The IWC and Scientific Permits
GENERAL
A major area of discussion in recent years has been
the issuing of permits by member states for the killing
of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits
is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in
Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected. Prior to 1982, when it was agreed that a moratorium would come into effect in 1986, over 100 permits were issued by a number of governments including Canada, USA, USSR, South Africa and Japan.
Scientific Committee Review
Since the ‘moratorium’ came into effect after 1986, Japan, Norway and Iceland have issued scientific permits as part of their research programmes. In recent years, only Japan and Iceland have issued permits. Recent discussions have centred on accusations that such permits have been issued merely as a way around the moratorium decision; these have been countered by claims that the catches are essential to obtain information necessary for rational management and other important research needs. All proposed permits
have to be submitted for review by the Scientific Committee
following Guidelines issued by the Commission but the
ultimate responsibility for their issuance lies with
the member nation. The Scientific Committee’s review
concentrates on the following issues:
-
whether the permit adequately specifies its aims,
methodology and the samples to be taken;
-
whether the research is essential for rational
management, the work of the Scientific Committee
or other critically important research needs;
-
whether the methodology and sample size are likely
to provide reliable answers to the questions being
asked;
-
whether the questions can be answered using non-lethal
research methods;
-
whether the catches will have an adverse effect
on the stock;
-
whether there is the potential for scientists
from other nations to join the research programme.
The Scientific Committee comprises around 200 scientists, some nominated by member governments and others invited especially by the Committee itself. The Committee inevitably includes the scientists who are proposing the permit and the usual way that the review is carried out is that the comments of the proposers and the rest of the Committee are identified. As one might expect in such a large group of scientists, the review of any permits rarely results in unanimity either in favour or against the scientific merit of the proposal. The published reports of the Scientific Committee reflect the agreements and disagreements of the review process, for both new and continuing permits.
Scientific Committee discussions
There are a number of general interpretational questions stemming from the Guidelines given by the Commission (e.g. What comprises ‘essential’ for management? What constitutes ‘reliable’? What counts as a ‘critical’ research need?) that apply to most research permit discussions. There is no consensus on the answers to these either within the Commission or the Scientific Committee. Closely linked to these questions is the discussion of lethal versus non-lethal research techniques. Although there has been a great increase in the types of information that can be obtained from non-lethal research methods such as biopsy sampling and photo-identification, at present there are certain data that can only be obtained (at least in the short-term) using lethal methods. These include, for example, the age of an animal (obtained from earplugs) and the reproductive status and history of females (obtained from ovaries). Such information is important
inter alia in any consideration of biological parameters (e.g. mortality and reproductive rates) and interpretation of pollutant levels. The difficult question then becomes one of whether the answers one obtains using such data are ‘essential’, ‘reliable enough’ or ‘critical’? This calls for more than purely scientific judgement. Commission review While the Commission cannot interfere with the right of a member nation to issue a permit, it can comment on the permit, after receiving the report of the Scientific Committee. In recent years, the Commission has passed a number of Resolutions asking governments to refrain from issuing specific permits. These discussions are usually contentious and the Resolutions passed by relatively small majorities (see below).
Recent SPECIFIC Scientific permits (Click HERE for a list of special permit catches taken since the moratorium came into force.) JAPAN
Japan has issued scientific permits every year in recent years. In the current
year, permits are for the JARPA II programme (850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50
fin whales and 50 humpback whales) and the JARPN II programme (220 common minke
whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales). Further details are given below.
The 2004/05 Antarctic season was the final year of the 16-year 'JARPA' programme, following a 2-year
feasibility study. After completion of the JARPA programme, Japan initiated a
JARPA II programme, initially as a 2-year feasibility study, for 850±10% and 10 fin whales
in the Antarctic. This year, the full JARPA II programme commenced and the
current permit (2007/08) is for 850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales
and 50 humpback whales. Japan has subsequently agreed to delay the take of
humpback whales under this programme until at least until after the June 2008
Annual Meeting.
After completion of the JARPN programme
in the North Pacific, Japan initiated a JARPN II programme,
initially as a 2-year feasibility study, for 100 common
minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales and 10 sperm whales
in the western North Pacific. In 2002, a full
JARPN II programme was proposed involving the take of
150 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 sei whales
and 10 sperm whales. The current permit (2007) is for 220 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales,
100
sei and 10 sperm whales. ANTARCTIC (1) - JARPA
The 2004/05 Antarctic season was the final year of the 16-year 'JARPA' programme that had followed a 2-year feasibility study.
