SC/66a/SP1

Proponents’ preliminary response to the Report of
the Expert Panel to review the proposal for
NEWREP-A
The Government of Japan

ABSTRACTThe International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee (IWC SC) convened a workshop to
review the Proposed Research Plan for New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean(NEWREP-A). An international Panel of Experts (Review Panel) carried out the review on the basis of
the proposed research plan and nine papers prepared by IWC SC members and NEWREP-A scientists(‘proponents’). The report of the Review Panel is presented in document SC/66a/Rep6. The present
paper summarizes comments and responses of the proponents on the evaluation and recommendations
on NEWREP-A made by the Review Panel. It will firstly present general comments in light of Annex
P’s terms of reference and then show comments and responses to conclusions and recommendations of
the report of the Review Panel. Since the Review Panel report covers a wide range of research items
and its recommendations require extensive scientific works, the comments and responses included inthis document are still preliminary and not exhaustive, and additional analyses and information will be
submitted to the IWC SC. Revisions and supplementary information to the proposed research plan for
NEWREP-A at the moment are listed in document SC/66a/SP2 and submitted to the IWC SC
separately from this document. A consolidated Revised Research Plan for NEWREP-A will be
prepared after the forthcoming IWC SC annual meeting, taking account of the discussion at thatmeeting.

INTRODUCTION
Japan submitted a Proposed Research Plan for New Scientific Whale Research Program in the
Antarctic Ocean (NEWREP-A) to the Chair of the IWC SC and the Secretary to the IWC in conformity
with Paragraph 30 of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling(ICRW) and Annex P (IWC 2013) as a possible basis for issuing special permits in accordance with
Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the ICRW. Subsequently, IWC SC has initiated a process for the specialist
workshop for review of the proposal in conformity with Annex P.
The review followed the guidelines specified in the Annex P. An international Panel of experts(‘Review Panel’) carried out the review on the basis of the proposed research plan and nine papers
prepared by IWC SC members and NEWREP-A scientists (‘proponents’). The report of the Review
Panel is presented in document SC/66a/Rep6.
The Terms of Reference of the review workshop were the followings as shown in Annex P:(1) [The Workshop shall:] comment briefly on the perceived importance of the stated primaryobjectives from a scientific perspective and for the purposes of conservation and management,
noting particularly its relevance to the work of the Scientific Committee;(2) [P]rovide 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) [D]etermine whether the proposed field and analytical methods are likely to achieve the statedquantified objectives within the proposed time-frame, where appropriate, commenting on sample
size and time-frame considerations;(4) [P]rovide 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 abundance1

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) [R]eview the proposed intermediary targets and suggest when an intermediate review or reviews
should take place.
In addition to the Terms of Reference for reviews of new proposals included in Annex P, the Review
Panel also provided their advice on the issues included in the first operative paragraph of Resolution
2014-5 of the IWC which Japan voted against at the time of its adoption.
The Review Panel convened to review the NEWREP-A at the workshop in Tokyo from February 7 to
10, 2015. The draft report of the Review Panel was subsequently made available to the proponent on
March 4, 2015. The proponents express sincere appreciation to the Chair and other members of the
Review Panel for their dedicated work shown in the report.
The proponents have duly considered the findings and recommendations made by the Review Panel.
Below are their preliminary responses to the report of the Review Panel that are shared at this juncture
for further review at the forthcoming IWC SC annual meeting, and additional analyses and explanation
will be presented in that meeting.
Revisions and supplementary information to the Proposed Research Plan at the moment are listed in
document SC/66a/SP2 and submitted to the IWC SC separately from this document.
As the research plan for NEWREP-A has not been finalized yet, the proponents welcome further
discussions and comments at the IWC SC annual meeting. Giving due regard to such comments in thecourse of examination after the forthcoming IWC SC annual meeting, a final research plan for
NEWREP-A will be prepared as appropriate.

GENERAL COMMENTS IN LIGHT OF ANNEX P TERMS OF REFERENCE
The proponents recognize that the report of the Review Panel provides a number of useful advice to the
proposal of the NEWREP-A, many of which specifically suggest further improvement to the plan.
These recommendations are duly received and will be reflected to the proposal in an appropriatemanner. While details of their concrete responses to the recommendations are explained in thefollowing parts of this paper, the proponents consider it useful to, at first, confirm the common grounds
that the Review Panel shared with the proponents. They will be demonstrated below in line with thestructure of the Terms of Reference shown in Annex P. While the proponents are aware that the
Review Panel also referred to the first operative paragraph of IWC Resolution 2014-5 which Japan
voted against, specific areas referred to in the said paragraph are generally covered by the five items
under the Terms of Reference.
(1) [The Workshop shall:] comment briefly on the perceived importance of the stated primaryobjectives from a scientific perspective and for the purposes of conservation and management,
noting particularly its relevance to the work of the Scientific Committee;a.

In its report, the Review Panel acknowledges the reasonableness of both Main Objectives I
and II as follows:(i)‘The Panel welcomes the clearer identification of primary objectives and sub-objectives
in NEWREP-A compared to previous proposals, partly in response to recommendationsof previous expert review workshops’ (Item 2.1.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p6);‘[T]he Panel agrees that this objective [Main Objective I] and its component subobjectives are important for conservation and management’ (Item 8.1 of SC/66a/Rep6,p39); and‘With respect to Primary Objective II […], the Panel agrees that this is an important areaof research worldwide and that whales are important component of such work’ (Item 8.1
of SC/66a/Rep6, p39).

(ii)

(iii)

b.

While the Review Panel did not recommend any changes to the primary objectives and subobjectives of the research plan, it made recommendation 1; see Table 1 in the context of the2stated objectives of the proposed NEWREP-A. The response of the proponents will be shownin ‘Specific comments and responses to each recommendations’ below.
(2) [P]rovide advice and suggestions on components of the programme that might be achieved using
non-lethal methods, including, where appropriate, power analyses and time-frames;a.

The Review Panel shares the following understandings concerning the need for lethal
sampling for both Main Objectives I and II of NEWREP-A:(i)‘The Panel agrees that at present, the techniques commonly used for the determination of
the biological parameters used in the SCAA model (see Item 3.3.4) require lethal
sampling: i.e. earplugs for age determination (see Item 3.3) and animal length. In
addition, the proposed version will require reproductive organs for sexual maturity.’(Item 3.4.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17) (Note: The SCAA model is closely associated with
the Main Objective I of NEWREP-A.);‘Two important inputs to multi-species modelling can potentially be obtained from lethal
sampling; total consumption and prey preference’ (Item 3.9.3.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p25);‘Total food consumption per predator is a key input to multi-species/ecosystemmodelling in Objective II and it is thus important to obtain the best available estimates(and quantify uncertainty)’ (Item 3.9.3.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p26);‘Lethal sampling will permit stomach content analyses that provide a high quality direct
measure of the composition of the food ingested’ (Item 3.9.3.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p26);
and‘Using lethal sampling, many of the same measurements that can go into estimating total
consumption can also be used to compute a condition index. For example, a conditionindex can be obtained by combining blubber lipid with blubber mass corrected for total
body mass or body length’ (Item 3.9.3.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p26).

(ii)
(iii)

(iv)

(v)

b.

The Review Panel made recommendations 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 24; see Table 1 in the context of
non-lethal methods in its report. The response of the proponents will be shown in ‘Specificcomments and responses to each recommendations’ below.

(3) [D]etermine whether the proposed field and analytical methods are likely to achieve the statedquantified objectives within the proposed time-frame, where appropriate, commenting on sample
size and time-frame considerations;a.

The Review Panel also shares the following understandings concerning the proposed field andanalytical methods and the time-frame:(i)‘the Panel agrees that analytical calculations of the required sample size for each different
purpose, with an overall integration of this information to determine the appropriate
sample size for the complete programme, although desirable in principle, may not be
possible in advance (Item 8.4.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p41);‘[T]he broad approach taken with respect to ASM is not unreasonable’ (Item 8.4.1 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p41);‘The Panel welcomes the efforts of the proponents to consider a more quantitative
approach to examining sample size than in JARPA II’ (Item 8.4.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p41);
and‘The Panel welcomes the greater detail provided concerning timelines that was notpresent in the original proposal but that was presented by the proponents during themeeting’ (Item 8.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p39).

(ii)
(iii)

(iv)

b.

The Review Panel made recommendations 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 25 and 26; see Table 1 in the context of the required sample size and time-frame in its
report. The response of the proponents will be shown in ‘Specific comments and responses toeach recommendations’ below.

(4) [P]rovide 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;3

a.

The Review Panels shares the understanding that the NEWREP-A employs a robust analysis
to conclude that catches will not harm the stocks:(i)‘The proponents provided results based on one application of the CLA and by using
program Fitter (de la Mare 1989) to conclude that catches of the order of 333 every
second year in the two study areas will not harm the stocks. Given the estimatedabundances of the stocks involved, the precautionary nature of the RMP and the natureof the sampling regime proposed following transect lines, the Panel agrees that thisconclusion is very likely robust to whichever analytical method is applied.’ (Item 8.5 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p41).

b.

