Annex F - Home page of the International Whaling Commission

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 95estimate that up to 10% of the stock could be comprised of‘stinky’ whales. This phenomenon has also been noticed inthe meat of ringed and Bearded seals, walruses, and cod,and in the eggs of murres. Those who have eaten ‘stinky’meat have reported a number of short term medicalproblems including the numbing of oral cavities, skinrashes and stomach aches. No long term effects have beenrecorded.The Russian Federation noted that the reason for thestrong medicinal odour is unclear. The odour wassometimes detected in the blow of the whale, at other timesit would not be noticed until heat was applied in cooking.Two hypotheses have been put forward as reasons for thesmell:(1) the presence of ketones, aldehydes and alcohols as aresult of a change of diet; and(2) the presence of a specific bacteria, fungus and/orbiotoxin.The Russian Federation reported that it is unclearwhether there is a hereditary factor, whether the odourdisappears after the winter or whether the smell is linked toa change in the gray whale diet. It has been observed byhunters that ‘stinky’ whales have seaweed and arctic cod intheir stomachs which is uncharacteristic.Due to the uncertainty over the issue of ‘stinky’ whalesthe Russian Federation requested two considerations to bediscussed at next years’ meeting to improve managementoptions. Firstly, the need for a definition in the Schedulefor ‘stinky’ whales; secondly a need for a proposal for howto account for ‘stinky’ whales that are landed but inediblefor the hunting communities.The USA introduced a joint USA/Russian Federationpaper on toxicology studies of ‘stinky’ whales(IWC/59/CC15). The approach has been to collect samplesfrom ‘stinky’ and ‘non-stinky’ gray whales and to submitthem to several laboratories for analysis of thefollowing: persistent organochlorines (OCs); polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAHs); heavy metals; stable isotopes andvolatile organic compounds (VOCs). The objective was tocompare chemical concentrations of ‘stinky’ and ‘nonstinky’whale tissues for obvious differences to provideleads for further investigation into the cause of theoffensive odour. Over 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 samplesfrom ‘stinky’ and ‘non-stinky’ whales have been collectedand analysed by laboratories in the USA and the RussianFederation. Results of chemical analyses from the Russianlaboratory have been reviewed by Japanese and Norwegiantoxicologists. In addition to this effort, the USA andMexico have initiated a pilot project to evaluate thecomposition of gray whale breath in Eastern North Pacificgray whales in the breeding lagoons of Mexico forcomparison with the samples taken in the Russian hunts.Based on the samples evaluated so far, few differenceswere noted between the chemical compositions of ‘stinky’whale tissues and ‘non-stinky’ whale tissues using OC,PAH and lipid analysis. Some PCB and DDT levels werefound to be similar. Trace elements and stable isotopes in‘stinky’ whale samples were not different to those found in‘non-stinky’ whales. There were no detectable PAHs foundin samples taken in the USA laboratories, but lowconcentrations were found in the samples analysed by theRussian laboratories. Blubber lipid percentage in ‘stinky’whales was similar to that in ‘non-stinky’ whales.Volatile organic compounds caused the most intriguingresults with more than a hundred volatile compounds beingdetected in the tissues of the whales. However some of thecompounds could have been as the result of repeatedfreezing of the samples or other handling issues.The determination of what is responsible for the ‘stinky’odour from gray whale tissues is not as conclusive aswould be desired. No single chemical compound or processhas been identified as being responsible and the results donot indicate an obvious anthropogenic source. Furthermore,there is no information available to determine whether the‘stinky’ whale condition is indicative of a negativepopulation effect. The USA noted that it would beinformative to ensure that any further ‘stinky’ whaleinvestigations are co-ordinated to evaluate environmentalchange and gray whale populations. To date there is nodirect evidence of long-term health consequences of theconsumption of ‘stinky’ whale meat.Committee discussions and recommendationsMexico thanked the USA and the Russian Federation forthe reports and believed that of the two hypotheses, the firstcould be discarded due to the presence of this phenomenonappearing in other marine mammals. It considered that thesecond hypothesis is the most likely and that it should bepursued through increased sampling. In responding to aquestion from Belgium, the USA confirmed that thephenomenon had not been recorded in the western NorthPacific gray whale, but had in other marine mammals andfish.In response to a question from the UK, the RussianFederation confirmed that when a stinky odour wasdetected then the entire animal was discarded. This is inline with Russian Federation law. Even so, it noted that