The stated objectives of the programme were:
- estimation of biological parameters (especially the natural mortality rate) to improve management;
- elucidation of stock structure to improve management;
- examination of the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem;
- examination of the effect of environmental changes on cetaceans.
Research activity combined a randomised lethal catch (400±10% minke whales each year) with concurrent line-transect sighting surveys. Operations alternated each year between Area IV + Area IIIE (35°E-130°E) and Area V + Area VIW (130°E-145°W). The most recently agreed population estimates from independent surveys were for Area IV in 1988/89 (74,700; 95% confidence interval 45,000 – 123,000) and Area V in 1985/86 (294,600; 95% CI 225,000 – 386,000). However, until a major reassessment is carried out in the next 1-2 years, the Committee agrees that it does not have current best estimates for Southern Hemisphere minke whales, noting that in some areas they may be appreciably lower.
Scientific Committee review
Mid-period Review (1997)
In addition to its annual review of results provided from the permit catches, the Committee carried out a major review of the programme (at its half-way stage) at a Workshop in 1997. This was published in 1998 in the Reports of the International Whaling Commission
48: 377 – 412 and a PDF copy can be found
HERE
(3Mb).
The Scientific Committee identified a number of areas of future work but agreed that none of the identified sampling and stock identity problems would in principle prevent the programme achieving its stated objectives with respect to the estimation of biological parameters. Most members believed that these estimates would have reasonable levels of precision although some believed it was too early to comment on likely levels of precision. The Committee also commented that the programme is providing information leading to a substantial improvement in knowledge of stock structure although further work is required; there was some disagreement over the necessity for the use of lethal research methods to address stock identity questions.
The Committee also noted that the programme is contributing useful information on the role of minke whales in the Antarctic ecosystem, particularly with information on feeding and energetics, as well as providing some information relevant to the Committee’s work on pollution studies and the effect of environmental change on cetaceans.
The Scientific Committee had concluded that this was a long-term programme that at the time of the 1997 review had only reached its half-way point. In several cases therefore, the programme could be said to have set the stage to answer many questions about long-term population changes. The Committee also noted that while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales.
Final Review (2007)
An intersessional meeting to review the results from the JARPA research
programme was convened in Tokyo in December 2006. The report of the JARPA Review
Workshop will be published in the 2008 supplement to the journal and can be
downloaded
HERE (pdf
1Mb) while a copy of its conclusions can be found HERE.
A short summary of the workshop is given below.
In summary, considerable data have been collected by the JARPA programme by
both lethal and non-lethal methods, but there was disagreement at the workshop
regarding the analyses presented and the interpretation of some of these data. A
number of recommendations for further analyses were made. Much progress has been
made in addressing Antarctic minke whale abundance and trends and provided that
the recommendations from the workshop are followed, the Committee may be able to
agree estimates although the confidence intervals are wide and probably will
preclude information on trend becoming available. For humpback whales the
abundance estimates provided useful steps towards acceptable estimates of
abundance.
A considerable amount of work has been undertaken on population structure
since the mid-term review held in 1997 (IWC, 1998) . It was agreed that there
are at least two stocks of Antarctic minke whales present in the JARPA research
area, and an area of transition in the region around 150°-165°E was suggested .
The data do not support the current IWC management Areas for Antarctic minke
whales. Samples from the breeding areas would greatly facilitate these analyses,
and are likely to be required to resolve issues relevant to stock structure and
mixing within the JARPA research area.
The estimation of natural mortality was the main initial objective of JARPA.
However, the confidence limits around the current estimate spanned such a wide
range that the parameter is still effectively unknown. More precise estimates of
natural mortality rates depend on the use of commercial catch-at-age data, but
there are some yet unresolved problems with those data.
The Committee welcomed the oceanographic and krill-related work undertaken
since the 1997 Workshop. The Committee also agreed that considerable relevant
data had been collected by the JARPA programme on matters related to body
condition and feeding. However, it is clear that the nature of the analyses
presented at the JARPA review meant that relatively little progress had been
made in addressing the role of Antarctic minke whales in the ecosystem. However,
a number of more refined analyses were presented and discussed at the Anchorage
meeting.