The Review Panel made a recommendation 27 in the context of the likely effects of thecatches on the stock or stocks in its report. The response of the proponents will be shown in‘Specific comments and responses to each recommendations’ below.

(5) [R]eview the proposed intermediary targets and suggest when an intermediate review or reviews
should take place.
The proponents note that the Review Panel did not make recommendation on the intermediarytargets and the timing of intermediate review. This suggests that the Review Panel does not findthe need of modification for the proposed plan of the NEWREP-A in the context of theintermediary targets and review.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSGeneral Observations
The Review Panel makes 29 specific recommendations in relation to Item 8 of the report on fieldsurveys and analytical methods (see Table 1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p36). A few general observations
regarding these recommendations are noted below. Table 1 of the present paper shows the responses
from the proponents to these 29 recommendations provided by the Review Panel, including thetimeframe for the works. It follows the format of Table 1 of the Review Panel Report (SC/66a/Rep6).
First of all, it should be noted that while the report is considered to aim at ‘review[ing] the proposal in
the light of the stated objectives following the guidelines’ as referred to in Annex P, theserecommendations can be generally categorized into two in the context of the evaluation of the necessityof lethal sampling and/or reasonableness of the sample size under the proposed plan of the NEWREPA: namely, recommendations that are relevant to ‘a full evaluation of whether any new lethal samplingis required’ and ‘issues related to sample size (irrespective of method used to obtain data)’, and theother recommendations that are not relevant to such issues. The former category of recommendations
are those which are for the purpose of ‘C’ and/or ‘D’ in the ‘Purpose’ column in Table 1 of the reportof the Review Panel (see SC/66a/Rep6, p36), namely, recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
18, 22 and 26. The purpose of ‘B’ is not relevant in this context because it only ‘evaluate[s] feasibilityof particular techniques’ while ‘a full evaluation of whether any new lethal sampling is required’ isaddressed under ‘C’. The latter category of recommendations are those that are not for purposes of ‘C’or ‘D’, namely recommendations 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29. Allrecommendations are scientifically important for the better contribution of the proposed NEWREP-A
to the cetacean studies and the proponents will sincerely tackle with all of them.
The proponents observe that while the Review Panel categorizes a number of recommendations under
the only purposes of ‘A’, ‘B’ and/or ‘E’ as shown above that are not relevant to the need of lethal
methods and reasonableness of the sample sizes, it at the same time states that ‘[t]he Panel therefore
agrees that the recommendations in Table 1 should be completed and the results evaluated before there
is a final conclusion on lethal techniques and sample sizes’ (Item 8 of SC/66a/Rep6, p35; emphasis
added). The proponents consider that the latter finding of the Review Panel is not necessarily
compatible with the former observation and it is not necessary to address all the recommendations‘before there is a final conclusion on lethal techniques and sample sizes’.
Among the recommendations that are classified in the former category above, the proponents observethat those works in response to particular recommendations should be given the highest priority. They

4

are recommendations 1, 11, 12, 13 and 26 as they form an essential part of an assessment for the needof lethal method and reasonableness of the sample size under the proposed NEWREP-A. The
proponents have already started the analyses on these recommendations. The proponents will submit
additional analysis and information obtained from these analyses to the IWC SC in May. The
proponents consider that this additional information will provide sufficient basis for the ScientificCommittee to determine the reasonableness of the program design and implementation in order toachieve the two research objectives.
Before presenting their detailed response to each of the recommendations, the proponents would like todraw an attention of the Review Panel to their approach to an assessment to non-lethal methods. Theynote that the Review Panel attaches particular importance to the evaluation of the necessity of lethal
sampling, as demonstrated in the following statement in its conclusion, i.e. ‘with the information
presented in the proposal, the Panel was not able to determine whether lethal sampling is necessary toachieve the two major objectives; therefore, the current proposal does not demonstrate the need forlethal sampling to achieve those objectives’ (Item 8 of SC/66a/Rep6, p35). In this regard, the Review
Panel recommended for several feasibility studies on non-lethal techniques.
In this respect, the proponents are of the view that the feasibility and practicability of non-lethal
methods need to be evaluated in a systematic manner, as already explained in section 4 of the proposed
research plan for NEWREP-A. In assessing the feasibility and practicability of any non-lethal method,
the proponents will consider the following four major tests: (i) whether the same data sought (e.g. age)can be obtained by a non-lethal method; (ii) whether enough data can be obtained in terms of quantity
for statistical analysis; (iii) whether it is of sufficient quality for analysis (e.g. accuracy); and (iv)whether the cost to obtain the data is realistic and reasonable. Tests (i) and (ii) concern technicalevaluation, while test (iii) concerns analytical evaluation, and test (iv) concerns logistical evaluation. It
is the proponents’ view that, in order to conclude that a particular non-lethal method is feasible andpracticable to the extent that it can practically replace a lethal sampling method, all of the four tests
need to be satisfied.
In compiling the proposed research plan for NEWREP-A, the proponents conducted thorough analysisof the feasibility of non-lethal methods for obtaining one of the data items crucial for achieving the
research objectives, namely age data, against the four tests listed above. The result of the assessment
using the currently available non-lethal methods at their present stage of development is presented in
section 3.2.1.1 of the NEWREP-A research plan and at the workshop of the Review Panel. In light ofthis assessment, the Review Panel recognizes that there are, at present, no established analyticalmethodologies to obtain age data (see Items 3.3.4 and 3.4.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p15-16 and p17,
respectively) as well as body length and information on sexual maturity status (see Item 3.4.3.1 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p17). When potential for technical and analytical advancements are recognized,
feasibility studies will be incorporated in the NEWREP-A research plan. The proposed NEWREP-A
incorporates a review mechanism that allows it to continuously improve its performance throughout the
program. Especially, the experience accumulated in the first six-year period will assist the elaborationof an improved research plan after the first half of the research period.
The Review Panel’s recommendations appear to assume that the necessity of lethal sampling cannot be
proven unless the feasibility studies of all the conceivable non-lethal research techniques, both current
and future ones, are completed and the conclusion is reached that none of the non-lethal techniques is afeasible alternative to lethal sampling. The proponents have a different view as to the extent of thefeasibility studies to be undertaken in order to prove the necessity of lethal sampling. In the proponents’view, the reasonable approach would be to determine the feasibility of non-lethal method based on thecurrently available scientific and technical knowledge, and if deemed unfeasible, to initiate lethal
sampling in the meantime while continuing feasibility studies on non-lethal methods on an ongoingbasis. As demonstrated in the proposed research plan for NEWREP-A, the proponents are committed tothe continuous field work and analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods. When future potential
for technical and analytical advancements are recognized, feasibility studies will be incorporated in the
NEWREP-A research plan.
It should be noted that although the Review Panel seems to assume that ‘a short (e.g. 2-3 year) gap inthe existing series’ will not have ‘serious consequences for monitoring change’ (Item 8 of SC/66a/Rep6,p35), the proposed plan as well as observations above have already made it clear that the feasibility
assessment of non-lethal methods for age data based on currently available scientific knowledge has
been completed and it has demonstrated the need for lethal sampling at this juncture. The proponents,

5therefore, consider it unnecessary to wait for a few years in launching the lethal aspect of the proposed
NEWREP-A.
Specific comments and responses to each recommendation
This section provides detailed responses and comments to the 29 specific recommendations made by
the Review Panel on field work and analytical methods in Table 1 of the present paper. To help in theunderstanding of the work under Main Objective II, flowcharts were prepared and presented in the
Addendum to the NEWREP-A research plan (Document SC/66a/SP2).
1.

Evaluate the level of improvement that might be expected either in the SCAA or in RMP
performance by improved precision in biological parameters using simulation studies
including updated Implementation Simulation Trials (2.1.2) (Main Objective I)

