INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRAL/A v.JAPAN)
STATEMENT BY DR NICK GALES BVMS PhD
Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Program
15 APRIL 2013
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. fu this statement I draw on my direct experience as: an active member of the
futernational Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee (Scientific Committee)
over the past decade; a senior member of the international marine mammal science
community for more than 30 years; and a leader of a major national science program.
A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to the notification of expert evidence
providedto the Court under letter dated 24 January2013.
1.2. The Scientific Committee is of considerableimportanceto the successful functioningof
the futernational Whaling Commission (IWC). I will demonstrate that the clear
separation of the processes of science andpolicy between the Scientific Committee and
the IWC have been a prerequisite to the Scientific Committee achieving its excellent track record in the delivery of a range of world-leading science outputs: see Section 2
of this statement below, "The Scientific Committee".
1.3. Instark contrast, the Japanese Whale Research Program Under Special Permit in the
Antarctic (JARPA) and the Second Stage of the Japanese Whale Research Program
Under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARP A ll) have been the most divisive
components of the Scientific Committee's activities since their inception: see Section 3
below, "The Scientific Committee and Special Permit Whaling".
1.4. My experience at the Scientific Committee indicates that the difficulties with JARPA
and JARPA II have been caused by the programs' ongoing and indefinite nature and
lack of clear objectives, along with the inability to engage the proponents of the
programs in an evidence-based dialogue and the resultant lack of influence the
Scientific Committee has on the content and structure of JARPA and JARPA II. These
factors have prevented any real progress in the Scientific Committee's attempts to
conduct its mandated scientific role of review and advice on these special permit
whaling programs.
1.5. In its Counter-Memorial, Japan asserts that the Scientific Committee has not been
criticalf JARPA and JARPA II and that it has recognised the value of the programs to
the Scientific Committee's work: see, for example, Japan's Counter-Memorial at
footnote 629 and paragraphs 34, 11.2-11.3, 4.16, 4.33, 5.16, 5.142, 9.27-9.28. I will
assess these assertions and demonstrate that the nature of the debate on JARPA and
JARPA II precludes the Scientific Committee providing the IWC with constructive,
consensus advice on these programs: see Section 4 below, "Japan's Counter
Memorial".
1.6. On the very few occasions when consensus has been achieved on a summary statement
on the Japanese programs, they refer to little more than an unrealised potential
relevance to an element of the work of the Scientific Committee. That potential
remains unrealised after more than 25 years of the application of lethal methods, with
those methods remaining in essence the same as when the programs commenced.
1.7. The technical engagement of the Scientific Committee with data resulting from JARPA
has been limited to a few methodological issues that arise from the analysis of data that
have complex properties, such as bias, resulting from their collection as part of a
2 whaling operation rather than within a framework of a carefully designed experiment
with clear objectives and appropriate methods. These examples will be discussed in the
statement.
1.8. I will demonstrate that the contribution of Japan's Southern Ocean special permit
whaling programs to our knowledge on Antarctic minke whales, particularly in relation
to their conservation and management, is negligible: see Section 5 below, "Has JARPA
and JARPA II contributed important lmowledge on Antarctic minke whales?"
1.9. Finally, I will outline an existing, collaborative and highly successful research
framework, operating with the endorsement and cooperation of the Scientific
Committee, that provides an alternative mechanism to Japan's unilaterally determined
JARPA and JARPA II programs and which can deliver on the important questions
relating to the conservation and management of minke whales without the need to kill
the whales: see Section 6 below, "The Southern Ocean Research Partnership: A new
model for collaborative, non-lethal science in the Southern Ocean".
2. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
2.1. The Scientific Committee of the IWC is widely recognised as a world-leading scientific
body on matters associated with the conservation and management of whales. As with
all successful science bodies charged with responsibilities to review, undertake research
and provide advice on matters of practical management relevance, a prerequisite to
achieving these mandates is to isolate its technical functions from debate on policy
questions.
2.2. In Annexure 2 to this statement, I provide a general description of the governance and
working practices of the Scientific Committee and present three relevant examples of
its world-leading science. Several of these science outcomes were only possible to
achieve due to the Scientific Committee being able to apply its scientific processes in a
complete and proper manner.
2.3. In one ofthese examples, the development of an agreed method to calculate catch limits
for commercial whaling- the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) - I explain that a
key element of this success was that its framework was explicitly designed to ensure
that any policy decisions were provided via instruction from the IWC. Thus, the
3 Scientific Committee limited its deliberations to matters of technical consequence
which responded to the conservation objectives, or policy, determined by the IWC.
2.4. The RMP was developed after the moratorium on commercial whaling was imposed.
This break from the annual business of agreeing catch limits acted as a "circuit breaker"
for both the Scientific Committee and the IWC. It allowed time for reflection on the
reasons for the failure of earlier management to conserve whales adequately.
2.5. A key feature of the manner in which the IWC functioned prior to the moratorium was
a blurring of responsibilities between the Scientific Committee and the IWC on matters
of science and matters of policy and management. The failed predecessor of the RMP
-the New Management Procedure (NMP) - required the Scientific Committee to make
determinations on the classification of whale populations that defined if those
populations could be subject to whaling. The failure in the technical process by which
this classification was supposed to occur exposed the Scientific Committee to undue
policy influence: see also Annexure 2.
2.6. Thus, it can be said that the Scientific Committee has only truly managed to
functionally quarantine its scientific processes from policy considerations since the
introduction of the moratorium on commercial whaling. This self-correction within the
IWC allowed the Scientific Committee to apply the well-proven, evidence-based norms
of scientific research and to leave difficult policy debates on whaling to the IWC -but
with the important exception of its consideration of special permit whaling: see
Section 3 below.
3. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL PERMIT WBALING
3.1. The difficulty of the Scientific Committee to manage effectively its roles of review and
advice in relation to JARPA and JARPA II stand in stark contrast to almost all other
aspects of the Committee's business.
3.2. In many ways, the nature and debates on JARPA and JARPA II represent a
continuation of the problematic manner in which the Scientific Committee operated
prior to the moratorium. This link with past practice is clearest in two regards:
(i) There is an almost entire emphasis in JARPA and JARPA II on the collection of
lethally acquired data for the assessment ofbiological parameters; and
4 (ii) The ability of the Scientific Committee to provide evidence based advice to the
IWC regarding JARPA and JARPA II is compromised.
3.3. I will examine these two features to explore the degree to which they have evolved or
changed in the 26 years since JARPA commenced, and in particular the degree to
which they remain an issue in JARPA II.
Empltasis olt lethal data and tite use of biological parameters
3.4. The premise that data derived from whaling operations can be used for the suitably
precise estimation of biological parameters required for the determination of catch
limits was the flawed basis of the failed NMP. On that basis, the need for such data
was expressly avoided in the RMP: see Kirkwood 1992; IWC 1994.
3.5. After more than 25 years of ongoing work within the Scientific Committee on the
RMP, during which time it has been revised in several regards, data from JARPA and
JARPA II have not been relevant to those revisions.
3.6. It is notable that in its use of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedures
to set catch limits for subsistence hunters, biological parameters estimated from lethally
acquired data are not used by the Scientific Committee. This is despite the samples
being readily available as a partf whaling operations.
3.7. Despite these factors and the extraordinary evolution and availability ofpowerful, non
lethal research techniques over the past 25 years (including those addressed in Section 6
below) and the great success that the applicationofthese tools has achieved, JARPA II,
and JARPA before it, remain programs that are centred almost exclusively on the use of
lethal research. The lethal methods adopted have remained in essence unchanged
throughout that time.
Tite ability of tite Scientific Committee to review and provide evidence-based advice
oltJARPA a1tdJARPA II
3.8. Paragraph 30 of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling 1946, specifies the role of the Scientific Committee in reviewing special
permits issued by any country. A key part of that review, inter alia, is to provide
advice on the objectives of the research.
53.9. In principle the challenge of the review and advice function for special permit whaling
should be the same as the challenge the Scientific Committee faces for the full range of
scientific issues within its remit. In the cases described in Annexure 2, all competing
views were tested for their scientific merit through intense debate and discussion. Of
key importance, the Scientific Committee determined the next steps in their workplan
to resolve the uncertainties around the issues, and thus genuinely worked its way
through the often polarised debate. In other words, the Scientific Committee had a
genuine scientific role to fulfil and was able to apply the normal scientific process of
review and structured analyses to successfully complete its role. Good science
prevailed.
3.10. As I have noted, this has not been the case for the Scientific Committee in its role of
reviewing and providing advice on special permit whaling, and more particularly on
JARPA and JARPA II. A normal scientific approach to undertaking a review would be
flexible around the particular issues that may arise in a proposai, but essentially
includes a two-stage process, which involves:
(i) Review of the scientific merit of the overall proposai (are the
objectives!hypotheses of the proposai scientifically meaningful and do they
address important or relevant scientific questions?); and
(ii) Review of the proposed methods described (how likely is it that the questions
being asked can be answered with the proposed data collection and analytical
methods and timelines proposed?).
3.11. In the case where animais are to be used in an experiment, particularly if the methods
are invasive or lethal, then a review would invariably assess if the objectives can be
achieved with non-lethal, or less invasive tools, and to determine whether the proposed
number of animais to be used in an experiment is no larger than appropriate to acquire
informative results and will not harm the populations from which animais are taken (for
international standards on these ethical and welfare issues, see Gales et al. 2009).
3.12. In the normal course of resolving a dispute where scientific views are polarised, the
Scientific Committee would evaluate the evidence-base of each view. Thus, a simple
expression of a contrary view would not in itself be sufficient to block the Scientific
6 Committee from forming a view unless the contrary view is able to be scientifically
supported.
3.13. The Scientific Committee attemptedto utilisethis process when Japan first proposed its
JARPA program. A range of papers was presented to the Scientific Committee, and
indeed published in the open literature, which provided legitimate and objective
scientific views that the objectives of the program were ill-defined and were not
achievable, particularly in relation toage specifie mortality rates with the proposed
methods: see CoolŒ1987,de la Mare 1987, 1989, 1990,Goodman 1988,Goodman and
Chapman 1988, Holt 1987. Japan disagreed with the views (see IWC 1988), but
despite a later attempt (see Sakuramoto and Tanaka 1989) they were unable to refute
them. The concerns raised by Cooke and others were ultimately agreed (see Tanaka
1990) and Japan adjusted the methods of analysing data in JARPA, but notably no
change was made to the method of collecting data in the program, and in particular
their use of lethal methods and self-imposedcatch limits. fu summary, the prospective
analyses of JARPA within the Scientific Committee demonstrated that no usable
estimates of age-dependentmortalitywouldbe obtained (see de la Mare 1990a, 1990b),
which waseventually confirmedafter 18years of JARPA.
