CONTENTS

General	General introduction to scientific permits and the Scientific Committee's involvement
Recent permits	Recent specific scientific permits
Antarctic	JARPA and JARPA II research programmes
North Pacific	JARPN and JARPN II research programmes
Iceland	Icelandic research programme
Guidelines	Guidelines for the review of scientific permit proposals
Improved process	Schedule of events for Improved review process permit proposals
Catches	Special permit catches taken since 1985
PDF Translations of this page:	French	Note on translations

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:

1. whether the permit adequately specifies its aims, methodology and the samples to be taken;
2. whether the research is essential for rational management, the work of the Scientific Committee or  other critically important research needs;
3. whether the methodology and sample size are likely to provide reliable answers to the questions being asked;
4. whether the questions can be answered using non-lethal research methods;
5. whether the catches will have an adverse effect on the stock;
6. 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.

The new Scientific Committee review process

To improve the review process for both new permit proposals and periodic review of results of ongoing or completed programmes, in 2009, the Committee proposed a new approach that was accepted by the Commission. The primary change involved the initial review of a new proposal, or interim and final reviews of permit programmes at a small specialist workshop with a ‘limited but adequate’ number of invited experts (The ‘Panel’) who may or may not be present members of the Scientific Committee. In addition to the Panel, a limited number of scientists associated with the proposal can attend the workshop in an advisory role, primarily to present the proposal and answer points of clarification and not to participate in the discussion of the Panel. The practical way this was implemented at the first meeting this process (a review of the ongoing JARPNII programme) was that proponents provided brief presentations of their documents to the Panel in the morning session and answered questions of clarification; for the rest of the day the Panel was left alone to discuss the results and develop its report. The detailed process can be found HERE.

The full report of the recent expert panel workshop can be found HERE. A PowerPoint presentation summarising the results of the Panel discussions can be found HERE.

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 (340 minke, 50 Bryde's, 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 (2008) is for 120 common minke 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:

1. estimation of biological parameters (especially the natural mortality rate) to improve management;
2. elucidation of stock structure to improve management;
3. examination of the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem;
4. 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:

1. monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
2. modelling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives;
3. elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure;
4. 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 there 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 and 2008/09.

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:

1. feeding ecology (including prey consumption and preferences of cetaceans and ecosystem modelling);
2. stock structure;
3. 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 2008 programme proposed the taking of 340 minke, 50 Bryde's, 100 sei 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).

The most recent review of the JARPNII programme occurred in January 2009. It was undertaken by an expert panel under the new guidelines. The full report of the panel can be found HERE. A PowerPoint presentation summarising the results of the Panel discussions can be found HERE.

Iceland

The Icelandic research programme on common minke whales in Icelandic waters continued in 2007.

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 2007, 39 common minke whales were caught under special permit in accordance with the original research proposal. A total of 200 common minke whales have been caught since the start of the research programme in 2003, thus the originally proposed take of 200 minke whales for the research programme has been achieved. No decision has been taken by Icelandic authorities regarding implementation of the part of the programme concerning fin and sei whales. 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

In 2008 the Commission agreed to a new procedure for the review of Scientific Permit Proposals and Research Results from existing and completed permits. The key feature of the process is the holding of a specialist workshop to review proposals for, and results from scientific permits. The new process is described in detail below.

The Commission agreed that the review of JARPN II would be the first test of this procedure, and that the text may be adjusted based on the experience gained by that review. In light if the ongoing process regarding the future of the IWC the agreed procedure might be subject to changes subsequent to any Commission decision on the use of ICRW Article VIII. The Committee will not discuss ongoing permit results in the years between periodic reviews; rather it will merely note short annual reports provided by those undertaking the permit research.

I. Submission of proposals

New proposals should be submitted to the Chair of the Scientific Committee at least six months prior to the Annual Meeting at which they are to be discussed, following a pro forma supplied by the Secretariat. Proposers may request that the proposal remains confidential. The proposal shall be structured in the manner given below.

A. Objectives

The objectives should:

1. be quantified to the extent possible;
2. be arranged into two or three categories, if appropriate: ‘Primary’, ‘Secondary’ and ‘Ancillary’;
3. include a statement for each primary proposal as to whether it requires lethal sampling, non-lethal methods or a combination of both;
4. include a brief statement of the value of at least each primary objective in the context of the three following broad categories objectives -
   1. improve the conservation and management of whale stocks,
   2. improve the conservation and management of other living marine resources or the ecosystem of which the whale stocks are an integral part and/or,
   3. test hypotheses not directly related to the management of living marine resources;
5. include, in particular for 4i and 4ii, at least for each primary objective, the contribution it makes to inter alia -
   1. past recommendations of the Scientific Committee;
   2. completion of the Comprehensive Assessment or in-dpth assessments in progress or expected to occur in the future;
   3. the carrying out of Implementations or Implementation Reviews of the RMP or AWMP;
   4. improved understanding of other priority issues as identified in the Scientific Committee Rules of Procedure;
   5. recommendations of other intergovernmental organisations.