The Review Panel stated that ‘Whilst the NEWREP-A proposal does discuss improvements in somebiological parameters, it does not evaluate the level of improvement that might be expected either in
the SCAA or in RMP performance by precision in biological parameters which is an importantcomponent of evaluating the importance of this part of the proposal’ (Item 2.1.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p6).
The proponents take note of the importance of the Review Panel’s recommendation to evaluate thelevel of improvement that might be expected in the NEWREP-A program. Better estimation of
biological parameters such as natural mortality, age-at-sexual maturity, change in the carrying capacity(K) and MSYR is central to draw inference of population dynamics via the SCAA. Furthermore, theestimation of K and MSYR is crucial in terms of the RMP performance, although these parameters are
extremely difficult to estimate, as acknowledged by the Review Panel report.
With regard to the evaluation of the expected level of improvement in the SCAA and RMP
performance, the proponents note that ‘the Panel recommends that this be done by the proponents
using the simulation studies. Step one might involve the proponents developing ISTs based on existing
information (including that developed under JARPA and JARPAII), while step 2 might be to examine
how performance might improve with expected reduction of uncertainty in particular parameters. Suchwork will also enable improved estimation of sample size’ (Item 2.1.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p6). The
proponents agree that this approach is in theory useful to link the sample size and success rate of the
program. In implementing this approach, it should be noted that the proponents need to set out a series
of work plan to evaluate the expected level of improvement in relation to the SCAA/RMP. The
proponents consider that the work in response to this recommendation should be given the highest
priority among the recommendations linking Main Objective I and its analytical procedures.
The proponents have designed the following work plan to be implemented before the IWC SC meeting.
The proponents note that some of the work to deal with the Recommendations 10, 11, 12, 13 and 26
below, can essentially be treated within the same framework as the SCAA analysis. The proponents
will report to the 2015 IWC SC meeting on the outcome from the following work plan.
a) Prepare a document describing a specification of calculation to be used for this evaluation process(which will be based on the SCAA framework).
b) Using existing data, assess how the biological parameters such as change in the ASM give impacts
on the estimation outcomes in the SCAA through some possible metrics [incl. Recommendation 13].
c) Using existing data, conduct SCAA analysis with consideration on the existing mixing information[Recommendation 11].
d) Conduct additional simulation tests with a more realistic model to assess the sample size using data
generated from the SCAA [Recommendation 26].
e) Conduct simulation performance tests to evaluate the level of improvement in the precision ofquantities estimated by the SCAA during the period of NEWREP-A given the proposed sample size(or a modified one).
f) Using existing data, assess how the assumptions made such as “resting females are immature females”
give impacts on the estimation outcomes in the SCAA ) [Recommendation 10].
g) Using existing data, assess if the estimation of time-varying natural mortality is feasible in theexisting SCAA) [Recommendation 12].
h) Conduct a simple simulation of the RMP/IST (maybe begin with a single stock hypothesis) toevaluate the extent of improvement of RMP performance).
i) Conduct more simulations of the RMP/IST (some including two-stock hypotheses) to evaluate theextent of improvement of RMP performance ).

62.

Analyses to distinguish between 2-stock with mixing versus isolation by distance (3.1.3) (Main
Objective I).

In discussing the topics on stock structure of the Antarctic minke whale in the context of evaluation of
improvement in SCAA or RMP performance, the Review Panel stated that ‘[t]he proponents note that
all of the sub-objectives under Objective I (iii) are designed to help refine current stock-structure
hypotheses of Antarctic minke whales. The Panel agrees that this emphasis is appropriate because, as
mentioned elsewhere, refining hypotheses related to stock structure is one of the key elements inimproving performance of the RMP’(Item 3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p9) . Also ‘The Panel welcomes the
proposal to expand the geographic range of the sampling to inform conclusions about stock structure.
An implicit assumption of the current two-stocks-with-mixing hypothesis is that the I and P stocks bothhave as-yet-undetermined boundaries beyond the current study areas. If that is not the case (if, forexample, the two stocks have continuous distributions and another zone of mixing on the other side ofAntarctica), then this would be important information for incorporation into the Implementation
Simulation Trials’ (Item 3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p11).
The Review Panel reiterated the view expressed in the JARPAII review in 2014 that ‘the available data
might also be consistent with an isolation-by-distance model [(IBD)], in which there are no discrete
populations; instead, interbreeding occurs primarily among individuals that are geographicallyproximate’ (Item 3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p10). In the same review, the JARPAII review panel
recommended one type of analysis that could potentially distinguish between these two hypotheses
using existing data. To test these two hypotheses (2-stocks with mixing versus a single-stock IBD) the
Review Panel suggested three new analyses based on genetic data noting that ‘each of these analyses
can be conducted fairly simply with existing data and recommends that this be undertaken as apriority’ (Item 3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p11). The Review Panel further noted that ‘given the small
genetic differences between the two putative stocks (FST about 0.001), any one of these tests might nothave high power, but collectively they might provide sufficient information to indicate the relativeplausibility of the two competing hypotheses’ (Item 3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p11).
Furthermore ‘the Panel notes that although the above approaches focus on genetic analyses, somemethods (such as pairwise distances, perhaps using Mahalanobis distances) could also be used with themorphometric data. This is important as previous analyses (Kitakado et al., 2014a) have suggested thata combination of genetic and morphometric data may be more powerful than genetic data alone’ (Item3.1.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p11).
The proponents appreciate the comments and suggestions for additional analytical approaches from the
Review Panel. The proponents note that following the short-term recommendations of JARPAII review
meeting in 2014, further analyses were conducted and two papers on stocks structure of the Antarctic
minke whale were presented and discussed at the Working Group on Stock Definition in 2014:
hypothesis testing of genetic data (Pastene et al., 2014), and integrated analysis of genetic andmorphometric data (Kitakado et al., 2014a). For the reasons given at the Working Group meeting, theproponents are convinced that the two stocks with mixing hypothesis is more plausible than theisolation by distance hypothesis. The IWC SC agreed in 2014 that it would be reasonable to continue to
use the two-stock hypothesis as a default for an in-depth assessment, although further data might ofcourse change the picture in future (IWC, 2015).
During its 2014 discussions of implications of Pastene et al. (2014) and Kitakado et al. (2014a), theWorking Group recognized that the data utilized in these two papers were collected only from feedingareas, making the biological mechanism for an IBD effect difficult to understand. Nevertheless, theWorking Group agreed that it would be useful to determine whether the genetic/morphometric data areconsistent with a single-stock IBD hypothesis and recommended that appropriate evaluations be
conducted intersessionally.
The proponents agree with the suggestions of the Working Group and consequently, the proponents
will make effort to conduct the analyses recommended by the NEWREP-A Review Panel during the2015/16 intersessional period, to elucidate whether the genetic and morphometric data are consistent
with the IBD hypothesis.
The proponents note that the Review Panel considered this recommendation as a relevant issue related
to sample size [Recommendation 2]. While the proponents agree with the idea of the Review Panel on
the interactions between stock analysis and sample size, they do not agree with the urgency given by7the Review Panel to this recommendation. The basic assumption for this and others proposals in
NEWREP-A is the occurrence of two-stocks in the research area. As noted above the proponents assign
this hypothesis the highest plausibility, and the IWC SC agreed that it would be reasonable to continue
to use the two-stock hypothesis as a default for in-depth assessment (IWC, 2015).
3.

Simulation study to examine how additional sampling could be expected to improve precision
and/or reduce bias in estimates of mixing rates (3.1.3) (Main Objective I).

The proponents note that the ‘the Panel also agrees that good information on stock structure, including
information on mixing within the feeding grounds is also especially important for any assessment
approach. Whilst the RMP does not require perfect knowledge of stock structure, examination of theresults of Implementations and Implementation Reviews for other species and ocean areas has shownthat the performance of the RMP in terms of user objectives is increased with no effect on conservation
performance as stock structure uncertainty is reduced’ (Item 2.1.2 of SC/66a/Rep6).
The current method for estimating the mixing proportion (see Kitakado et al., 2014a) employs datafrom genetic and morphometric measurements simultaneously. Given that the information onparameters of allele frequency distributions and mean morphometric measurements in each baseline
stock is large enough (based on the accumulated data from the past research programs JARPA and
JARPAII) and that the current method assumes year- and sex-specific mixing proportions, theestimation performance of mixing proportions depends on the true mixing proportion in the sampling
year and sample size in that year. Therefore, it might be possible to assess future estimation
performance coarsely from the relationship between sample size in the mixing zone and estimatedstandard errors observed in the existing analysis (although the estimated mixing proportion in someyears are not very reliable at this moment due to mixing zones sometimes estimated well to the east or
well to the west).
As the proponents identified, and also as recommended at the 2014 JARPAII review meeting, it would
be beneficial to see estimation performance by using a random effect model for the mixing proportions
to achieve better estimation, by using a statistical principle of “borrowing strength”. That is the case forthe future estimation of mixing under the NEWREP-A. In this sense the Review Panel noted that ‘the
NEWREP-A proposal lacks a quantitative evaluation of the expected improvement in managementrelevant information that can be expected to accrue from the proposed experimental design. A key
metric that affects performance of the RMP is the mixing rate among populations and how that varies
in space and time. The Panel recommends that an evaluation of how additional sampling could be
expected to improve precision and/or reduce bias in estimates of mixing rates’ (Item 3.1.3 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p11).
The proponents recognise the simulation study for assessing estimation performance of mixing
proportions recommended by the Review Panel is worth conducting because the estimation
performance of mixing proportion is in accordance with our research interest to achieve the Main
Objective I of the NEWREP-A. However, and as indicated above, the estimation performance of
mixing proportions mainly depends on the true mixing proportion in the sampling year and sample sizein that year, and these have been evaluated so far although the incorporation of random effects may
improve the precision to some extent. Even so, the proponents will prioritize the tasks with respect to
Recommendation 1 because they directly relate to evaluation of the sample size and level of
improvements in the SCAA and RMP performance. Therefore the work in response to thisrecommendation on stock mixing will be conducted once the proponents have some progress in thetask related to Recommendation 1 above.
4.

Comprehensive biopsy sampling feasibility study (3.1.3.1) (Main Objectives I and II).