themeat from stinky whales is inedible, even as dog food. Onresponding to a question from Sweden on the stomachcontent of the stinky whales and the high levels of seaweedfound, the Russian Federation confirmed that there hadbeen no statistical analysis to compare with the level ofseaweed found in non-stinky whales, although it wasthought to be in small quantities. Further research would beundertaken on this. South Africa noted that this problemrelated to top predators and that it would be useful toinvestigate whether it applied to lower trophic levels also.4.1.2 Ship strikesThe Chair noted that in addition to the Second ProgressReport from the Ship Strikes Working Group(IWC/59/CC3), Australia and the USA had submitteddocuments relating to ship strikes. A relevant extract fromthe report of the Scientific Committee was also available.He suggested that the papers be dealt with first.NATIONAL REPORTSThe USA introduced IWC/59/CC11 and explained thatthere were only 300 individuals left in the population ofNorth Atlantic right whales and that ship strikes are thegreatest threat to this population. The USA outlined anumber of current and proposed efforts to mitigate theeffects of shipping on this population, including realigningthe traffic separation scheme serving Boston. This isexpected to reduce right whale ship collisions by 58% inthe area.The USA also noted that recommended shipping routeshave been established in key aggregation areas for rightwhales off Cape Cod and off three ports in Georgia and

96FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX FFlorida. Speed advisories recommending speeds of 10knots or less are also issued to mariners in areas and attimes where right whales occur. These advice bulletins arebroadcast via weather radio reports, Mandatory ShipReporting Systems, the US coastguard broadcast tomariners and other media. Further to this there areproposals to regulate shipping speed on the US East coastin areas where relatively high right whale and shipdensities overlap and the US is developing a proposal tosubmit to the International Maritime Organisation todevelop ‘areas to be avoided’ in critical right whale habitat.The USA reported that it has developed a multi-mediaguide entitled ‘The Prudent Mariner’s Guide to RightWhale Protection’ that is intended for mariners attendingtraining at maritime academies across the US East Coast.This CD was made available to the ConservationCommittee. In addition to these initiatives, the USA notedthat there are ongoing aircraft surveys and right whalealerts and a Mandatory Ship Reporting System.Spain outlined two significant steps that have beenundertaken to avoid ship strikes; the separation of thetraffic scheme due to high risk of collision and a notice tomariners in the Strait of Gibraltar to be radioed in the area.The aim is to raise awareness of the risk of ship strikes,encourage caution and reduce shipping speed to

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 97Brazil requested that the management of whalewatchingbe included as a regular item on the Committee’s agenda,recognising that whalewatching has its own challenges andimpacts. It noted that scientific aspects of whalewatchinghave been addressed by the Scientific Committee for anumber of years, but that it is not able to follow-up onrecommendations relating to management of the activity.Brazil believed that the Conservation Committee wasideally suited to do this. This proposal was welcomed bythe Committee and the Chair requested Brazil to develop amore detailed proposal to which South Africa agreed tocontribute (see Appendix 6). The Chair stressed theimportance of not duplicating the work of the ScientificCommittee.5. WHALE SANCTUARIES5.1 Update on whale protection measures in the PacificregionAustralia introduced its information paper (IWC/59/CC5).It recalled that the proposal for a South Pacific whalesanctuary had been submitted several times before and that,whilst it is still in favour of the establishment of thesanctuary, it would not be bringing the issue to the plenaryof IWC/59. Instead it drew attention to the number ofSouth Pacific Islands who have declared their ExclusiveEconomic Zones (EEZs) as protected. Australiacommended the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)developed in the region under the auspices of theConvention of Migratory Species (CMS) and detailed theneed for future protection, especially considering theproposed take of vulnerable humpback whales underJARPA II. It reported that a proposal for a South PacificSanctuary would be put forward at a future IWC meeting.New Zealand supported these remarks, with supportfrom Brazil who noted that there is more than one whalemanagement regime and that the Southern Hemispherecountries have adopted non-lethal management as theirregime.5.2 OtherFrance gave an update on its project for a marine mammalsanctuary in the French West Indies. It noted that currentlythe sanctuary only applies for the EEZs of Frenchterritories but hopes that it can be extended through theparticipation of other interested countries. It stressed theimportance of keeping