarci\&Uydt:I!J,DcdU oraa latc:r• f AD\ln:t1cb dividsl•atc:u. roup.!I))'
wbaleBCQu'-tofthd uh e.• nd poor)1dnuiou.l procramme c:oordli:Ubydt.b1 com:spoadjo J what *t.bdie\Tdto be
oil, lht whalel~f IJ.110redroiakIWC. llDCIthe """'IOCYof l~~~~ .~~ uohstocb olbluc•baltt.)Thls n •ulnpo
durina 1he tuolor>n1od of Aawetle sbould b.. tlml""veScko~ ba\.also •latc4 to pvc a ttx~o ~~ouof70000.
wh.alif1t-Vto1970. they h•d takeo omackts t.lm•tafromtdatklaac.apt:rb:oDuria* lht (oUowi"l dtu\beScic:ntilic
some 1000. Mtr\hat"ii.the c.oUapor Th• po'fibk dTccor the.deP.ttior'lCoauu.Jnee pvc• number of r.ttimattJ.
\he1toclu ootl1er sptdcs and whh 'Wtule othtr spthtDU~bc 9fmlaka hAS nsostly around th150(100 o1nk At •
mc.ube<lorn1JnI1lOicimporunt,tbelr: compUc.attdthe task o( calcuJ-atinaspechlmee.UnODrnjnh wh11leislll 91ll,
didnollctoflsolip.h\ly. euncDtorlhtmWmum sunalnabJc)ield.ll thetslimt1c was2S60uclurlin I, Ar~
Sincclhcnollt1dwbaletlnl.betoulbeb J)O'Uitlbatbeaumben b1vt IDCttUCd oratouad 300QOOioall.Attbc:3t11hmcetn.lt
bemht>huc becallle proi<CIIxlsrxd<Sv.ithrcdueedcompe~doaforl l<r9ll2ho1theatitbcmatewos.s 1bnt>e~00000
1911,tbt anlokuha''tmaupalmostt.bc popula!J01b1d'ORu.DioU.a.tJootwasnemost reccottsdautc.s for c.acharr.awt•e
ea~reeatthala b..\tleScutheo lowt.rlhaoltistoclay.lttalahttV<Dbeprcseolcdottbe JWa>tc clau19!1. 1'01
<>«an apentse and Soviet tactocyshiwulwlhanthepo oplalYad~lhatw aorelr..,t ...,diiTcrenlfitiCt\iwn,
1001(mOS\Cfthtst,butJandatatJODJfaraivc the mu.h:nuQJ tvJtayiddUDder I Odthe:toLaJralJ '" • rW ranfrom
nonb 1!10tlltb mink.ta!be IO!hen> presenttooditiofdepleted tiluts od .4 000IO690000.
summer. wblllts. ThefituR' forIUJlalcab1eylc:tdhavenat
1\.U\Cd tel QUOtlfor thtDUmberoor"'pretat10D of \beJWC"It ma.nueme:.,tptrct.nb&eu.w1for thu SU{'pcdOwn,t
m1n\:.ctt1ouldbeeautht IntheopJU proc:c-dws.eser.equln uch stoclbetoThh doesnotrc:ncctnewd.ltApo1otinJ10the
Ia lhe t971/1l tcuon a(oallcatebes clwi.Oechcx:ordla.atotUabuDd&oc:ertbdvc wUtr valuesbcloatoolow,"u theb
lo the ooulht1o bemJSpbcrc!tom 19n.10 ibt lc•tl ol tbt tnaalmum sUJiain•blc path ollt1Sl restswa: WhileeIWC.
Unlike vinll,<llyeVCf)o'ther "'IW<l}1tl4Thisdwili ~coaodelermiDtS !helebeoasmoo~o aociualcdbu~oa nd
however,tM JWC act tbe mlaltc quotaalJOWbtlecatch.Advt01ftcna tbe Sde.ot.16e Jles. the wh.Jio.aC:OY..,('f"C
beforccaiCbin&cofllmto<edont illfJCscalt, Cororolne< bu usually beeo LaltttllS Of happy v.ilh reduced quow pro>'idcdlbOI
and followed the ptfotiplc or ttltisutloii>Ocield-caleulolod uproduct thty couldrtillsatisfy the !Uarkttand kcrp
prreautloaiJ')'llrnJts,cvu wbttt.l-o(ther:tllm11cdao(tloclta.nda w.rta.in· u .IJllbl u.poclhlon1(a truploymeat. To the
rna1es·ucvcryrouf,b. ablebli'Ytitrile,o(t tbetwtcalaad5 talent lb11thtrc ls new lnfottoatloo avaU·
Tilt pcpulaUon t11imaltt 1Wic4 Iaperecol oblcOD ibt polenUll crowthrate or wh>lt
1966/67 susoo, bucd molnlyoo s!JhllopIavltwor OOIUftlthat tbt historyopcpuloUoca(lor cu mple, hocn«Itol
b7 ttk.&Tcve.uels a.od IOOaoboau Wba.Jl»CSJm bat bwo • prol:rtsSivlncrtUC or l:i&.htoip or ridJt whAlesoff
attothc4 to !he fatlory •bipo.Slaoclowerina or atimato1lloek oiU llDCI SoutAfri tcb'""co t.otahsna t or
early lul"'tyl, tht mttbodolory at IUit.alootile)'iddu bett.ttdalabec:oJatO\'aJ•I ) por teal or ibt l U) ·b P1Cbabl7
survor od,olm•ld•e aUoxi~o~~lull ablelslteroslla a tascclsowlhttlll l&laatilcperct.ol pouiblt aod I per aot
.__•"_••odt_•_,._ko_oa_oo••_cii•;___ olllk._. h_a..__;..<l;a_t_l___ verym h~oetbet to lovacesrk0!e.
347Annex 200
••
lCsurvivrornlOICthan I short time. The prwa,etha.tlk.rillTt"!Qor the Antarctitwa.hardly surptisiug lh:\l
to be effective. nun;,&ement actionJ had todinatea the nthina (and whalinJ) countries wen sus/'icions :"lnd
and ruurt: or h:s'. unanimous among thOJoitinA the uncooper:UI'. he histoorthe JWCbad t;IUS'' thtm that
resoutee. unii.Rtel ecisionto boldbl)tk would Jive bene... someand.whatlna sdehtisu wereHktly to inte1ptet lli'YdRl3
fitl. but l:vgely to the:other countriC$.The one toIn a way that showed that catching should be:stO\.lped.Their
may well be worsef.The establishment oft he:tWC tn alowne$5to uPQse tht.ir fishinaopcr:stion.si.n the Ant:rrctic in
allowed c3teh limlu to be set which, it was 11oped,the same way has been 3n 1mPOrt:t.nl re.uon why 'he
overcume thi~ro lbem. C<:AMLR has been slow to Introduce mnnn~cmr"l
The lntern•llonol WhQlingCommissionremained larjtme:uuru. Futtun1tely, $ome or thtlc suspicions have bc<n
a whnlers'club until aro1972.Then, at the time of tovereome, dnta are coming in, and the CCAMLR is
United Nation> Conference on the Hum•n Environment becoming more cfftctive.
held in Sto<kholm, whalesbeetme one or the main symbThe wlt~l eountrle.1 felt unfairly !rented when the
orthe evironmm eoneme~n.aslatu> that the{ hovekemonotoriumwup aued ,and usedthe prtxedure>ofthe IWC
ever~nIeeAmong the.re:uous arethe sheer site o the wha1es to mitisate its imp2ct. F1rst they obJected to the recommtn·
themselves. and the appartnl simplicity or theweMuudatio1 ~hic thy are a.llowedto do trndt:r the tonvcnth,n,
cannot preserve the whales what canave? Whalesror aod wnich makt.s the ~commend•a 'ot indng on the
theses:< ~emins, make excellent rund raisers. probobjeetina country. When diplomatic prusure: made thrm
behind only i~t pant,las and baby st:;als.There maywithdro.w their objections. severB1 coUJ1trieshe~ctd
longere urgent re:uons ofconst.rvttion ror cpre.s.p~ovl thatalows them 10iuuc pennit(owh31cSto be
.sure to 1trcn,thcn the controls on whaling, but thkJIIerorseientific purposes. The tinev:tluormost
>ouncnnane r~osl> for sroups that depend on publsuch whalingIs minor. None of the studies thot hnveso for
subscriptionSto be >ten to be ICitVein "savio&the been SUUtstedj, ilkelyIOproduceI sdeot ificbrcaktltrou,)t,
Thr polorbotlon of the lWC obstocle to =<ln:htbat h lmpor i~ttoatne bioloaical
Environmentalistsaento play a major role In theic;ommunllyu a whole.
the arporent breakthrouah with the Commilteo of Thscientlne buts, thn some of the necessuy informolio"· for
aecor<.~e•with the sclentbts' findlnp (perhaps undbeobtalnedonlyby lillUnawhales.Othe13oruof reseorch,rort
standoblyin vieworthebigcutJ required).And forthomuorople laraesurven, areso expensivethat they•reli ktly to
(ond less well·studied)>locks,tile IWC tended lo tbedone oalyIn woclatl on withcommercialoperatlotu.l'fcw
highc.t or the ranee of quotas propbyethe scientiftechniques h.avelncrea>edtho ranse of iafonnntion thot we
countries onen ret back on the small print of the techniquesare suitable only forcoa.ll~otk>lnd notof these
convention, especiallytbe need fora threem~oritersfyr theluac stocksof theopen sea>.Furt re, the.setech·
topm a re<ommendallon.To overcome this, the environlquescannot teUu.st.verythina.In particulaWMIItoe
menlnlist>ent<lut11aednon-wbalins c;ountries some koow bowthedlll'erencebetweenreproductiveand u1o11ality
lillie obviousdirect tntere>tIn whales, to join thrates cbanaes with populatlon-tthisIsessential if we
The IWCbecame IMrea.slnaJypolwed into wbal«s andwant to estimatec~y the mulmum sustaiMble yi<l<t or
onti-wholers. Both >idesmade u.seof nap of convenla slmUar !llaaaaement tarset-ththe popuiMion has to
iiterolly In the cue of whalen. Pirate whalen, opechanae. For a apoeieotbot hu not been heave>lp~cdt
under the Oop or non·membcr countries. suwlled whaalready,thlmeons catchla&enough to brine obout such a
meal to Japan outside the rulesthe IWC. Though thechan&•·
number or whalu piroted was relativelYs.maU, these oIfJopan and other countries wbh to continue whn n~
atlo• seriou>IYundermined the credibilityof tho coac;ommerclalsa.le,lt mibebetter to faeellteinue dirccllr
>ion.Japan, ond others, Inter asreed not tO<Import rather tbon doak it in lhe concept of">cicntific whnlina".A
products from non·membcrs. Meanwhile, scientists fromopol.to Jakesay,5000minke whales a ycu, approjlri·
Europe and north Americaith strons anl1·whalins vieotelydistributed uotheAnlareticfor a periodor 10ycon
onen found il convenient to appear at the commissioand hsentlally for commercial purposu, would seent to be
in the deleantionsor sntolllslond stales in t~CaribC<)rtwor Jih t~~proclaimed aim of the moratorium. It
lndi•n Oce•n. would nottb~at tencontinued existence or • resource
ByUtentld·l9&0s, the anli-whcounl wrir~nsmer- numberln1 at leul half a million ooimals, •nd should
ous enou3h lo commond the requtredm~jor intmost tell mo~ about the dynamics or Ihe stock. IfJapan were
inu.s, lncludlnt the morntorium. This has never boto make sueh a proposItt<luld pruent the IWC with a
,dentinebaeklna because, even more th-an old measudifficux:or dec:ls.lons.
like the Blue Whale Unit, It makes no dlstioction beIt Is not easy to object on ec;olo&icaulounds, and >ucho
stocks; some would be clearly eodonscred by continproposal might well set the support of mo>lor tie >cientifc
wha1ins~ttny level, whwehave no accurete assessmencommittee.Jtwould not, however, reeeive tntce~:uy
for others of how moor t<luld be safely taken. FormtioriiYIn thocommissionbecouse>ome membercountries
sch as Antarctic mlnke whales, it is clear that whare a&tlst wbalina of any kind. They believe that killing
could take>ubstantlal quontitfor a p<riod without whale>b alwayswrona:reprdless ofhow many whnle>there
damnce to the >locks even thouJh we do not knl~e may·be, It ·should be prohibited. One can argue th•t thl>
m•xi~t >~>tmnedyieldoccurately. .;attitude lseeoloalcal nonsease.Eeolo&ickeepaoing
The moratorium was, therefore, hardly on importanby·one oolmal eatinfonoth<r, ond people might be consid·
victory foecon.su·vation.even in the context (l(whered juJt another. i often short.sig.hted, predator. On the
wider context it wrucloser to a setback. It f'Unheother band. one caar~u 1at we haveahigher res\•onsi
Japon •nd the USSR thot mony evironmentol &roupsweIJilily,and •hould not killany A. r. irsome k.iisnF
opposed to anuso~riti~ resources, howenr rational aJiowed, that whales are a .specbec:~Jsor the$-lte,
controlled. When,m thee:1980 t~esame countries(andor because killing thern Involves undt1ue1ty~1:\ny
severalof the snme people)sat round the table at tscientisu eon share thb 11.1v1iewpoint. Dut ifthis is the b:J.IS>
meelinssof theCommiuloo for the Conservation ofAntfor1bonon whall the~roumcntJoboul number>.thelevct
tic Llvlna Muineesources(CCAMlR) to di>cusfisand oraustalnoble yieldond the needsor sci<neeor<irrelevant. •
348 Annex 201
201. Butterworth D S, “Science and sentimentality” (1992) 357 Nature 532
COMMENTARY
Science and sentimentality
0. S. Butterworth
After years of research, the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission is about to put forward
a sound method for settin g catch limits for whaling. But will other considerations undermine the science?