Levels of toxic metals and organochlorines were low compared with whales in
the Northern Hemisphere.
In conclusion, the Committee concurred with the view of the 1997 workshop
that ‘The results of the JARPA programme, while not required for management
under the RMP, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the
Southern Hemisphere’ in a number of ways. As has been the case in past Committee
discussions on of the respective merits of lethal and non-lethal methodology, it
was not possible to reach consensus amongst the participants.
Commission Review
In the discussion of these permits in the Commission, an additional factor raised is that the catches take place within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary declared by the IWC in 1994 (to which Japan lodged an objection with respect to minke whales). If a Sanctuary is in place, it can be argued that information on improving management of whaling in that region is unnecessary.
On many occasions, the Commission has (by majority vote) passed a
Resolution urging Japan not to issue a permit for these catches.
Antarctic (2) – JARPA II A new large-scale Antarctic programme (called JARPA II) commenced during the austral summer of 2005/06. The first two seasons were feasibility studies. The objectives for JARPA II differ from those for JARPA and
are defined by Japan as:
- monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
- modelling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives;
- elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure;
- improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks.
JARPA II will focus on Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales and possibly other species in the Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill. During the 2-year feasibility study a maximum of 850±10% Antarctic minke whales and ten fin whales
were killed and sampled in each season. Annual sample sizes for the proposed full-scale research (lethal sampling) are 850 (with 10% allowance) Antarctic minke whales (Eastern Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific stocks), 50 humpback whales (D and E stocks) and 50 fin whales (Indian Ocean and the Western South Pacific stocks). Humpback whales
were not taken during the feasibility study. The research methods for cetaceans for JARPA II are similar to those for JARPA. The programme also includes non-lethal research techniques to be used such as sighting surveys, biopsy sampling, acoustic surveys for prey species and the collection of oceanographic data.
At the 2007 Annual meeting here was
considerable disagreement over the value of this research both within the
Scientific Committee and the Commission. As in previous years, there was severe
disagreement within the Committee regarding advice that should be provided on a
number of issues, including: the relevance of the proposed research to
management, appropriate sample sizes and applicability of alternate (non-lethal)
research methods.
In 2005 a Resolution
was passed (30 votes to 27 votes with 1 abstention) that strongly urged the
Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that
any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained
using non-lethal means. Japan withdrew a proposed resolution in favour of the
research programmes.
In 2007 the Commission passed a
Resolution asking Japan to refrain from issuing a permit for JARPA II by 40
votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention; 27 countries decided not to
participate in the vote as they believed that the submission of the proposal was
not conducive to building bridges within the Commission. Present status The 2-year feasibility
study has now been completed and Japan has issued permits for 2007/08.
North Pacific (1) - JARPN
Japan carried out a research permit programme (100 minke whales per year) in the western North Pacific from 1994-99 known as JARPN. The primary aims of the programme had been to clarify questions of stock identity to improve the design of RMP Implementation Simulation Trials for the North Pacific and to act as a feasibility study for the development of a programme on feeding ecology. The Committee reviewed the results of this programme at a Workshop in February 2000 and the report is published in the Volume 5 supplement to the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2001. The Committee agreed that the information obtained was useful for management as it had been and will continue to be used in the refinement of Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific common minke whales. No consensus view was reached on whether the results could have been obtained using non-lethal research techniques in a suitable timeframe.
North Pacific (2) - JARPN II
At the 2000 Annual Meeting, the Government of Japan submitted an extensive new proposal entitled ‘Research Plan For Cetacean Studies In The Western North Pacific Under Special Permit (JARPN II) - Feasibility Study Plan For 2000 And 2001’. It was envisioned that 100 common minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales and 10 sperm whales would be sampled in each year. The stated goal of the programme was to obtain information to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources (including whales) in the western North Pacific. It includes sub-projects on:
- feeding ecology (including prey consumption and preferences of cetaceans and ecosystem modelling);
- stock structure;
- environmental effects on cetaceans and the marine ecosystem.
In 2002, after completion of the feasibility study, Japan put forward a proposal for a full long-term research programme primarily aimed at feeding ecology in the context of contributing to the ‘conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources in the western North Pacific, especially within Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone’ The 2005 programme proposes the taking of 220 minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales, 100 sei whales and 10 sperm whales in the western North Pacific.