the sanctuary under review and thatMartinique and Guadeloupe were jointly in charge and hadformed the steering committee for the project. Franceconsidered that the Cartagena Convention for theProtection and Development of the Marine Environment ofthe Wider Caribbean Region could be a good forum fordiscussing the expansion of this initiative.The UK welcomed the initiative and was supportive.However, it reminded the Committee of discussions duringthe IW/58 plenary and stressed the importance of ensuringother countries in the region are involved and supportive.France reported that it would provide an update on this atthe plenary.France also introduced a paper (IWC/59/CC8) on theSanctuary in the Mediterranean (the Pelagos Sanctuary)that was established in 1999 and came into force in 2002.This is a joint venture by Monaco, Italy and France withthe objective of protecting marine mammals against alltypes of disturbance by human activity. Its objective is toreconcile the harmonious development of socio-economicactivities with the necessary protection of habitats andspecies.6. NATIONAL REPORTS ON CETACEANCONSERVATIONNational cetacean conservation reports had been submittedby Australia, France, New Zealand, USA, Argentina, Italy,Brazil, the UK and Mexico. As in previous years, suchreports were welcomed by the Committee and othercountries were encouraged to submit them in future.7. OTHER MATTERSThe Russian Federation introduced its paper on the study ofSea Ice Condition in the East Siberian, Chukchi, Beringand Beaufort Seas (IWC/59/ASW4). It explained that thepaper was distributed as an overview of the topic.Climatologists had looked at the distribution of sea ice overthe past hundred years and also looked at the likely futureprojections. They have suggested that this area of theArctic, as climate change develops, will see a loss of iceand a water temperature rise. They noted that this was animportant document as it related to several issues includingthe stinky gray whales and feeding habitats and pointed tothe fact that diets and distributions of whales were alreadybeginning to change. This has also been seen for bowheadwhales. The Russian Federation noted that this causes aproblem for the aboriginal hunts as the ice edge movesaway and the whales are harder to catch. This is the reasonwhy the Russian Federation ASW quota is not totallyharvested. If this continues to happen, the RussianFederation explained there could be an issue of need leadto a detrimental situation for the aboriginal whalers. Itasked that needs be kept in mind when setting quotas. TheRussian Federation believed that this related to stocks/substocksand the continual move west and further from thehunting areas. It outlined the need to take consideration ofthe historical records including an example of a bowheadwhale that was taken and found with a Norwegian harpoon.It believed that this was an indication of the previouseffects of climate change.Austria raised two further issues. Firstly, it referred tothe Resolution 8.22 of the Convention on MigratorySpecies on adverse human-induced impacts on cetaceansthat calls for co-operation with IWC. It noted that CMSwill be developing its work plan in the coming year andproposed that the CMS Secretariat be invited to theConservation Committee meeting at IWC/60 to present itand that a collaborative consultative process be developedbetween the two organisations. Australia and Belgiumindicated support for inviting CMS to present itsprogramme at the IWC/60 Conservation Committeemeeting. Secondly, Austria noted that in a surveyconducted in the framework of the State of the CetaceanEnvironment Report (SOCER), of almost 700 papersavailable, almost half dealt with environmental andconservation issues, indicating the relevance of theConservation Committee.New Zealand thanked the Chairman for running anexcellent meeting.8. ADOPTION OF REPORTThis report was adopted ‘by post’ at 7pm on 25 May 2007.

98FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX FArgentinaMiguel IñiguezAustraliaDonna PetrachenkoPhilip BurgessZena ArmstrongLesley GiddingPam EiserAndrew McNeeAustriaMichael StachowitschAndrea NouakBelgiumKoen Van WaerebeekAlexandre de LichterveldeBrazilJosé Truda PalazzoRégis Pinto LimaChileFrancisco Berguño HurtadoXimena Alcayaga ClaussenElsa Cabrera PeñuelaFrancisco PonceCzech RepulicPavla HycovaDenmarkAmalie JessenMaj Friis MunkLeif FontaineOle HeinrichMads LundeFernando UgarteEcuadorAgustin FornellNancy HilgertCristina CastroFinlandEsko JaakkolaPenina BlankettAppendix 1LIST OF PARTICIPANTSFranceVincent RidouxGermanyMarlies ReimannLars PuvogelIcelandStefán ÁsmundssonItalyRiccardo RigilloCaterina FortunaFederico CinquepalmiRepublic of KoreaChiguk AhnYong Rock AnHyun Jin Park (Chair)LuxembourgPierre GallegoMexicoLorenzo Rojas-BrachoNetherlandsMaaike MoolhuijsenNew ZealandGeoffrey PalmerJan HendersonMichael DonoghueIndra PrasadNorwayLars WalløeEgil ØenPortugalMarina SequeiraRussian FederationValentin IlyashenkoRudolf BorodinIgor MikhnoJohn Tichotsky (I)Nikolai EttyneAlexey OttoySvetlana Burton (I)South AfricaHerman OosthuizenSpainCarmen AscencioRenaud de StephanisSwedenBo FernholmSwitzerlandBruno MaininiUKRichard CowanTrevor PerfectPaul Dolder (Rapporteur)James GrayLaurence KellPanayiota ApostolakiMark SimmondsJennifer LonsdaleUSABill HogarthDoug DeMasterCheri McCartyRoger EckertEmily LindowShannon DionneRobert BrownellRollie SchmittenMichael TillmanHeather RockwellBrian GruberKirsten ErickssonShanon BettridgeScientific CommitteeArne BjørgeSecretariatNicky GrandyGreg Donovan