B. Methods to address objectives

1. field methods, including:
   1. species, number (and see (C) below), time-frame, area;
   2. sampling protocol for lethal aspects of the proposal;
   3. an assessment of why non-lethal methods, methods associated with any ongoing commercial whaling, or analyses of past data have been considered to be insufficient;
2. laboratory methods;
3. analytical methods, including estimates of statistical power where appropriate;
4. time frame with intermediary targets.

C. Assessment of potential effects of catches on the stocks involved

1. a summary of what is known concerning stock structure in the area concerned;
2. the estimated abundance of the species or species, including methods used and an assessment of uncertainty, with a note as to whether the estimates have previously been considered by the Scientific Committee;
3. provision of the results of a simulation study on the effects of the permit takes on the stock that takes into account uncertainty and projects (1) for the expected life of the permit (i.e. n years); (2) for situations where the proposal is assumed to continue for (a) a further n years, (b) a further 2n years; and (c) some longer period of years since the start of the proposal.

D. A note on the provisions for co-operative research

1. Field studies;
2. analytical studies.

E. A list of scientists proposed for the intersessional review workshop.

II. The review process

A. Intersessional specialist workshop

The initial review of a new proposal, or interim and final reviews, shall take place at a small specialist workshop with a limited but adequate number of invited experts (who may or may not be present members of the Scientific Committee). A limited number of scientists associated with the proposal should attend the workshop in an advisory role, primarily to present the proposal and answer points of clarification. It is important that the composition of the specialist group is considered balanced and fair. The choice of experts shall be made by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science in conjunction with a Standing Steering Group (SSG) established by the Chair at an Annual Meeting, with special emphasis on the field and analytical methods provided in the proposal and estimation of the effect of catches on the stocks(s). The SSG shall be selected by the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science, such that it represents an appropriate range of experience and expertise within the Scientific Committee. The selection process for the specialist group shall occur in the manner described below. A schedule of events for the review process is shown in the table.

B. Procedure for review of new proposals

The Chair shall circulate the proposal to the Vice-Chair, Head of Science and SSG, normally within 1 week of receipt.

1. The SSG shall examine the proposal and in particular the field and analytical methods and, normally within 2 weeks, suggest names for consideration for the specialist group (if these experts are not members of the Committee they shall include a rationale for their choice) and the suggestions will be available to all SSG members.
2. The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will develop a proposed final list (with reserves) for consideration by the SSG within 2 weeks and begin the process of establishing the time and venue of the Workshop taking into account the availability of the proposed experts and the scientists associated with the proposal.
3. The SSG will send final comments within 1 week.
4. The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will agree a final list (with reserves); the proposal (with a note concerning any restrictions) will be sent to the selected experts and reserves - the process thus far will have taken about 6 weeks since the proposal has been received.

The Workshop will take place at least 100 days before the Annual Meeting. In addition to the selected experts it will include at least one of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science, one of whom shall chair the workshop.

C. Terms of reference of the specialist workshop for review of new proposals

The primary objective of the specialist workshop will be to review the proposal in the light of the stated objectives following the guidelines in the pro forma provided by the Secretariat. In particular, the Workshop shall:

1. comment briefly on the perceived importance of the stated primary objectives from a scientific perspective and for the purposes of conservation and management, noting particularly its relevance to the work of the Scientific Committee;
2. provide advice and suggestions on components of the programme that might be achieved using non-lethal methods, including, where appropriate, power analyses and time-frames;
3. determine whether the proposed field and analytical methods are likely to achieve the stated quantified objectives within the proposed time-frame, where appropriate, commenting on sample size and time-frame considerations;
4. provide advice on the likely effects of the catches on the stock or stocks involved under various scenarios of length of the programme – this will include inter alia examination of abundance estimates provided and may involve a different analysis to that provided in the original proposal, including assumptions that short permit proposals may be projected further into the future;
5. review the proposed intermediary targets and suggest when an intermediate review or reviews should take place.