The most recent population estimate for common minke whales in the western North Pacific and Okhotsk Sea is about 25,000 (95% CI 12,800- 48,600). A preliminary estimate of abundance for western North Pacific Bryde’s whales is about 22,000 (95% CI 15,000 – 32,600). There are no IWC agreed abundance estimates for North Pacific sei or sperm whales.
The report of the Committee’s discussions of first the feasibility study and second the full programme (available from the IWC office) were published in the supplements to the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management in June 2001 and April 2003. There was considerable disagreement within the Committee over most aspects of this research programme, including objectives, methodology, likelihood of success and effect on stocks. (Click HERE for more details on these discussions).
In 2000, the Commission adopted a Resolution by majority strongly urging Japan to reconsider issuing the permit. It adopted a similar Resolution in 2001. A further Resolution was passed in 2003 (24 in favour, 21 against and 1 abstention).
Iceland
The Icelandic research programme on
common minke whales in Icelandic waters continued in 2006.
The stated overall objective of the research programme was to increase understanding of the biology and feeding ecology of important cetacean species in Icelandic waters for improved management of living marine resources based on an ecosystem approach. While the project is intended to strengthen the basis for conservation and sustainable use of cetaceans, it is equally intended to form a contribution to multi-species management of living resources in Icelandic waters.
This research programme has multiple specific objectives among which the order of priority differs between the whale species. For common minke whales the primary specific objective is to increase the knowledge of the species' feeding ecology in Icelandic waters. For fin and sei whales, the primary specific objective is the study of biological parameters during the apparent increase in population size in recent decades. These objectives are the basis for the proposed sample sizes. Other important research objectives include studies of population structure, pollutants, parasites and pathogens, and the applicability of non-lethal methods.
In 2006, 60 common minke whales were caught under
special permit in accordance with the original research proposal. A total of 161
common minke whales have been caught since the start of the research programme
in 2003 and it is expected to be completed in 2007. Again, as in the past,
different views on the value of this research were expressed in the Scientific
Committee.
It was stressed at the time that no decision on whether to issue such a permit had yet been taken. Again, considerable disagreement on the value of this research was expressed in the Scientific Committee over most aspects of the programme, including the relevance of the objectives to the work of the IWC, the likelihood of success and the possible effects on stocks. (Click HERE
for more details on these discussions). A total of 161 common
minke whales have been caught since the start of the research programme in 2003
and it is expected to be completed in 2007. Again, as in the past, different
views on the value of this research were expressed in the Scientific Committee.
The Commission passed a Resolution relevant to this programme in 2003 (24 in favour, 21 against and 1 abstention).
Notes and details:
ARTICLE VIII, Paras 1-3
1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any
of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national
to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific
research subject to such restrictions as to number and
subject to such other conditions as the Contracting
Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and
treating of whales in accordance with the provisions
of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of
this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report
at once to the Commission all such authorizations which
it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any
time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
2. Any whales taken under these special permits
shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds
shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued
by the Government by which the permit was granted.
3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit
to such body as may be designated by the Commission,
in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more
than one year, scientific information available to that
Government with respect to whales and whaling, including
the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph
1 of this Article and to Article IV.
Guidelines
for the review of scientific permit proposals
The Scientific Committee has been given a number
of guidelines for the review of scientific permit proposals
by the Commission. The most recent of these was Resolution
1999-2, the active part of which states:
“REQUESTS the Scientific Committee, with respect
to all Special Permit Research Programmes, to provide
advice to the Commission, on the research to be
undertaken pursuant to any proposed Special Permit
or that has been undertaken in respect of any Special
Permit, as to whether the information sought in
the research programme under each Special Permit
is:
- required for the purposes of management
of the species or stock being researched; and
- whether the information sought could
be obtained by non-lethal means.”
This working paper includes all the Guidelines grouped
under five headings, following the approach adopted
for the review of the first JARPN proposal (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 45: 82ff.)
A. The Proposal
The relevant guidelines are as follows:
- `A Statement as to whether the permit proposal
adequately specifies the four sets of information
required under paragraph 30 of the Schedule.’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 36: 133)
- ‘Objectives of the research;’ (Sched. Para 30)
- ‘Number, sex, size and stock of the animals
to be taken;’ (Sched. Para 30)
B. Objectives
The relevant guidelines are as follows:
- ‘Comments on the objectives of the research
to be carried out under the proposed scientific
permit, including in particular how they might relate
to research needs identified by the Scientific Committee.’