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 99Appendix 2LIST OF DOCUMENTSIWC/59/CC1 rev Revised Draft Agenda2 List of Documents3 Ship Strikes Working Group: Second progressreport to the Conservation Committee4 Country Report on Ship Strikes: Australia5 Update on whale protection measures in thePacific Region: Information Paper (submitted byAustralia)6 Australia: Voluntary National CetaceanConservation Report7 The project for a marine mammal sanctuary in theFrench West Indies in 2007 (submitted by France– also available in French)8 Pelagos Sanctuary for marine mammals in theMediterranean (submitted by France in the nameof the secretariat of Pelagos and the three partiesof the agreement – Monaco, Italy, France – alsoavailable in French)9 France voluntary cetacean conservation report forthe year 200610 New Zealand: Voluntary National CetaceanConservation Report11 Update on the United States’ Actions to Reducethe Threat of Ship Collisions with North AtlanticRight Whales12 United States of America: Voluntary NationalCetacean Conservation Report, 200713 Argentina: Voluntary National CetaceanConservation Report14 Italy: Voluntary National Cetacean ConservationReport15 Summary of findings on the investigation of thestinky whale condition in eastern north pacificgray whales (submitted by the USA and theRussian Federation)16 Brazil Voluntary National Cetacean ConservationReport 200717 UK Update to Voluntary National CetaceanConservation Report of 200618 Recommendations of the Ship Strikes WorkingGroup to the Conservation CommitteeIWC/59/ASW4 Studies of Sea Ice Condition in the East Siberian,Chukchi, Bering and Beaufort Seas (1979-2006)(submitted by the Russian Federation)7 Considerations of management implications of‘stinky’ gray whales for the eastern North Pacificstock (submitted by the Russian Federation)IWC/59/Rep1 Extract from the Scientific Committee reportrelevant to ship strikes – more detail is given inAnnex JAppendix 3AGENDA1. Introductory items1.1 Appointment of Chair1.2 Appointment of rapporteur(s)1.3 Review of documents2. Adoption of Agenda3. Further consideration of Terms of Reference4. Conservation agenda4.1 Progress with ongoing work4.1.1 Investigation of inedible ‘stinky’ gray whales• Report on progress• Committee discussion and recommendations4.1.2 Ship strikes• Report on progress• Committee discussion and recommendations4.2 Other issues5. Whale sanctuaries5.1 Update on whale protection measures in thePacific region5.1.1 Introduction by Australia5.1.2 Committee discussion and recommendations5.2 Other6. National reports on cetacean conservation6.1 Introduction of national reports6.2 Committee discussion and recommendations7. Other matters8. Adoption of the Report

100FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX FAppendix 4REPORT OF THE SHIP STRIKES WORKING GROUP MEETING21 May 2007, Anchorage, Alaska1. Chair’s welcome and opening remarksThe meeting was chaired by Alexandre de Lichtervelde(Belgium), who welcomed the Group and thanked them forhaving the opportunity to meet before the meeting of theConservation Committee. The list of participants is givenas Adjunct 1.2. Appointment of rapporteurJennifer Lonsdale (UK) was appointed rapporteur.3. Adoption of the AgendaThe proposed agenda of the meeting was adopted (seeAdjunct 2).4. Review of available documentsSee Adjunct 3.5. Progress since IWC/58 (St. Kitts and Nevis)The Chair presented the Second Report of the SSWG to theConservation Committee (IWC/59/CC3) and noted that itincluded five main items:• The revised Work Plan• Progress with recommendations and follow-up actions• Co-operation with the IMO• Updated and new information received• Voluntary financial contributions.The Chair informed the Meeting about the responses torequests for information made to Contracting Governmentsand IGOs and NGOs with IMO consultative status. Withrespect to Recommendation 3 of the Progress Report -adopting national legislation to reduce the impact of shipstrikes, the IMO will have a key role. Two countries, theUS and Spain, have recently adopted binding and nonbindingrules, ranging from notices to mariners, trafficseparation schemes and recommended routes, to temporaryvessel speed limits. In the Pacific, new actions have beenundertaken by IGOs. With respect to Recommendation 4 -identifying information on training material for crew andmarine officials, valuable material was received whichincludes interactive CDs. The Chair further noted that theInternational Sailing Federation (ISAF) had contacted himregarding international yachting races and information onship strikes mitigation. With respect to the review of thegeographical distribution of stranding networks, in