3.14. The Scientific Committee and the IWC have attempted on a number of occasions to
redefine a process for reviewing special permit programs that would facilitate an
effective outcome. The most recent version of these defined review procedures -
"Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposais and Research Results from
Existing and Completed Permits", also known as "Annex P" (see IWC 2009a) -
outlines the areas on which the Scientific Committee may comment on new special
permit programs, annual reports and mid-term reviews from existing programs or final
reviews of completedprograms. "AnnexP" includes a review component that includes
sorne externat scientists, but the fundamental review responsibility remains with the
ScientificCommittee.
3.15. Itis important to note that progress on the issue of reviewing special permit whaling
programs has not foundered in the Scientific Committee simply because whales are
being killed, or because strongly opposing views have been expressed. These same
challenges exist for many scientific issues that the Scientific Committee deals with,
including sorne of those discussed in Annexure2. futhe normal scientific process, the
7 debate criticaliy evaluates the evidence base of ali of the presented information and
views, determines a workplan and iterates towards an agreed conclusion. Indeed, in my
view, a proposai under special permit whaling that asked relevant scientific questions,
proposed methods that were demonstrably the best scientific solution and was subject
to genuine scientific review, would not founder in the Scientific Committee in the
manner that JARPA and JARPA II have.
3.16. The core problems the Scientific Committee has encountered in the review of JARPA
and JARPA II are as foliows:
(i) A lack of clear and achievable objectives in JARPA and JARPA II, thereby not
providing the scientific framework by which a review can proceed;
(ii) The ongoing and indefinite nature of JARPA II;
(iii) A lack of engagement by the proponents in an evidence-based dialogue that can
be assessed by the Scientific Committee; and
(iv) A consequential lack of influence, and hence practical purpose, of the review
process in changing the JARPA or JARPA II programs.
3.17. Resolution of ali four issues would be required in order to provide for a proper review
by the Scientific Committee of JARPA and JARPA II. I examine each of these criteria
below.
3.18. A lack of clear and achievable objectives: As explained by Professor Mangel, whose
statement I have read, a research program that is for "purposes of scientific research"
requires objectives or hypotheses to be clear, meaningful and achievable using the tools
available to a scientist. Once framed in such a manner, it is possible to provide an
objective assessment of: (i) the relevance and importance of the research question the
objective addresses; and (ii) the likelihood that, and degree to which, the proposed
scientific methods can inform the question. Without the guiding framework of clear
and achievable objectives, the remaining review steps are not possible.
3.19. The view of the Scientific Committee clearly aligns with that of Professor Mangel, as
can be seen in "Annex P". In this document the Scientific Committee notes that
objectives should, inter alia, be quantified to the extent possible, and provide a
statement of their value to the conservation and management of whale stocks or other
8 marine living resources. Further, the Scientific Committee requests statements as to the
degree to which the objectives address a range of issues including past
recommendations of the Scientific Committee and the work of the Scientific Committee
in relation to things such as the RMP.
3.20. In relation to JARPA II (and to a large extent JARPA), this fundamental scientific
structure of clear and achievable objectives is lacking. Professor Mangel has provided
an examination of these objectives against the expected norms of scientific research.
I concur with his views and will not expand on them here, except to draw particular
attention to the first the JARPA II objectives. I do this as the subject matter Japan
purports to examine under Objective 1 - the Southem Ocean ecosystem - is central to
my role as the Chief Scientist of Australia's Antarctic Program. Understanding the
Southem Ocean, its ecosystems and their influence on, and vulnerability to, global
climate processes is the largest element of our, and most other, national Antarctic
Programs. Consequently, through the Australian Antarctic Program, I am fully aware
of, and participate directly in, mostof the global initiatives that aim to improve our
understanding of the Antarctic ecosystem.
3.21. Unless set within the framework of a testable scientific question, the first objective of
JARPA II, "Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem", in itself cannot be treated as
"scientific research". The Antarctic ecosystem, which ranges from viruses to whales,
and includes complex and ill-understood interactions and processes between the
physical and biological components of the system, is immense in scale. There is a wide
range of very large, multi-national initiatives that aim to improve our lmowledge on
specified elements of the Antarctic ecosystem that have been shown to be relevant to
particular questions. These initiatives run over defined timelines. Each ofthese specify
which components of the ecosystem they intend to study (e.g. ocean productivity in a
specified area and its relationship to the Antarctic circumpolar current), which field
methods will inform such an interaction (generally based on models which build on
existing lmowledge), and the timeline by which their specified objectives can be
achieved. The vague JARPA II objective of "Monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem"
lacks any of these required characteristics and is immutable to any form of practical
review.
93.22. By contrast to JARPA II, Japan's National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) is an
important contributor to scientific lmowledge in the Southern Ocean and on the
Antarctic continent. Australia has a particularly close relationship with NIPR as both
nations operate in East Antarctica. In common with the Australian Antarctic Program,
NIPR tests the scientific quality and relevance of its research projects through
international peer review before embarking on its research expeditions. Along with its
other characteristicsof international engagement and regular reporting of the progress
of its research, NIPR is an example of an organisation with a proper scientificresearch
program.
3.23. The JARPA II program operates in complete isolation and without any reference to the
scientific researchof NIPR. The work of NIPR and the many international programs
on Southern Ocean science that Japan and its scientists engage in receive no reference
in the JARPA II proposai. Given NIPR's focus on research that aims to improve our
understanding of Antarctic ecosystems, such non-alignment between a genuine
ecosystem scale program in the work undertaken by NIPR and a purported one in
JARPA II is hard to understand from a scientific perspective. If JARPA II was
genuinely a program for "purposes of scientific research" it would be expected to be
connected with the broader scientific initiatives of Japan in the Southern Ocean. Itis
not.
3.24. Japan did initiate one collaboration during the final season of the 18 year JARPA
program. During the IWC review of JARPA, Japan presented results from a joint
survey in 2004/05 between JARPA and a vessel from Japan's National Research
Instituteof Far Seas Fisheries: see Naganobu et al. 2006. The survey focused on
interactions in the Ross Sea area between oceanography, krilland baleen whales. The
JARPA review workshop welcomed the multi-disciplinary approach presented in the
papers and was complimentary on the value of the data. The authors of an associated
paper that reported on the use of scientific echo-sounders in JARPA (Murase et al.
2006) concluded that multi-disciplinary studies such as these can reveal ecological
relationships between krill and baleen whales. These results have recently been
published in the peer-reviewed literature: see Murase et al. 2013. Critically, only non
lethal data was collected during the joint surveys and subsequently analysed and
reported in any of these papers. No suchjoint surveys have occurred during JARPA II
10 and no data comparable to that collected by the joint survey have been presented to the
Scientific Committee.
3.25. The ongoing and inde:finite nature of JARPA II: Leaving aside the lack of clear and
testable objectives, an important element of review of scientific research is a defined
timeline, and a demonstration of how the timeline was determined. A proper review
will test the claims made in a program and provide advice on their likelihood of
success. Without a timeline such tests have no scale to assess against. An absence of a
timeline also means that the determination of appropriate sample sizes becomes
confounded.
3.26. Additionally, an important feature of long-term programs is the definition of
milestones; that is, what level of lmowledge will have been achieved within a defined
time period. It is common to link these milestones with stopping rules that ensure that
if a program is not progressing as planned, then work will stop until an improved
approach is developed. JARPA II lacks timelines, milestones and stopping rules
leaving the review process without a context in which practical advice on progress
against objectives can be provided.t appears to be entirely open-ended.
3.27. A lack of engagement by the proponents in an evidence-based dialogue:
Differences in scientific opinion are an important and common element in advancing
scientific lmowledge and understanding. Within the Scientific Committee such
differences are encountered in addressing almost all complex problems. Different
scientists present their scientific perspectives backed up with evidence. The role the
Scientific Committee is to examine the evidence base of all perspectives and to work
through a process (often with a specified work plan) towards resolving the differences
by weight of the scientific evidence. As noted above, the Scientific Committee has
managed this role with success on many scientific issues: see particular examples in
Annexure 2.
3.28. This has not been the case in reviewing JARPA or JARPA II due to Japan's apparent
position that it need not provide a serious response to scientific criticism from the
members of the Scientific Committee, nor provide and debate the scientific basis for its
own views. Rather, Japan's responses are characterised by noting disagreement with a
particular view and reiterating their own. Such resistance is not a part of scientific
11 debate. Ali aspects of JARPA (and JARPA II since then), including the program's
objectives, and ali aspects of the methods and analyses have remained virtually
immutable in the face of valid criticism. The proponents of JARPA and JARPA II, and
indeed aU special permit programs, provide reports and participate in reviews, but do
not answer legitimate scientific concems, or modify their proposais on the basis of the
scientific debate, including contrary views that are put to them.
3.29. This lack of proper engagement by proponents of special permit programs greatly
hampered the ability of the Scientific Committee to provide constructive consensus
advice to the IWC. On matters that go to the heart of reviewing the program's
objectives and the utility of the proposed methods, the process ends with little more
than a brief statement of opposing views. Such statements ("sorne said this, while
others said that") are a feature of the annual reports of the Scientific Committee,
including each of the reports since the introduction of JARPA II: for example, see IWC
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a. These opposing statements are usually
appended in their entirety to the Scientific Committee's report, and often simply refer
to statements made during previous meetings.
3.30. While the Scientific Committee can be said to have achieved balance in informing the
IWC of the opposing views, the lack of arbitration over the validity and evidence base
of either view has resulted in each view being presented with apparently equal scientific
merit.
3.31. While it is certainly true, as Japan attests, that "there are instances where irreconcilable
differences persist among [the scientists]" (see Japan's Counter-Memorial at paragraph
2.53) and these views are presented to the IWC, such a point should only be reached
after sorne scientific process of assessment of the validity of the competing views. The
matters at the heart of the criticisms and defence of JARPA and JARPA II are well
within the competence of the Scientific Committee to make an objective and
scientifically weighted determination of the validity of each view.
3.32. A lack of influence, and hence practical purpose, of the review pro cess in changing
the JARPA or JARPA ll programs: A review function lacks practical purpose unless
it exerts sorne influence over the program subject to review. While final reviews aim to
provide an objective assessment of the degree to which a project has managed to
12 complete its stated objectives, initial and mid-term reviews are ofparticular importance
in providing guidance on whether a program is still worth proceeding with and/or how
a program may be modified in order to improve its performance. Without this practical
outcome there is little purpose to the review.
3.33. The importance of this point is exemplified in the process by which the Scientific
Committee attempted to review the JARPA II proposai, and the influence the review of
JARPA has had on JARPA II.
3.34. Japan presented its proposai for JARPA II to the Scientific Committee during its annual
meeting in 2005: see IWC 2006. It proposed to commence JARPA II in the 2005/06
Antarctic summer season with an expansion in its lethal take from a maximum of 440
Antarctic minke whales per season in JARPA to 935 (a 112% increase) as well as an
expansion of the species it would take to include 50 humpback whales and 50 fin
whales each season. JARPA had concluded during the 2004/05 season and the
Scientific Committee was planning a review of the JARPA program which was to take
place late in 2006. The timing of the Scientific Committee review was to ensure that
Japan had sufficient time to complete the analysis of all data collected during the
18 year program, including the data collected in 2004/05.