THE convention governing the Interna Whaling countries, angered by a once data became available which, in
tional Whaling Commission (!WC) states moratoriu m decision which they cOnsi terms of· previously accepted
that its "regulatis with respect to the dered to be whhout scientific justifica approaches, would have indicated that
conservation and utilization of whale tin, responded by commencing 'scien the stock was definitely above this pro
tific whaling'. In terms of the rules of the
resources ... shall be based on scientific tection levelf 0.54K, some members of
findings". The commission's main reason conventio n, Icd and, Japan and Norway the scientific committee would obfuscate
for introducing a moratorium on com were entitled to issue permits to their or insist that stricter criteria had to be
mercial whaling 10 years ago was the nationals to catch some whales for the met before this conclusion could be
argued inadequacy of the scientific data purpose of scientific research.s far as drawn. The United States. for example,
base for harvesting whale populations the lethal components of these researc h was in a dif fiCult position during the
without exposing them to undue risks programmes are concerned, the empiric 1980s over the catches of bowheads de
(Natu re 357, 350; 4 June 1992). In re al evidence thus fzr of the!r value to sired by Alaskan eskimos under the
sponse, the IWC's s.cientific committee wards an improved basis for manage· !WC's aboriginal whaling scheme, as this
has been trying to develop a revised ment is poor. However, the sighting population was considered to be severely
management procedure (RMP) to pro survey component of th is research to depleted. In 1987, general acceptance in
vide adequate safeguards for stocks provide estimatesof abundance is agreed the scien tific committee of a lower
to be .:ssential. Potentially the strongest
against Ihe inevitable uncertajnties bound of l % for the MSY rate• re
associated with assessments of the sus defence for 'scientific whalin' is that moved scientific obstacles to the eski
tainable yieldwhlch a marine resource because surveys are enormously cxpen· mos' reque<t, thus freeing the United
can provide. The scientific committee sive. ilt is not unreasona ble to recoverStates from a possible encumbrance
looks set to present the !WC meeting in the costs through harvests that are suf when mounting an attack in the JWC on
Glasgow this m onth with a finished pro ficent!y low to pose no risk to the stock.the 'scientific whaling' programmes of
duct: an RMP for settl!lg catch limits forBut the countries conee rned have never the whaling countries. Yet subsequetllly,
whales, which has be~n more thoroughly argued this. perhaps because they pre some members of the committee would
researched than any comparable system ferred the combinatin of a legally stron aceept only 0% as a lower bound for
for fisheries. ger, but scientifically weaker, case. mlnke whale assessme nts. When even
Many member countries of the !WC The line of attack by countries this was insufficient to have the minkc
may find this outcome less than wd· opposed to whaling was to emphasize whales off Iceland declared 'protected',
scientific uncertainty. But as the scien
come. While the RMP was being de further fators were introduced into the
veloped, those countries eager to resume tific database for whale populations im debate to shift theoalposts still further.
operatio ns could easily be told to wait proved during the 1980s, particularly as Eventually, Iceland lost patience and
until scienific concerns had been prop sightig surveys started to provide reli decided to leave the commission.
erly addressed. Will a hidden agen da able estimates of population sizes, the The term 'protected status· has been
now surface - that opposition to re- uncertainty goalposts wereshifted to tT)' skilfully usedto give the public the
to contin ue to get stocks declared 'pro
sumed commercial whaling is not really a impression that a stock placed in this
conservation but rather an 'a11imla tected'. In terms ofan earlier manage· category wou ld be in danger of extinc
righs' issue, backed by powerful public ment approach adopted by the commis tionifany catches were taken from lt. lo
pressure groups opposed to any killing of sion in 1975, a stock would be accorded fact, the original selection of the 0.54K
certain 'special' animals, such as.whales?'protec ted status'? with no catches per value was related to catch-rnaxlmit ation
This is. a difficult viewpoint to argue mitted, if its size fell below 54% of the considerdlions, and had nothing to do
pre-exploitation level (K). However, with any likelihood of extiQction.
because it involves ethical values. and
whaling countries can object that others "
have no right to force their value judge~
ment on them. Thus , until now, the~
scjentific argument has provided a con- f5
venient front, because nobody would
object to the standpoint that safeguards
\\l'ere ncedc:d to ens.ure that harvesting
would not threaten whale populations
with extinction.
The real debate in the IWC has been
between some countries wishing to pre·
serve industries, employment and a food
source based on whales, and others
wanting these animals classed as sacro
sanct. The tern1sof the convention have
required that this debate be conducted in
a scientific guise,so that these hidden
agendas have had to be played out in the
scientifcommtttee.
532 · 18 JUNE1992
349Annex 201
COMMENTARY
The RMP has been construcred in a political concerns. Th e l WC scien tific are assessed to be below 0.1 K. Even
W".ly thar anemprs 10 rake specific committee also makes much greater use making allowance for possible inade
accoulll of these 'uncertainty ' concerns . than is the norm of 'invited participants" quacies in the spawni ng-biomass -per
Norm ally, catch limits in fisheries are - special istwho are not members of a recruit basis for these assessments, and
calculated using the 'best' mathematical nationa l delegation - - hut intends their also for indications that fosh stocks are
model of the resource. ln contrast, the role to be teehnical only. probably most producti,•e at smaller
RMP concen lrates on the risks to the The role of scientists is not to make tract ions ofK than nre whales, a gross
population that could emerge if this the fina l managem ent decisions- !hat is incons istency still remains. This is not to
'best' model is incorrect. A different a job for the politicians. Scientists' re suggest that the United !Gngdom and
model, also consiste nt wrth the available sponsibilitiesare to provide the polit i the United States are unconcerned about
data, may better represent the real situa
cians with predic tions of the likely re the status of the se resources , or_that they
tion. T he RMP thus seeks to set catch sults of alternative management opti ons, arc not attempting some remedial ac
limits ina 'robust" manner: whatever the so· that their decision s are made on an tion: but neverthele!!S,they (and others)
(unknown) rea l situation, the catches to iformed basis. These predictio ns need are clea rly not prepared to take the
be taken should neither waste the re to be made on as obje clive a scientific action they demand from countr ies with
source nor put it at risk. basis as possible: but how likely ure the inlercsts in whal ing. when their own
The Achilles heel of this app roach to scientfic committees of internationa l fisherie.'(and socio-economic interests)
prob lems such as the design of an RMP nre concerned.
is thai it is impossible to deve lop a ~ Part of the responsibility for this
pro ced ure that is robust to every im- ~ probl em lies with the fisheries scien
agincd possibility. A restricted list of < ce community, whose thinking on
plausible altern atives has to be agreed, :; harvesting strategies rema ins too
but such a process can easily be frus- "' r?otecl in the determi nistic concep ts
trated if bounds are not placed on spe of earlier decades. A key factor in
culation, which can sabotage attempts to selecting betwee n alternative
achieve the con~ens necesary in the strat egies is the risks to the resourc e
IWC's scientific commi!!ce. rhat each involves. But risk has to
It might seem that firmer leaders hip of take account of stochastic aspecrs,
the commi uee is all that is needed to and fisheries scientists ha,·e been
prevent speculation that is not con dilatory in adopting definitions and
strained by data, and to stop members norms rhat will provide a basis for
switching viewpoints without proper the consistent app roaches to fisher·
reasons . But the chairmen of the scien ies management that the ear !ier de
lific com miuecs of inte rnat ional fiShery rerminist ie benchmurks (such as the
organizations can be severely limited by Fru strategy) were intende d to
the political climate in which they have achieve. Thus, one should perhaps
10 opera le and attempt (frequently with be more forgiving if many member
out success) to achieve consensus. The nat ions of the !WC, having agreed a
scientists who serve on these committees risk-related objective for the RMP
are delegate s of the countries that ~re whjch requires no serio us increase
members of tbe organizalion concerned, in the risk of extinction of a stock
and are often employees of the ir govern through explo itation. labour under
ments. (Some governments even appoint Polar esklmos flenstnr:; narw~al. the misapp rehension that a 5%
people without scientific credentials to fishery organiza tions to achieve this, chance o! a small catch from a stock
given the manner in IVhich the)' are slight ly below0.54K constitutes a serious
such co01mittees, at times inst ead of
those who h!Jvc!) On occasions these constituted? ls there any real role for risk that the stock will be rendere d
scientists are under in.<tructions to argue science, or docs the !WC example serve exti nct. The genera l app lication of
only to show how vulnerable science is equally risk-averse criter ia to all manne
in support of a posit ion adopte dby their
gover nment for rea sons other than scien to reduction to irrelevancy, given hidden fisheries would necessitate immedi ate
ce alone (for example . e<Xnlomics, or agendas such as econo mic considerations closure of the overwhe lming majority .
·anima l rights' concerns), and also to or animal rights' T he time seems overd ue for scientists
ensure lhat 1heir argument..sa~ reth:cu:.t.J I believe that scientists, particularly to :.peak uul agdill ll\; ut:ur-farckal
in 1he scientific reco rd. Indeed , how those independent of governmenl agen pronouncements of some interna lional
realistic is it to expec t a country to cies, still have a very impor tant role to organizations regarding endangered spe
appoin t a scientist to such a committee . play in striving for consistency. The cies. The An tarc tiC minke whale is
if he may prese nt analyses with c:ond••· reason that adop tion of the RMP was agreed to number a precisely determi ned
sions inconsis rent with his own gov.,rn delayed at the !WC meeting in 1991 was 760,000 :!: 9%. which compares with a
mem·s stance? Fort unately, not all coun that some countr ies, including the Un cumulative historiOJI catch from this re
tries opera te in this manner. and the ited Kingdom and the United Stutes. ~ou rcc o! only 115.000. Viewed a~ a
United Stares in panicular demonsrrates expressed concern at probabilities in ex whole. ils stutus is ne.~ the best. and
a pleasing (if not always perfect ) recog cess of 5% that catches might be taken best-dete rmined. of any of the world"s
nition of the rights of its scientists to from a slack which. thou!!h assessed to marine resources. Nevertheless. the
express thei r views independe ntly of be abo ve the0.54K protection level. wus Convention for Intern ational T rade in
• tn•MSYr~t1$o1t'rMlocili"ApcxermalprooUetMCyG1ctually below this. Yet neirher lhe t.5n Endangere d Species (CITES) lists minke
~t4'U>uItr••~.~ tatol the tMV1fiY.Jt.sv:sloin·ited Kingdom nor the United Slates has whales as a species in danger of exti~
AOIC.,clCto tip~~l ~ 5Uet!-wtuchINt~~@ot$le pro posed sanctuari es or imposed mora tion . By cont rast. n proposal at last
ooto!Jnetc:~taone~ ay.tn to o0.6K 101~Ne~e~
Whales)E'l~alunsof nsl(sassOGitaed witt\ the RMPh.Jiye the fishing of cod in the North Murch"s CITES meeting to list the west
811 Dten oasecJl'MSY /.ltf: of <1.66tt. J1~ e•.'!her cod and flound er off the no rth ern North Arlal\l ic bluefin tuna similarly
approprl•tonO$.So1111•1chOice1Seom.ngUl'"ll:le<tst US coast, despite the fact that lhe was successfully opp osed by a number of
auesHon. n 11(tc~nMC'encepo1nLStowacrts baleen
1'1'hlc11stock.Cl"ta..ll )b:Out301more. spawning biomasscs for these resou rces nations (incl uding rhe United States).