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 36: 133)
- ‘The proposed research is intended and structured
accordingly to contribute information essential
for rational management of the stock;’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 37: 25)
- Is ‘required for the purposes of management
of the species or stock being researched’ (Resolution
1999-2)
- ‘The research addresses a question or questions
that should be answered in order to conduct the
comprehensive assessment or to meet other critically
important research needs;’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn.
38: 27-28)
- ‘The number, age and sex of whales to be taken
are necessary to complete the research and will
facilitate the conduct of the comprehensive assessment;’
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 37: 25).
(C) Methodology
The relevant guidelines are as follows:
- ‘Comments on the methodology of the proposed
research and an evaluation of the likelihood that
the methodology will lead to achievement of the
scientific objectives. These comments may
also include evaluation of the methodology in terms
of current scientific knowledge;’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 36: 133)
- ‘The objectives of the research are not practically
and scientifically feasible through non-lethal research
techniques.’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 37: 25)
- ‘… whether the information sought could be obtained
by non-lethal means’ (Resolution 1999-2)
- ‘The research addresses a question or questions
that cannot be answered by analysis of existing
data and/or use of non-lethal research techniques.’
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 38: 27-28)
-
‘Whales will be killed in a manner consistent
with the provisions of Section III of the schedule,
due regard being had to whether there are compelling
scientific reasons to the contrary;’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 37: 25) -[The Commission agreed
that it has been intended by this for the Committee
to report if cold grenade harpoons were used in
special permit catches. (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 38: 13)]
-
‘The research is likely to yield results leading
to reliable answers to the questions being addressed;’
(Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 38: 27-28)
(D) Effect of catches on the ‘stock’
The relevant guidelines are:
- ‘A review of the most recent information on
the stock or stocks concerned, including information
on any exploitation, stock analysis and recommendations
by the Scientific Committee to date (including,
where appropriate, alternative analyses and conclusions
and points of controversy).’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 36: 133)
- ‘An evaluation of the specification in the permit
proposal of ‘possible effect on conservation of
the stock’. As appropriate, the Scientific
Committee may carry out its own analysis of the
possible effects. (Rep. int. Whal. Commn.
36: 133)
- ‘The research can be conducted without adversely
affecting the overall status and trends of the stock
in question or the success of the comprehensive
assessment of such stocks;’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 38: 27-28)
(E) Research co-operation
- The relevant guideline is: ‘Comment on the adequacy
and implications of specified arrangements for participation
by scientists of other nations’. (Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 36: 133)
IMPROVING
THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR SCIENTIFIC PERMIT PROPOSALS
An important part of the discussions at the 2007 Annual Meeting centred
around improving the review process for scientific permit proposals. The
Committee agreed that the process suggested in 2006 (DeMaster
et al., 2007) represented a great improvement on the existing process. The
key feature of the process is the holding of a specialist workshop to review
proposals for, and results from scientific permits. At the 2007 Annual Meeting
the Committee agreed that a Standing Steering Group (SSG) established by the
Chair of the Scientific Committee would develop an initial list of potential
candidates to serve as independent experts at the workshop. The final list would
be agreed by the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Head of Science. Further, the Committee
agreed that the Terms of Reference for the specialist workshop should be
developed by the SSG and submitted to the Scientific Committee at the annual
meeting prior to the workshop. The Committee also agreed that scientists
selected to be proponents of a proposal for a special permit can participate in
the specialist workshop but that participation will be limited to: (1) providing
information to the invited experts in addition to that contained in the proposal
or research results; and (2) answering questions posed by the invited experts.
The findings and recommendations in the workshop report will only reflect the
opinions of the independent experts.
The Committee agreed that there is a desire to ensure that the process of
reviewing new proposals and that for the review of existing proposals should be
effectively the same and should encompass the process of scientific transparency
and independence outlined in
DeMaster et al.
(2007). The Committee recommended the adoption of the revised process for
new proposals and in principle to periodic and final reviews. It was recognised
that additional work was needed to implement this new process for the review of
results. The Committee anticipated that a final protocol will be adopted at the
2008 Annual Meeting. This protocol will then allow for orderly review of results
from JARPN II and the Icelandic programme.