D. Procedure for periodic and final reviews

For ongoing research without a defined final year, a periodic review shall take place in accordance with either the advice provided under Item (5) of the workshop to review new proposals or on the advice of a periodical review workshop and taking into account the availability of the proponents. The final review shall take place no later than three years after the final take under Special Permits. The periodic and final reviews shall be based on documents provided by the proposers and other members of the Scientific Committee six months before the Annual Meeting at which the Workshop report is to be presented. Information on the analytical methods likely to be used in documents presented to the Worksop that might assist with the selection of appropriate experts shall be circulated nine months before the Annual Meeting.

The Chair shall circulate the information on the analytical methods to the Vice-Chair, Head of Science and SSG, normally within 1 week of receipt.

1. The SSG shall examine the information available on the field and analytical methods and, normally within 2 weeks, suggest names for consideration for the Specialist Workshop (if these experts are not members of the Committee they shall include a rationale for their choice) and the suggestions will be available to all SSG members.
2. The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will develop a proposed final list (with reserves) for consideration by the SSG within 2 weeks and begin the process of establishing the time and venue of the Workshop taking into account the availability of the proposed experts and experts associated with the proposal.
3. The SSG will send final comments within 1 week.
4. The Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science will agree a final list (with reserves); the proposal (with a note concerning any restrictions) will be sent to the selected experts and reserves - the process thus far will have taken about 6 weeks since the information on analytical methods has been received.
5. The full documents shall be circulated no later than 6 months before the Annual Meeting.
6. Responses to those documents shall be submitted no later than 1 month before the Workshop.

The Workshop will take place at least 100 days before the Annual Meeting. In addition to the selected experts it will include at least one of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Science, one of whom shall chair the workshop.

E. Availability of data relevant to the periodic or final review

Applications for the access to data for the purpose of periodic or final review, should follow the recommended approach of Procedure B of the IWC SC Data Availability Agreement. For data provided under the DAA, the conditions for data recipients are outlined in the agreement. Applications made by members of the Scientific Committee and other participants at the Specialist Workshop should be considered promptly and normally accepted within two weeks of the application.

F. Terms of reference of the Specialist Workshop for periodic and final reviews

The primary objective of the specialist workshop will be to review the scientific aspects of the research under Special Permits in the light of the stated objectives following the guidelines in the pro forma provided by the Secretariat. In particular, the Specialist Workshop shall evaluate:

1. how well the initial, or revised, objectives of the research have been met;
2. other contributions to important research needs;
3. the relationship of the research to relevant IWC resolutions and discussions, including those dealing with the respective marine ecosystem, environmental changes and their impact on cetaceans and Committee reviews of special permit research;
4. the utility of the lethal techniques used by the Special Permit Programme compared to non-lethal techniques; and
5. in case of periodic review, provide advice on:
   1. practical and analytical methods, including non lethal methods, that can improve research relative to stated objectives;
   2. appropriate sample sizes to meet the stated objectives, especially if new methods are suggested under item (i);
   3. effects on stocks in light of new knowledge on status of stocks;
   4. when, in the case of ongoing programmes, a further review should occur.

Reports of Workshops (applies to new proposals, periodic reviews and final reviews)

The Chair is responsible for the level and nature of participation of the scientists involved in the proposal, which should 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 specialist group should attempt to reach consensus on the individual issues referred to above, but where this is not possible, the rationale behind the disagreement should be clearly stated in the Workshop report. The final report of the Workshop shall be completed at least 80 days prior to the Annual Meeting and will be made available to the proponents.

Circulation to the Scientific Committee

The original special permit proposal, or the original result documents from ongoing or completed special permit research, the report of the specialist workshop, and any revised permit proposal (following the agreed protocol), or any revised results, from the Contracting Government shall be submitted to Scientific Committee members no later than 40 days before the Annual Meeting. The revised proposal, or revised results, will also be submitted to the members of the specialist group and they will be invited to submit joint or individual comments on that revision to the Annual Meeting.

Discussion at the Scientific Committee

The report of the specialist workshop will be discussed but not amended by the Scientific Committee. The comments of the Scientific Committee will be included in the Scientific Committee report. The original proposal and any revised proposal, the specialist workshop report (and subsequent comments on any revised proposal), and the Scientific Committee report will then be submitted to the Commission and become publicly available at the opening of the IWC Annual Meeting.

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS FOR IMPROVED REVIEW PROCESS

The table shows a schematic schedule of events in the Scientific Committees process of (a) reviewing Special Permit proposals; and (b) periodic reviews of results from ongoing Special Permit research and final results from completed Special Permit research. The dates shown in the tables are for illustrative purposes only assuming an Annual Meeting beginning on 1 June.

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.

The most recent review of the JARPNII programme occurred in January 2009. It was undertaken by an expert panel under the new guidelines. The full report of the panel can be found HERE. A PowerPoint presentation summarising the results of the Panel discussions can be found HERE.

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.