additionto the information supplied by Germany, which has nowjoined the Working Group, considerable new informationwas received from scientists and ContractingGovernments’ Progress Reports, compiled by theSecretariat.In July 2006, mandated by the IWC, Belgium raised theissue of ship strikes at the 55th meeting of the IMO’sMarine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). Afollow-up meeting took place in November at IMO’sheadquarters between the SSWG Chair, the IWCSecretariat and the head of the IMO Marine Environmentdivision. The meeting helped to clarify whether IMO doesarchive specific data on global vessel traffic, which isunfortunately not the case. It also provided the opportunityto get advice on how the IWC should apply for IGO statuswith IMO.Australia thanked the Chair and the Secretariat on theirwork with the IMO and agreed that the MEPC is therelevant IMO Committee to address this issue. It was alsonoted that a paper on ship strikes should be submitted tothe MEPC as a joint effort by several members. Thespecific format for the submission is not onerous but acompelling case must be produced considering that theMEPC handles a very full agenda. Australia suggested, andit was agreed, that this should be raised at the MEPC’smeeting in July 2007. In addition, Australia noted that aside-event on ship strikes at that MEPC meeting would alsobe helpful.The Chair agreed, but remarked it might be morefeasible to present the document to the MEPC’s March2008 meeting, allowing more time for its preparation. TheIWC Secretary noted that with respect to IGO status,advice has been received on the format of the letter ofrequest and it will be sent to the IMO Secretary Generalsoon. At that time it will be necessary for members who arealso IWC members to speak up in support of the requestbecause the IMO is not necessarily keen to take new IGOson board. It was agreed that the Secretariat would continueits informal co-operation with the IMO while the process ofobtaining IGO status is ongoing. IWC ContractingGovernments attending IMO meetings are encouraged toattend MEPC meetings so as to ensure a place for shipstrikes on its agenda. Korea and Australia indicated theysupport this approach.The Chair referred to the voluntary contributions madeby Austria (6,000 GBP, of which 1,000 GBP was allocatedto ship strikes) and Australia (12,300 GBP) to support theship strikes work and he thanked both countries.Van Waerebeek, convenor of the intersessional VesselStrike Data Standardisation Group summarised progress todate, which was also extensively reported to the ScientificCommittee (SC/59/BC12). Last year, the Sub-committeeon Estimation of Bycatch and other Human-inducedmortality established a group to prepare a standardiseddatabase template to record vessel collisions and prepare aglobal data repository. This followed a recommendation bythe SSWG, endorsed by the Commission. Fourteen groupmembers signed up to the group. The Terms of Referencewere: ‘to develop a process by which data provided from arange of sources could be stored in a database in astandardised way that clearly identifies the level of(un)certainty’. The rationale for this exercise is based onthe fact that currently available datasets are: (1) stillrelatively small and isolated; (2) not necessarilycomparable between them; (3) typically lack informationon the vessels involved; (4) strongly biased towards areasand countries where reporting systems currently exist; (5)current collision rate estimates do not reflect true incidenceof mortality and trauma due to significant under-reporting.A comprehensive database with both biological andvessel information could: (i) help detect global trends; (ii)be used in modelling (e.g. estimate probabilities of

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 101collisions and bow-draping); (iii) provide more accurateestimates of true mortality rates; (iv) point to causativefactors and unsuspected global hot spots of collisions. TheScientific Committee considered that in first instanceattention should be paid to standardisation of variables anddata quality control before proceeding with discussion oforganisational issues, which were referred to the SSWG.Designing the database consisted in agreeing on a set ofnecessary parameters that can fully document bothbiological and maritime aspects of collision events. Aninitial list of 143 variables (afterwards reduced) wasproduced and a relational database was designed in MSACCESS. The database template consists of five separateraw data tables plus some lookup tables. These consist of aRecord Manager (contains a unique record for eachpotential incident with links to other reports), Specimen onShore, Specimen at Sea (multiple records possible),Incident at Sea and Whale Stuck on Bow. All these tablesinterrelate and can be queried.New Zealand asked if each country would collect dataand submit it annually. Van Waerebeek suggested that thetemplate be distributed as widely as possible and it wasenvisioned that data could be entered even on boardvessels. Asked how easy would be its use, Van Waerebeeksaid a simplified