3.35. While the objectives of JARPA II varied in sorne areas from JARPA, the field program
itself was virtually unaltered: the coref the program required the killing of whales
(indeed a greatly increased number) and the collection of an almost identical suite of
measurements from the dead whales.
3.36. Any review of the plan for JARPA II could logically not proceed in the absence of a
review of JARPA, the program's first phase, in which an assessment could be made of
the degree to which the methods common to both phases of the research had achieved
the stated objectives.fudeed, the JARPA II proposai argued that the research contained
in that proposai addresses questions that cannot be answered by analysis of existing
data, which in the case of JARPA, consisted of data collected from almost 7,000 dead
whales.
3.37. Japan had conducted its own review ofits JARPA program in January 2005. However,
the Scientific Committee had decided that this was not an IWC-sponsored workshop:
see IWC 2005. Sorne members of the Scientific Committee had noted that such a self-
13 review- where 27 of the 39 participants were from Japan's own Institute of Cetacean
Research (17), or the Japanese Government's fisheries agencies (10) - would not
provide an objective review of the program: see IWC 2006. The report from the
Japanese review received little comment in the 2005 Scientific Committee meeting and
was not submitted or considered as part of the Scientific Committee's review in 2006.
3.38. At the 2005 Scientific Committee meeting, at which Japan presented its JARPA ll
proposai, an unprecedented 63 members of the Scientific Committee, which included
47 delegates from 16 national delegations (of a total of31) and 16 Invited Participants,
presented a paper in which they stated that they felt "unable to engage in a scientifically
defensible process of review of the JARPA ll proposai". They further stated that "this
proposai can be addressed by the SC only when the JARPA review is complete": see
Childerhouse et al. 2006. A response from five members of the Japanese delegation
rebutted this statement and argued the Scientific Committee was compelled to review
the JARPA ll proposai under paragraph 30 of the Schedule of the Convention: see IWC
2006.
3.39. The Scientific Committee then continued, without the 63 authors who had raised
important concems that go to the core of scientific process. Given the scale and open
ended nature of JARPA ll, the brief discussion within a small and non-representative
portion of the Scientific Committee (IWC 2006) and in the absence of any legitimate
review of the first phase of the JARPA program, the Scientific Committee cannot be
seen to have been able to acquit its responsibilities under paragraph 30 or under any
other scientific criteria.
3.40. The IWC JARPA review workshop took place in Japan in December 2006 and the
report was presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Scientific Committee: see IWC
2008. It should be noted that the JARPA review included the full participation of the
Japanese scientists who conducted the work. This included their involvement in
defending their own program and in agreeing the language of the report. In a normal
scientific review process the proponents of the research participate only to the extent
necessary to present the worlcand answer questions of clarification.
3.41. Despite the fact that JARPA had run for 18years and been subject to a mid-term review
almost a decade earlier, none of the stated objectives had been achieved. Major issues
14 were identified against each of the objectives, and a wide range ofrecommendations for
future work was provided.
3.42. Critically, none of the recommendations from the JARPA review workshop suggested a
need for future lethal data to inform any of the JARPA objectives. Nor did they include
any suggestions that a greater sample size might be required.
3.43. Many ofthese issues raised at the review workshop went to the heart of the need to kill
whales for the collection of data. These include particular recommendations on non
lethal techniques that would provide superior results. For example the Workshop
recognised the following (see rwc 2008):
[S]amples from the breeding areas (e.g. as could be obtained through a
combination of satellite tracking and biopsy sampling) would greatly facilitate
[stock structure] analyses, and are likely to be required to resolve issues
relevant to stock structure and mixing within the JARPA research area.
3.44. fu its Counter-Memorial at paragraph 5.40, Japan responds to this recommendation in a
cursory manner, stating:
It must be noted however that the locations ofbreeding grounds of the Antarctic
minke whales are unknown, except in waters off Brazil.In any case, research
under the JARPA demonstrated that the analyses of samples in the feeding
grounds are informativeof the stock structure of Antarctic minke whale.
3.45. Major issues were also raised in relation to the analysis of samples such as ear plugs
and stomach contents.
3.46. fu the case of ear plugs, the JARPA ll proposai makes no reference to, or
methodological change as a result of, the issue of the failure of nearly 7000 ear plug
samples from dead whales in JARPA to add anything to the precision of our estimates
of mortality rates for Antarctic minke whales, nor to the more general issues of the use
of the age data for other purposes (e.g. age at maturity).
3.47. Japan asserts that the collection of ear plugs for age analysis is a key rationale for
JARPA and JARPA ll (for example, see IWC 2006), but ignores the multiple issues
identified by the Scientific Committee relating to the useof ear plugs to estimate age at
maturity (i.e. through the use of a 'transition layer'): see also paragraph 5.9 below.
3.48. fu relation to the measurement of stomach contents, the JARPA review raised a wide
range of concems in relation to the analysis and interpretation of the data. fudeed it
15 was noted during the worlcshopthat the research merely confirmed the two species of
laillthat Antarctic minlŒwhales were lmown to eat and provided daily intalceestimates
that were no more precise than estimates published prior to the start of JARPA: see
IWC 2008. These significant concerns raised in the JARPA worlcshopdid not give rise
to changes in the approach in JARPA ll.
3.49. To my observation and lmowledge in attending the meetings of the Scientific
Committee, the JARPA review has had no practical impact on the core aspects of
JARPA ll that entailed killing whales. To that extent, the review of the first phase of
JARPA had no practical purpose in informing the second, greatly expanded phase of
JARPAll.
3.50. In summary, the fundamental debate in relation to the scientific propriety of the
objectives and methods proposed in JARPA and JARPA ll remains unresolved within
the Scientific Committee. The original lethal methods proposed in JARPA have
remained substantially unchanged over the past 26 years. The scientific concerns raised
in relation to the ill-defined nature of the objectives, the unlilcelihoodof the methods to
resolve the stated objectives, and the more appropriate application of alternative non
lethal methods remain unanswered. The inability of the Scientific Committee to
influence the methods and analyses applied each year by the proponents of the
program, arising directly from the proponents' failure to properly engage in and
respond to the review process, has essentially resulted in a deadlock. This has led to
the disengagement of many of the Scientific Committee's scientists. Very few
scientists engage in the annual review and discussion process concerning JARPA ll.
Those that do commonly refer bacleto statements made in previous years, rather than
use the valuable time of the Scientific Committee to reiterate a view for which progress
in discussions has proved impossible.
4. JAPAN'S COUNTER-MEMORIAL
4.1. In its Counter-Memorial, Japan malces multiple assertions claiming various levels of
support for JARPA and JARPA ll from the Scientific Committee. The main claims
made by Japan in this context are that:
e The Scientific Committee approved JARPA and JARPA ll as legitimate
scientific programs: see Japan's Counter-Memorial at paragraph 60;
16 e Non-lethal alternatives to methods in JARPA and JARPA II are considered by
the Scientific Committee as being impractical or too imprecise, and that sorne
data could only be acquired lethally: for example, see Japan's Counter
Memorial at paragraphs 4.13, 4.61;
e The process by which the Scientific Committee review submitted papers
represents peer review: for example, see Japan's Counter-Memorial at
paragraph 4.108; and
e The Scientific Committee endorsed the value of data from JARPA and
JARPA II in a number of contexts of its business: for example, see Japan's
Counter-Memorial at paragraphs II.2 and II.3.
4.2. Many of these assertions are made without authority or references. Those that include
attribution refer primarily to the report of the Scientific Committee's final review of
JARPA.
4.3. As I have described above, the advice of the Scientific Committee to the IWC on
JARPA and JARPA II is characterised by its polarity and its lack of assessment of the
scientific weight of the issues raised by members of the Scientific Committee. As a
result, it is rare that consensus is reached on any statement that provides a substantive
judgement on the programs. The most common paragraph referenced by Japan is one
that appeared in both the mid-term review of JARPA and the final review (see IWC
2008):
The results from the JARPA programme, while not required for management
under the RMP, have the potential to improve managementof minke whales in
the Southern Hemisphere in the following ways....
4.4. The quote goes on to discuss the manner in which these data could be relevant to
aspects of the RMP, such as implementation simulation trials. The other Scientific
Committee statements for which Japan provides references in its Counter-Memorial
refer to similar statements of thepotential utility of data in a range of ongoing analyses.
4.5. It is noteworthy that the statement was repeated in both the mid-term and final review
of JARPA, but that the intervening decade and indeed the years since have failed to see
a realisation of this potential.
174.6. On their face, it can be seen that none of the statements referenced by Japan can be
interpreted as an endorsement by the Scientific Committee of the actual JARPA and
JARPA II programs. As has been discussed earlier, JARPA and JARPA II are
programs of data collection which operate outside of the normal processes of scientific
research. Such programs will, by their nature, generate data. As the Scientific
Committee considers questions to do with the conservationand management of whales,
it will quite appropriately consider ali available data that might contribute to its
research and assessments. However, even though the Scientific Committee may have
consideredthe data, two important points in this regard are that: (i) it has not endorsed
JARPA or JARPA II as the appropriate scientific method of obtaining such data; and
(ii) as elaborated below, it has not requested further data that can only be obtained
usinglethal means.
4.7. The most conspicuous aspect of the data that has been collected in JARPA and
JARPA II is that, with the potential exception of data on stock structure (see
paragraph4.8 below), it has yet to realise any of the statedpotential utility in research
outputs from the Scientific Committee that are relevant to the conservation and
management of whales. The Scientific Committee makes many recommendations
during its annual meetings on research and data needs to answer key scientific
questions. What is absent from Japan's Counter-Memorial are any statements at al!
from the Scientific Committee that suggest a need for any further lethaldata from
Southern Ocean whales in order to complementany aspect of its research needs. Such
statementsare entirely absentfrom the ScientificCommittee'srecords.
4.8. In relation to stock structure,itis true that analyses of the genetic data from JARPA
have provided sorne additional support for the view that there are at least two
populations of minke whales in the JARPA whaling area, and that there is a wide
boundary of mixing between these populationsto the south of Australia. However, two
factors significantly detract from the apparent utilityf this outcome. First, evidence
for this population structure was already identified before the JARPA program: see
Wada and Numachi 1979. Whilst JARPA provided additional evidence for the
structure,itdid not find anythingnew. Second,it is important to note that the Scientific
Committee, the final JARPA review and even Japan's own review of its JARPA
program make reference to the fact that information on stock structure and mixing
18 would be better addressed with non-lethal sampling on the breeding grounds and with
satellite tag data to look at animal movements: see IWC 2008, Japan 2005. It is also
incontrovertible that genetic samples from any species of whale can be acquired non
lethally with biopsy darts. As such, Japan's purported revelation on stock structure
from JARPA could have been achieved equally, and in my opinion better, by using
non-lethal techniques.