533
NATURE · VOL357 · 18JUNE 1992
350 Annex 201
COMMENTARY
despite generally accepted assessments viously the case - this enforced wide in due course attempt to expand the
t.hat the: spawning biomass of this re distri bution of any catc hhas been the recently formed North A tlantic Marine
source has been reduced 10 less than
solution adopted in rhe RMP to the Mammal Commission into a 'new' JWC ,
0.2K and is probably below even O.IK. I peren nial problem of uncenninty about arguing thai the existing body has be
do not intend to sugges t that a morator the appropriate placement of stock come a "commission for the proh ibition
ium is necessary for this tuna fishery; bou ndaries for marine resources. The of wholing". The anima l-rights lobby
other measures than a toto! suspension
committee will also ad1•ise that the RMP might not be unhappy with such an
of fishing can serve the needs of con is likely to allow catches when lhe true outcome, surmis ing that their goa ls
servation adequately. My purpose is to population abundance is below the pro m ight be more easily atta ined by en
point again to the gross inconsistencies tection le1•el o0.54K only if the MSY couraging consumer boycotts of goods
in atti tudes to risk which many n~tions
mte is low (near 1%); but that even from the 'rebel' countries, than by re
show in the manageme nt of fishenes . then, the size of these catc hes would be lying on nominally scientifically based
"l"he rea l problem is that these issues too small to make any marked impact on decisions at the JWC.
involve quest ions of 'value', rather than the recovery rate of the stock. The recent and sudden French pro
of science and the consisteney which it
posa l for a whale sanctuary in waters
demnnds . 'Animal rights' lobbyists , or il south of 400S to aid the '"rehabi litation
l:ast their public supporte rs (and finan~ of the Antar ctic murine ecosyste m"is a
cters), attach much greater 'value ' to a?. wild card . Under the RMP, the severely
wha le or a seal than toa tuna or a cod . : depleted whale species of the Southern
That may be a perfect ly defensib le posi- ~ Ocean, such as the blue and fin whales ,
lion, but what becomes dangerous is the f will remain completely protected for
usc of alleged scientific toncems as a many decades. Scientificallyspeaking,
surrogate ratn i~le for this standpo int. the proposal - a weak and thinly dis
"This serves on ly to devalue science in the guised auempt to inhibit harvesting of
eyes of the politicians , who have to take Anta rctic minke whales under the RMP,
particular aocount of public pressure in despite its protestat ions to the contra ry
maki ng decisions. If science is manipu - suggests desperation among the
lated or rendered irrelevant on issues 'nima l rightists'. But it could be an
where public emotion can be tapped, it astute initiat ive politically, as a major
will simuhancousl) ' beoome redundant concern of many men>ber countries of
on less en>otive environmental issues. to the IWC that have no curren t interest in
the detr iment of long-term conservation . resumed whaling themselves is short
Scientists the refore have a responsibi l term public relations, to \\'hich scientific
ityto emphasize the differentiation of consistency takes a poor second place. In
scientific issues and value judgements . these terms alone, such countries may
New Zealand, at least. is honest enough see voting against any sanctua ry propos
to sta te that its opposit ion to res•Jmed alsonly as a net loss to themselve s.
com mercial "~1ali isng ased on such This illustrates the real pro blem that
value judge ments. In contrast, I have Btuefln hln1>- endangered species? the JWC faces in trying to achieve a
less sympathy for the position of 155 What will the lWC do with this in bala nced approach to the possible lifting
scientis tsrepo ne d to have signed a formatio n? Doubtless the questio n of the of the morator ium. There is no pressure
··statement of scienti fic findings regard·humnneness of the meth ods used to kill to reach a compromise when some par
ing commercia l whaling and science", whales in comme rcial operatio ns will be ries to the decision see no gain for
circulated by the Cetacean Society Inter raised . But count ries in which there arc themse lves in allow ing othe rs to recom
national. Th ey state therein that they aboriginalwhali ng activities (for which mence comme rcia l whaling . Much will
find that "the commerc ial killing of the death times are muclt longer tha n in depend on the line taken by the United
whales and other cetaceans unn ecessa rily commercial op erations), m<Jyatten>pt to States . where the re is legislationthat
interferes with scient ific research . lts play down this issue. would 'require' the US governmen t to
disruption of themarine ecosystem nee One possible outcome i~that the com· take punitive ilction against coun ielr
dless ly conflicts with the objective studymission accept s the scientific commit that might leave and commence whaling
of the natural world", and go on to tee "s RMP and associated specification activities outside the JWC . Al though
"therefo re recomme nd an end to all of catc h limits for resumed commercial ·animal rightists' might see such a situa
commercial whale killing , for the fore whaling of minkes in the Nor th Atlantic tion to be in the" longer-te rm interests.
seeab le future".Ifthere was any scien and Sout hern Ocean . The RMP adopted the US government may not shMe the ir
tific validity in this argumentwould it will be unnecessarily conservative, with enthus iasm at being placed in such a
not require moratoria on aboriginal the oommission·s confusion ove r the positio n.and moy therefore he •nxious
whaling, and indeed also for all marine pertinence of a O.S4K 'prot ection level' to secure some compromise.
fisher ies? Or is this just another examp lto the risk of extinct ion having resulted Whateve r happens, fisheriesscience
of science being confused with value in the choice of a proce dure that will be will not be left without some benefits.
judgements outside the scientificdo unable to realize the potential y1eld from Cont roversy is a useful stimulant to
main; and a more depressing one at that, stocks with MSY rates much above I% scientificendeavo ur. and the process
followed by the IWC"s scientific comm it
as scient ists themselves are in•olved? (contradict ing another of the commis
All bein~ well. the IWC 's scientific sior."agreed objec tives for the RMP ). tee to develop an RMP to take direct
commi ttee -will present the com mission Wha ling countries may be prepa red to account of concerns about e\•er-present
meeting in Glasgow with an RMP. oomprom ise on this aspect in return for uncertainty can be duplicated with
together with the catch limits \\·hich it a m~jr oit yote to lift the morat orium. advantage for the management of many
indicates for the Antarc tic and North Anything less than this will probab ly other of th.eworld 's fisheries. 0
Atlantic minke whale resou rces. Titese lead , later if not immediately, to Norwa yD. 5. Butrerworth is in the Departme111ol
catc h limits will be allocated to much and Japan join ing lcelnnd in withdraw Applied Mathematics . University of Cape
smaller area of ooear. than was pre- ing from the JWC. Thes e countries mny Town. Rondebosch 7700, Sourh Africa.
534 NATURE · VOL357 · l BJUN£1992
351352 Annex 202
202. Foster C E, Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and
Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (CUP 2011) pp. 14-17
Science and the Precautionary
Principle in International Courts
and Tribunals
Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof
and Finality
Caroline E. Foster
~CAMBRIDGE
~ UNIVERSITY PR ESS
353Annex 202
I'·.161-B96
L
Cambridge , New York, Melbo urn e, Madrid , Cape Town ,
Singapore, Sao Paulo , Delhi, Tokyo , Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburg h Building, Camb ridge CB2 8RU, UK
New Yorked in th e United States of America by Camb ridge University Press,
V.'Ww.cambridge.org
Informon this title: /978052 151 3265g
© Caro line E. Foster 2011
This pubis in copy right. Subjec t to statutory exception
no reproduc tion of any part may take place with out th e writtents.
permission of Cambridge Univer sity Press.
First published 2011
Printed in the United Kingdom at th e University Press , Camb1idge
A catalogu e rccor·dfor this publ ication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Catalobruingin Publication data
Foster,E.1969-ine
Scienc e and the pr ecauticourts expertple in international
ep.em.ce, burden of prEFoster.finality/ Caroline
Includ es breferences and ind ex.
ISBN978-Q-521-51326-5
1Environmenta l la2. Intercourts.ll.
K3585.20 11 (Law) 4. PI.Title.n ary p1inciple.
344.04'6-dc22
2010034229
ISBN 978-0-521-51326-5 Hardback
Cambrid ge Univer sity for the pers isten ce ority
accur acy ofURLs for extwebsitestoeferreda rty Internet
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
@@l~@d3
~~WJ Ifl
~~~ ~ y
*1201101068359*1111~1
354 Annex 202
14 SCIENCE AND THE P RECA UTI 0 NARY PRJ N ClPLE
63
science'. Although the views in the risk assessment did not have to
represent the majmity view of the broader scientific community. they
'must be considered to be legitimate science according to the standards of
the relevant scientific community'. 64 However, like the USarguments in
japan - Apples,the Appellate Body was here dealing with the interpret
ation of the specific requirements of the SPSAgreement, rather than
addressing in general terms the admissibility of scientific evidence.
The standard of review
Findings like those of the Appellate Body in the Continued Suspensionof
Obligationscases are sometimes understood to infer a 'standard of
review', establishing a level of deference that is to be shown towards
the national level decision-m aking of sovereign states. The standard of
review is a concept drawn from administrative law at the national level
that does not apply in any formal sense in disputes over compliance
65
with public international law but has been of considerable political
importance and interest to scholars in the trade context . 66 Standard of
review is taken to refer to the intensity ofinternationaljudicial sc1utiny
of states' activities. 67 There has been strong advocacy for standards of
review that incorporate a significant level of deference towards
national-level decision-ma king. 68
The push for deference is partly a response to the difficulties of
requiring international adjudicators who are inexper ienced in the sci
ences to make decisions requiring a close engagement with scientific
issues. More profoundly , it is due to sensitivities about the loss of
63 64
Ibid.,para591 . Ibid.. par591.
65 Except of course where specified in the applicable legal obligations. For examp le. see
Article17.6of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, Agreement on Implementation of
Article VIof the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ,WTOTI1eLegalTextsTiteresults
ofthe Uruguay roundofnwlti!ateraltradenegotiations.147.See also Article1904,
Chapte r19, of the NorthArne1ican Free Trade Agreement, under which parties may
seek binational panel review of national determinat ions on anti -dumpin g measures
and count ervailing duties. Nmth American Free Trade Agreement, San Antonio , 17
December 1992, in force1janu ary 1994,32 ILM 289.National 'investiga ting
authorities're identified under NAFTA.and national legislation is specified as the
standard for the review of their decisions. Anne19(11 )For commentary. Croley and
Jackson. 'WTOdispute procedures', 194-5 .
67
GfiSee e.g. Oesch, Standards ofReview. Ibid.. 15.
GR Wirth. 'Therole of science '.See also Button,1Power to Protect. advocati ng that a
concept of the ·reasonable rc)',lllator' wou ld approp1i ately artic ulate the app ropriate
standard of review in the health context.
355Annex 202
I N TRO DUCT I ON 15
sovereignty associated with subscribin g to the multil ateral free trade
regime, even thou gh it is clear und er WTO law that all WTO members
are free to apply their own standards of protection against health and
environmental risks.Discussion often focuses on the question of how to
sustain democratic decision - makin g about risk. 69 Perhaps more import
antly. though, it has been asked whether rul es like those in the SPS
Agreemen t are suitable tools to regulate international risks, and
whether the adjudicative framework is truly an appropriate subst itute
for administra tive decision-makin g in dispute s in this field? 0 The
debate over sta ndards of review underline s that the potentially far
reaching social and cultur al dimensions of risk require greater recog
72
nition,71as does the politici sed nature of decision-making about risk.
Pending further instituti onal and legal developments , matters such
73
as the need to permit states to act on the basis of minori ty science
are often to be resolved throu gh the interpretation of the relevant legal
rules, as seen in the WT0 ? The same point has been made in the
5
investment conte xt?
The difficulty with deference may be illustrated with reference to
attempts to intr oduce the concept of stan dards of review or judi cial
defe rence to national decision-makin g into scientific disputes in con
texts beyond the WTO. In the Southern Hlu ejin Tuna case (Australia and
Netv Zealand v. japan)Japan argued that deferenc e should be shown to
Japa n's decisions with respect to its disputed pilot programme of
experime ntal fishing for southern bluefin tuna. According to Japan ,
9
, Seethe argument of Howse that,contrary to what some might say,democratic process
is enhanced by requiring a rational and public process of scm tiny and evaluation of
measureslike the EC growth-promo tion hormon es ban thro ugh a mechanism such as
Wro dispute settlement. Howse, 'Democracy', See also Peel's suggestion that an
absence of deference reinforces transboundary democracy,as this encour ages national
authmities to be more aware of the effects of their actions on those in other
jurisdictions. Peel, 'Internat ional law', 371.
70 fisher, RiskRegulationandAdministrativeConstitutionalism, Ch. 5.
7 1Beck,RiskSociety. 72 Beck, 'Risk society revisited', 226-7.