The proponents note that the Review Panel ‘welcomes the proposed efforts to evaluate efficacy ofbiopsy sampling of Antarctic minke whales’ and noted that ‘a key component of assessing theirfeasibility relates to the practicalities of obtaining sufficient biopsy samples (in absolute numbers aswell as quantity of relevant tissue per sample e.g. skin, top layer of blubber, complete blubber layer)from Antarctic minke whales in Antarctic waters, whatever their ultimate use is’ (Item 3.1.3.1 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p11).
The proponents further note that ‘the Panel recommends that an experiment to examine the effort
required to obtain biopsy samples from Antarctic minke whales be given high priority at the start of8

any long-term programme’, and made four specific suggestions: ‘1) involve people with expertise in
successfully biopsy sampling common minke whales in the North Atlantic; 2) mimic the samplingstrategy developed for lethal sampling (e.g. when dealing with schools >2); 3) record information ontime taken, sea state, swell, etc. to enable a plausible measure of effort required to be developed; and 4)
consider the amount of tissue and nature of tissue required (for each analysis and in total)’ (Item 3.1.3.1
of SC/66a/Rep6, p11-12). Some of those suggestions have been already envisaged in Appendix 6 of the
proposed plan for NEWREP-A with a detailed timeline included herein (see Figure 1), in which thefeasibility study will be undertaken at an early stage of the first six-year research period.
The proponents will take account of the above mentioned four specific suggestions by the Review
Panel as much as practicable in developing a detailed implementation plan for this feasibility study.
In relation to the first suggestion, the proponents acknowledged the importance of collaborating withexperienced foreign experts in this field, and note that there are some Japanese scientists withexperience in successful biopsy sampling of common minke whales in the North Pacific (Nishiwaki,
2000; Yoshida et al., 2010; Yoshida et al., 2011) as well as Antarctic minke whales in the Antarctic
waters (Nishiwaki et al., 1990; Nishiwaki, 2000). The proponents put the great importance of
establishing the ‘ideal’ framework of the study suggested by the Review Panel (e.g. representativenessof the entire area and time period, random sampling techniques, etc.). This ‘ideal’ framework will beconsidered as the second step after examining the practicability of the sampling technique itself in theinitial stage.
The proponents also note that the Review Panel recommends this feasibility study for 1-2 field seasons,as an item ‘relevant to a full evaluation of whether any new lethal sampling is required.’ In this regard,
it should be noted that biopsy sampling alone does not provide any data, i.e. biopsy sampling can
produce useful data only if there are established analytical methodologies corresponding to the required
data items. As duly recognized by the Review Panel, there is no established analytical methodology toobtain age and other crucial data using biopsy samples at the present time (see Items 3.3.4 and 3.4.3.1
of SC/66a/Rep6), and therefore, it is reasonable to conduct this feasibility study on biopsy sampling inparallel with the related feasibility studies (i.e. DNA methylation analysis responding torecommendation 8 and hormones analysis in blubber responding to recommendation 9).
The proponents note that the proposal for a cetacean sighting survey in the Antarctic in the 2014/15
austral summer season (Matsuoka et al., 2014) included experiments on biopsy sampling and feces
observation/collection for Antarctic minke whale. The biopsy experiment was planned to take place inoffshore waters (e.g. the northern stratum). Unfortunately, as the density of Antarctic minke whales insuch waters was very low and the weather and sea condition did not allow during the observations (e.g.
Weather-Beaufort scale over 4), the experiments could not be conducted.
5.

Comprehensive telemetry feasibility study (3.1.5) (Main Objectives I and II).

The proponents note that the Review Panel welcomes the proponents’ proposed trials of tagging studies
on Antarctic minke whales for several purposes (Items 3.1.5, 3.2.2 and 3.9.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6) andrecommends that the proponents give high priority to this item with several specificrecommendations/comments.
The proponents will undertake this research item at an early stage of the first six-year research period
taking account of the specific recommendations/comments of the Review Panel in developing detailed
implementation plans for trials. In particular, based on the Panel’s recommendation (Item 3.1.5 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p12), the proponents will seek the possibility of collaboration with foreign/other researchgroups with experience in such work rather than try to develop these techniques on their own, notingthat there are some examples in Japan of successful tagging studies on common minke whales in the
North Pacific (Kishiro and Miyashita, 2011; Kishiro et al., 2013).
6.

Estimate g(0) for all species (3.2.2) (Main Objective II).

The proponents note that ‘the Panel welcomes the plans to obtain estimates of g(0) for Antarctic minke
whales by using IO mode, recognizing this was a key component in the lengthy process to obtainabundance estimates from the IDCR/SOWER surveys’ (Item 3.2.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p13). In addition,‘the Panel recommends that every effort be made to estimate g(0) for the other whale species, at least
to determine rather than assume whether it is significantly different from one’ (Item 3.2.2 of

9

SC/66a/Rep6, p13). The proponents agree with this recommendation, and to respond to it,
identification of duplicate sightings will be also conducted for whale species other than the Antarctic
minke whale during the NEWREP-A sighting survey in IO mode. To determine whether g(0) is
significantly different from one, the proponents will conduct analyses on duplicate sightings for thosewhale species for which sufficient data are obtained during the NEWREP-A program. Information onmean diving time will be used to estimate g(0) more precisely if such data become available.
7.

Review sighting survey design and methods (3.2.2) (Main Objectives I and II).

The proponents note that ‘the Panel welcomes the emphasis on obtaining abundance estimates in the
NEWREP-A proposal’ and that ‘the sighting surveys are planned to follow the survey protocols set out
in the ‘Requirements and Guidelines’ for conducting surveys and analyzing data within the Revised
Management Scheme’ (Item 3.2.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p13). Furthermore ‘the Panel welcomes the plansto obtain estimates of g(0) for Antarctic minke whales by using IO mode’ (Item 3.2.2 of SC/66a/Rep6,
p13).
On the other hand, ‘the Panel recommends the survey design and analysis methods be carefully
considered to enable the survey results to have multiple uses’, and then ‘the Panel recommends thatthe proponents: (1) carefully consider a number of options for survey design and methods taking into
account: (a) the experience gained from the several years of data analysis before the ScientificCommittee adopted abundance estimates from the previous IWC IDCR/SOWER cruises; (b) the
developments in spatial modelling approaches; (c) the experience of previous multi-disciplinary survey
efforts; (d) the recommendations from the JARPAII review; (e) the possibility of incorporating more
focused surveys to address specific issues in some years; (f) consideration of whales within the ice; (g)updated power analyses of the effects of survey interval and estimation of trend to determine necessarylevels of effort and survey design in the future (including consideration of the regions outside the core
study area (additional longitudinal range in Areas III, VI, and coverage north of 60°S)). (2) work
closely with the IWC Scientific Committee before finalising their survey approaches; (3) ensure that
future survey plans submitted to the Scientific Committee follow fully the guidelines for such survey
plans, including incorporating proposed track lines - since the dedicated sighting survey/echo sounder
platform will be separated from the sighting/sampling vessels, sabotage should not be an issue’ (Item3.2.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p14-15).
The proponents agree with the Review Panel recommendations above. Consequently the proponents
will reconsider their survey design, survey methods and analytical methods as far as enough survey
effort of whale sighting survey is secured so as to obtain whale abundance estimates precisely. The
proponents will submit papers that describe more details of survey design and survey procedure (thattake into account the specific research activities for the particular year), to the annual IWC SC
meetings. Finally the proponents will work closely with the IWC SC before finalizing the survey
approaches, and will ensure that the survey design plans follow fully the guidelines for such surveys
plans.
8.

Examine feasibility of using DNA methylation ageing technique with Antarctic minke whales
using good quality earplugs, testing against geographical areas and different time periods
and using several laboratories (3.3.4) (Main Objective I).