4.9. Japan's Counter-Memorial also makes several assertions on the value of data from
JARPA and JARPA il to the understanding of the interactions between minke whales
and their environment. It is certainly true that the Scientific Committee regards issues
around the way whales interact with their environment as important to its worlc.
Indeed, the tapie is sufficiently important that in 2008 the Scientific Committee held a
joint workshop with the Scientific Committee of the Commission for the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). At the time, I was the convenor of
the Scientific Committee's Working Group on ecosystem modelling, and was a joint
convenor of this workshop. The workshop enjoyed strong representation from bath
organisations' Scientific Committees.
4.10. The workshop had an explicit purpose ofreviewing input data required for ecosystem
models being developed to provide management and conservation advice on laill
predators (which includes whales) in the Antarctic marine ecosystem that might be
relevant to IWC and CCAMLR. After determining the data required for ecosystem
models and reviewing what data was available, the workshop was asked to identify and
prioritise gaps in knowledge and the types of research programs needed to reduce
important uncertainties in ecosystem models.
4.11. A report from the workshop was presented to the Scientific Committee meeting in
2009: see IWC 2010b. Many useful recommendations on the prioritised lmowledge
gaps were presented in the report. Importantly, there were no recommendations and no
ranked data needs that would be serviced in any manner from any aspect of the
JARPA il program, or from lethal take generally. This is despite the fact that a major
stated objective of this program is in relation to the manner in which Antarctic whales
interact with krill and the broader environment.
194.12. Japan also asserts in its Counter-Memorial that the process by which the Scientific
Committee review submitted papers represents peer review (for example, see Japan's
Counter-Memorial at paragraph 4.108). As has been discussed earlier, this is clearly
not the case given the manner in which discussions on JARPA and JARPA ll occur in
the Scientific Committee. Peer review is the independent, and usually anonymous,
assessment of a paper by appropriately qualified scientific peers. The papers' authors
have a right of reply to the review, but play no role in the review itself. The peer
review and the response of the authors are then assessed through an independent third
party (usually in the form of the editor of a journal) and a determination is made of the
validity and qualityof the paper and whether it merits publication in the scientific
literature.The polarised discussions in the Scientific Committee on JARPA and
JARPA llin no way representa form of credible peer review.
4.13. In summary, in its Counter-Memorial and in its discussions in the Scientific
Committee, Japan makes regular reference to statements from a wide range of sources
that support sorne aspect of the potential relevance of the data they collect to particular
analyses or assessments. However, it is clear that none of these references amount to
the Scientific Committee giving any sort of endorsement to the need for, or the
objectives or methods adopted by, JARPA or JARPA ll. Furthermore, the Scientific
Committee has in fact been critical of Japan's programs. While Japan may argue that it
has followed the advice of the Scientific Committee on sorne particular analyses, what
has been entirely absent is any evidence that Japan is willing to modify its program in
any way that impacts on its self-determined lethal taleeof whales. It is the clear lack of
scientific need for this lethal sampling that underlies by far the greatest amount of
criticism by many members of the Scientific Committee and for which they have seen
no adjustment in Japan's programs.
5. BAS JARPA/JARPA ll CONTRIBUTED IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE ON
ANTARCTIC :MINKE WHALES?
5.1. As the populations of great whales in the Southem Ocean collapsed, and began to be
protected by the IWC, the focus of the whaling nations tumed increasingly to the much
smaller (but relatively abundant) Antarctic minlŒwhales.
5.2. Global concem over the status of whale populations was rising and culminated, in
1972, with the cali for a moratorium on commercial whaling by the UN Conference on
20 the Human Environrnent. The IWC responded in two ways. The Scientific Committee
argued that a blanket ban on whaling was not scientifically justified and that
management of whales "requires regulation of the stocks individually" (IWC 1973).
This led to the work on the NMP. The Scientific Committee also stated that "instead of
a moratorium, support should be sought for a decade of intensified research on
cetaceans". This second recommendation led to the International Decade of Cetacean
Research (IDCR) surveys. Work cornrnencedin 1975 and surveys began in late 1978.
5.3. At the time the IDCR surveys cornrnenced, 6,000-9,000 Antarctic minke whales were
talŒneach year as part of a commercial hunt, predominately by the USSR and Japan.
There was substantial disagreement in the IWC about the method of setting the catch
limits. At the time this was determined from an estimation of the number of whales
that could be ldlled in a population such that the population remained stable. In other
words, the number of whales born would be equal to the number of whales killed by
whaling, plus those that died of natural causes. These "annual replacement rate"
estimates ranged from 0.5% to 7% of the population (that is, you can kill between 0.5%
and 7% of the abundance estimate of a population of whales each year and the
population will remain the same size). For Antarctic minke whales, the IWC negotiated
a replacement rate of 3.5%, but debate in the Scientific Cornrnittee continued on both
the replacement rate and abundance estimates.
5.4. The minke whale component of the IDCR surveys responded to these issues of debate
in the Scientific Committee and set about focusing efforts on abundance estimates and
animal movement patterns. The former was addressed with non-lethal sighting surveys,
and the latter through the use of "Discovery marks". Discovery marks were the best
available technique at the time for a pelagie whale species. The system involved firing
a metal cylinder with a unique identifier engraved on it into a whale, recording the
location of the whale when it was 'marked' and recording the location of any whales
taken in the commercial whaling operations that had a tag in their tissues. Thus, it can
be said that the primary issues the IWC believed should be addressed through these
surveys were questions of abundance and animal movements on the feeding grounds.
Additional scientific information on minke whales was recorded from a proportion of
whales taken in commercial whaling operations, including certain biological data that
was thought at that time might allow calculation of replacement rates. At this time the
21 IWC was applying the NMP which was explicitly reliant on these biological data. As
discussed in Annexure 2, the NMP failed exactly because the estimation of the required
biological parameters from whaling data proved to be manifestly unattainable at the
levelof precision required and their use in a management context was proved to be of
no practical utility.
5.5. By the Antarctic summer of 1985/86, when the moratorium on commercial whaling
came into effect, the Scientific Committee had concluded that the IDCR sighting
surveys required modification. This was subsequently done and led to the conduct of
two circumpolar survey series over the next two decades - the IDCR and Southem
Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (SOWER) programs - which have provided an
invaluable foundation of what we lmow today about Antarctic minke whales. In simple
terms, the surveys provided new information on Antarctic minke whales relevant to
conservation and management that has enabled the Scientific Committee to:
e estimate the absolute abundance of Antarctic minke whales by sector and
around the whole of the Southem Ocean;
• potentially estimate trends in Antarctic minke whale abundance by sector and
around the whole of the Southem Ocean;
• characterise sorne aspects of Antarctic minke whale habitat north of the ice
edge;
• compare habitat distribution of Antarctic minke whales with other whale
species; and
• improve our understanding of sorne aspects of minke whale behaviour, e.g.
group size.
5.6. The IDCR/SOWER programs also provided many novel insights and information on
other great whale species in the Southem Ocean.
5.7. For much of the same period that Japan participated in and supported the collaborative
IDCR/SOWER program, it also unilaterallyran its JARPA/JARPA II programs.
5.8. In 1987, when Japan commenced its JARPA program, the salient lmowledge relevant to
the conservation and management of Southem hemisphere minke whales can be
summarised as follows:
22e The estimates of abundance of minke whales that relied on the notoriously
problematic techniques of using measures of catch per unit of effort had been
discarded in favour of the direct estimates from sightings surveys. The number
ofbreeding populations, required for the application of the NMP, was unlmown.
Based on sorne early genetic analysis,there was evidence that there were at least
two breeding populations with a possible boundary somewhere in IWC
Areas IV and V (roughly 130°E): see Wada and Numachi 1979. The positions
of other boundaries (of which there must be at least one) were unlmown. The
locations of breeding grounds were unlmown, although one was suspected off
the coast of Brazil. Discovery marks showed that whales tended to be
recaptured in later seasons often close to where they were originally marked.
e It had become clear that biological information derived from animais taken in
commercial whaling operations were confounded through the issue that the
ldlled whales did not representa true cross-section, or "random sample", of the
whole population. Pregnancy rates were lmown to be high, with the corrected
estimate of 0.78 per year (that is, almost eight out of every 10 adult females
ldlled were pregnant). Natural mortality rate was unlmown, but thought to be in
the range of 0 to 0.1 (that is somewhere between 0 and 10% of the population
died each year), with natural mortality considered to depend on an animal'sage.
e Estimates of maximum sustainable yield rate (MSYR) and replacement yield
from the analysis of biological parameters covered a broad range, and were
much less precise than required for the application of the NMP. Methodological
studies provided strong evidence that only very broad estimates of MSYR and
replacement yield would ever be obtainable: see de la Mare 1990a, 1990b. That
is, it was very likely that we would never be able to ascertain MSYR
sufficiently accurately for use in a management regime.
• Minlcewhales were lmown to feed almost exclusively on Antarctic krill. On the
basis of theoretical relationships between body mass and food consumption in
mammals, minlΠwhales were estimated to consume about 4% of their body
mass each day. These daily estimates could not be converted into the more
informative estimate of total annual food consumption per whale because the
dates of arrivai and departure of whales to the feeding grounds were unknown
23 and believed to depend on the age, sex and reproductive state of individual
animais.
5.9. The contribution of information from more than 25 years of JARPA/JARPA II to the
state of lmowledge relevant to conservation and management of minke whales is
negligible. In this context, key aspectsf the current state oflmowledge and associated
elements of the work of the Scientific Committee can be summarised as follows:
e The recent abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales have been derived
exclusively from the non-lethal IDCRJSOWERprogram. Abundance surveys of
JARPA were reviewed and found to be seriously compromised in multiple
aspects of the methodology, including their close association with the whaling
operations: seerwc 2008.
e The number of breeding populations remains unlmown and little has been added
to the earlier evidence for at least two populations with a boundary somewhere
around 135°E. The positions of other boundaries (of which there must be at
least one) remain unknown. With the exception of the already recognised
putative breeding population off Brazil, locations of breeding grounds remain
unlmown. This is despite the fact that the location of these breeding grounds,
and genetic sampling of animais from those areas, would be the most
informative genetic approach to understanding population mixing on the feeding
grounds.
e This lack of information about population structure in minke whales was
anticipated in the designof the RMP. Simulation tests of the RMP showed that
setting catch limits for each 10° of longitude was robust to uncertainty in the
number of populations, location of stock boundaries, the variability in the
ranges and overlap of possible multiple breeding populations on the feeding
grounds. JARPA/JARPA II have not added to the lmowledge of the range of
movements of individual whales, which is information that might allow a less
cautious application of the RMP's multi-stock rules. The most efficient means
for studying whale movements are non-lethal such as satellite tagging or
identifying individual animais through genetic "fingerprints" (obtained from
biopsies) or natural markings (from photo identification). The recent success in
tagging and collecting biopsies from Antarctic minlce whales in the Ross Sea
24 and the Westem Antarctic Peninsula demonstrate bath the practicality and
scientific retums of such an approach (see discussion below in paragraph 6.14).