73European Communities- MeasuresConcerningMeat and Meat Products(Honnones),Complaint
by Canada (WT/DS48),Complaint by the United States (WT/DS26), Report of the
Appellate BodyDSR1998: I, para. 135.
74Pauwelyn, 'Expert advice', 255.
7'GlamisGold Ltdv.UnitedStateso{America,Award of 8June 2009, paras. 23 and 617, where
the Tribuna l makes clear its disagreement with the view that 'domestic deference in
nationalcourt systems is necessarily applicable to international tribunals, particularly
where a measure of deference is already present in the standard to be applied'.G!amis
Gold Ltdv. UnitedStatesofAmelica, Award of 8june 2009, NAFfA{UNCITRAL)p .ara. 23,
decision available at http ://ita.law.uvic.ca
356 Annex 202
16 SCIENCE AND TH E PR EC AU T IONARY PRINCIPlE
international tribunals generally respect ed national determinations in
such matters unles s they could be shown to be irrat ional , patently
76
disproportionate, or otherwise fund amenta lly flawed. Japan believed
the subject of dispute involved scientific opinion, inferen ce and pre
diction, and, drawing on the jurisprudence of th e European Court of
Human Rights, argued that measures lying within a 'margin of appre
ciation' should be permitted. 77Australia and New Zealand observed in
response that 'standard of review' was a matter which could only 'be
considered in relation to the precise content and meanin g of the
78
obligations' in question, and was an issue for the merits. The ques
tion of deference to Japan's scientific views or decisions was not
addressed by the International Tribun al for the Law of the Sea, and
nor did the Arbitral Tribunal, established und er Annex VIIof the LOSC
to deal with the merits , mak e a finding on this point. Applying the
concept of deferen ce in a context like the circumstances of the
Southem Bluefin Tuna case would leave international resources rela
tively unprote cted and would leave without recourse the populations
of states affected by others' decisions. 79 Arguably, the process of
international adjudication under publi c international law would also
be undermined.
A general adoption of 'standards of review' that can be adjusted
in order to allow greater respect for states' own scientific assessm ents
76 Southem BluejinTuna case(Australia andNewZealandv.japan)Award on Jurisdi ction and
Admissibility, 4Augu st000, 119ILR509 (hereafter SouthernH/.ueTunaUurisdictionand
77 Admissibility)),Memorial on jurisdi ction of Japan 165.ra.
Ibid.par a172.
n Reply on jurisdi ction of Australia and New Zealand, par172, 183.
79 See also the MOXOSP J\R proceedings, where the United Kingdom argued that de novo
review of its decision to withhold certain informa tion from Ireland in connection
with the commi ssioning of MOX production at Sellafield was inappro priate. The
United Kingdom referr ed to the app lication of the margin of apprecia tion doctrine
by the European Court of Human Rights, standards of objective assessment of
natio nal acts applied bwro pan els and stan dards of review applied under the
North American Free Trade Agreement. Dispute crmceming Accessto Information under
Aliid e 9 of the OSPARConvention (lrelanclv. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nmthem
Ireland), Award of 2 jul y 2003, 42 I1118. Counter -Memorial of the United
Kingdom. para. 1.6;Oral Submiss ions Day 2.106 f;Day 3, 4 f. Ireland objected that
the Tribunal should not be prevent ed fi:om carrying out its function of determ ining
the case befor e it on the merits of the applicable law. The Tribunal was pe1fectly
ent itled to substitut e its view for the view of the United Kingdom on the question
whether the informa tion withheld by the United Kingdom could be consi dered
commercially confidential. Reply of Ireland, par18 et seq.; Oral Submi ssions,
Day 1, 33 line 11 et seq., and p. 64 l20ect seq..
357Annex 202
INTRODUCTION 17
or policy choi ces wou ld openly introduce a broad discretion for adjudi
cator s. The adjudication of disputes under public international law
oug ht to involve the straightforw ard applicati on by an internation al
court or tribunal of the relevant legal m les in the circumstances
before it, without any presuppositi on that one disputant or the other
deserves particul ar deference. The WTO Appellate Body has held fast to
the mast , findin g inEuropeanCommunities - Measure sConcerning Meatand
MeatProducts(Hormones h at neither denovo review nor full deferen ce is
required from a panel assessing the legality of a membe r's trade meas
ure s. As the Appellate Body has pointed out, the appropriate 'stand ard
of review' is reflected in the requirement in Article 11 of the WTO
Dispute Sett lem ent Understandin g that a panel make 'an objective
assessment of the matte r before it'. 80Reducing international adjudica
tion to a form of judici al review, especially to purely procedural
review, 81 would be fundamentally inconsisten t with maintainin g an
effective system of subst antive international legal rule82 designed to
regulat e a balance of inte rests at the intern ational level.
Debate will need to be ongoing over the appropriate content and
institutional framework for rules dealin g with risk regulation decision s
at the internationalle vel.83There may even be a need for new mles. 84 In
the process, there may be welcome scope for encouraging publi c par
ticipation and decisions abou t risks at the national level. 85 However,
unless and until the relevant rules and institut ions are ame nded, WTO
panels and other int ernatio nal adjudicatory bodies will continue to
have to engage in the science of the various disputes coming before
them in order to determine members' compli ance with existing legal
obligations, includin g their substantive eleme nts.
ROeuropeanCommunities-MeasuresConceming MeatandMeat Products(Hormones), Compla int
by Canada (WT/DS48),Complaint by the United States (WT/DS26), Report of the
Appellate Body, DSR1998: I, 135, paras. 116-19.
81As advocated by, for instance , Walker, 'Keeping the WTO from becoming the "World
Trans-Science Organ isation"', 279: 'In short, the prim ary issue of fact before a panel
should be whe ther there is any reaso nable scient ific basis for a member's sanitaty
measures.'
82 AsCroley and Jackson observe, WTO members are 'interested parties whose own
(national) interests may not always sustain a necessaty fidelity to the terms of
internatio nal agreement s'.Croley and Jackson, 'WTO dispute procedures' , 209.
83 Peel, 'International law',379.
4
~ Peel discusses the relative nonnati ve vacuum under the SPSAgreement and the need
for greater global debate over the acceptabi lity of healt h and environme ntal risks.Peel,
8 'Risk regulatio n'.
s Peel 'International law'; Foster, 'Public opini on'.
358 Annex 203
203. Morishita J and Goodman D, “The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling was
not a value judgement and was not intended as a permanent prohibition” (2011) 1(2)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law 301
e so a cop
Aegean Rev Law Sea
DOl l0.1007/sl2180-0ll-0020-z
~ RTICLE
The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling
was not a value judgment and was not intended
as a permanent prohibition
Joji Morishlta ·Dan Goodman
© Aegean Institutof the Law of theSea and Maritime Law 2011
Abstract A review of the International Whaling Commission's institutional dis
course related to the "moratorium" as reflected in the Commission's documents
together with a literal reading of Schedule paragraph IO(e ) of the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) show s that the moratorium does
not include language which permanently prohibits commercial whaling, doe s not
include any expression which demonizes whaling, does not label the killing for
commercial purposes as criminal as opposed to catching for indigenous purpose s,
and does not reflect any value judgments about whales and whaling. Rather, thi s
paper shows that with only few exceptions these documents together with the
language of paragraph lO(e ) clearly demonstrate that the moratorium was intended
as a temporary conservation and management measure related to uncertainties of
scientific information. Notwithstanding this , anti-whaling NGOs have mischarac
terized the moratorium as a permanent prohibition or ban on commercial whaling.
This mischaracterization was a major factor in the failure of the "F uture of IWC "
process which was aimed at getting compromises from both pro-whaling and anti
whaling members to resolve the bipolar, conflictive and dysfunctional nature of the
organization. Finally, it is concluded that the moratorium as a permanent prohibition
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not neoesrepresentthe positions
of the Government of Japan.
J. Morishita(121}
FisheriesAgency of Japan. 1-2-1 Kasumigaseki,Chiyoda-1...Tokyo 100-8907, Japan
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Goodman
The Instituteof Cetacean Research,4-5, Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
e-mail: dangoodm @zav .att.ne.jp
Published online: l0 August 20J l ~ Springer
359Annex 203
o a p
J. MorishitaD.Goodman
would be inconsistent with the purpose of the ICRW and that science related to the
management of whales and international law, in this case the literal interpretation
and implementation of the Schedule paragraph 10(e), provide the only possible
means to resolve the controversy concerning whaling.
Keywords Moratorium · Whaling · International Whaling Commission (IWC) ·
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) ·
Scientific uncertainty · Conservation and management measures ·
Future of IWC
1 Introduction
In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (the Stockholm
Conference) adopted an action plan that included an urgent call for a 10-year
moratorium on commercial whaling (UNEP 1972). Recommendation 33 of the
Action Plan for the Human Environment states:
It is recommended that Governments agree to strengthen the International
Whaling Commission , to increase international research efforts, and as a
matter of urgency to callfor an international agreement , under the auspices of
the International Whaling Commission and involving all Governments
concerned, for a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling.
However, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) rejected proposals from
the United States for zero quotas for commercial whaling at its Annual Meeting in
1972 and a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling at its Annual Meetings in
1973 and 1974.
Following several similar unsucc .essful attempts, with the recruitment of
additional anti-whaling members, in 1982 the Commission adopted an amendment
to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
(ICRW) that set zero catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales
from allstocks for the 1986 coastal and 1985/1986 pelagic seasons and thereafter.
The amendment also included a provision for review of the effec1s of the decision
by 1990 and the possible establishment of other catch limits. Technical ly, this was
the addition of paragraph IO(e) to the Schedule of the ICRW .
Commonly , paragraph 10 (e) is referred to as the "IWC moratorium on
commercial whaling " and , while anti-whaling NGOs, others opposed to whaling
and the media frequently cal l it "the ban on commercial whaling " implying or
stating that it is a permanent prohibition of something evil or even criminal ,
examination of the discourse used in presenting and supporting moratorium
proposals including the IWC 's verbatim records of its annual meetings , written
opening statements and the Chairman 's reports of the annual meetings clearly shows
1 Descriptionof the moratoriumproposaland the voting outoomeare recordedin the Chairman's
report s of the meetings available from the IWC Secretariat , Cambridge , UK.
~ Springer
360 Annex 203
A t o s :so a cop
The IWC moratorium on commercialwhaling was not a value judgment
that this is not the case. Rather, this paper shows that with only few exceptions ,2.3
these documents together with the language of paragraph IO(e) clearly demonstrate
that the moratorium was intended as a temporary conservation and management
measure related to uncertainties of scientific information without categorically
denying whaling as a legitimate activity and without passing moral or value
judgments. The negotiation history of paragraph lO(e) confirms that themoratorium
was simply an ordinary resource conservation and management measure to
temporarily suspend whaling operations while conducting a comprehensive assess
ment of whale populations. This interpretation was also expressed by FAO's long
time participant in the work of the IWC who wrote that "as presented to the IWC, and
as the term implies, the moratorium was to be a temporary measure, to be reviewed
not later than 1990. It was intended to give scientists time to remove doubts about
figures of sustainable yields, numbers of whales and so on." (Gulland 1988).
2 Plain meaning/straig ht rea din g of Sched ule lO(e)
The "Schedule" of the ICRW is the means for adopting legally binding
"...regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources ..."
(Article V.I., ICRW) and, as noted above, the so-called moratorium on commercial
whaling was established by the addition of paragraph lO(e) to the Schedule in 1982.
Paragraph IO(e) of the Schedule reads as follows:
(e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the
killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal
and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision
will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990
at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the
effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this
provision and the establishment of other catch limits.
The plain meaning of this provision is that when a comprehensive scientific
assessment on a whale stock is completed and a sustainable catch quota calculated, a
non-zero catch limit can be established for the stock. Therefore, it is perfectly
appropriate to establish a whaling quota under this "moratorium" language. Such
action does not violate the moratorium or "lift" it. It should be emphasized that the
language of paragraph lO(e) does not introduce a permanent ban on commercial
whaling nor establish any value judgement to the effect commercial whaling is
2 For example , the statement by the US Commiss ioner in support of its 1973 proposal for a 10-year
mormorium : "Support for the moratoricomes from the very deep-rootfeeling of the people of the
United Statesthat the time has come to stop killwhales.w Verbatim recordof the 1973 Annual
Meeting available from tIWC SecretariatCambridge,UK.
3
The writtenopening statementof New Zealand on rejoininthe Commission for its 1976 Annual
Meeting refers to environmentaissueshaving "caught the popularimagination w and that thi s was
"particularltrue of the plight of the whales " . Statement available from the IWCambridge,iat,
UK.
