Just how 'scientific' is Japan's whale research?

Just how 'scientific' is the whale research Japan has been conducting for the last 18 years?

It seems that even the International Whaling Commission is of two minds on the subject according to excerpts from the 2007 IWC Report of the Working Group on Scientific Permits.

Japan was represented on the working group. Tucked into this verbose 15 page report is the interesting observations I have highlighted in red.

 

6.1 JARPA Review

An intersessional meeting to review the results from the JARPA research program was convened in Tokyo in December 2006. Bannister, the chair of the intersessional workshop, summarised SC/59/Rep 1. The SWG noted their appreciation to the Bannister, the Steering Committee for the Workshop, the rapporteurs and the Head of Science for their efforts in organising, convening and preparing the workshop report.

The SWG reviewed the findings and agreements reported in SC/59/Rep 1. Annex D of Rep 1 indicates that considerable data have been collected by the JARPA programme by both lethal and non-lethal methods, although there was disagreement regarding the analysis and interpretation of some of these data. A summary of main results is provided in Appendix 2 of this report.

The SWG then reviewed the recommendations contained in SC/59/Rep 1. A summary is provided in Appendix 3.

Members of the SWG supported all of the recommendations reported in Appendix 3.

It was noted by the Chair that workshop participants agreed that a discussion of the respective merits of lethal and non-lethal methodology was important. However, it was agreed that this issue would be discussed at the Annual Meeting of the Scientific Committee in May 2007 because of time constraints. The Chair noted that discussions regarding this issue were reported inter alia in IWC 2004 and 2006.

SC/59/O2 compared the merits and demerits of lethal and non-lethal research methods based on six biological characteristics of whale populations and on four practical matters related to the planning of whale population research. The author noted that scientific research on large whales was carried out in the Antarctic (JARPA and JARPA II) and the western North Pacific (JARPN and JARPN II) using a combination of both methods, as each method has its own characteristics that must be considered in relation to the research objectives and factors such as whale species, research field, research season, research period, and research cost. They further noted that this paper was prepared in order to provide a road map for the consideration of the issue of application of lethal and non-lethal research methods for JARPA II.

In SC/59/O2 the authors compared the characteristics of both methods on 13 items of practicality and indicated that regarding the JARPA research program lethal methods in general have more merit than non-lethal methods. The authors of SC/59/O2 concluded that the effective combination of both methods was necessary to effectively conduct population research on large whales. Some members agreed with the conclusions reached by the authors of SC/59/O2. Others did not. Clapham and Gales responded to SC/59/O2 and stated that its characterisation of the abilities and limitations of non-lethal methods was highly inaccurate. They noted that, among many errors in O2, it was not true that non-lethal methods were inapplicable to large populations or fast-moving species; nor that they were incapable of obtaining large sample sizes or samples over periods shorter than many years; nor that non-lethal studies could only be conducted in good conditions and on small scales with limited funding. They noted that several large-scale non-lethal projects had gathered far more samples (photo-id and biopsies) in a shorter period of time than the JARPA program, and that the results of one of these studies (the YONAH project in the North Atlantic) had formed the foundation for an IWC Comprehensive Assessment. They noted that non-lethal studies are widely used worldwide, and their ability to repeatedly sample the same individuals over often long periods provided a scientific advantage that was not possible with killed animals. Results of such work have been published in numerous refereed journals; the ability of these projects to address issues of importance to IWC management (including abundance, population structure and biological parameters) had been repeatedly demonstrated and was often in excess of the output of lethal-based programs. Molecular-based research, conducted using biopsy samples, was applicable to even the largest populations through genotyping, and such samples could also be used to study a wide range of issues, including contaminants, diet, health status and potentially also age determination. Clapham and Gales further noted that SC/59/O2 had emphasised the importance of cost recovery as a principal motive for JARPA and other lethal sampling programs, and contended that this requirement potentially compromised the research; they said that this problem is not a factor in non-lethal studies that do not need to use base study design on lethal sampling imperatives or to use considerable amounts of field time in hunting and processing whales.

In response, some members noted that the comments of Clapham and Gales related primarily to research on humpback whales. They added that non-lethal research methods cannot be practically applied to other species at least in some cases. They further noted that data on basic biology of large whales, including length and other measurements; various condition indices (e.g., blubber thickness); tissue samples for contaminant analysis, estimation of age, evaluation of reproductive status (e.g., maturity, corpora counts) and overall health (e.g., pathobiology, presence of parasite); and stomach contents could not be obtained from non-lethal sampling. Clapham responded that non-lethal studies have been used worldwide on virtually every species of large whale for a wide variety of research purposes. Others noted that molecular-based research, conducted using biopsy samples, could be used to study a wide range of issues, including contaminants, diet, health status and potentially also age determination.