ΠA major objective of JARPA was to provide estimates of natural mortality by
age, i.e. what proportionf each age class died each year. This objective was
abandoned after a few years and replaced with the amended objective of
deriving an average estimate over all ages. When the JARPA program was
reviewed by the IWC in December 2006, it was concluded that the uncertainty
around the derived estimate from the sampling taken from almost7,000 whales
meant that the parameter remained "effectively unlmown": see IWC 2008.
Japan's assertion at paragraph 4.124 of its Counter-Memorial that the problems
identified with its age estimates from JARPA have now been solved such that
"the precision of the estimates of natural mortality rates ... has now been
accepted", is not correct. Japan incorrectly equates the resolution of one
problem identified by the Scientific Committee - variations encountered when
different people 'read' the age data - with resolutionf all of the identified
problems. It remains the case that JARPA estimates of natural mortality are so
imprecise that our state oflmowledge on mortality estimates remains essentially
as it was at the start of JARPA.
ΠAnalyses associated with the determination of age of animais killed in JARPA
remain as confounded as those from the commercial whaling era. There have
been no new insights on Antarctic minke whales agreed by the Scientific
Committee that are based on these data.
ΠPregnancy rates are lmown to be high, with the pre-JARPA estimate of O.78 per
year remaining the accepted value. It is worth noting that pregnancy can be
determined through non-lethal means from biopsy samples (St. Aubin 2001).
ΠIn 2009, the Scientific Committee's Working Group on MSYR classified the
estimates of minke whale MSYR based on JARPA as being of low reliability
because of difficulties relating to possible changes in the carrying capacity of
the Southem Ocean (i.e. the number of whales an area of ocean can support in
terms of available prey and other environmental factors) and problems in
interpretation of the catch-at-age data (IWC 201Oc). These findings by the
25 Working Group reiterated the earlier realisation that MSYR could not be
estimated sufficiently reliablyfor directuse in management.
• Estimates of daily food consumption from JARPA have not provided any
improvement in precision from those established using general energetic
principles. The problem remains in converting daily consumption into total
food consumption because the dates of arrivai and departure of whales to and
from the feeding grounds remains unknown and is likely to depend on the age,
sex and reproductive state of individual animais. JARPA/JARPA II lethal
research cannat address this problem since it would require tracking the
movement of live animais - a research technique that has been avoided in
JARPA/JARPA II.
• Japanese scientists have published a range of papers from the JARPA and
JARPA II programs, although the number and relevance (to the conservation
and management of whales) of these papers for such a large and heavily funded
program is notably small. Given the very large number of whales ldlled,
sampled and measured in these programs, the amount of the resultant data must
be assumed to be substantial. Thus it is not surprising that sorne papers will
result from a range of exploratory and opportunistic analyses which are largely
not relevant to the program's objectives. For example, the two peer-reviewed
papers cited by Japan as arising from JARPA II (see Japan's Counter-Memorial
at paragraph 5.99 and footnote 774) discuss microscopie morphology of minke
whale hearts and changesin minke whale avaries.
• Nor is it surprising to have statements that the analysis of these damight be
relevant to various issues. The main feature evident in the pattern of published
outputs (which is the usual measure by which science is judged) is the near
absence of papers that address the actual objectives of these two programs.
Given the difficulty that the programs have had in framing and addressing
objectives from their inception, a normal science process would have expected
to be self-correcting and to have developedmodified objectives and methods to
ensure that important questions were being posed and that the methods were
capable of answering them.
265.10. While not related to issues of commercial whaling and its management by the IWC, a
great deal remains to be learnt about how Antarctic minlŒwhales interact with their
environment. Like its predecessor, the lethal components of JARPA II have
contributed nothing to that lmowledge, and on its own terms plainly cannot do so.
Addressing these important questions requires research efforts that are collaborative
and are linked to integrated programs that consider aspects of the Southern Ocean
system as a whole. Major multi-million dollar, collaborative programs are currently
being conducted throughout the SouthernOceanvia national polar programs. These are
typically coordinated through international organisations such as the Scientific
Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR), the Scientific Committee for Oceanic
Research (SCOR), CCAMLR and indeed the IWC. All IWC members participating in
SouthernOcean research, includingJapan,work within these collaborative frameworks.
The results from this work have been at the cutting edge of our understanding of all
elements of the Southern Ocean (including whales). It is notable that while Australia
and Japan enjoy an extremely productive and close collaborative relationship in
Antarctic and Southern Ocean research through several of these bodies, Japan's
Institute of Cetacean Research and its JARPA and JARPA II programs operate in
isolation from these mechanisms. The Southern Ocean Research Partnership in the
IWC provides an existing non-lethal and collaborativescientific process through which
futurework on Antarctic minke whales and other whale species is occurring and linking
to other relevant international science frameworks: see Section 6 below. This
Partnership has a designed flexibility to include new research priorities and design
additional projects to address them collaboratively. Ithas already demonstrated the
benefits of this approach throughnovel scienceoutputsrelevant to priority conservation
and management needs. This includes the demonstration that satellite tagging and
biopsy sampling of Antarctic minkewhalesis readily achievable.
5.11. The cessation of unilateral and non-productive programs lilΠJARPA II and a
redirection into a partnership framework would assist in resolving the Scientific
Committee's impasse with special permit whaling, and allow for a proper scientific
process on which to build futurelmowledge.
276. THE SOUTHERN OCEAN RESEARCB JA'RTNERSBIP: A NEW MODEL
FOR COLLABORATIVE, NON-LETHAL SCIENCE IN THE SOUTHERN
OCEAN
6.1. In 2009, the Australian Government proposed the establishment of a new structured
approach to conducting regional, collaborative and non-lethal whale research in the
IWC: the Southem Ocean Research Partnership (SORJP'):see Australia 2008. Australia
noted that the Scientific Committee is generally highly successful at reviewing
information on whale populations and identifying the priority research issues that
require attention. What was lacking, however, was a mechanism by which countries
can develop collaborative research specifically aimed at addressing the priority research
gaps.
6.2. The Scientific Committee endorsed the proposed approach of conducting regional,
collaborative research, in this case, in theuthem Ocean. The first stage in the
genesis of the SORP projects was to review the scientific questions and objectives
previously identified by the Scientific Committee through its research
recommendations in its annual reports, and prioritise these against the perceived need
for the information and the ability to address the scientific question within a reasonable
timeframe. After broad ranging, collaborative and highly consultative meetings of
international experts reviewing ali previously identified priorities, five research projects
were identified by SORP. Each project uses non-lethal research techniques and directly
benefits from a regional collaborative approach. SORP also proposed a workshop on
the developmentof non-lethal research techniques. The Scientific Committee reviewed
and endorsed the projects and the workshop.
6.3. The following is a list of the five SORP projects:
(i) Antarctic Blue Whale Project: towards an improved circumpolar abundance
estimate (see paragraph 6.8 below);
(ii) Acoustic trends in abundance, distribution and seasonal presence of Antarctic blue
whales and fin whales in the Southem Ocean;
(iii) What is the distribution and extent of mixing of Southem Hemisphere humpback
whale populations around Antarctica?;
28 (iv) Foraging ecology and predator-prey interactions between baleen whales and krill: a
multi-scale comparative study across Antarctic regions (see paragraphs 6.14-6.17
below); and
(v) Distribution, relative abundance, migration patterns and foraging ecology of three
ecotypes of ldller whales in the Southern Ocean.
6.4. The workshop, Living Whales in the Southern Ocean; Advances in methods for non
lethal cetacean research, was held in Chile in March 2012. It was attended by 124
participants from 16 countries and was live streamed to a :further1500 viewers. A one
day open-symposium which showcased new non-lethal research methods for whales
was followed by two days of workshops on health assessment of live cetaceans,
advances in long term satellite tagging techniques for cetaceans, population dynamics
and environmental variability, and estimation of diet and consumption rates from non
lethal methods. The full report of the workshop is available at:
http://www.simposioballenas.cl/wp-content/uploads/SC 64 014 Report-of-the-SORP
Living-Whale-Symposium Rev1.pdf.
6.5. It is worth noting that all of the Scientific Committee's research priorities published in
its annual reports for at least the past five years, and which required collection of data
from Southern Ocean cetaceans, could be addressed most effectively with non-lethal
tools: see Anonymous 2009. As a result, the fact that SORP would only consider non
lethal research techniques did not discount any of the Scientific Committee's research
priorities identified in the exercise mentioned in paragraph 6.2 above.
6.6. Further, in its consideration and discussion of SORP, the Scientific Committee has not
recommended that any lethal techniques be included in these projects. Indeed, from my
knowledge and involvement in the Scientific Committee's work, the Committee,
including Japan for this purpose, has not recommended any research areas which either
in terms or through an understanding of their likely scope would call for the use of
lethal methods.
6.7. Countries participating in the work of SORP include Australia, Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom and
United States of America. Despite a number of invitations and expressions of interest
in the work by Japanese scientists, Japan has declined to join SORP. Nevertheless as a
29 member of the Scientific Committee Japan has been free to seek to formulate and
recommendresearch priori ties for SORPor other worlcof the ScientificCommittee,but
to my lmowledge and observation has not suggested that there are any research
priorities that require lethal methods outside what it seeks to achieve through special
permit whaling.
Antarctic Blue Whale Project
6.8. The development, planning and implementation of the SORP projects follow a
thorough scientific process, such as that presented by Professor Mangel. The Antarctic
Blue Whale Project, which is noted above and is the flagship project of SORP, is a
good example.
6.9. This project concems the Antarcticblue whale, the largest animal to ever live on earth,
and one that was perilously close to extinction sorne decades ago. The project has
several specifie objectives including addressing the hypotheses that the population has
continued to recover since that last abundance estimate in 1998 and that the Antarctic
blue whale is represented by a singlepopulationaround Antarctica.
6.10. The SORP recognised that this was an ambitious project given the relative scarcity of
blue whales, the logistical difficulties of operating in Antarctic waters and the
associated costs. As such the first step in the detailed planning of this project was to
establish an appropriately qualified project team and to review the most suitable
methods to acquire a new abundance estimate for Antarctic blue whales and assess
whether it would be feasible logistically. This step alone has taken two years as it
required the review of ali the available sightings and catch data to contribute to an
analysis that assessed the relative power of different techniques (in particular line
transect or mark-recapture) for estimating abundance with a specified level of
precision. Throughoutthis period papers werepresented to the Scientific Committeeto
seek direction (see Childerhouse 2010, Childerhouse 201la, Kelly et al. 2011, Kelly
et al. 2012, Miller et al. 2012, Miller 2012, Wadley et al. 2012, Be112012,Baker et al.