~ Springer
361Annex 203
I. Morishita, D. Goodman
wrong or illegal. It is true that anti-whaling interestshad tried to establish a
permanent ban on whaling in the course of the negotiation of this provision but the
fact that the Schedule language is formulated as a temporary suspension of whaling
while a comprehensive assessment is undertaken for the possible establishment of
non-zero catch quotas indicates the attempt was not successful.
Further, while Japan's research whaling has been criticized as "disguised
commercial whaling" the research was initiated for the purpose of contributing to
the comprehensive scientific assessment demanded by paragraph lO(e).
3 Discourse in presenting and supporting moratorium proposals leading
up to 1982
In presenting its proposal for zero quotas for commercial whaling at the Ic.n2
Annual Meeting the United States delegation said that the state of knowledge of the
whale stocks was so inadequate that it was only common prudence to suspend
(emphasis added) whaling so that scientific efforts could be redoubled (IWC I CTl).
Similarly, in support of its proposal for a 10-year moratorium at the ICTl4Annual
Meeting the Commissioner for the United States said "we are seeking a ten year
moratorium based on continuing decrease in catch per unit effort of fin whales and
FAO's recognition of the gross uncertainties in the data and questionable
assumptions on which present management schemes are based" (IWC ICTl4).
Further statements supporting the argument that the moratorium was intended as a
conservation and management measure rather than a permanent prohibition include
statements at the 1979 meeting by the UK Minister that "there should be a
moratorium on commercial whaling in order to allow a thorough assessment of
whale numbers and of their biology" and that "resumption of whaling should only
be considered if evidence of recovery of stocks and improvement in methods of
killing justify it." and by Sweden that "we strongly favor a moratorium because
there are too many gaps in the science but we are prepared to discuss opening of
whaling after the moratorium based on scientific results." (IWC I CTl9), as well as
the statement from France at the 1980 meeting that the "mora torium is a method of
managing whales to be applied at this time to allow their recovery" (IWC 1980).
Finally, at the 1981 Annual Meeting Mr. Wiggin, Parliament ary Secretary to the
Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food of the UK sai d "we recognize that other
countries have a legitimate commercial interest in whaling and if in the future, it
could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that some exploitation of stocks might
be safely resumed and that satisfactory methods of killing were available, the lifting
of the ban might be considered". In clarifying their proposal the UK delegation also
said "what we had in mind is a moratorium and not a permanent ban." (IWC 1981).
4 1982 moratorium negotiations
At the meeting of the IWC 's Technical Committee prior to the plenary sessions the
Seychelles proposed a 3-year phase out of commercial whaling. This was amended
~Springer
362 Annex 203
The JWC moratorium on commercial whaling was not a value judgment
by Costa Rica to a 2-year phase out which was recommended by the Technical
Committee to the plenary. At plenary, the Seychelles proposed an amendment to the
Costa Rica proposal to return to the 3-year phase out of its original proposaland to
add the additional clause "This provision shall be kept under review, based on the
best scientific advice , and by 1990 at the latest the Commission shall undertake a
comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and
consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits. "
In proposing this amendment the Commissioner for the Seychelles stated; "We
have also taken into account opinions which have been expressed amongst member
states here which suggest that itis necessary to provide also for the possibility of
review and reassessment and, if thescientific information should so suggest in the
interim , perhaps even a resumption of some form of commercial activity. " (IWC
1982). He also had said in the Technical Committee that; "I would repeat and
remind you that this is a catch limit proposal not a ban or a moratorium". Spain
commented that "First of all let me advance that I don 't consider this as a totaban
... but just a temporary interruption of the activity. " (IWC 1982). The Commis
sioner from St. Lucia who had supported the "moratorium" proposal also stated; "It
is with deep regret that I note that there has been a misunderstanding othe proposal
of the distinguished delegate from the Seychelles. It is not a proposal for a totban
for commercial whaling , but rather a proposal on catch limits" (IWC 1982).
Notwithstanding these statements, some members including Japan still opposed
the proposal as they regarded it as "in substance a total moratorium" noting that
"the Scientific Committee ruled many times in the past that there is no scientific
justification or biological need for a total or blanket moratorium"(IWC 1982). The
vote on the proposal received the required :Y.majority vote (25 votes in favor , with 7
against and 5 abstentions) (IWC 1983). The clause which the Seychelles added to
account for opinions "ex pressed amongst member states" was necessary because a
permanent prohibition would not have been accepted by the Commission.
5 Revised management procedure and the Scientific Committee
Many species and stocks of whales are abundant, increasing and recovering from past
over-harvesting. The IWC 's website (http://www.iwcoffice.org /), which provides
population figures agreed by its Scientific Committee through the "comprehensive
assessment (CA)" process as required by Schedule 10(e), confirms this. Past com
mercial whaling did result in over-harvesting. How ever, much has been learnt about
the science of whales and the science of resource management since that time. The
IWC 's Scientific Committee has also developed a risk-averse method of calculating
catch quotas and this was adopted by the IWC in 1994. This method called the
"revised management procedure" (RMP) together with a monitoring and inspection
scheme would provide a regime to ensure that commercial whaling would be sus
tainable and that regulations are followed.The RMP is regarded as one of the most
precautionary tools for calculating catch quotas which includes built-in safety factors
to address possible substantial misreporting of past catches, environmental disasters
which could reduce whale stocks by half, miss-estimation of vital biological
~Sp ringer
363Annex 203
I.Morishita. D. Goodman
parameters, and other scientific uncertainties.If the RMP were applied to commer
cial fisheries, many, if not all, would have to be closed (Butterworth 1992 ).
The fact that the IWC Scientific Committee has been involved in the
comprehensive assessment and the development of the revised management
procedure (RMP ) since the adoption of the moratorium also shows that paragraph
10(e) has prescribed the IWC to manage commercial whaling rather than
permanently prohibit it. The perception of the moratorium as a permanent
prohibition fostered by the intense campaigns of anti-whaling NGOs and the press
is inconsistent with the language of Schedule IO(e) and contradicts the engagement
of the Scientific Committee in the RMP process.
In fact, the Scientific Committee has completed the application of RMP to
several whale stocks including the northwestern Pacific minke , the northwestern
Bryde 's, and the north Atlantic minke. In accordance with the unambiguous
language of paragraph lO(e), the IWC should now be ready to establish harvesting
quotas for these stocks.
6 IWC resolutions
While the anti-whaling campaigns and their media coverage following the adoption
of paragraph 10(e) have , using the word "ban", established the public perception
that the moratorium is, or at least should be, a permanent prohibition and a
criminalization of both commercial whaling and Japan's research whaling such
evolut ionary interpretations are without legal foundation. Both the purpose and
meaning of paragraph lO(e) remain unchanged until such time as the IWC decides
by at least a Y..majority to change it.
The anti-whaling interests would argue that the interpretation of the IO(e) has
been "evolved" and the Schedule language is now understood as a ban on
commercial whaling (IF AW 2006 ). Adoption of several non-binding IWC resolu
tions that oppose whaling, scientific or commercial, could be used as supporting
evidence of the "evolution". However, the legal language of the Schedule IO(e) can
not be changed by resolution and it remains the same and unambiguous (Greenberg
et al. 2002 )In fact , the IWC has not even adopted any resolution urging or offering
such interpretation.Without an amendment to the language , no such " evolution " can
happen and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties confirms this:
Article 31
General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light
of its object and purpose.
On the other hand, at its meeting in 2006 , the Commission adopted the St. Kitts
and Nevis Declaration which noted "that the moratorium which was clearly
4 http: /fwwwJwcoffice.orglconservationfrmLast accessed 17 Nov 2010 .
~ Spr girn
364 Annex 203
o s e so a co
The IWC moratorium on C()IDIIlercialwhaling was rot a value judgment
intended as a temporary measure is no longer necessary" and that "the position of
some members that are opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling on a
sustainable basis irrespective of the status of whale stocks is contrary to the 5bject
and purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation ofWhaling." IWC
resolutions only require a simple majority for adoption. At best they are a reflection
of the political positions of the majority of members present at the time, either anti
whaling or pro-whaling. They can not change the legally binding language of the
Schedule.
7 Paragrap h l O(e) compared with the South er n Ocean Sanctuary
Additional support for the case that paragraph 10(e) was designed as a science
based management measure rather than a "ban" or a permanent prohibition comes
from comparing paragraph IO(e) with the Schedule provision that established the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary , that is, paragraph 7(b) adopted in 1994.
7(b) In accordance with Article V(1)(c) of the Convention , commercial
whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a
region des ignated as the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. This Sanctuary comprises
the waters of the Southern Hemisphere southwards of the following line:
starting from 40 degrees S, 50 degrees W; thence due east to 20 degrees E;
thence due south to 55 degrees S; thence due east to 130 degrees E; thence due
north to 40 degrees S; thence due east to 130 degrees W; thence due south to
60 degrees S; thence due east to 50 degrees W; thence due north to the point of
beginning. This prohibition applies irrespective of the conservation status of
baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary, as may from time to time
be determined by the Commission. However, this prohibition shall be
reviewed ten years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten year
intervals, and could be revised at such times by the Commission. Nothing in
this sub-paragraph is intended to prejudice the special legal and political status
of Antarctica.
Noteworthy are the words that "This prohibition applies irrespective of the
conservation status of baleen and toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary ...,,. Unlike
paragraph IO(e), this is not a science-based measure but a declaration of a value
judgment about whaling ; even if the conservation status of a whale stock is abundant
and robust, whaling is prohibited Further, if paragraph IO(e) was intended as a
permanent prohibition, a sanctuary to prohibit whaling in the southern ocean would
have been unnecessary even from the point of view of those opposed to whaling.
The lack of science in relation to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was confirmed
by an expert review commissioned by the IWC Scientific Committee in 2004. The
review concluded that:
5 Tbe St. Kittsand Nevis Declaration http:J/www.iwcoffice.org/meetingslresolutionslresolution2006.
htm#l. Last accesse17 Nov 2010.
~ Springer
365Annex 203
J.Morishita , D. Goodman
"Overall, the SOS - and IWC Sanctuaries in general - are not ecologically
justified" , that "the SOS represents a 'shotgun' approach to conservation , whereby a
large area is protected with little apparent rationale for boundary selection and
management prescriptions within the sanctuary" and that "while a vast array of
ecosystem-leve l and precautionary conservation benefits have been invoked for the
establishment of the SOS , in reality this large-scale sanctuary does little more than
provide a false sense of security by assuming that protections for whale populations
are in place" (IWC 2004 ).
8 Paragraph lO(e) and the "F utur e of IWC" process
At its 59th Annual Meeting in 2007, the International Whaling Commission
initiated a process called the "Future of the IWC." (Ilif2010 ). The process which
was aimed at getting compromises from both pro-whaling and anti-whaling
members to resolve the bipolar, conflictive and dysfunctional nature of the
organization came to an unsuccessful end at the 62nd Annual Meeting in 2010. One
of the major reasons that the process failed is that anti-whaling NGOs (Centro de
Conservacion Cetacea 2010 ) and some members of the IWC (EU 2010 ) wrongly
interpreted the moratorium as a permanent prohibition that would be lifted ifquotas
were established for commercial whaling.
In fact, the aim was to bring all existing whaling activ ities under the control of
the IWC while maintaining the moratorium in accordance with the language of
paragraph 10(e) which allows for quotas other than zero as described above (IWC
2010 ).
It is perfectly logical to keep the moratorium while allowing controlled whaling
with observation and enforcement measures to ensure quotas are not exceeded
because the moratorium was NOT intended as a permanent ban. To characterise this
issue as "the moratorium vs quota allocation " is wrong , but it was the perception
actively promoted by anti-whaling NGOs in order to destroy the Future of the IWC
process (IFAW 20 10).
IWC members had to choose one of the following options at the 62nd Annual
Meeting in Agadir; (a) To keep status quo. No agreement. The moratorium remains
but no control over the existing whaling and even possibilities of future expanded
whaling or, (b) To accept the Chair and Vice-chairs proposed compromise.
Contrary to the characterization of the proposal by anti-whaling NGOs , portrayal by
the press and the public perception , the moratorium remains. All whaling would be
under the IWC contro l. However , anti-whaling members would have to face public
criticism that "the moratorium is lifted!" and, "Whaling will be resumed! "
Apparently , the pressure from NGOS was too strong for many anti-whaling
members of the IWC to accept the proposed compromise (Goodman 2011 ). Unless
this situation changes , it will be very difficult , if not impossible , to expect a similar
proposal to be accepted by the IWC. Whaling will therefore likely continue outside
of the control of IWC and the IWC will remain polarized and institutionally
irrelevant in relation to its purpose of managing whaling to ensure that it is
sustainable.
