Special Permit Programmes

Review of feasibility study in 2000

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. The same scientists 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.

Review of full proposal in 2002

The review of the original full proposal by the Scientific Committee can be found here. The division of views within the Committee remained much the same as for the feasibility study (see above). 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 was both relevant to the interests of the IWC, and that it addressed 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.

The Committee agreed that pollution-related objective this objective is relevant to the interests of the IWC. It was also agreed that the stock structure objective addressed 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.

Review of ongoing programme in 2009

The JARPN II programme was reviewed in January 2009. It was undertaken by an expert panel under the new guidelines. The full report of the panel can be found here and the comments of the Scientific Committee can be found here.

Final review in 2016

A final review of the JARPN II programme was conducted in 2016.  This was also undertaken by an expert panel under the new Scientific Committee guidelines.  The full report of this panel can be found here.