Hatanaka noted that many of the points raised by Clapham and Gales were discussed in SC/59/O2 and that further discussion of this issue would only be repetitive. He further noted that the traditional label of "lethal versus nonlethal" sampling used by the SWG has led to simplistic and unproductive discussion. He commented that one of the primary objectives of O2 was to present information to refocus discussions towards a more constructive framework of finding an appropriate combination of lethal and non-lethal research methods for a particular research situation. He encouraged members of the SWG to work constructively to this end.

 

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Discussion regarding this research report focused on the representativeness of samples, as well as the impact on the research of having to terminate the field season prematurely. Childerhouse questioned whether the conclusions of the research would have been different, if the planned sample size for minke whales and complete sampling in Area V-west, had been achieved. Hatanaka responded that one of the objectives of this year's research was to ascertain the composition of I and P stocks in Area V-west. Given that samples were not collected from this area, this question could not be addressed. Childerhouse added that he thought standards used by the Government of Japan to evaluate the success of the JARPA II feasibility study were insufficiently rigorous.

Bass commented that she did not agree with the conclusion for fin whales that sampling was conducted smoothly and successfully, given the reported problem in hauling one of the fin whales onto the research vessel. She further asked whether female and calf minke whales were collected as part of JARPA II. Nishiwaki responded that female-calf pairs have rarely been seen during JARPA II surveys, but that when encountered, efforts are made to biopsy one or both animals. However, mother-calf pairs are not killed and subsequently sampled as part of JARPA II protocol.

Clapham asked, given the interruption in the survey design, where research would be targeted next year. Hatanaka noted that the current plans for next year will be to cover Area 5-west to Area 3-east.

Simmonds asked about the methods used to weigh fin whales and whether these methods were comparable to those used in the 1950s. It was noted that fin whales were weighed in sections and that this methodology was similar to that used in the 1950s. Further, no attempt was made to account for the loss of fluids (either as part of JARPA or JARPA II or in the 1950s).

It was noted by some that a catch of 850 (±10%) minke whales during the 2005/6 and 2006/7 feasibility studies for JARPA II was proposed exclusively to meet Objective 2 of the feasibility study, which was to 'examine the practicability and appropriateness of sampling procedures for the increased sample size of Antarctic minke whales.'(SC/57/O1). These members commented that given that this objective was successfully met by extrapolating the sampling rate of the 505 whales taken in the second feasibility study, that the rationale for a quota of 850 (±10%) for both feasibility studies was questionable and furthermore believed that the catch of 856 whales in the first feasibility study could have been reduced. It response, Hatanaka noted in year one of the JARPA II feasibility study, the target sample size had been achieved according to the study design. While a similar sample size could not be achieved in year two of the feasibility study because the survey was terminated mid-season due to a fire on the Nisshan-Maru, the rate at which minke whales were collected was such that the Government of Japan considered Objective 2 of the feasibility study to have been met. Gales and Childerhouse commented that the majority of the methodological approaches in JARPA II remain effectively unchanged. They further commented that this was surprising in light of the many recommendations reported from the JARPA review (SC/59/Rep 1). Finally, they added that in the absence of appropriate adjustments to the methodological and analytical approaches in programs like JARPA II, there can be little satisfaction in the review process. Hatanaka responded that the research protocol of JARPA II had been improved to reflect recommendations from past Scientific Committee reviews. Although the JARPA review was held after the beginning of JARPA II, he noted that the increase in survey effort and the parallel sighting survey effort in the northern and southern strata was consistent with recommendations in the JARPA review. Others commented that the research foci of JARPA and JARPA II were considerably different and that some of the recommended changes in methodology and analysis of JARPA did not apply to JARPA II.

Nevertheless, it was noted that no change to the original JARPA II research program had been made since the JARPA review in December 2006. Gales commented that, for example: (1) the JARPA review made no recommendations that larger sample sizes to achieve research results were needed and (2) problems identified in the JARPA review associated with population structure and the role of whales in the marine ecosystem were highly relevant to JARPA II, yet no changes were incorporated into the research protocol. Others commented that JARPA and JARPA II have different objectives and that sample sizes and the research design in JARPA II were established according to its own objectives. Gales and others noted that several aspects of the data analysis (e.g., role of whales in the ecosystem, population structure) associated with information collected as part of JARPA II would be improved if the recommendations from the JARPA review were adopted."

Report of the Working Group on Scientific Permits in full:

 http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2007/Annex%20O%20Final.pdf