but fully compatible version of thetemplate was being considered. He suggested that a copy ofthe central database would be placed with the IWCSecretariat.Van Waerebeek summarised seven papers on ship strikeissues presented to the Scientific Committee. Thesecovered information from research on vessel strikes andhighlighted an apparent increase in occurrence, the need toreduce them and to increase the reporting.The US presented a comprehensive report on its NorthAtlantic Right Whale Programme and noted that shipstrikes are one of the two primary reasons for non-recoveryof this species. The Chair thanked the US for thepresentation and noted that the North Atlantic right whalewas one of the greatest challenges with respect to shipstrikes.6. Next steps6.1 Development of a centralised global database andallocation of fundingVan Waerebeek discussed the development of a templatefor a relational database for ship strikes as reported inSC/59/BC12. The database is now ready for data entry anda budget of £11,400 is proposed for this work. Initially thedatabase will be populated with historical data and workcarried out to fine tune the database template. Ways ofwidely distributing the template to ensure it becomes theglobal standard for ship strike data archiving will beexplored. Van Waerebeek indicated that experience withdata entry is expected to lead to specific suggestions onhow updating with new data could be handled in the futurewith optimal results.Australia asked how the database would be maintainedin the future and if there would be funds available for itsmaintenance. Van Waerebeek explained that this aspecthad not been finalised, but suggested that initially the threemembers of the expert group would have copies of thedatabase including back-up copies and a further copywould be lodged with the Secretariat. At present, records ofall e-mails and information received are being stored forfuture use and cross checking. Van Waerebeek noted thatthe proposed budget is for a four person-monthsconsultancy, during which time much of the historical datawould be entered into the database which would includeextensive cross checking.Italy thanked the Chair and Van Waerebeek and statedthat it is very supportive of this work. It noted that thedatabase would be very useful for the Scientific Committeework, particularly on by-catch. Italy explained that itsNational Progress Report included information on thefunding by its Ministry of Environment, Land and Sea of aproject to carry out comprehensive post-mortems on largewhales. The database and the Expert Group could provideuseful information for those carrying out this work.Portugal also thanked Van Waerebeek. It noted that thetemplate will be widely distributed to ships’ captains andothers and asked who would validate the informationgathered. Van Waerebeek replied that the current Phase IIproposal is for the entering of ‘historical’ (public domain)information and that the methodology for entry of new datastill requires discussion. Expertise gathered fromimplementing Phase II is expected to guide thedevelopment of the third and last phase, the set up of afully operational global database continuously updated innear-real time. There is however much work to be donebefore this can be implemented.Argentina thanked the Chair and Van Waerebeek fortheir very valuable work and hoped that funding would bemade available for the work to continue and develop. Thiswas supported by Italy.6.2 Implementation of Recommendation 3/action plans(p.16 of IWC/59/CC3)Van Waerebeek and de Lichtervelde suggested theestablishment of a small expert group to determine howRecommendation 3 of IWC/59/CC3 can be implemented inpractice with the emphasis on very specific Action Plans.New Zealand noted that, as a fitting example, Bryde’swhales in the Hauraki Gulf should be added to thepriorities due to a high number of ship strikes. Training onspecialised necropsies and histopathological methods toconfirm ship strikes would be of benefit to New Zealand.There was agreement that this work could increase thesupport for addressing the issue of ship strikes, particularlyat governmental level.6.3 Adding value to the stranding networks list (appendix 4of IWC/59/CC3)The value of the stranding networks draft list in appendix 4of IWC/59/CC3 was discussed and appreciation wasexpressed for the submission of this list by Ritter(Germany). In order to make it a useful tool for theidentification of gaps in the monitoring of strandings, acritical evaluation of spatial and temporal coverage ofstranding networks globally and of the type of informationcollected would be required.6.4 Exchange of views on possible other optionsIt was noted that a multidisciplinary expert workshop onship strikes would be beneficial in the medium term if andwhen more data would become available. It was agreedthat a steering group be established to develop criteria for apotential workshop. Australia supported this and noted thatit is important that the results of the database analysis bewidely disseminated. It was noted that funding should bemade available for continuation of this work.

102FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX F7. Recommendations of the Ship Strikes WorkingGroup to the Conservation CommitteeThe Ship Strikes Working Group (SSWG) meeting on 21May 2007 agreed the following recommendations forfurther work and forwards them to the ConservationCommittee for its consideration.Co-operation with IMO(i) The Secretariat should continue to follow up with theIMO to seek IGO status. Attaining IGO status will befacilitated by support from Contracting Governmentsthat are also members of IMO. ContractingGovernments are therefore urged to support theIWC’s application.(ii) IWC Contracting Governments that attend the IMO’sMarine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)are encouraged to take a common approach at itsmeetings to ensure a place for ship strikes on theMEPC’s agenda.International database on ship strikesIn endorsing the work of the Vessel Strike DataStandardisation Group, the SSWG recommends:(iii) that the proposed small expert group (see Adjunct 4)start to populate the database with historical vesselstrike data (Phase II). The proposed budget of £11,400for this work is approved and will be met by avoluntary contribution from the Government ofAustralia;(iv) the collection of new data using the template.Adoption of national and regional legislation, rules andaction plans to reduce the impact of ship strikes, withpriority for high-risk areas (Recommendation 3 of SSWG’sFirst Progress Report to the Conservation Committee)(v) The establishment of a small expert group todetermine how Recommendation 3 can beimplemented through specific action plans withpriority for high-risk areas. It was noted that theSSWG and Conservation Committee could make animportant contribution to this work by facilitatingaccess to shipping information.Multidisciplinary expert workshop on ship strike mitigation(vi) A Steering Committee should be established afterIWC/59 to consider whether a multidisciplinaryexpert workshop could contribute to ship strikemitigation and if so, to develop a detailed proposal,including time-scale.Recommendations relevant to the Scientific Committee(vii) Further work is developed on histopathology methodsto confirm ship strikes.(viii) Research on increased mortality caused by the whalewatching industry be continued and intensified toobtain long term trends data.General(ix) That the SSWG be asked to continue with its work.ArgentinaMiguel IníguezAustraliaPhilip BurgessBelgiumAlexandre de LichterveldeKoen Van WaerebeekItalyCaterina FortunaAdjunct 1: List of ParticipantsLuxembourgPierre GallegoNetherlandsMaaike MoolhuyzenNew ZealandMike DonoghuePortugalMarina SequieraRepublic of KoreaHyun-Jun ParkYong-Rock AnChiguk AhnUKJennifer LonsdaleUSAShannon BettridgeSecretariatNicky GrandyAdjunct 2: Agenda of the IWC Ship Strikes Working Group (SSWG) Meeting, Anchorage, 21 May 20071. Chair’s welcome and opening remarks2. Appointment of rapporteur(s)3. Adoption of agenda4. Review of available documents (Adjunct 3)5. Progress since IWC/58, St. Kitts and Nevis5.1 Discussion of Second Progress Report of theSSWG to the Conservation Committee includingrevised work plan (IWC/59/CC3, Annex 1, p.15)and progress on recommendations.5.2 Centralised database: Vessel Strike DataStandardisation Group Report (SC/59/BC12)5.3 Papers presented in the SC relevant for theSSWG (see Chair’s summary of the Subcommitteeon Bycatch and Other Human-Induced Mortality)6. Next steps6.1 Exchange of views on possible options6.2 Development of a centralised global database6.3 Implementation of Rec. 3 (IWC/59/CC3, p.16)6.4 Adding value to the stranding networks list(appendix 4 of IWC/59/CC3)6.5 Funding: allocation of voluntary contributions7. Recommendations7.1 Recommendations to the ConservationCommittee7.2 Suggestions of recommendations to the ScientificCommittee

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 2007 103Adjunct 3: List of documents(1) IWC/59/CC3Second Progress Report of the SSWG(2) SC/59/BC12Report from the IWC Vessel Strike Data StandardisationGroup(3) IWC/59/Rep 1 Item 7.3(4) NOAA Technical MemorandumEvaluation of Northern right whales ship strikesreduction measures(5) IWC/59/CC11Update on the United States’ actions to reduce thethreat of ship collisions with North Atlantic rightwhales(6) IWC/59/SSWG WP1Proposed Action on Recommendation 3 of the SecondProgress Report of the SSWG(7) IWC/59/SSWG WP2Implementation of Recommendation 2 of IWC/59/CC3: set up of an international, centralised database onvessel strikes with cetaceans. Phase IIAdjunct 4: Implementation of Recommendation 2 of IWC/59/CC3: set up an international, centralised database onvessel strikes with cetaceans. Phase II.K. Van Waerebeek, R. Leaper and M.F. Van Bressem (Proponents)BackgroundDuring 2006-07, the newly formed Vessel Strike DataStandardisation Group (convened by KVW) successfullycompleted the task set out at IWC/58 (Phase I): develop atemplate for a standardised, relational database for shipstrikes, as reported in SC/59/BC12. The database is nowready for data entry.Terms of Reference of Phase II(i) Populate the database with ‘historical’ vessel strikedata (publications, reports, unpublished data);coordinate with entities that might decide paralleldata-entry into the same template as to avoidduplication, while ensuring full compatibility (cf.announced US database).(ii) Initiate in contacting (where possible) primarysources of collision events to retrieve previouslyunreleased, archived information. Depending on datavolume, follow-up might need to be extended beyondthe foreseen period in the present proposal.(iii) Fine-tune the database template as to solve relativelyminor practical problems that might arise with dataentryfrom varied sources.(iv) In close co-operation with the SSWG, exploreand implement practical ways to enhance widedistribution of the database template, with the aim toensure that this template becomes the global standardfor ship strike data archiving.Composition of multidisciplinary expert groupKoen Van Waerebeek, co-ordinator (Belgium)Population biologist with broad expertise in cetaceannecropsies, anatomy and epidemiology; familiar with shipsand nautical topics.Russel Leaper (UK)Mathematician specialized in modelling of cetaceanecological parameters; applied marine technology.Marie Van Bressem (Germany)Research veterinarian and epidemiologist, with vast trackrecord of cetacean necropsies. Co-convenor of the newIWC Cetacean Emerging and Resurging Diseases WorkingGroup (CERD).Formal deposit of databaseSecretariat of the International Whaling Commission.Proposed budget: £11,400Covering 4 consultant-months, and associated costs:Consultants: 4 months @ £ 2,600/month £10,400Internet, phone, computing/printing £1,000.