2012), and each time the project responded directly to this feedback through changing
the nature of the analyses and exploring the issues further. These analyses suggested
that a technique known as mark-recapture (using DNA "fingerprints" from non-lethal
biopsy sampling and the comparison ofnatural markings fromphoto-identification)had
30 significant potential, but only if the encounter rate with blue whales could be increased
above the level expected using normal sighting surveys.
6.11.It was collectively agreed through consultation and endorsement by the Scientific
Committee that the project's next step should be the assessment of passive acoustic
techniques for locating and increasing the encounter rates with blue whales. A pilot
~tud was conducted off eastern Australia in 2012 using pygmy blue whales as a
surrogate for Antarctic blue whales. This intemationally collaborative study of two
three week voyages allowed the testing and refinement of equipment, decision rules as
well as the first assessment of the utility of the approach: see Miller et aL 2012. This in
tum led to a six week Antarctic voyage in 2013 that tested the equipment and the
approach in Antarctica with Antarctic blue whales: see Wadley et2012. The voyage
was highly successful showing that blue whales could be detected acoustically from
distancesof hundreds of kilometres and subsequently found by the ship. Once within
sighting distance of the blue whales, small boats were launched from the ship when
weather conditions allowed (generally on about two out ofthree days) and the ship and
small boats were used to obtain photographie and biopsy data required not only for the
mark-recapture analyses but also the assessment of population structure. The small
boats also were used to deploy satellite tags that enable the animal to be tracked in the
ensuing weeks and months.
6.12. A total of 84 blue whales were seen on the voyage in 39 different groups. Fifty seven
of these were photographed at a quality sufficient for individual identification, 23
biopsies were collected and two whales had satellite tags deployed on them (see photos
and video at: http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2013/australias-successful
antarctic-blue-whale-voyage. The encounter rate and success in data collection were
well beyond expectations. Indeed the 57 photo-identified blue whales collected on this
one voyage approaches the total of 63 photo-identified blue whales collected ali around
Antarctica in30 years of IDCR/SOWER voyages. The data from this voyage will be
reported to the Scientific Committee in June 2013 and will be used to provide an
estimate of the likely scale of increase in encounter rate provided by passive acoustics.
6.13. The project is now at the stage where it can make very clear research recommendations
for the considerationf the Scientific Committee on the most appropriate techniques to
address the project's objectives and the ship-based effort required to achieve the
31 objective within a specified timeframe. Although the preparatory phase of the project
has taken several years the extensive reviews, preparatory analyses, pilot studies and
the repeated presentations to and feedback from the Scientific Committee and other
international experts have led to the development of a defensible research project with
clear protocols, timeframe and degree of effort required to achieve its well-articulated
and specified objectives.
Interactions between baleen whales and krill
6.14. Another SORP project, Foraging ecology and predator-prey interactions between
baleen whales and krill: a multi-scale comparative study across Antarctic regions,
directly addresses questions about Antarctic minlce whale feeding behaviour and its
ecological relationships with other species. This subject matter is also purportedly
explored by Japan under JARPA II. However, the SORP project taleesa fundamentally
different approach to that adopted by Japan. For instance, the SORP project has clear
and testable hypotheses, including asking: (i) do humpback whales and Antarctic minke
whales compete for lcrillin the same ecological habitats?; and (ii) do humpback whales
and Antarctic minlΠwhales use similar feeding strategies in different Antarctic
regions? See Childerhouse 2011b. The SORP project also adopts effective non-lethal
techniques.
6.15. Under this project, during the 2012/13 Antarctic summer season a joint USA-Australia
research voyage and a USA research effort in the Ross Sea successfully collected the
first ever data on Antarctic minke whale foraging behaviour, including diving,
movement data, measurements ofkrill in the area and comparative data from humpback
whales that feed in similar habitats. This approach uses a sophisticated and integrated
suiteof the latest available non-lethal research tools, many of which were also applied
in the Antarctic blue whale project. These techniques include collection of biopsies,
photo-identification, measurements of krill using scientific echo-sounders and the
deployment of a range of different animal-borne tags. The tags range from short term
(hours to days) tags which provide data on full three dimensional movements
(including lunge feeding behaviour) to long term (days to months) tags which provide
data on movements and in sorne cases dive depths. Photos and videos of the
application of these techniques can be seen at:
32 http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2013/significant-advances-in-non
-lethal
research-on-antarctic-minke-whales.
6.16. The success of this recent research on Antarctic minke whales demonstrates that a ship
equipped with small boats and appropriately trained scientists can apply the same suite
of non-lethal research tools that have been used on many other whale species to
Antarctic minke whales. This is in contrast to the claims by Japan that such techniques
are impractical for Antarctic minke whales (see Japan's Counter-Memorial at
paragraphs 4.62, 4.75, 4.79, 4.82, 5.49-5.50).
6.17. An important lesson that is already evident from the SORP projects, and which has
been demonstrated in other successful, large, collaborative non-lethal whale projects, is
that the power in non-lethal techniques is most effectively delivered when they are
combined and used in concert to address particular research questions.
North Pacifie Ocean
6.18. The SORP model for collaborative research towards agreed IWC priorities, which
perhaps began in concept with the IDCR/SOWER voyages, is also achieving uptake in
the IWC in other regions. For the past few years the IWC has been developing the
IWC-North Pacifie Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research program (IWC-POWER).
This program seeks to determine the status of North Pacifie whale populations and
provide the necessary scientific background for appropriate conservation and
management actions. Japan, Korea and USA are key partners and Australia has played
an active role in the survey designs. The project only applies non-lethal tools.
General observations on collaborative researclt initiatives
6.19. The contrast between these IWC-endorsed, international collaborative programs
(including SORP), which achieve their well demonstrated success through the
application of a normal scientific process, and the unilateral programs of JARPA and
JARPA II conducted under special permit is stark. Japan itself has provided much of
the resourcing and has been a critical player in the IDCR/SOWER and the !WC
POWER programs and has seen the scientific benefits that these collaborations are
delivering.
336.20. These collaborative programs represent the appropriate alternatives to the unnecessary
and unscientific approaches adopted in JARPA and JARPA II. As such, Japan hasan
alternative to continuing JARPA II available to it right now, being the ongoing SORP
program, which incorporates cutting edge technologies and techniques to meet ali
relevant scientific research needs for the conservation and management of whales.
However, Japan has not to date chosen to utilise this alternative approach.
34Annexure 1: References cited in the statement
Anonymous. 2009. 'Report ofthe Planning Workshop of the Southern Ocean Research
Partnership (SORP), Sydney, Australia 23-26 March 2009'. Paper SC/61/016 presented to
the 2009 Scientifi.c Committee Meeting (available from: http://iwc.int/sc61docs).
Australia. 2008. 'Regional Non-Lethal Research Partnerships: a proposai for the Southern
Ocean'. Paper IWC/60/16 presented to the 60th Annual Meeting of the futernational Whaling
Commission, June 2008 (available from: http://iwc.int/iwc60docs).
Baker, C.S., Galletti, B., Childerhouse, S., Brownell Jr, R.L., Friedlaender, A., Gales, N.,
Hall, A., Jackson, J., Leaper, R., Perryman, W., Steel, D., Valenzuela, L. and Zerbini, A.
2012. 'Report of the Symposium and Workshop on Living Whales in the Southern Ocean:
Puerto Varas, Chile 27-29 March 2012'. Paper SC/64/014 presented to the 2012 Scientific
Committee Meeting (available from: http://iwc.int/sc64docs).
Bell, E.M. 2012. 'Annual Report ofthe Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP)
2011/12'. Paper SC/64/013 presented to the 2012 Scientifi.c Committee Meeting (available
from: http://iwc.int/sc64docs).
Childerhouse, S. et al. (62 other authors). 2006. 'Comments on the Government of Japan's
proposai for a second phase of special permit whaling in Antarctica (JARPA II)'. Appendix 2
of Annex 01. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 8:260-261.
Childerhouse, S. 2010. 'Southern Ocean Research Partnership project plans (seven projects)'.
Paper SC/62/010 presented to the 2010 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from:
Childerhouse, S. 2011a. 'Annual Report of the Southern Ocean Research Partnership
2010/11 '. Paper SC/63/012 presented to the 2011 Scientifi.c Committee Meeting (available
from: http://iwc.int/sc63docs).
Childerhouse, S. 2011b. 'Revised Project outlines for the Southern Ocean Research'. Paper
SC/63/013 presented to the 2011 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from:
35Cooke, J.G. 1987. 'Comments submitted by J.G. Cooke (Invited Participant) on 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' by the
Government of Japan'. Paper SC/D87/37 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee Special
Meeting to Consider the Japanese research Permit (Feasibility Study), Cambridge, December
1987 (unpublished).
de la Mare, W.K. 1987. 'Comments on the program for research of the Southern Hemisphere
minke whale and for preliminary research on the marine ecosystem in the Antarctic'. Paper
SC/39/0 24 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 1987 (unpublished). 16pp.
de la Mare, W. K. 1989. 'On the simultaneous estimation ofnatural mortality rate and
population trend from catch-at-age data'.Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:355-62.
de la Mare, W. K. 1990. 'A further note on the simultaneous estimation of natural mortality
rate and population trend from catch-at-age data'.Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40:489-92.
de la Mare, W. K. 1990a. 'Problems of'scientific' whaling'. Nature 345:71
de la Mare W. K. 1990b. 'Inferring net recruitment rates from changes in demographie
parameters: a sensitivity analysis'.ep. !nt. Whal. Commn 40:525-9.
Gales, N.J., Bowen, W.D., Johnston, D.W., Kovacs, K.M., Littnan, C.L., Penin, W.F.,
Reynolds ill,J.F. and Thompson, P.M. 2009. 'Guidelines for the treatment of marine
mammals in field research'. Marine Mammal Science 25:725-736
Goodman, D. 1988, 'R7. Systematic evaluation of scientific research permit requests:
application to the Southern Hemisphere minke whale'. Rep int. Whal. Commn 38:147-8.
Goodman D. and Chapman D. G. 1988. 'R5. Comments on Annex R2 "A preliminary
consideration on a method for estimating age-dependent mortality from age-composition
obtained from random sampling'". Rep int. Whal. Commn 38:144-5.
Holt, S. J. 1987. 'Comments on Japanese proposai to catch Southern Hemisphere minke
whales under special permit'. Paper SC/39/MilO presented to the IWC Scientific Committee,
June 1987 (unpublished). 12pp.
IWC. 1973. 'Report ofthe Scientific Committee'. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 23:28-238.
36IWC. 1988. 'R8. The view of the Japanese scientists in response to annexes E5, R5, R6, and
R7, SC/39/Mi10, SC/39/02, SC/39/024, and comments by sorne members of the sub
Committee regarding SC/39/04'. Rep int. Whal. Commn 38:148-9.
IWC. 1994. 'Report of the Scientific Committee (Annex H): the revised management
procedure (RMP) forbaleen whales'. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44:145-52.
IWC. 2005. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management 7:44-49.
IWC. 2006. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management 8:46-53.