The proponents note that in discussing the biological parameters to be investigated in NEWREP-A‘the Panel agrees that at present, the techniques commonly used for the determination of thebiological parameters used in the SCAA model (see Item 3.3.4) require lethal sampling: i.e. earplugs
for age determination (see Item 3.3) and animal length. In addition, the proposed version will require
reproductive organs for sexual maturity’ (Item 3.4.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17).
On the other hand, ‘the Panel notes that there are new techniques available that require validationand calibration that may enable the determination of these biological parameters for Antarctic minke
whales in the future using non-lethal techniques’ (Item 3.4.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17). Among thesetechniques the Review Panel discussed the DNA Methylation (DNA-M) technique and noted that
‘this technique does not provide the chronological age of the individuals but rather a physiologicalage that can be used as a proxy for chronological age’(Item 3.3.4 of SC/66a/Rep6, p16). It further
noted that ‘the technique may require calibration by species, population and period’ and that ‘given
the novelty of the technique and the fact that it has only been applied to a single population of asingle species of cetacean, there is as yet no experience on this regard’(Item 3.3.4 of SC/66a/Rep6,

10p16). Consequently ‘the Panel welcomes the fact that the proponents intend to investigate this new
approach during NEWREP-A’ and ‘recommends that the method be investigated early in the
programme, initially using a sub-sample of animals only with clear ‘highly readable’ earplugs. The
samples should also be divided by stock and also by time period (to the extent possible) to examine
possible differences in the calibration slopes within different geographical areas and time period’.
Finally ‘the Panel also notes the importance of evaluating interlaboratory reproducibility andrecommends that this be examined by having independent laboratories running a control set’ (Item3.3.4 of SC/66a/Rep6, p16).
The proponents agree with the comments and suggestions from the Review Panel. In fact NEWREPA already recognized that the DNA-M technique is a new one requiring calibration if it is to be usedon other species, populations and periods. Following that plan and the recommendations from the
Review Panel, at first, the stock effect on the DNA-M technique will be examined using 50 highly
readable earplugs each from I-stock animals sampled in Area IVW and P-stock animals sampled in
Area VE under JARPA II, ideally from whales sampled in a same year in each Area. In the next step
the effect of the period will be examined by using a similar number of samples from different australsummers. DNA methylation changes will be identified at the Antarctic minke whale genes
homologous to the humpback whales. The procedure for identification of age-related DNA
methylation site and measurement of methylation level will follow previous studies (Maegawa et al.,2010; Bocklandt et al., 2011; Polanowski et al., 2014). ICR scientists have already contacted a
specialized laboratory and a university in Tokyo so that this study can be conducted in collaboration
with experts. Preliminary results will be reported to the 2017 IWC SC meeting and final results atthe 2018 IWC SC meeting. The proponents are responding in this way to address the Review Panelrecommendation that this feasibility study be conducted early during the NEWREP-A program. The
proponents also agree with the Review Panel suggestions to evaluate the accuracy and reliability inthe analysis of methylation rates obtained at different laboratories (interlaboratory calibration), andthis will be addressed in consultation with the IWC SC.
Finally the proponents note that the Review Panel states that ‘if the correlation [between earplug counts
and DNA methylation rates] is low, it will not be possible to determine which method is better because
the true ages are not known’, and consider that this statement is somewhat misleading. It should be
noted that, if that is the case, DNA methylation rates alone cannot provide any age data which can beused in population dynamics studies, while earplug counts still can (Lockyer, 1984; Punt et al., inpress).
9.

Examine use of hormones in blubber to detect sexual maturity (3.4.3.1) (Main Objective I).

The proponents note that ‘the Panel recommends that the proponents also investigate the possibilityof obtaining information on sexual maturity through hormones in blubber’ (Item 3.4.3.1 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p17).
The proponents emphasize the fact that all previous studies on this particular topic concluded thatthe analysis of progesterone concentration in blubber can only distinguish pregnant from nonpregnant whales (not mature from immature) because no differences in concentration were observed
between immature females and non-pregnant mature females (Mansour et al., 2002; Kellar et al.,2006).
The proponents note that attempts to determine the reproductive status of females by theprogesterone levels in blood were undertaken for Icelandic common minke whales. Since there wasa large difference in the progesterone levels between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals, thehormone level was considered as an effective indicator of pregnancy and could be used for
determination of reproductive status for females with no observed fetus or for which both ovaries
could not be collected (Gunnlaugsson and Vikingsson, 2013). Furthermore, the possibility of
misclassification was suggested because not all ovulating females are indeed pregnant andintegrative analysis with other techniques such as a histological sample of the uterine horn or the
mammary gland was recommended at the Iceland Special Permit Review meeting (IWC, 2014).
To respond the recommendation from the Review Panel, the proponents will conduct progesterone
analyses in blubber tissues of Antarctic minke whales using JARPAII samples. Females with various
reproductive status such as ovulating, resting and pregnant with small fetus will be selected, andhormone levels will be compared with histological information for reproductive organs. Analysis of11

progesterone level for a total of 50 Antarctic minke whale samples will be assayed using thecompact ELISA workstation (Crocodile, Titertek Berthold). Progesterone will be assayed with the
Cayman Practice ELISA Kits (Cayman Chemical), according to the manufacturers’ protocols.
Preliminary results will be reported in the 2017 IWC SC meeting.
It should be noted that the result of this examination alone does not affect the need for lethal
sampling or the proposed sample size, i.e. it would have some meaning in relation to lethal sampling
only if analytical methods to obtain age data (e.g. DNA-M) using blubber are established and biopsy
sampling can provides sufficient amount of blubber tissue samples. Therefore, it is reasonable toconduct this study in parallel with the related feasibility studies (i.e. studies responding torecommendations 4 and 8).
10. Evaluate the effect on SCAA of assuming 'resting' females are immature females (3.4.3.1)(Main Objective I).
During the discussions related to the recommendation 9 above, ‘the Panel notes that the relevant
parameter for possible use in the SCAA model is the proportion of mature adult females; as the
proportion of pregnant females is high and that of resting mature females low, although this would be
expected to change under a hypothesis that density-dependent factors could affect the dynamics of the
population, the Panel recommends that simulation studies should be used to examine the effect on the
SCAA of errors that may result from assuming that resting females are in fact immature females (lowhormone levels are common to both)’ (Item 3.4.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17).
The proponents agree with this recommendation and will address it in the context of the work related to
Recommendation 1 (see the text responding to Recommendation 1 above).
It should be noted that the result of this simulation study alone does not affect the need for lethal
sampling or the proposed sample size, i.e. it would have some meaning in relation to lethal sampling
only if analytical methods to obtain age data (e.g. DNA-M) and pregnancy status information (e.g.
hormone analysis) using blubber are established, and biopsy sampling can provides sufficient amountof blubber tissue samples. Therefore, it is reasonable to conduct this study in parallel with the related
studies (i.e. studies responding to recommendations 4, 8 and 9).
11. Update SCAA with respect to density-dependence following Punt et al., in press, and stock
mixing based on existing data (3.4.3.2) (Main Objective I).
During the discussions on modifications to the SCAA, the Review Panel recommended that thedensity-dependence function used in Punt et al. (in press) be adopted by the proponents. The Review
Panel also noted that ‘the major extensions to the SCAA in NEWREP-A include allowing for mixingof populations. The existing SCAA code allows for mixing of stocks by area but to date this variant of
the SCAA has not been used as analyses of mixing are currently preliminary (Punt et al., in press). The
Panel agrees that there is sufficient information from JARPA and JARPA II data to update the SCAA
to include mixing and recommends that this be done’ (Item 3.4.3.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17).
The proponents agree to use Punt et al. (in press) function for density-dependence. The proponents will
also conduct the recommended update of the SCAA in the context of the work responding otherrecommendations on the SCAA analyses. The proponents will conduct it before the IWC SC meeting.
12. Identify more fully the data to be used to inform the time-varying natural mortality in the
SCAA and analyse existing data to determine the feasibility and accuracy of obtaining such
estimates (3.4.3.2) (Main Objective I).
During the discussion on modifications to the SCAA, ‘the Panel recommends that the proponents
identify more fully the data to be used to inform the time-varying natural mortality and present
analyses of previously collected data to determine the feasibility and accuracy of obtaining such
estimates’ (Item 3.4.3.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p18).
The proponents note that it may be difficult to distinguish the time-varying natural mortality from otherpotential confounding factors. The proponents will make effort to address this recommendation in thecontext of the work responding to Recommendation 1 above by assessing if the estimation of time-12varying natural mortality is feasible in the existing SCAA using the existing data and report progresson this before the 2015 IWC SC meeting.
13. Develop metrics to evaluate the benefits of including time varying ASM data in the SCAA
(3.4.3.2) (Main Objective I).
During the discussions on modifications to the SCAA the Review Panel sated the following. ‘A key
extension to the SCAA is to include time-varying age-at-50%-maturity information. The Panelrecommends that the proponents develop metrics to evaluate the benefits of including these data in the
SCAA’ (Item 3.4.3.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p18).
The proponents will address this in the context of the work related to Recommendation 1 by assessing
how the biological parameters such as change in the ASM give impacts on the estimation outcomes in
the SCAA through some primary parameter estimates using existing data.
14. Consider the adoption of this multibeam sonar in krill surveys (3.6.2.1) (Main Objective II).
Under the discussions on ‘survey scale’ for krill ‘the Panel notes that the degree of overlap between
visual and acoustic sampling can be improved by use of multibeam sonars that sample a swath (up to
ca 100m either side of the ship depending on frequency and hardware) either side of the ship. Cox et al.
(2009) for example revealed a much greater match between krill distribution and distribution of airbreathing predators through use of multibeam data than downward-looking echosounder data.
Multibeam technology is increasingly affordable (for example WAASP which now records watercolumn data, c $50K). The Panel recommends that the proponents consider adoption of thistechnology in their surveys’ (Item 3.6.2.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p20-21).
The proponents concur with the Review Panel on this recommendation, and they will consider the
installation of multibeam sonar to a research vessel. It should be noted that the application of themultibeam technology to fisheries science is relatively new and no associated standard abundance
estimation method for krill has been established in CCAMLR. The proponents also stress that the
proposed research plan is still valid as the proponents’ interest on prey-predator relationship is not at asmall scale but at a larger scale.
15. Trial the ship and echosounder system(s) in Japan well before going to the Antarctic todetermine the likely effective acoustic sampling range and potential for detecting krill for
multiple frequencies over the required survey depth. Conduct for both annual and board-scale
survey vessels (3.6.2.3) (Main Objective II).
Under the discussions on ‘noise’, and to address the effect of the ship’s noise, ‘the Panel recommends
that the ship and echosounder system(s) be trialled well before going to the Antarctic to determine thelikely effective acoustic sampling range (signal-to-noise by depth characterization) and potential for
detecting krill’ (Item 3.6.2.3 of SC/66a/Rep6, p21)
The proponents concur with the Review Panel on this recommendation and will allocate sufficient time
for the trial well before going to the Antarctic.
16. In the years (two out of 12) when both NEWREP-A and CCAMLR-type surveys are conducted,
try to survey the same transects by both vessels in near synchrony (3.6.2.5) (Main Objective
II).
Under the discussion on ‘between-vessel comparison’ in the krill survey, and in the years (two out of12) when it is proposed that both NEWREP-A and CCAMLR-type surveys are conducted, ‘the Panelrecommends that surveys of the same transects by both vessels are conducted in as close to asynchronous manner as possible to enable some cross-calibration between vessels, enabling perhaps therelative estimates to be anchored to a more absolute framework’ (Item 3.6.2.5 of SC/66a/Rep6, p21).
The proponents consider that the difference between current echosounder systems is minimal if they
are well calibrated using standard calibration spheres. Nevertheless, the proponents will consider
carrying out cross-calibration between the NEWREP-A sighting vessel with echosounder and
CCAMLR-type krill survey vessel as the recommendation has the potential to improve the data
precision and accuracy. It will be carried out in waters around Japan instead of in the survey area.