Scientific
committee discussions on the north Pacific permit
(1) Feasibility study
Some members expressed concern that most of the objectives
of the programme did not address questions of high priority
for the rational management of the stocks concerned
and would not contribute significantly to research needs
identified by the Committee. Although the primary objective
of the proposal (which pertained to top predators) was
scientific in nature, they believed that none of the
objectives or sub-objectives were necessary for the
management of any of the large whale species being killed.
In response, other members drew attention to the
ambitious nature of the programme. They believed that
determining the impact of cetaceans on fish stocks was
a matter of some urgency, that constituted a critically
important research need. They also noted that the information
on North Pacific minke whale stock structure was relevant
to Implementation Simulation Trials.
Concern was also expressed that with the sample size
and methods proposed, it was unlikely that several of
the objectives of the programme would be met, especially
with respect to sperm whales. They commented that the
ecosystem modelling approach was poorly developed and
that the likely precision of any fisheries information
(both past data and future) was poor.
In response, other members stated that this was a
feasibility study and that one of the aims was to investigate
the methodology. They agreed that model development
was at an early stage, but they believed that by building
on models developed for other regions the programme
had the potential to address fundamentally important
questions. They felt that all aspects of the programme
would improve as data became available. There was once
again disagreement at to the amount of data that could
be obtained using non-lethal research techniques.
(2) Full programme
The division of views within the Committee remained
much the same. In terms of the proposal itself,
concerns were expressed over the research design and
the fact that this proposal constituted a significant
change in form over previous use of the provision of
research under the Article VIII, by not specifying an
end point. Other members welcomed the research initiative
of JARPN II, noting that it addressed important issues
for the western North Pacific as well as in other areas.
With respect to the objectives of the programme,
some members argued that the feeding ecology objective
is both relevant to the interests of the IWC, and that
it addresses other critically important research needs.
Others argued that the assumptions inherent in the proposal
about that objective were too simple, and unduly emphasised
direct negative effects of cetacean predation over the
balance of the several potentially negative and positive
effects of fishery resources and cetaceans on each other.
Therefore, they concluded that the objective as structured
and proposed is not relevant to the interests of the
IWC.
Some members pointed out that while the Committee
has identified pollution as a priority issue, the pollution-related
objective does not relate to the specific goals of the
POLLUTION 2000+ project. The proponents argued that
the proposal aims to address wider goals than that,
including long term monitoring of levels. The Committee
agrees that this objective is relevant to the interests
of the IWC.
The stock structure objective addresses those species
for which an RMP Implementation is under development.
The Scientific Committee agrees that this objective
is relevant to the interests of the IWC. However, some
members contended that, because of sampling design,
the JARPN II programme would not yield results that
would adequately meet this objective, and disagreed
that lethal sampling was required. Other members disagreed
with these statements.
In relation to guideline 5, some members noted that
while the sample sizes for minke, Bryde’s and sei whales
appear appropriate, given the at least six year timeframe,
the sample size for sperm whales is lower than can be
expected to give statistically significant results.
More recently, others questioned the increased
sample sizes proposed in 2004.
With respect to methodology, several members
argued that a range of questions of relevance to all
identified research objectives could be addressed by
non-lethal sampling techniques, e.g. for pollutant monitoring
(biopsy sampling for fatty acid and stable isotope analysis),
for stock structure (photo identification, biopsy sampling
and faecal sampling), and for feeding ecology (faecal
sampling).
The proponents argued that lethal sampling was necessary
to meet the research objectives, especially for feeding
ecology, pollution and estimation of biological parameters.
Quantitative data on prey are required for modelling
purposes. At present, non-lethal sampling techniques
are inadequate for this purpose. Others noted that they
did not agree that the feeding ecology objective was
appropriate, and therefore did not feel that lethal
sampling was required. For the stock structure objective,
they argued, non-lethal biopsy sampling would allow
much larger sample sizes and hence allow greater statistical
power.
With respect to the issue of the effect of catches
on the stocks, some members judged that based on
the information in the proposal there was substantial
risk of stock depletion from the proposed sample sizes
for both the O-stock and the J-stock of common minke
whales, as well as for Bryde’s whales should they be
taken around Ogasawara Island. These members also judged
there was no basis for evaluating the effect of catches
on sei whales because the sole abundance estimate involves
selective use of surveys as well as extrapolations using
JSV data, and the lack of information about stock structure
made it uncertain how to evaluate the effect of coastal
catches relative to an abundance estimate from the western
North Pacific. A similar concern was expressed regarding
sperm whales because of an inappropriate dive-time correction
of the abundance estimate.