IWC. 2007. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 9:57-63.
IWC. 2008. 'Report ofthe Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 10:58-61.
IWC. 2009a. 'Annex P. Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposais and Research
Results from Existing and Completed Permits'.Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 11:398-401.
IWC. 2009b. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management 11:61-64.
IWC. 2010a. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 12:73-80.
IWC. 2010b. 'Report ofthe Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 12:300-306.
IWC. 2010c. 'Report ofthe Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 12:180-198.
IWC. 2011a. 'Report ofthe Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 13:56-58.
IWC. 2012a. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management 14:53-57.
37Japan. 2005. 'Report of the Review Meeting of the Japanese Whale Research Program under
Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) called by the Govemment of Japan, Tokyo, 18-20
January 2005'. (Reproduced as Annex 102 to the Japanese Counter-Memorial).
Kelly, N., Double, M., Peel, D., Bravington, M. and Gales, N. 2011. 'Strategies to obtain a
new abundance estimate for Antarctic blue whales: a feasibility study'. Paper SC/63/SH3
presented to the 2011 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from: http://iwc.int/sc63docs).
Kelly, N., Miller, B.,Peel, D., Double, M., de la Mare, W. and Gales, N. 2012. 'Strategies to
obtain a new circumpolar abundance estimate for Antarctic blue whales: survey design and
sampling protocols'. Paper SC/64/SH10 presented to the 2012 Scientific Committee Meeting
(available from: http://iwc.int/sc64docs).
Kirkwood, G. P. 1992. 'Background to the development ofrevised management procedures'.
Annex I, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42:236-43.
Miller, B.S. 2012. 'Real-time tracking of blue whales using DIFAR sonobouys'. Paper
SC/64/SH12 presented to the 2012 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from:
Miller, B., Kelly, N., Double, M., Childerhouse, S., Laverick, S. and Gales, N. 2012. 'Cruise
report on SORP 2012 blue whale voyages: Development ofacoustic methods'. Paper
SC/64/SH11 presented to the 2012 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from:
Murase, H., Kiwada, H., Matsuoka, K. and Nishiwaki, S. 2006. 'Results of the cetacean prey
survey using echo sounder in JARPA from 1998/99 to 2004/2005'. Cited in Report of the
Scientific Committee. Journal ofCetacean Research and Management 10:438-439.
Murase, J., Kitakado, T., Hakamada, T., Matsuoka, K., Nishiwaki, S., and Naganobu, M.
2013. 'Spatial distribution of Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in relation
to spatial distributions oflaill in the Ross Sea, Antarctica'. Fisheries Oceanography 22:154-
173.
Naganobu, M., Nishiwald, S., Yasuma, H., Watanabe, Y., Yabuki, T., Yoda, Y., Noiri, Y.,
Kuga, M., Yoshikawa, K., Kokubun, N., Murase, H., Matsuoka, K., and Ito, K. 2006.
'Interactions between oceanography, krill and baleen whales in the Ross Sea and Adjacent
38Waters: An overview of Kaiyo Maru-JARPA joint survey in 2004/05'. Cited in Report of the
Scientific Committee. Journal ofCetacean Research and Management 10:438-439.
Sakuramoto, K. and Tanaka, S. 1989. 'On the estimation of age dependent natural mortality'.
Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:371-3.
St. Aubin. D. 2001. Endocrinology. In L.A. Dieraufand F.M.D. Gulland (eds), CRC
Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine, 2ndedn. CRC Press, London.
Tanaka, S. 1990. 'Estimation ofnatural mortality coefficient ofwhales obtained from the
estimates ofabundance and age composition data obtained from research catches'. Rep. !nt.
Whal. Commn 40:531-36.
Wadley, V., Lindsay, M., Kelly, N., Miller, B., Gales, N., de la Mare, W. and Double, M.
2012. 'Preliminary voyage plan for the 2013 austral summer SORP Antarctic Blue Whale
Project.' Paper SC/64/SH13 presented to the 2012 Scientific Committee Meeting (available
from: http://iwc.int/sc64docs).
Wada, S. and Numachi, K. 1979. 'Extemal and biochemical characters as an approach to
stock identification for Antarctic minke whales'. Rep. int.al. Comm 29:421-432.
39Annexure 2: Govemance and worldng practices of the Scientific Committee
1. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) established its Scientific Committee to
provide scientific advice to the IWC on issues of cetacean conservation and management.
The Scientific Committee meets annually as well as conducting a range of separate
workshops to advance work on specifie priority issues.
2. Membership of the Scientific Committee is made up of around 200 scientists, including
many global leaders in cetacean science. The membership includes national delegates from
member countries and invited participants with particular expertise relevant to the work of
the Scientific Committee.
3. The Scientific Committee is led by a Chair elected from its membership of delegates.
The Chair talees advice from the Scientific Committee as well as from a leadership group
constituted from the convenors of the various sub-committees and working groups of the
Scientific Committee.
4. The agenda and workplan of the Scientific Committee are developed on the basis of the
priorities and instructions of the IWC. The IWC approves the workplan and provides a
budget to support the activitiesof the Scientific Committee.
5. Each year the Scientific Committee considers and discusses a great number of papers
submitted by the membership, typically about 200 each year. Sorne ofthese papers are simply
noted by the Scientific Committee, while others are discussed more thoroughly and may give
rise to additional working papers during that process. In ali cases the Chair of the Scientific
Committee presses for a consensus view from the Scientific Committee. Given the
complexity of sorne of the issues the Scientific Committee faces, a consensus view is not
always achieved and a range of views will be transmitted to the IWC, most commonly in
association with a suggested workplan to resolve the uncertainties and differences of view.
Generally, this robust scientific process has served the Scientific Committee and the IWC
well and resulted in the resolution of many key scientific issues that impact directly on the
conservation and management of whales. This scientific progress has often been achieved
through the development of novel and world-leading techniques with application in the wider
scientific community.
6. The effective and global-leading work of the Scientific Committee on scientific issues
is exemplified in the following three examples:
The development of the Revised Management Procedure
7. The failure of regulation of commercial whaling and the collapse of global whale
populations is well known; but the underlying reasons for this failure are less recognised.
Through much of the twentieth century the primary mechanism for determining catch quotas
took place in the IWC where whaling nations bartered among themselves for the highest
catches they could obtain. Despite the fact the Scientific Committee met annually, there was
no clear separation between an independent science procedure - the business of the Scientific
Committee- and matters ofpolicy and management- the business of the IWC. Consequently
the Scientific Committee had a far less influential role in affecting the decisions on catches.
In 1960, as the dire status of the whale populations became impossible to ignore, the IWC
appointed a group of three outside scientists specialising in population dynamics to provide
advice on catches. In large part, it was advice from this group which led the IWC to cease ail
whaling on the highly depleted blue whale and humpback whale populations. However, the
advice failed to deliver a sufficiently influential science case to divert the IWC's continued
40allocation of unsustainable catches for fin whales and other species. Nevertheless, it can be
said that the decisions to protect sorne species demonstrated, at least in part, the benefits of
decisions that are primarily informed by the best available science.
8. fu 1972 the United Nation's Conference on the Human Environment (the fore-runner to
the United Nations' Environment Program) endorsed a proposai for a global moratorium on
commercial whaling as the most effective and necessary measure to arrest continued declines
in whale populations. The US supported the UN's approach and proposed a ten year
moratorium on commercial whaling to the IWC; a proposai that was rejected in favour of an
Australian proposai for the New Management Procedure (the NMP). The NMP, it was
argued, would provide the safeguard to ensure sustainability in catches through a sound
scientific process. The scientific principle behind the NMP of designing a scientific
framework through which to construct advice was sound, but it failed on two key counts.
Firstly, the idea that estimates of the magnitude and trend of a few biological parameters
could be derived with sufficient precision and accuracy to be reliable in the required
management context proved to be flawed. Secondly, because the NMP did not deal with the
uncertainty about a range of scientific parameters that determined catch limits, nor the rules
for classifying populations that determined if they could be considered for whaling, a strong
policy influence was introduced that undermined efforts to conduct an appropriate,
independent scientific evaluation. fu effect the NMP required the Scientific Committee to
malŒpolicy determinations that are the proper business of the rwc.
9. Thus, a lack of agreed policy and science-based management rules and a failure to
separate and isolate the functions of the Scientific Committee and the IWC again failed to
constrain the commercial drive for continued exploitation. Ultimately theIWC abandoned the
NMP and in 1982 adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling which came into place
during the 1985/86 Antarctic season.
10. The moratorium on commercial whaling acted as a circuit breaker from the annual
debates on catch limits and allowed time for the Scientific Committee to undertalΠthe
challenge of revising management procedures to account for the failures of the previous
management procedure. Importantly, the Scientific Committee focused on ensuring that the
scientific elements that would underpin a new management approach would be feasible to
collect (abundance estimates and catch data) and that the elements that required a policy
decision, such as the degree to which a whale population might be exploited, would be made
in the IWC.
11. While debate within the rwc continued to reflect opposing policy positions on the
future of commercial whaling, the Scientific Committee prioritised its work and ultimately
developed what we know today as the Revised Management Procedure (RMP). The science
process was challenging as it had to be designed more or less from the ground up. Different
scientists developed competing models for components of the RMP and these were tested
using agreed processes and models and thoroughly debated during the many meetings and
workshops of the Scientific Committee. The RMP is built within a simulation framework
where assumptions and inputs into the models can be tested in a virtual world of whaling
scenarios; in other words, it explicitly dealt with uncertainty.
12. Ultimately the RMP itself represented a new paradigm of fishery-type models in that it
established a management strategy that could be tested via simulation, included catch limits
that were scaled to the quality of the input data and embedded feedback and evaluation
methods to restore populations to safe abundance levels and maintain them there with high
certainty. This type of management strategy evaluation bas now become increasingly
embedded in modern regional approaches to fishery management.
4113. The RMP was designed to eliminate reliance on the biological parameters that led to
intractable and unresolvable difference in management advice that was a feature of the NMP.
Indeed, the RMP relies entirely on data that can be acquired non-lethally. This feature was
not a product of design against a non-lethal criterion, but rather an outcome of assessing
which parameters can be measured reliably and are key to the management decisions -
ultimately the abundance of the populations. In fact, the RMP is capable of operating with
just two inputs-abundance estimates and information on past catch levels (to account for
removals from the population). Additional informative, although not indispensable, inputs
are information about stock structure and the level of mixing of different stocks in the
relevant area or areas that will be subject to whaling.
14. The RMP is designed to operate with different levels oflmowledge. In scenarios where
lmowledge is good (precise abundance estimates and a good understanding of population
mixing) catch limits need not be highly cautious and may, as a result, be higher. In contrast,
where knowledge is less certain, more caution is exercised in setting catch limits, and so they
are generally lower. Given that whale abundance is subject to change through natural and
human causes, the RMP will reduce catch limits if estimates of abundance are not updated
and, if an agreed abundance estimate had not been obtained in the last ten year period, then
catches would be reduced to zero.