~ Springer
366 Annex 203
e :so a c
The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling was not a value judgment
9 Conclusion
In summary, discourse in the IWC as reflected in the Commission's documents and
a literal reading of paragraph IO(e) shows that the moratorium does not include
language which permanently prohibits commercial whaling , does not include any
expression which demonizes whaling, does not labe l the killing for commercial
purposes as criminal as opposed to catches for indigenous purposes, and does not
reflect any value judgments about whales and whaling. Resumption of commercial
whaling is perfectly consistent with the language of Schedule lO(e) when the
whaling is properly managed
The IWC is dysfunctional because of the polarized positions about whales and
whaling held by its members. The contradiction in the so-called moratorium,
formulated as a management measure for whaling but perceived as a total ban or
permanent prohibition of whaling, makes the controversy further confused and
misguided. This contradiction also partly explains why , after almost 40 years since
the Stockholm conference, the anti-whaling movement has still failed to establish
that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable as a new world norm (Bailey
2008 ). The IWC is still spending its time and energy on construction of a science
based management system for whaling, even though several members have been
trying to deny whaling. In opposing a whaling proposal , the anti-whaling members
argue that they opposed it because the proposed whaling has commercial elements
and is therefore against the moratorium. This logic is bankrupt because Schedule
lO(e) does not deny commercial whaling , rather it establishesa system to allow
commercial whaling to resume when the scientific comprehensive assessment
proves there are enough whales to be utilized. Their main reason for opposing
whaling, i.e. commercial elements, is not denied in the language of paragraph 1O(e).
For the IWC to survive as a relevant organization responsible for the
conservation of whales and management of whaling, it should implement the
literal language of Schedule paragraph lO(e). The RMP is available as a
precautionary scientific tool for the calculat ion of risk-averse catch quotas for
6
abundant whale stocks. Whaling countries are ready to accept strengthened
observation and enforcement measures including deployment of satellite-based
vessel tracking systems , registers and market monitoring with DNA "finger prints",
among others. They do not ask for unregulated and free-for-all whaling. Whaling
countries support internationally controlled sustainable whaling for abundant stocks
while fully committed to conservation and the protection of endangered species.
This is the purpose of the ICRW.
The whaling controversy is not about saving endangered species although anti
whaling NGOs and the media often intentionally confound the issue by arguing that
conservation of whales is at stake. In reality, the controversy is about strongly held
different philosophical or ethical views about the use of whales with anti-whaling
NGOs trying to impose their views by demonizing whaling. Science can not resolve
6 IWC ScientificCommittee agreed populationestimates bttp:/lwwwJwcoffice.org/conservation/
estimate.btm. Last accessed 18 Nov 2010 .
~ Springer
367Annex 203
e so a o
J. Morishita.D. Goodman
the difference of views about whether or not whales sho uld be treated as any other
livin g marine resources but exactly because of this difference , science related to the
management of whales and international law , in this case the literal interpretation
and implementation of the Schedule paragraph IO(e) provide the only possible
means to resol ve the controversy. The context for any such resolution must be the
ICRW as a who le including its purpose which is "to provide for the proper
conservation of whale stocks and thus make possib le the orderly development of the
whaling industry" (the final paragraph of the preamble to the ICRW). To be
consistent with this purpose, the moratorium must be a temporary conservation and
management measure.
Ref ere nces
Bail ey J (2008 ) Arrestedevelopment: the fight to end commercial whaling as a case of failed nOI"m
change. Eur J Int Relat 14(2):289 - 318
Butterworth OS (1992) Science and sentimentality. Nature 357:532-534
Centro de Conservation Cetacea (2010 } Opening Statement to the 62th IWC Annual Meeting . IW C
document IWC/62 OS CCC : http:/fwww.iwcoffice.org_documents/commission/IWC/62-0S%
20NGO.pdf. Last accessed 26 June 2010
Goodman D (20 11} The "Futme of the IWC ": Why the Initiative to Save the InternationalWhaling
Commission Failed. J lnt Wildl Law Policy 14:63-74 and Erratum 14:171
Greenberg EVC , Hoff PS, Goulding Ml (2002) Japan 's Whale Research Program and InternationalLaw .
Calif West Int Law J 32(2): 151-210 (Spring 2002)
Gulland J (1988 ) The end of whaling ? New Scientist 29:42-45
IFAW (2010 ) Press release 23 Jun e 2010. http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united _states/media _center/
press _releases16 _23_2010 _61989.php . Last acces26 Jun e 2010
Diff M (2010} The Hogarth initiative on the future of the InternationaWhaling Commission . Marine
Policy 34 :360-366
InternationalFund for Animal Welfare (IF AW) (2006} RepOI"tof the internationalpanel of independent
legal expert s on: speciapermit (scientificwhaling under internationalaw Paris. 12 May 2006
(unpublished }
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1972 ) Chairman 's report of the 24th IWC annual meeting .
IWC secretariat. Cambridge, UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1974) Verbatim record of the 26th IWC annual meeting. IW C
secretariatCambridge , UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1979 ) Verbatim record of the 31st IWC annual meeting. IW C
secretariatCambridge , UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC ) (1980 ) Verbatim record ofthe 32od IWC Annual Meeting .
IWC secretariat. Cambridge, UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1981) Verbatim record of the 33rd IWC annual meeting. IW C
secretariatCambridge , UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1982) Verbatim record of the 34th IWC annual meeting. IW C
secretariatCambridge , UK
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (1983) Chairman 's Report of the 34th IWC annual meeting .
Rep . Int . Whal. Comm 33
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (2004 ) IWC document SC/56 /SOS 5
InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC) (20 10) IW C document 6217rev. Proposed c<~nsen dscuson
to improve the conservation of whales from the Ch.air and Vice Chair of the Commission .
http://www .iwc<lffice.orgl _documents/commission/IWC62docs/62-7rev.pd. Last accessed 18 Nov
2010
~Sprir nge
368 Annex 203
The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling was not a value judgment
Spain on behalf of the EU and its member states. (2010) Opening Statement to the 62th IWC Annual
Meeting. IWC document IWC/62 OS Spain: http:/lwww.iwcoffice.org/ _docurnents/commissionl
IWC/62-0S%20GO.pdf .Last accessed 26 June 2010
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (1972) United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment . Recommendation s for action at the interna tionallevel. http://www.unep.
org/Documents.MultilinguaVDefault.asp?DocumentiD=97&Article iD= 1506&l=en. Last acoessed
28 Dec 2010
~ Springer
369370 Annex 204
204. Zenitani R, “Long-term Trend of Age at Sexual Maturity in Antarctic Minke
Whales” (DPhil of Marine Science thesis, Tokyo University of Marine Science and
Technology 2011) p. 16, 25
（Translated from the original Japanese document for thisAnnex）
(2) – 3 Method of age determination
A section of each earplug was put in water in a petri dish, and growth layers
(practically, dark lamina) from the neonate stage (the side of earplug tip) to the time of
being caught (the side of glove finger), which are visible on the surface of the earplug
core, were counted with a counter and a stereoscopic microscope.Assuming that the
annual deposition (accumulation) rate of growth layers is one layer per a year (Roe,
1967; Best, 1982), the number of growth layers of an individual [animal] was regarded
as its absolute age. In principle, the earplugs of the left-side were used for the age
determination. However, in cases where the left-side earplugs were broken or age
reading was difficult due to their poor forming condition, the right-side earplugs were
used. Reading [of an earplug] was conducted three times in a row. In cases where two
or three numbers [of counted growth layers] were identical, that number was recorded
as the absolute age of the individual [animal] concerned, while in cases where three
numbers were different from each other, a median value was recorded as the absolute
age. In cases where tp [transition phase, which is known as an indicator of its age at
attainment of sexual maturity] was recognized, the age of it [tp] was al▯so recorded.
Age determination of [samples from] Area IV in two seasons of 1987/88 and
1989/90 as well as [those from] Area V in two seasons of 1988/89 and 1992/93, i.e.
early years of JARPA, was done by Professor Hidehiro Kato of Tokyo University of
Marine Science and Technology (Reader-K), while that of [samples from] other 14
years [of JARPA], namely 1990/91-1991/92 and 1993/94-2004/05 was done by the
author [of this thesis] (Reader-Z).
371Annex 204
( 2)- 3 £ptlif;~:£EjJt~
!I=W:tiw.JJi*-:.::-\7-v~;:An ,±l~1C!I=:!To n~f~i.~t~)
h~-~ (~o-~7~Yff-{ll *.~~~)7ftffi~8~bh~--~ (·~
l;:f±lij~), ~~•f*!j{r ~~-c-wt~~~fflv\"t" *:~LJJii~itffl
*f'i1~/~ (Roe, 1967; Best, L,-t:-~111*~J5.t~~~~text!<f.~c
Lt.:3ltf;'±1£*1J;:flc:l=W:i fv\t.:Ln~L-,t{lIJll=W:fii>~iilt~
L"v,t.:~i lf~=:O)ToJft-~~:~~ n!JIEi0 t~iff;'±,;f:.Jll=:I:To
~~ ffv\t.:?dt:l3IEUJHt"t t:~oT"?~*~{l, ;!~v\''2@]OJ;t~{it
~~G~if~~-t:-OJ3 m~~,tA~~-if~~~~OJG~-t:-~M~~MM
iF~cL-t .~:o~~-~bh~-if~~-{:-O)£p8t~&L-~o
f!=:fiW; J]tPA'.,JWH~:t.~N [ZO)987/88&:f.&rf 1989/&:f.fb,2
c V 1r)1988/89-1J1992/93OJ2 iFFJlJI(Jii:#i($:*5 :$~0)J:l0Xf~
(Reader-K) 10"t":ftt.:.-hfJ-?'1990/91¥'"""1991/1993/94?¥
'"004/05*-0) 14!if:'"f'ijj(Reader-ZiJi1:tfi-:o>f::
3 *1iJF~'" L-::RffAT-?7
*~~'"t: L-ft.l:~.M~aAa*••1iJF~ffiJ:~W o~~~~~
Tabl41;:L-t.:NIK"&VIK'"t~:h~~.,70{ii*O) 1J{]l:.~1f~i ,11:
~s&o~"••O)-T-~c N!2r, vg,m~K•ru&a~~wru-c-••~n
t.:6,7781li*OJ!V~~:f€&()pMJft~iFtlff; ~t..,;tffl;:ffl
16
372 Annex 204
Table 7. Age readability of male Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPAsurveys from 1987/88 to
2004/05, by Area, sexual status.
llliDl ture Matae Total
Number of Age readabDiy Numberor Age readabilly Number or Age readab~ity
n
agedetennimtim (%) agedeteminatbn (%) agedetermnati:m (%)
ArealllE 73 43 58.9 248 223 89.9 32 1 266 82.9
AreaIV 317 234 73.8 1,249 1,107 88.6 1,566 1,341 85.6
AreaV 193 136 70.5 1,225 1,108 90.4 1,418 1244 87.7
Area VlW 75 55 73.3 245 218 89.0 320 273
85.3
Total 658 468 7 1.1 2,967 2,656 89.5 3,625 3,124 86.2
Table 8. Age readability of female Antarctic minke whales collected by JARPA surveys from 1987/88
to 2004/05, by Area, sexual status.
lrnrmture Mature Total
N..roerof Agereadabiity n Norrber of AgereadabBiy n N..roetof Age readabilly
age dererrnirotbn (%) age determnation (%) agedetermnation (%)
AreaIll£ 110 73 66 .4 117 113 96.6 227 186 81.9
AreaIV 535 379 70.8 763 702 92.0 1,298 1,081 83.3
Area¥ 335 243 72.5 1,111 1,0 13 91.2 1,446 1,256 86.9
Area VJW !07 77 72.0 73 67 91.8 180 144 80.0
Total 1,087 772 71.0 2,064 1,895 91.8 3,151 2667 84.6
373374 Annex 205
205. The ResearchAdvisors, “Sample Size Table from the ResearchAdvisors” <http://
research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm> accessed 14 February 2012
12/02/08
Sample Size Table*
From The Research Adv isors
There are various formulas for calculating the required sample size based upon whether the data collected
is to be of a categorical or quantitative nature (e.g. is to estimate a proportion or a mean). These formulas
require knowledge of the variance or proportion in the population and a determinat ion as to the maximu m
desirable error, as well as the acceptable Type I error risk (e.g., confidence level).
But why bother with these formulas?
Itis possible to use one of them to construct a table that sugges ts the optimal sample size- given a
population size, a specific margin of error , and a desired confidence interval. This can help researchers
avoid the formulas altogether. The table below presents the resu lts of one set of these calculations. Itmay
be used to determine the appropriate samp le size for almost any study.