104FIFTY-NINTH ANNUAL MEETING, ANNEX FAppendix 5PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE POPULATION OF CHILE-PERU IN THECONSERVATION COMMITTEE AGENDA (SUBMITTED BY CHILE)This year, the Scientific Committee received informationthat briefly summarises the status of southern right whalesoff Chile and Peru. It was noted that the last major reviewof the species was conducted by the IWC in 1998, but littleinformation was available for the Eastern South Pacificalthough thousands of animals were taken in 19 th century.It was also noted that in recent years, southern right whalestocks have grown in three major regions in the SouthernHemisphere (South Africa, Argentina and Australia). Bycontrast, no increase has been observed in the Chile andPeru population. It was pointed out that although noabundance estimates exist, the scarcity of sightings makesit very probable that the mature population size is below 50individuals, where it was once numerous.It was agreed by the Scientific Committee that thesouthern right whale population of Chile-Peru will beconsidered at the next meeting of IWC that will be held inSantiago, Chile in June 2008.The current situation of the southern right whalepopulation of Chile-Peru is of concern and there is anurgent need to understand conservation problems andeffectively work on any identified conservation measures.Overall we need to improve our understanding of thiscritically endangered population.Chile would like to propose to the ConservationCommittee that it consider the southern right whalepopulation of Chile-Peru as a species to be addressed bythe Conservation Committee during the next few years andinclude it in its agenda for the 2008 IWC meeting.With a view to presenting an initial working documentto the Conservation Committee at the 2008 meeting andtaking into account the findings of the ScientificCommittee, Chile will be conducting a historical catch datareview for Chilean waters and an analysis of sightings ofthe species through existing sighting networks. There willalso be a strengthening of cetacean data collection toincrease sighting effort.Chile will be organising an independent workshop onthe status of the Chile-Peru southern right whalepopulation. This workshop may be organised before thebeginning of the IWC Scientific Committee meeting in2008, so as to facilitate participation of interestedresearchers and parties. The outcome of this workshop willbe presented by Chile to the Conservation Committee.Appendix 6PROPOSAL FOR WHALE WATCHING TO BE ADDED TO THE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE AGENDABrazil, and South Africa propose that whalewatching beadded as a permanent item to the ConservationCommittee’s agenda. The Scientific Committee’sWhalewatching Sub-committee deals exclusively withscientific aspects of this important activity, and that aspectsrelated to management, including the implementation ofthe subcommittee recommendations, socio-economicaspects and international cooperation can be addressed inthe Conservation Committee. These are aspects ofwhalewatching that have particular importance todeveloping States where this option to appropriate whaleresources is growing, and will further strengthen theimportance of the IWC proceedings to these memberStates.It is further proposed that under this new agenda itemthe Conservation Committee consider the appointment of areview group to look into all available best practiceguidelines. This exercise might lead to the proposal of ascoping meeting with the aim to have a workshop ondeveloping voluntary international best practices for whalewatching, utilising inter alia the pertinent inputs from theScientific Committee.It is expected that in the next meeting of theConservation Committee, we will receive the report of theWhalewatching Subcommittee and review its implicationsfor management, and also begin receiving documents frommember States on whalewatching matters other thanscientific research.It is recognized that the IWC role in whalewatchingmanagement is subsidiary and its recommendations aresubject to the sovereign decisions of member States inrelation to their jurisdictional waters. Nevertheless,recommendations arising from the discussions at theConservation Committee, in close cooperation andcoordination with the Scientific Committee, will constitutevaluable guidance to interested parties in order to promotethe non-lethal use of whale resources in a sustainable andequitable manner.