15. These (estimates of abundance and past catches) are the only inputs required for the
RMP. As noted above, the RMP is designed to eliminate reliance on biological parameters.
Rather than requiring knowledge of the various biological characteristics ofwhales in the real
world (lmowledge which the Scientific Committee's experience with the NMP showed was
manifestly unattainable), the RMP sets up simulations which account for (and test) the
plausible range and variations in biological characteristics and the environmental features that
drive them. The ultimate result is an outcome that is robust to the uncertainty in these
biological and environmental characteristics.
16. The Scientific Committee presented the IWC with three options for the level of
managed depletion for a population (referred to as tuning levels), from which a policy
decision could be made on the degree to which a whale population might be depleted through
a commercial whaling operation. The options provided by the Scientific Committee allowed
the IWC to determine if whale populations subject to the RMP should be managed down to
levels of 60, 66 or 72% of the estimated size the population would reach if it was not subject
to whaling. The IWC chose the most conservative ofthese tuning level options, 72%.
17. If instructed by the IWC, the Scientific Committee can apply the RMP to any whale
population and provide advice, based on clear and agreed science rules, on catch limits.
Indeed, with the exception of the final step of the RMP, which is the calculation of catch
limits, the RMP has been applied to many whale populations, including Antarctic minke
whales, since its development. The full application of the RMP, including the determination
of catch limits, would normally only occur when a catch limit was required for a commercial
whaling operation managed by the IWC. While management measures such as the
moratorium and the Southem Ocean Sanctuary (both of which explicitly set commercial
whaling catches to zero) remain in place, and until such time as a Revised Management
Scheme (see below) is agreed, it is unlikely the Scientific Committee will be requested to
undertake this step.
18. An important feature of the RMP is that its elements and assumptions can be subject to
review and enhancements. For the scientific elements, a review could be triggered by
presenting the Scientific Committee with analyses that demonstrated a change could enhance
one or more aspects of the performance of the Procedure. Such reviews have been a feature
42of the work of the Scientific Committee since the RMP was developed and have led to agreed
changes in the science rules.It is relevant to note that such a review has not been triggered by
any outputs from JARPA and JARPA TI,nor have data from these operations been a feature
of the RMP reviews triggered by other analyses. Similarly, the IWC can, at its will, vary the
policy decisions built into the RMP process, such as instructing the Scientific Committee to
evaluate an RMP at a different tuning level.
19. Before commercial whaling could resume the IWC would need to develop and adopt
what is referred to as the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), under which any whaling
operation would operate. An RMS would include rules on independent observation and
inspection of whaling operations, full catch documentation and verification and any other
management data that may be required to regulate the industry. An RMS has never been
agreed by the IWC.
20. The development of the RMP is a demonstration that when limited to issues of science
the Scientific Committee can successfully deliver scientific tools and advice even within a
highly polarised policy environment.
21. The legitimate policy debate on whether or not commercial whaling should be resumed
remains the responsibility of the IWC.
Tite Management of Aboriginal Subsistence Wltaling; the Bering-Citukclti-Beaufort Seas
Bowltead wltales
22. An important component of the work of the Scientific Committee is to provide advice
to the IWC on the management of subsistence whaling by indigenous communities around
the world. As with other forms of whaling the conduct of subsistence whaling is controversial
within the IWC, although sustainable aboriginal subsistence whaling operations by member
nations have been managed by the IWC for sorne decades and all such catches are regulated
under a range of IWC mechanisms.
23. The scientific models developed by the Scientific Committee account for the technical
aspects of whale population structure, size and trend. The IWC determines a desired catch
limit from a given whale population on the basis of a statement of need from an indigenous
community and this is tested for sustainability within the model developed by the Scientific
Committee. These Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedures (ASWMPs)
balance the conservation objectives for the whale population against the need statement of the
whaling communities.
24. Indigenous communities in Alaska have a long history of hunting Bowhead whales.
Unfortunately, the Bowhead population was severely depleted by commercial whaling in the
19th Century, but since the 1970s a series of surveys have shown that Bowhead numbers
have been recovering. The catch limits (defined as the number of animais struck by a
harpoon) is determined using an ASWMP specifically developed by the IWC for this
particular hunt. The population of bowhead whales they hunt is referred to as the Bering
Chukchi-Beaufort Sea (BCB) population which was believed to representa single, growing
population of whales. In 2005 Norwegian scientists reported genetic evidence that the whales
killed by the Alaskan hunters might instead come from two populations. As there is a risleof
depleting one population disproportionately to the other, such a finding could affect the
outputof the ASWMP and could lead to a decrease in catch limits.
25. The Scientific Committee was tasked with resolving the uncertainty around the number
of whale populations being hunted. The ensuing research involved genetic analysis of
material collected and archived as part of previous hunts. These analyses were run at several
43internationallaboratories and were among the most thorough conducted for any population of
mammals. The results led to consensus advice to the IWC that a single population of whales
was being hunted and that the current management procedure was appropriate. This
collaborative research led to a novel analytical framework for population genetic analyses of
animais sampled on migratory routes which was subsequently published in the open scientific
literature: see Jorde et al. 2007.
26. Once again, while the Scientific Committee's advice on this issue had potentially potent
political implications for sorne member countries, the science process was able to progress
appropriately and concluded with defendable consensus advice to the IWC.
Determining the abundance of Antarctic minke whales
27. A key function of the Scientific Committee is to provide advice to the IWC on the
status of global whale populations. futerest in these abundance estimates are for manifold
reasons including the determination of levels of recovery from exploitation and, for sorne
countries, interest in possible future whaling.
28. Bach year the Scientific Committee reviews papers reporting population abundance
estimates and determines if the techniques and conclusions are sufficiently robust for the
Scientific Committee to endorse an estimate. fu most cases the estimates are for populations
of whales which rnigrate through coastal waters and thus are relatively available for surveys.
Such populations include humpback whales, right whales and grey whales.
29. A much greater challenge is estimating the population size of species which spend
almost all of their lives in remote offshore habitats. Bxamples of these species include the
Antarctic minke whale, the Antarctic blue whale and the fin whale.
30. The techniques used to estimate these populations usually rely on structured non-lethal
sightings surveys that count whales within a sub-set of the area in which they are believed to
live. While simple in concept the methods and analyses (referred to as distance sampling) are
complex because not ali whales are seen in the sub-areas searched. The chances of seeing a
whale varies with distance, sighting conditions, habitat type, group size, animal behaviour
and animal size. Moreover whales are not always available to be seen because of the time
they spend beneath the surface and are known to distribute themselves unevenly and
unpredictably in their habitats.
31. For three decades the Scientific Committee conducted ship-based surveys around
Antarctica with a primary aim of estimating the abundance of Antarctic minke whales. These
surveys (initially part of the futernational Decade of Cetacean Research; IDCR, and
continued as the Southern Ocean Whales and Bcosystem Research Program; SOWBR)
represent a powerful and successful model of how such research can be conducted through
the IWC. The Government of Japan provided the ships (usually two survey ships per year)
and Russia provided one ship during the first six years. A steering committee of the
Scientific Committee made up of appropriate experts designed the surveys, and selected
international scientists led and participated in the surveys. Members of this steering
committee conducted the analyses of results, with several groups developing their own
methods. These surveys were under the control of the Scientific Committee and completely
independent of, and structurally different to, the surveys carried out by Japan as part of
JARPA and JARPA II. Scientists from many countries, including Australia, participated in
this steering committee and the ensuing analyses. Bach year analyses from these surveys were
presented and discussed.
4432. This process led to a consensus that the first series ofthese surveys (1978-1984; lmown
as circumpolar 1, or CPI) were inadequately designed such that the analyses of the results
could not correct for important effects that bias the abundance estimates. The second two
series of surveys conducted 1985-1991 (CPII), and 1991-2004 (CPIII) bad improved designs
and the methods of analysis were continuously improved. However, issues of how best to
analyse the data remained.
33. Recently, re-analyses of abundance estimates have been led by a group from Japan and
a group from Australia and the United Kingdom. Each group have developed their own
statistical models, tested the performance of their models against a simulated, identical data
series developed by the Scientific Committee, and then applied the models to the survey data.
Differences in the model output were examined and intensely debated, and in 2012 the best
elements of each model were merged and abundance estimates for minke whales at two
periods in the time series ofsurveys (CPll:1985-1991, and CPIII:1991-2004) were agreed by
consensus. In deriving these agreed abundance estimates the scientists have led the
international field of distance sampling, particularly in the application of spatial statistics.
The tools developed to count Antarctic minke whales will increasingly be applied to other
species for which similar scientific challenges apply.
34. While the point estimates (that is, the middle of the statistically plausible range of each
estimate) of the two circumpolar surveys appear quite different (515,000 for CPIII and
720,000 for CPII), there is actually no statistically significant difference between the two
estimates. This is because the statistically plausible range of each estimate overlaps
substantially (361,000-733,000 for CPIII and 512,000-1,012,000 for CPII). That is, it is
statistically plausible that there is no difference between the two estimates. Nevertheless, the
difference between the two estimates is close to being statistically significant and the
Scientific Committee is exploring plausible explanations - including one of no difference.
Other possible explanations include a real decline in overall abundance, a decline in
abundance in the survey area driven by change in minke whale distribution between the
surveys (that is, the whales have moved location between the surveys, particularly into
unsurveyed areas such as the pack ice), or technical issues with the survey techniques that
lead to an erroneous suggestion of difference.
35. The Scientific Committee bas already drawn on a wide range of potentially relevant
data to inform this worlc, including satellite telemetry of ice, lmowledge of minke whale
movements in ice, trends in abundance of other krill eating predators and reported changes in
the Antarctic environment. It bas recently been suggested that catch at age data derived from
JARPA and JARPA ll may be relevant to this worlc.Notwithstanding that such a possibility
cannat, by definition, be tested until a proper review bas been undertaken, it seems likely that
the major problems that have confounded interpretation of these data for the past two decades
willlimit their utility against this question and that other more robust data series will be more
directly informative.
36. The IDCRJSOWER surveys are exemplars for how the Scientific Committee can plan,
coordinate and execute research efforts that respond to priority science questions within the
IWC. The surveys concluded in 2010.
Conclusion
37. The examples listed above demonstrate the capacity of the IWC's Scientific Committee
to work through complex scientific issues and resolve them within the normal process of the
advancement of science. The Scientific Committee's approach to each issue was resolved
45despite the polarised policy debate on whaling and led to the delivery of world class science
advice to the IWC.
Reference cited in Annex 2
Jorde, P.E., Schweder, T., Bickham, J.W., Givens, G.H., Suydam, R., Hunter, D., Stenseth,
N.C., 2007. 'Detecting genetic structure in migrating bowhead whales off the coast of
Barrow, Alaska'. Molecular Ecology 16, 1993-2004.
46
Statement of Mr Nick Gales (expert called by Australia)