Many researchers (and research texts) sugges t that the first column within the table should suffice
(Confid ence Level= 95%, Margin of Error = 5%). To use these values, simply determine the size of the
population down the left most column (use the next highest value if your exact population size is not listed).
The value in the next column is the samp le size that is required to generate a Margin of Error of ± 5% for
any population proportion.
However, a 10% interval m ay be cons idered unreasonably large. Should more precision be required (i.e., a
smalle r, more useful Margin of Error) or greater confidence desired (0.01), the other columns of 1hetable
should be employed.
Thus, iyou have 5000 customers and you want to sample a sufficient number to generate a 95%
confidence interval that predicted the proportion who would be repeat customers within plus or minus 2.5%,
you wou ld need responses from a (random) sample of 1176 of all your customers .
As you can see, using the table is much simpler than employing a formula .
r-esun:h-~ti.OI'&corn.at'!"zetrtm
I 3
375Annex 205
Sample Size Table
Required Sample Size'
Confldenee= 95% Confidence= t9%
Marg1nof Error Margan of Error
Popt.'lat!OilStze
6.0% 3.6% 2..5% 1..()"/o5.0".(, 3.6'"1• 2.6¥. i.u%
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
20 19 20 20 20 19 20 20 20
30 28 29 29 30 29 29 30 30
50 44 47 ~8 50 47 48 49 so
75 63 69 72 74 67 71 73 75
100 80 89 94 99 87 93 96 99
150 108 126 137 148 122 135 142 g9
200 132 160 177 196 154 174 186 198
250 152 190 215 24-1 182 211 229 246
300 169 217 251 291 207 246 270 295
400 190 265 318 384 250 309 348 391
500 217 306 377 475 265 365 421 485
600 234 340 432 565 315 416 490 579
700 248 370 481 653 341 462 554 672
800 260 396 526 739 363 503 615 763
1,000 278 440 606 906 399 575 727 !)43
1,200 291 474 674 1067 427 636 827 1119
1,500 305 515 759 1297 <$) 712 959 1376
2,000 322 563 869 1655 498 808 1141 1785
2500 333 597 952 1984 524 879 1288 2173
3,500 346 641 1068 2565 558 977 1510 2890
5,000 357 137Bl JU61 3288 588 1oe6 1734 3842
7500 365 710 1275 4211 610 1147 1960 5165
10.000 370 727 1332 4899 622 1193
2098 6239
25.000 378 760 1448 6939 646 1285 2399 9972
50.000 381 m 1491 8056 655 1318 2520 12455
75000 382 176 1506 6514 658 1330 2563 13583
100.000 383 778 1513 8762 659 1336 2585 14227
250000 384 782 1527 92.!8 662 1347 2626 15555
500000 384 783 1532 9423 663 1350 2640 16055
1000,000 384 783 1534 9512 663 1352 2647 16317
2500.000 384 78-1 1536 9567 003 1353 2651 16478
10,000.000 384 784 1536 9594 663 1354 2653 16560
100000000 ~ 784 1537 9603 663 1354 2654 16584
300000000 384 784 1537 9603 663 1354 2654 16588
Professional researchers typically set a sample size level of about 500 to optimally estimate a single
population parameter (e.g., the proportion of fikely voters who will vote for a particu lar candidate). This will
construct a 95% confidence interval with a Margin of Error of about ±4.4% (for large populations).
Since there is an inverse relationship between sample size and the l\tlargin of Error, smaller sample sizes
will yield larger Margins of Error . For example , a sample size of only 100 will construct a 95% confidence
interval with a Margin of Error of almost ±13%, too large a range for estimating the true population
proportion with any accuracy .
Note that allthe sample estimates discussed present figures for the largest possible sample size for the
desired levelonfidence . Should the propoofthe sample with the desired characteristic be
substantially different than 50%, then the desired level of accuracy can be establ ished with a sma ller
sample. However,ince you can't know what this percentage is until you actually ask a sample, it is wisest
to assume that it will be 50% and use the listed larger sample size.
213
376 Annex 205
12/02/08
The number of sub-groups (or "comparison' groups) is another consideration in the determination of a
sufficient sample size.ince the parameter must be measured for each sub-group, the size of the
sample for each sub-group must be sufficienUy large to permit a reasonable (sufficiently narrow)
estimation .
Treateachsub-group asapopulatioa nndthenuse t~ eab!etodetermine therecommended samplesize
for each sub-group. Then use a stratified random sampling technique Within each st.Jb-groupto select the
specific individuals to beluded.
Ifyou would like to calculate sample sizes for different population sizes , confidence levels, or margins of
error, download the Sample Size spreadsheet and change the input values to those desired.
Download the spreadsheet by clicking on the download button:
Note: The spreadsheet was designed fora 17" moniyou may ha-.eto resizrZoom' it out).
The formula used for these calculations was:
n=---=--- X<-.----,,._._c.. __ _
(ME '(N-1))-(X 2 "P'(1-P))
Where
n= samp!es!Z.e
X2 = Chi -square for thespeer!ted confioence le.eat 1degree citreedcm
N = PopulatiOn SIZe
P = popt.Jiationpropornoo (. 1n thts tab le)
ME= destred Margtn ct Error (expressed as a proportton)
This formu la is the one used Krejcie & Morgan in their 1970 article "Determining Sample Size for
Research Activities" (Educationald Psychological Measurement , #30,pp. 607-61 0).
· Copyright, 2006, The Research Adlisors lhttp·lfresearch-ad\lsors.com), All nghts reserwd.
rescanoh-40vcotf'l/SamoleS11ehtm 313
377378 Annex 206
206. “Whaling: Dr. Ray Gambell answers your questions”, BBC (5 July 2000)
<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/forum/817116.stm> accessed
14 February 2012
IZ/02/08 BBC NewIFORUMIWho.nc;0RotG.mbel •~..yur..,.••,..,.
are Forum
Front Page Wednesday, 5July,2000, 16 :3GMT 17:38 UK Search BBC News Onlin e
world Whaling : Dr Ray Gambell answers your
UK questions D
UK Politics
Bus1ness
Sci/Tech
Health
Education
Entertainment ~4 WORLD NEWS SUMio!ARY
tli BBCNEWS 24 BULJ.ETIN
Talking Point • PROGRAMMES GUIDE
Forum J
In Depth The International Whaling Commission 's See also:
AudioVideo 30Jun 00 1Sci/Tech
Secretary , Dr Ray Gambell is in Australia Battle royal erupts on
this week for the IWC 's annual conference . whaling
Dr Gambell, told BBC News Online recently llJun 00 ISci/Tech
he thought the 1986 moratorium banning
Whaling ban set to end
commercial whaling should now be lifted. Internet links:
•Forum
Dr RayGambell The IWC's annual meeting in Adelaide kicked International Whaling
answersyour off arrid controversy over a proposal by CommissiOn
queslons Australia to set up a South Pacific whale TheBBCis not responsible
• • rea28k __ sanctuary. forthe contentof external
internet sis
Japan, backed by fellow whaling nation
Norway, has attacked such a sanctuary, Other Talking Point
saying the plan had •no scientific justification" forums:
and was a political attempt to ''further subvert"
an international agreement on whaling. Quiz the Georgian
President
However conservationi sts say tha t another Ken Uvingstone quizzed
safe haven for whales would protect them from
being hunted to extinction, Zimbabwe elections:
John Simpson answers
your questions
What do you think? Is it ever possible to kill
a whale humanely? If whaling is allowed Shashi Tharoor answers
again, how can we be sure none of the very your questions
rare species like blue whales will be killed , The euro: Ask Michael
with their meat being passed off as coming Portillo
from a minke? Microsoft answers your
quest ions
Aren 't whales just too intelligent and
Net surveillance: Your
special for us to hunt them? Why do we questions answered
need to hunt them, anyway? Why doesn 't Sports Rights: Quiz the
the Commission just respect the wishes of BBC's o·rector General
the vast majority of its members and
Prince Wilham tums 18
refuse ever again to allow hunting? - Quiz our Royal
Correspondent
Mark Simmons, UK: Can you give me one Euro 2000: Ask Paul
clear non-econorric reason for why the Anderson
Your questions to
moratorium should be lifted and the hunting of
whales allowed again? Richard Butler
answered
Dr Ray Gambell : I think the ~rei argument for QUiz S1rJohn Krebs
the resumpt ion of commercial whaling 1sthat it Ins de the Troubles:
is one way of utilising a natural resource of the Ask Peter Taylor
oceans. The world is gettmg more and more Thabo Moeki answers
people with more and more food requirements.
your ouest1ons
379Annex 206
'/02108 BBC NewsIFORUMI~a: DrRo• Gombcll_,..,.youquo.,.ons
The resources of the ocean are one way that Quiz Zimbabwe's
the human population can be fed and whales opposition leader
are part of that total food base if you believe Peter Hain answers
that they should be hunted at all. your questions
Kosovo anmversary:
Nato answers your
Declan Chellar , England : Is there a humane
way to hunt and kill an animal the size of a questions
Quiz the World Bank
whale? President
The Common wealth
Dr Ray Gambell : The Issue of killing animals is
always a very emotive one and what we can Secretary -General
hope to do is reduce the st ress, the length of answers your questions
The Dalal Lama
time that it takes to kill them to the absolute
rrinirrum. In a slaughtemouse you have the ans wers your questions
animal under reasonable control and can be
pretty efficient in the process . The problem of
hunt ing animals in the wild is that there is
rruch more freedom for the hunter and the
whale. What we are trying to do is reduce the
time to death to th e very rrinirrum, to increase
the efficiency of the hunt, so that the whale
suffers the least amount. We've been able to
int roduce il'lllrovetechnology in terms of the
weaponry that's used and the associated
machinery that's el'lllloyed,but it's a very
difficult question and the re's no easy answer
other than instantaneous death. That 's an aim
which we're trying to achieve.
Elena Yeo , Singapore : It seems clear that
the loophole allowing whales to be ldlled for
scient ific purposes is being used as an excuse
by Japan to kill th em for meat. So why isn't
anyth ing being done to stop them? Isn't it
evident that the wha les are heading straight
to dinner tables and not to the labs?
Dr Ray Gambell : When the 1946 Conventi on
under which we operate was signed, one of
the major articles introduced by the USA was
the provision for a government to be able to
issue perrrits for research purposes. That has
always been in the Convention and many
governments over the years have caugh t quite
large numbers of whales for research purposes
but associated with that provision is whales
are too valuable just to catch, measure and
throw away. If you catch whales for research
purposes, t he requirement is that they are fully
utilised and the products disposed of In a way
tha t the government decides. In other words ,
the products have to be fully utilised and
Japan is doing what every other government
has done in previous years. It 's using the
whales for research, getting the research
resultswhich are sent to the Scienti fic
Comrrittee of the IWC and it's putting the
products into the market place
2.6
380 Annex 206
12/02/08 BBC NC"'IFORUMIWhalit: •rR~ambdlanswers your questions
Doug Graham, UK:Japan is pemitted to kill
whales for 'scient ific research." What is this
research and why is it considered necessary?
Dr Ray Gambell: Japan has two major
prograrrmes for research . One is in t he
Antarctic - this is a very long-tenn prograrrme
over 16 or more years. Thev 're taking a small
number of whales, 3 or 4 hundred each year
which over the full period of 16 years will
provide what they think is stat istically reliable
numbers for working out a number of aspects
of the life of the whale which can be used for
management purposes. In the North Pacific,
the stoc k structure is an especially IJll>ortant
item because it's not at all clear how many
different stocks of whales there are and so the
research by Japan in that area Is designed
specif ically to answer those questions.
Asbjorn Arnesen, Norway :: Why shouldn't we
be whaling in our own waters? We know that
there's enough rrinkes in the ocean, so it's
possible to take out a few without affecting
the whale-popula tion. After all, whaling means
jobs for people who need them. It seems that
the anti-wha lers consider only the sympathetic
look of the whale when considering whaling/ no
whaling.
Dr Ray Gambell : Most of thle whaling that the
IWC is considering as a possible future
commercial whaling operation would occur
within coastal waters of t he different countries
and of course, there are stnong feelings by
governments that they have control over
these waters. A government may wish to
catch whales in its own waters but it needs to
do so in conjunct ion with all the other
governments who may be involved, in order
that there can be proper oversight rather than
one country just going its own way.
Daniel Simmonds, UK: I'm English and I work
for a Japanese coJll>any. I visited Tokyo in
March for business and discussed whaling with
some Japanese colleagues. They said that
foreigners do not respect the fact that whaling
is part of Japan's culture. Bear bating used to
be part of British "culture ''. However, Brit ish
people do not pract ice bear bating today.