13

These vessels are expected to be operated in different Management Areas at different timing because
their primary objectives are different. The sighting survey vessel will cover the IWC Management
Areas III, IV, V and VI, and the primary objective is not abundance estimate of krill but whales. The
CCAMLR-type krill survey vessel is expected to cover the CCAMLR Statistical Divisions 58.4.1 and58.4.2. As conducting such a calibration in the survey area is operationally difficult and costly, theproponents will carry out it in waters around Japan in a near synchronous way, as the first priority.
However, the proponents might conduct it in the survey area as well if conditions are met.
17. Conduct full analysis of statistical power to detect changes in krill abundance from proposed
techniques (3.6.2.6) (Main Objective II).
Under the discussion on ‘statistical power’ for the analysis of krill data, the following was stated by the
Panel. ‘The proponents recognise that the annual surveys will provide an index of relative abundance
rather than absolute abundance, whilst the large-scale survey is expected to yield estimates of absoluteabundance. The proponents suggest that variance from the former may range from 10-37% whilst thatfrom the latter will be of the order of around 20%. However, they do not define the effect size that theywish to be able to detect for either type of survey, where this is appropriate (e.g. related to possible
changes in the ecosystem). For example, in an ecosystem context, what scale of interannual variability
do the proponents wish to detect, and how large a change in krill abundance will need to be detected to
inform feeding models? In the absence of this, the Panel is unable to evaluate whether either survey
type will deliver the required data. The Panel therefore recommends that the proponents conduct ananalysis of statistical power. The Panel notes that the CVs reported above relate only to transect-totransect variability, and do not include any uncertainty due to issues related to, for example, bias inkrill size-distribution estimation. The power analysis should consider all such influences. CCAMLR’s
WG-EMM has considered factors contributory to uncertainty in surveys of krill(https://www.ccamlr.org/en/wg-emm-95/72) and the Panel recommends that the proponents interact
with this community’ (Item 3.6.2.6 of SC/66a/Rep6, p21).
The proponents note that uncertainties in surveys of krill stemming from sound propagation, empirical
TS model and detection sensitivity were studied by using data obtained during CCAMLR 2000
(Demer, 2004). Although this author pointed out that some potential sources bias (e.g. stemming fromuncertainties in sound propagation parameters, TS, species classification, bubble attenuation,
thresholding, area definition, conversion of number density to biomass density etc.) should be
investigated further, these aspects have not been investigated fully in CCAMLR since then. These
aspects are difficult to test before the survey because the analysis requires data obtained through thesurvey. The proponents will consider these points in collaboration with experts in CCAMLR
community to improve the knowledge of this field. It should be noted that in general, given that very
few krill surveys have been carried out, CCAMLR has welcome any additions, and without specifying
pre-conditions, probably because their focus is simply on building up a basic data set.
18. Develop more detailed plans to consider whether comparisons between stomach contents andproposed krill survey data are feasible and if so, how they can be done (3.6.2.7) (Main
Objective II).
Under the discussions on ‘krill sampling: feeding ecology issues’, the Review Panel stated thefollowing. ‘The proponents suggested that krill caught in large horizontally-towed frame nets will be
used for comparison with stomach contents. Since the vessel proposed to be the dedicated sighting
vessel cannot tow such a net, the Panel assumes that stomach-to-net comparisons will only be possible
in two of the planned 12 years i.e. when the large-scale CCAMLR-type surveys are envisioned.
Although it is not possible without having the cruise tracks to compare, it seems unlikely that the
dedicated sighting vessel and the CCAMLR-type large-scale krill survey will be in the same position at
the same time to enable robust spatio-temporal comparisons between net samples and stomach samples
to be conducted. The Panel recommends that further more detailed plans be developed to consider
how and if such comparisons are to be made’ (Item 3.6.2.7 of SC/66a/Rep6, p21).
To respond to this Review Panel recommendation, the proponents will consider conducting asimultaneous survey by a krill survey vessel equipped with a frame-type trawl and echosounder, thededicated sighting survey vessel equipped with an echosounder and the whale sampling vessels withina small-scale experimental survey area over a short time period (e.g. one week) so that comparisonsamong vessels/samples can be made.

14

19. Ensure that sufficient time is allocated for adequate net sampling, based an analysis ofprevious net sampling data (e.g. BROKE/BROKE West data) (3.7.2) (Main Objective II).
Under the discussions on ‘demography of krill’ the Review Panel stated the following. ‘Sampling using
the large frame net proposed under the large-scale CCAMLR-type surveys is the most likely to deliver
krill representative of local size structure. The Panel notes that size structure may well not be uniform
throughout the proposed survey areas and recommends that sufficient time should be allocated to thesurvey schedule for adequate net sampling. To determine this time requirement, the Panelrecommends that the proponents carry out an analysis of previous net sampling data; consideration of
BROKE/BROKE West data will inform the amount of net sampling effort that would be required toadequately-characterise the expected variability in krill size structure required for demographic studies
and informing (from a TS perspective) analysis of the acoustic surveys’ (Item 3.7.2 of SC/66a/Rep6,
p22)
The proponents concur with the Review Panel on this recommendation and will allocate sufficient time
for net sampling. As mentioned in the NEWREP-A proposal, survey design standards similar to thosedeveloped and implemented for CCAMLR 2000 (Trathan et al., 2001), BROKE (Nicol et al., 2000)
and BROKE-West (Nicol et al., 2010) will be applied to the proposed CCAMLR-type krill surveys. In
BROKE, a total of 160 trawl hauls were made in 2,326 n.miles of survey transects in 51 days
(approximately 3 hauls per day) (Pauly et al. 2000). In BROKE-West, a total of 126 trawl hauls weremade in 3,537 n.miles of survey transects in 51 days (approximately 2.5 hauls per day) (Nicol et al.,2010). These sampling frequencies will be guidelines for our survey. The detailed survey plan will be
developed in consultation with CCAMLR.
20. Give careful consideration to scale and design of oceanographic sampling, taking into
account BROKE/BROKE West data (3.8.2) (Main Objective II).
Under the discussions on ‘oceanography’ the Review Panel stated the following. ‘Oceanographic data
are required for several reasons including: (a) determining sound velocity and attenuation parameters
for interpretation of acoustic survey data; (b) considering the distribution of populations of krill withinpotentially discrete water masses; (c) considering environmental change; and (d) potentially providing
information for spatial modelling and explanatory variables when estimating abundance. The spatial
scales over which data are required for different objectives may be different, and the proposal does notprovide sufficient detail for the Panel to evaluate this component of the programme. The Panelrecommends that careful consideration be given to these scales in design of the oceanographic
sampling programme. Observations at just a single station per day, for example, are probably
insufficient to characterise the potentially variable physical environment in a manner adequate forquantitative treatment of acoustic survey data. XCTD deployments could be made more frequently thanonce per day during the acoustic surveys. Furthermore, there may be gains to be made by considering
data available from, for example, other sources such as Argo floats. The importance of considering datafrom outside the direct programme is considered further under Item 3.10.2’ (Item 3.8.2 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p23).
The proponents also note that ‘The Panel recommends that due consideration should be given to thespatial distribution of oceanographic sampling, and a regular geographic sampling design might bepreferable. Benefit could arise from occupation of the same CTD stations as occupied during BROKE
and BROKE West’ (Item 3.8.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p23).
The proponents concur with the Review Panel on this recommendation and they will design samplingsite carefully. In BROKE, a total of 147 sites were set in 2,326 n.miles of survey transects in 51 days
(approximately 3 sites per day) (Pauly et al. 2000). In BROKE-West, a total of 118 sites were set in
3,537 n.miles of survey transects in 51 days (approximately 2 sites per day) (Nicol et al., 2010). Thesesampling frequencies will be guidelines for designing our survey. The detailed survey plan will be
developed in consultation with CCAMLR.
21. Compare overlap in diet amongst fin and Antarctic minke whales using stable isotopes in skin,with concurrent analyses of krill samples to obtain stable isotope baselines (3.9.3.1) (Main
Objective II).
The proponents note that ‘the Review Panel agrees that stomach content data do provide insights into
diet composition (prey species) as well as the size and composition of prey that are consumed…’ (Item15