Other members judged that the proposed research samples
would not pose a threat to the O- and the J-stocks,
and that the perceived risks for minke whales are being
overemphasised. Further, there is no risk for Bryde’s
whales in the Ogasawara area because this species is
not resident and not planned to be taken here. Selective
use of survey did not occur in the abundance estimation
of sei whales. Rather, based on the distribution of
the species in June and July, the survey data in 1997
and 2001 were chosen for calculation of an abundance
estimate, which was extrapolated with JSV data. As the
research area of JARPN II extends from the coastal area
to the offshore area, especially the latter being important
for sei whales, the effect of coastal catches is limited.
They believed that the abundance estimates for sei and
sperm whales are reliable.
Scientific committee discussions
on the ICELANDIC Proposal
With respect to the objectives of the programme,
some members maintained that the proposal addresses
two research areas that have been identified by the
Committee. One is the need for research on fisheries-cetaceans
interactions and some members believed that in this
area the research would be useful. Other members
maintained that such research has no bearing on the
IWC’s management of whale stocks. A second area
is the need for research on pollutant loads. While
some members believed that the proposed work would help
to address this research area, others noted that the
Committee had not recommended lethal sampling for pollutant
studies. Further, it had also not given high priority
to pollution studies for baleen whales generally. While
not necessary for the application of the RMP, stock
definition has proved to be important in the development
of an Implementation of the RMP. The proposed
research addresses this issue, although some members
believed that more appropriate and effective non-lethal
methods are available to address the question.
It was noted that the proposal did not provide a
scientific justification for the proposed sample sizes,
arguing that they were sufficient for the planning purposes
of a feasibility study. Some members argued that
the proposal should not be taken as a feasibility study
because in many aspects it was an extension of the 1986-1989
research programme, and as such, evaluation of the sufficiency
of sample sizes was appropriate. In contrast,
the proponents argued that the proposal was primarily
to determine the feasibility of sampling of common minke
whales, and to a degree, fin whales in areas where they
had not previously been sampled.
With respect to methodology, some members
considered the sampling regime to be insufficient to
meet the stated objectives. Spatial and temporal
elements of the feeding ecology sampling, in particular,
were considered unlikely by some to yield data suitable
for the planned multi-species modelling. The proponents
countered that this is a feasibility study in which
sample sizes may not be large enough to fully address
the feeding ecology objectives in two years. However,
sample sizes should be both temporally and spatially
sufficient to guide the design of a future study.
Furthermore, they argued that the scale of prey monitoring
both in time and space is always a difficult question
and might be adjusted in future years of the project.
Some members also felt that the proposed study of parasites
and pathology would benefit from a more clearly identified
hypothesis.
With respect to non-lethal methods, some members
recommended new techniques for pregnancy testing.
However, the proponents noted that neither age nor sexual
maturity could be determined solely by non-lethal methods.
Other members also noted that the objectives of the
pollutant research could be satisfactorily addressed
with standard biopsy sampling. The proponents,
however, noted the importance of obtaining pollutant
samples from internal organs, because the relationship
between contaminant loads in skin and organs has not
yet been assessed. With respect to the high priority
given to lethal sampling to identify differences in
fin whale diet, some members noted that this could initially
be explored using stable isotope analyses of non-lethal
samples (skin, faeces).
With respect to the effects of catches on the
stocks, the Committee agreed that it is unlikely
that the proposed take of 100 common minke whales per
year will have a significant impact on the Central North
Atlantic stock of common minke whales. Some members
expressed agreement with the proponents that the proposed
takes would be highly unlikely to have any detectable
effect on the stock of fin whales. However, the Committee
could not agree on the effects of the proposed take
on the conservation status of fin whales, referring
mainly to previous disagreements on stock structure.
For sei whales, the Committee could not agree whether
the proposed take should be considered in relation to
an abundance estimate relating to an area extending
well beyond the whaling grounds and possibly covering
more than one stock, or whether it should be considered
solely in relation to estimates from the intended whaling
area. This disagreement prevented any consensus about
the possible effects on the conservation status of the
stock concerned.
|