Therefore , why does Japan lthlnk that Its
"culture " allows it to hunt wlhales close t o
extinctio n?
Dr Ray Gamb ell: The cultu ral differences
which are represented amongst t he
governments in the lWC are one of the
fascinat ing aspects of the whole organisation.
People come to those meeti1n gs from different
381Annex 206
BBC Ne.,•FORUM jw.anc!K RoyGambol" '."your-stioru;
countries with different backgrounds and
they've been brought up to expect different
things. The point of negotiation Is that we can
reach some coiTYTlOnunderstanding, which
allows us all to rrove forward together .
Kevin Cheetham, England: What are the
specific products of commercial whaling, and
can they not be obtained from other sources/
by other methods?
Dr Ray Gambell : The primary product from
whaling nowadays is meat for human
consu!ll'tion.There are the bits of the animal
that you can't eat, the by-products, and they
night be used for animal food or fertilisers but
the main product nowadays is meat for people
to eat. Now meat or prote in can be obtained
from other sources but undoubtedly there is a
strong argument that in a world where there
are more people needing food, we should try
and use every ava ilable resource.
Matthew Minnett , Australia : If Japan for the
last several years has continued to hunt and
kill whales in the name of scient ific research, in
a clear breach of the lWC's prior decisions,
how can we be sure that they will adhere to
the species of the whales they are allowed to
hunt and also the areas they are allowed to
hunt in?
Dr Ray Gambell: I have to say at the outset
that Japan is not doing anything illegal by
catching the whales that it does and It is
acting legally with in the terms of the
Convent ion that we operate. One of the th ings
that we are working on at the present time is
inspection and international observer
programmes that will have oversight of any
whaling which is under rwc control, to make
sure that all regulations are followed covering
areas such as size and species.
Derek Dunn, Manchester, UK: Can
populations of whales be counted accurately
and if not, how can sustainable quotas be
calculated?
Dr Ray Gambell: One of the most illl'ortant
pieces of work that the Scientific Cormittee
has been doing over recent years is developing
methods to arrive at reliable assessment of
whale stocks. We have had a variety of
methods that have involved using the data
from past catches and various techn iques of
that sort. We rely on direct sightings of the
whales and send out special survey ships that
carry out very precise inspections of the
awsYole..b.JV.hi/~ntl(or\Jr1V'8117stm
382 Annex 206
12/02/08 BBC News[ FORUIwnat;,0.RayGombeRansweryour ..........
ocean, counting the whales as they go. We
have also developed mathematical techn iques
for converting the nurrber of whales seen into
statist ically reliable estimates of whales in that
area.
J, USA: If the ban is to lifted, which I firmy
disapprove of, can the protected zones (parks)
be part of the agreement?
Dr Ray Gamb ell: If there is to be commercial
whaling under internati onal control, the idea is
that it would basically be the coastal whaling
that is presently going on. There is no thought
that there will be a major expansion of
commercial whaling into areas where it doesn't
exist at the present time.
Melanie Hunt , England : Isn't the danger of
resurring whaling, especially with the efficient
modem t echniques of killing, tha t whales will
be killed much faster than they can reproduce?
This would lead to an inevitable extinction
which rm sure no-one wants .
Dr Ray Gambell :There are two elements
here. Firstly,the greater effic iency of hunting
and killing is an advantage in terms of the
humanness of the operation and tha t is
something that we are definitely working
towa rds. On the other hand, the IWC would
set catch llrrits, which would contro l the
nurrber of whales that may be t aken.
Ang ie Walte rs, UK: What are the implicat ions
to the ocean if whales were to become
extinct?
Dr Ray Gambell: We are concerned about all
the changes to the environment tha t we're
beginning to see, such as climate change,
ozone depletion, pollution. All of these things
are having an impact on the oceans but it is
impossible to predict at this time just what the
effect will be on whales. By the same token, if
whales, for whatever reason, were no longer in
the ocean, the ir impact on all the other
organisms with which they interact is so
complicated that we can scarcely ask what will
happen.
Unk s to ot her Foru m st ories
InThis Section
_1rnrns " ~ Back to top
News Front Page IWor ld IUK IUK Poli ticsI Business ISci/Tech IHealth I
5/6
383384 Annex 207
207. Richard Black, “Under the skin of whaling science”, BBC (25 May 2007) <http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6667907.stm> accessed 14 February 2012
IZ/02108 BBC NEWSI Sc·cncellutl u.der siaof........enco
(;](;][!) NEWS
Under the skin of whaling science
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News webs 1te, Japan
"Japan 's scientific whaling Is just commercial whaling in disguise ."
It is probably the criticism most often levelled at Japan's whaling programme, one of only
three in the world currently to target the "great whales".
But is it fair criticism? I had long wanted to look at Japan's scientific whaling in a bit more
depth. And for the BBC's One Planet series, I got the chance.
In the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), housed in an anonymous building nea r the docks
indowntown Tokyo, the organisation's director-general Hiroshi Hatanaka explains the
purpose of the Antarctic and North Padfic programmes which he supervises.
"The mission of this inst:Jtute is to conduct research and surveys on cetacean resources," he
tells me; "t hat is, to conduct biological research and surveys on cetacean resource
abundance and to make good use of it for the sustainab le use and rational management of
cetacean resources.
~The Japanese input into cetacean research in Antarctica is signif icant,
and I would say crucial •
Ame Bjorge, IWC
"The (International Whaling Commission or IWC) moratorium was introduced because at that
t1me there was not enough biological data to secure that commerdal whaling was free from
danger (to cetacean resources)."
The ICR and the Japanese government's Fisheries Agency believe that If enough of the right
sort of data can be collected, they can go back to the IWC and prove sdentifically that some
wha le stocks are robust enough to allow a degree of sustainable commerda l hun ting.
Cutting edge
Key to this is the "stock structure";In other words, which whales belong to which
populations, and how much those populations mix.
DNA research has, for example, shown there are two distinct populations of Antarctic minke
whales in the reg1ons surveyed by Japanese ships. This kind of information wou ld be v1tal in
deddlng commerdal quotas.
The ICR also gathers information on the age distribution within each population (wh ich
relates dosely to the natura I rate of mortality), blubber thickness (an indication of health and
food supp ly), and diet .
"In practice, we have to cut open the whales' stomachs to be able to take out all the ir
contents and transfer them into buckets," relates Tsutomu Tamura, a whale feeding
ecologist.
"Once In the buckets we record the1r we ight. Afterwards, we bnng them back to the
laboratory where we examine in deta il more specific 1tems like the kinds of spedes present,
their size, their weight, and thereby collect additional data ."
Rummaging in a stereotypically unt1dy sdentist's office, Dr Tamura unearths bott les or otoliths
taken from wha les' stomachs . These hard tiny structures come from the ears of fish that the
whales have eaten .
A larger bottle holds krill, the whale s' staple diet In the Antarct ic.
Il l
385Annex 207
!/ 02/08 BBC NEWS ISe.enee/N•uIUnde•lho skin of wholinascience
The ICR also believes that killing whales is the only way to dete:nnine a whale's age reliably.
This is done by examining earplugs, hard waxy structures which accumulate annua l growth
rings, like those of a tree, as they grow in the whale's ear.
Justified deaths?
A scientific whaling programme does not only consis t of killing animals.
Japan's Antarctic fleet is led by a sighting boat carrying internationaobservers. They scan the
oceans visually, recording the abundance ofvanous whale specjes and, where possible,
identifying individua ls visually.
Humpbacks, for example, often have individualised colour patterns on their bodies and nicks
in the ir tall-flukes.
The fleet sails in a pattern designed to make a representative survey of the ocean.
Commercial hunters, by contrast, would just head for the biggest concentration of wha les
they could find.
Sdentists also take biopsy samples from spedes, such as blue whales and humpbacks, which
are not hunte d, firing a dart into the whale's body and pull ing back a sample of tissue.
~ We need to do stomach contents, and that Implies using the leth:J I
method~
Tsutomu Tamura, ICR
This is where part of the controversy lies. Some sden tlsts believe that biopsies, combin.ed
with sighting data and collection of whales' faeces, could provide the same information that
Japan obtains without killing the aeatures.
A project called Years of the North Atlantic Humpback (Yonah), for examp le, used visual
iden tification and repeated biopsies to map migra tion patterns clnd estimate abundance.
Biopsies can, in principle, provide age information, by examining telomeres (struct ures on the
end of chromosomes that decay with age}, on reproductive status (through hormone
analys is) and on diet (by analysis of stable Isotopes, chem ical traces of prey).
Faeces can also provide genetic material and dietary information.
But they are hard to collect, for obvious reasons. And Tsutomu Tamura does not believe non
letha l methods of assessing diet prov ide anything like the same accuracy of information.
"Biopsy sampling .•• can tell you just about what type of food, whether fiSh or krill, but not
what kind of fish," he says.
"Collecting faeces... doesn't tell you how much the whale has ec:tten, it just doesn't provide
data to make a quantitative estimation. That is why we need to do stomach contents, and
that implies using the lethal method."
Adding value
William Evans, a former US Whaling Commissioner and cetacean scientist who Is a strong
advocate of non-lethal methods, acknowledges that some letha l research might be necessary
from a strict ly scientific standpoint.
"There are certain kinds of data that we can get remote ly throuuh observation and tagging
and other kinds of non- invasive methodology,' he tells me from Notre Dame University in the
US where he current ly edits an ecology journal.
"But..• you have really got to use more invasive techniques in order to get certain answers
that you're looking for."
Anothe r factor behind the lethal component of Japan's research is money. Sending ships to
the Antarctic for months at a time is expensive, costing thousands of dollars per day; and
sales of meat from the whaling prog ramme, some taking place in the vast Tsukiji fish market
just around the comer from ICR, pay for most, though not all, of the research.
So how valuable is Japan's Antarctic resea rch programme to the community of international
cetacean researchers?
2Jl
386 Annex 207
12/02108 sac NEWSISc.nc.Na!U<oiUndeYthe shn ofnch"'e•co
"The Japanese input Into cetacean research in Antarct ica Is Significant, and I would say crucial
for the (IWC) soent ific comm1ttee," observes Arne Bjorge from the Inst 1tute of Manne
Research in Oslo, screntrfic committee chair.
In November , the JWC held a meetrng to review the first 18 years of Japan's Antarctic
scientificwhaling programme .
The review is bei ng finalised 1n Anchorage, Alaska, ahead of this year 's IWC meet 1ng. But of
the parts completed so far, what did the scient ific comm1ttee decide?
"To make it very short , the review pane l was very pleased with the data (Japan has)
collected and pro vided from the programme," says Dr BJorge.
"There was some advice on how these data could be further analysed , or better analysed,
but there was general consensus about the high qua lity and the usefulness of the data ."
Ethically just ified?
Another western complaint is that Japan's sdent 1fic whaling is illegal.
But the International Conven tion for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which is the IWC's
basis, states that •any contracting government may grant to any of 1ts naoona ls a spedal
permit author ising that national to kill, take and treat wha les for purposes of scientific
research ... whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be
processed ..."
Legal panels periodically convened by conservat1on groups have argued that Japan's current
programmes in the Antarct ic and North Pacific fall outs ide the original scope and purpose of
scientific whaling , or that they contravene other marine treaties.
But such panels have all the power of governments in exile.
So to come back to the origina l accusation; is scientific whaling just commercial whaling in
disguise? To put it another way; are commercial forces driving the research programme?
Certa inly the whaling industry has some influence, particularly with polit icians who , like Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe, come from whaling regions .
But as one Japanese MPtold me: "If the head of Toyota asks us to do something, we listen;
whalers are really a minor force by comparison."
Perhaps the most Important driving force is exactly what the ICR says it is; to "resolve the
scientific uncerta inties and pave the way for a resumption of susta inab le whaling ".
Whether it is justified I think, depends on your point of view. If you believe that no whales
should be killed as a matter of principle, dearty scient ific hunt ing makes no sense; It is just as
unethica l as commercial whaling.
But if you believe that whales are no different from other wild anina ls, that there is no
compelling ethical reason why they cannot can be hunted and eaten like boars and deer and
salamanders, then Japan 's logic begins to emerge .
Officially,he 1982 IWC moratorium was not a complete halt to whaling but a pause ; and
Japan hopes the data it gathers will eventually convince the IWC on scientific grounds that
commercial whaling can be licensed aga1n.
RJchard.B/[email protected]
Storr om !:lBC l'iEWS
'Itp ew; bbc c<:~. qc/pr t • 2,h 'sc ce nat.. e/6667l7 tm
Pub h d 2007 05 25 14 30 4~ G
:!BC. .20 }.
313
387388
Counter-Memorial of Japan