3.9.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p24). The Review Panel further noted that ‘Under one hypothesis i.e. thatcompetition increases between minke whales and other species of baleen whales, as the latter recover,
it is important to determine whether changes occur in species composition as well as size compositionin the Antarctic minke whale diet. For example, under JARPA II, some overlap was observed between
fin whales and minke whales in diet composition, although the sample size for fin whales was small(Murase et al., 2014). The proponents suggest a feasibility study to determine whether stable isotope
ratios (δ13C and δ15N) may provide information on this regard. However, the Panel notes that this isalready a standard technique routinely used to investigate overlap in diet between species; it has
already been successfully applied to mysticetes on a number of occasions (e. g. Ryan et al., 2013).
Such a study can be conducted with skin samples and thus the Panel recommends its implementation
without the need for a feasibility study. The Panel recommends concurrent analyses of krill samples toensure the correct determination of stable isotope baselines, which may vary geographically andtemporally, particularly considering the probable shift in trophic level of krill through the season’ (Item3.9.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p24).
The proponents agree that consideration of stable isotope ratios (δ13C and δ15N) constitutes a standard
technique routinely used to investigate overlap in the trophic level of diet among predator species. As afirst step the proponents will analyse prey species (krill) to ensure the correct determination of stable
isotope baselines, during the first six-year period of NEWREP-A. The proponents consider that thestable isotopes ratios in krill reflect the area where krill distribute. Consequently sampling of krill forthis analysis will be made in different geographical strata. At least five samples per sub areas (e.g.
East-south, East-North and Prydz Bay) will be analyzed every year. Accumulated information on
isotope ratios in krill will be applied for the analysis of the overlap in diet amongst fin, humpback andAntarctic minke whales. After the first six years, the baseline data for krill will thus have been obtained.
These results will be evaluated at the mid-term review of NEWREP-A.
Concurrently, the proponents will examine the overlap in diet amongst fin, humpback and Antarctic
minke whales using stable isotope ratios in skin samples by lethal methods (Antarctic minke whales)
and by biopsy sampling (fin and humpback whales) through NEWREP-A surveys. This analysis will be
carried out early in the NEWREP-A program and the results will be reported to the IWC SC whenavailable.
22. Develop a more powerful approach to estimating energy intake (requirements) using abioenergetics model; evaluate non-lethal methods for obtaining a time series of tuning data
for such models (3.9.3.1) (Main Objective II).
The proponents note that ‘the Panel notes that stomach content data can provide some information ondiet composition (species and size classes of prey consumed) and time of feeding. However, the Panelrecommends that a more powerful approach to estimating energy intake (requirements) is to develop abioenergetics model that estimates basic energy requirements using standard allometric relationships
and previously collected data. Such a model would need to take into account age and maturity status of
the animals. Costs of growth and the build-up in stored energy reserves could be estimated using thechange in body mass, as well as changes in energy density of collected animals (e.g. changes in lipid
content in blubber, fat storage in core), growth and energy density of the foetus and placenta. These
could be evaluated as within-season changes in growth and energy storage, to determine total energy
requirements. Such data can be used for inter-annual comparisons in growth and energy reserves –these might be expected if density-dependent factors are affecting the dynamics of the population. Sucheffects may result from changes in Antarctic minke whale abundance, competition or changes inenvironmental carrying capacity. They would be expected to impact on minke whale growth rates,
energy storage (lipid content of blubber, energy density of the core), foetal development or growth ofcalves and would be reflected as changes in body mass, lipid content of the blubber, energy density inthe core or slower growth at age. An illustrative example for some of this is found in Lindstrøm et al.
(2009)’ (Item 3.9.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p24).
With regard the recommendation above for the estimation of consumption using a bioenergetics model,
referring Lindstrøm et al. (2009) as an illustrative example, the proponents draw attention to the related
work conducted by Tamura and Konishi (2009) and Tamura et al. (2014). These authors used bodyweight and maturity status in the standard allometric model. However, the scope of therecommendation from the Review Panel above is much wider and more complicated. The proponents
understand that this exercise will help achieve the Main Objective II. The proponents will make efforts
to develop more sophisticated calculations adding some categories such as age, growth and maturity

16

status based on energy requirements through change in blubber mass and lipid contents as suggested. It
should be noted that the proponents will use the data collected previously regarding the body weightlength relationship and maturity status as much as possible; however the proponents also need recent
data to examine the lipid content and blubber weight relationship and to monitor and forecast the
dynamics of the Antarctic marine ecosystem from NEWREP-A samples. It should be noted howeverthat using data collected previously is important in building the basic structure of the bioenergetics
model but collection of recent data is essential for monitoring and forecasting the dynamics of the
Antarctic marine ecosystem. Preliminary results of the analyses will be reported to the 2016 IWC SC
meeting. It should be noted that the proponents also conduct consumption calculations based on thestomach contents in parallel.
For both calculation methods based on allometry (bioenergetics model) and stomach contents, theproponents will conduct the Monte-Carlo simulation trials which have been recommended by the
JARPAII Review Panel and the IWC SC to take into account the actual range of the estimates
including the uncertainties (see Tamura et al. 2014). In the calculation from the stomach contents, theproponents will continue to make efforts to minimize uncertainties in r (the ratio of low/high feeding
intake), the length of the feeding season and the extent of night feeding for better estimation by satellite
tagging, stable isotope of baleen plates and night-time sampling.
23. Investigate stable isotopes along edge of baleen plates to see if this provides insights into
duration of time on feeding grounds (3.9.3.1) (Main Objective II).
In discussing techniques to investigate duration of Antarctic minke whales in the feeding grounds the
Review Panel stated the following. ‘However, the Panel also notes that satellite transmitters and dataloggers will, of course, only be able to provide information from the moment they are deployed; under
the proposed programme this will occur sometime after the arrival of the whales on the feeding
grounds. Unless tags remain attached for almost a complete year, they will only provide a date ofdeparture from the feeding grounds, not the date of arrival, thus preventing determination of thecomplete feeding period. The Panel notes that sequential analysis of stable isotope signals along theedge of baleen plates may provide an insight into such duration (e.g. Aguilar et al., 2014; Best andSchell, 1996; Lee et al., 2005) and recommends that this be investigated from existing samples, if they
exist’ (Item 3.9.3.1 of SC/66a/Rep6, p25).
The proponents agree with this recommendation. Information from this approach can be compared withthe results of the satellite tagging studies on duration of whales in the feeding grounds. The proponents
note that stable isotopes in baleen plate were studied for some baleen whale species including the North
Pacific common minke whale. The growth rate of the baleen plates for the North Pacific common
minke whale was estimated to be 129 mm/y, and it appeared that a dietary record of about 1.4 years
remained in the baleen plate (Mitani et al., 2006).
The growth rate of the baleen plates for the Antarctic minke whale has not been reported. Considering
this and the recommendation from the Review Panel, the proponents will conduct stable isotopes
analyses (δ13C and δ15N) in baleen plates to estimate the duration of the period in the feeding grounds
in the Antarctic minke whale. The proponents will analyse stable isotopes in baleen plates (n=10-20) of
Antarctic minke whales collected under JARPAII early during the NEWREP-A program. The results of
the analyses will be reported to the IWC SC in 2018.
24. Use ‘non-lethal’ techniques on all animals; develop ‘condition indices’; work to develop nonlethal techniques for total consumption (3.9.3.3) (Main Objective II).
The proponents note that several feasibility studies will be conducted through NEWREP-A toinvestigate the usefulness of non-lethal techniques in feeding ecology studies. Furthermore, theproponents note that the Review Panel recognises that there are few or no well-developed non-lethal
alternatives for studies on ‘condition index’, ‘total consumption’, or ‘prey composition’ at present, andthat in Item 3.9.3.3 it does not clearly recommend any specific non-lethal methods to be explored while
mentioning a few possible alternatives with some potential. The proponents share that recognition, andthey do not have any particular idea on possible approaches to be taken for those studies at the moment
either. Therefore, our intention is to always pay attention to advancement of novel methodologies orapproaches in the broad field of related scientific research and to revise the NEWREP-A research plan
to incorporate such methodologies/approaches if they are considered to be worth exploring for those17

studies. In this regard, any information or advice on such methodologies and/or approaches with somepotential will be always welcomed throughout NEWREP-A.
25. Provide an improved outline of the proposed ecosystem and multispecies model structures andprovide a data gap analysis (3.11.2) (Main Objective II).
The proponents note that ‘the Panel agrees that the ecosystem and multispecies modelling in the
proposal seems generally to be valid approach to the main Objective II of investigating the ecosystemthrough modelling studies’ (Item 3.11.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p28).
The proponents also note that the Review Panel ‘recommends that any revised proposal should include
an outline of the proposed model structure in the Appendix 12 of the NEWREP-A proposal’.
Furthermore the Review Panel made the following statement. ‘The multispecies modelling would
require knowledge, preferably based on time series of data, on the following for each predator species.
For each input the relevant section of this report is given in brackets(1) Number/biomass of each species (3.2)(2) Total consumption by each species (3.9)(3) Relative consumption of different prey by each predator species (3.9)(4) Predator response to changed food availability (3.9)(5) Link between food consumption and biological outcomes (e.g. condition, growth, breeding success)(3.9)(6) Total available food (3.6)
The Panel recommends that the project proposal include more emphasis on describing now each ofthese data needs will be achieved and a ‘gap analysis’ should be conducted early in the timeframe. This
would use the model structure to identify the relative importance and quality of the data underlying thevarious sections of the model’ (Item 3.11.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p28).
The proponents agree with those two recommendations from the Review Panel and recognize that the
proponents should describe in more details the data considered for the models. Following the Review
Panel suggestions, the proponents will provide, for each species, a brief description of the underlying
data and data quality together with an explanation of how the information will be acquired. Data gap
will be identified.
The proponents understand that information on data for the modelling exercise and on how the
information will be obtained was explained in different sections of the NEWREP-A research plan, andalso in Kitakado et al. (2014b), but that such information should be more detailed and assembled in thecontext of the Review Panel recommendations. The proponents agree that the outline of the model
structure to be developed would assist in the identification of the relative importance and quality of thedata.
The proponents note that the Review Panel suggests that this work ‘should be conducted early in thetimeframe’. In Table 1 of SC/66a/Rep6, the Review Panel suggest a time ‘within three months’. The
proponents agree that this should be conducted early in the timeframe of NEWREP-A research andtherefore they will work on the two recommendations above during the 2015-16 period. Progress of
this work will be presented to the 2016 IWC SC meeting and a final report will be presented to the2017 IWC SC meeting.
It should be clarified here that the two types of ecosystem models, multispecies production model andwhole (spatial) model, will be developed in parallel.
26. Provide a thorough power analysis of sample sizes required to detect change in ASM andfollow the other recommendations in this Item (4.3.2) (Main Objective I).
During the discussion on sample size estimation, ‘the Panel recommends that the proponents conduct a
power analyses for ASM using simulation by postulating a fairly complex and realistic process model,
fitting it to available data, and then simplifying it by eliminating factors that are not supported by thedata’ (Item 4.3.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p31).

18

This recommendation will be addressed in the context of the work related to Recommendation 1 (seethe text responding to Recommendation 1 above). The proponents will report on the outcome at the2015 IWC SC meeting.
27. Provide additional analyses on effect of catches upon the stocks for comparison with thosepresented (5.2 and 8.5) (Others).
With regard to the effect of proposed catches upon the stocks the Panel summarized the following:‘The proponents provided results based on one application of the CLA and by using program Fitter (dela Mare, 1989) to conclude that catches of the order of 333 every second year in the two study areas
will not harm the stocks. Given the estimated abundances of the stocks involved, the precautionary
nature of the RMP and the nature of the sampling regime proposed following transect lines, the Panelagrees that this conclusion is very likely robust to whichever analytical method is applied’ (Item 8.5 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p41). However the Panel made some recommendations for additional analyses: i) basedon RMP variant that had been recommended by the Scientific Committee in 1992, and using 0.72 as
the tuning level; ii) projections based on the SCAA rather than Fitter.
Given that the Review Panel already states in its report that “this conclusion is very likely robust”, theproponents do not consider the additional analyses suggested as urgent. Through the NEWREP-A
program they will continue to use the combination of the RMP-type approach (as suggested at the
JARPAII review meeting) and other available methods including Fitter to further evaluate the effect of
the catches on the stocks. For this aim they will use the most recent information as input data.
28. Improve mechanisms for co-operative research (7.2 and 8.7) (Others).
The proponents note that the Review Panel made the following statement on this matter. ‘Whilst
welcoming the intention of the proponents for outside collaboration, the Panel agrees that at this stage
there is insufficient information available for it to comment on the extent and the scope ofcollaborations with national and international scientific bodies’. The proponents further note that the
Review Panel lists three specific points on this matter: (1) ad hoc collaborations on specific issues; (2)the development of a formal protocol for outside scientists to express interest; and (3) the developmentof a strategy to promote incorporation of external Japanese and/or foreign scientists into the research(Item 8.7 of SC/66a/Rep6, p40).
Regarding the first point, and as noted by the Review Panel, the proponents are in the process ofcontacting potential partners, and co-operative research will be identified and arranged for specificitems in due course, preferably before research activities on such items start. As for the second point,
the proponents recognize the necessity to introduce such a formal protocol in order to enhance theefficient collaboration. The proponents will develop and post such a protocol on the ICR’s website(both in Japanese and English) well in advance of the first research cruise under the NEWREP-A. With
respect to the third point, the proponents agree to the elaboration of a strategy to promote incorporationof external Japanese and/or foreign scientists/organizations into the NEWREP-A. Our idea at thepresent time is: 1) to continue to contact specific potential collaborators directly; and 2) to invite cooperative research widely through the internet (e.g. ICR’s website) and at related meetings (including
those of the IWC Scientific Committee) indicating specific research items for collaboration. Our
proposed ‘annual progress report’ to the IWC SC (see the next item), would also help to promoteresearch collaboration with external scientists/organizations, since, as noted by the Review Panel, ‘the
NEWREP-A programme could potentially provide new information relevant to the work of the
Scientific Committee, in addition to those related to in-depth assessments, RMP and ecosystemmodelling’.
The proponents also note that the Review Panel especially mentions the importance of co-operation
with CCAMLR in relation to the proposed krill surveys (Items 7.2.1 and 8.7). As the first step for that,a Japanese scientist to be involved in those surveys participated in SG-ASAM (Sub-Group on Acoustic
Survey and Analysis Methods) of SC-CAMLR, which was held in Busan, Republic of Korea, over 913 March 2015. The proponents will present an outline of their research plan for the CCAMLR-typekrill survey (in the first 6-year period) at WG-EMM (Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring andManagement) of SC-CAMLR to be held in Warsaw, Poland, over 6-17 July 2015. The proponents plan
to submit a full survey plan to the next WG-EMM in 2016, reflecting the comments derived fromdiscussions at SG-ASAM, WG-EMM and SC-CAMLR in 2015.

19

29. Provide information on programme management, personnel and logistic resources (8.2)(Others)
The proponents note with pleasure that the Panel welcomed the greater detail concerning timelines
provided at the review workshop while it recommended provision of further information on program
management, personnel and logistic resources. The proponents also note that the Panel regarded thisrecommendation as ‘relevant to improve existing components of the proposed programme’ andsuggested to respond it ‘throughout the program’ in the Table 1 of SC/66a/Rep6.
As for the whole program management, the Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) will assume responsibility
for this including provision of the funding necessary. Regarding personnel resources to be engaged in
the program, scientists from the ICR will play the leading role in order to pursue research activities andachieve the research objectives of NEWREP-A in collaboration with scientists from other domestic
and/or foreign organizations, such as the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, theNational Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries and the National Research Institute of Fisheries
Science (ICR scientists are currently contacting foreign colleagues and relevant research institutions to
discuss future collaboration under the NEWREP-A).
Having said that, since it is almost impossible to fix every aspect of the program management‘throughout the program’ at an initial stage, the proponents intend to provide relevant information to
the IWC SC every year in an annual progress report for the SC’s comments and suggestions so that the
proponents could secure steady progress of the program in an open and transparent manner. This
information will contain any progress achieved for each sub-objective (e.g. abundance estimates for
Antarctic minke whales taking into account of g(0) and additional variance) as well as the involvementof external scientists/organizations and their roles. This annual update and comment process throughthe IWC SC will appreciably improve the management of the proposed program throughout its
duration.
The latest version of the program timeline is presented in Figure 1.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONSCalibration among age readers (earplug) (3.3.4)
The Review Panel stresses the importance of (a) not relying solely on one reader in any long-term
programme and (b) calibration of any new readers (and periodically ‘old’ readers) using the existing
standard dataset.
The proponents note that age reading of NEWREP-A earplugs will be conducted by the samescientist who read JARPA II samples. Therefore, inter-reader variability will not be an issue at thefirst stage of NEWREP-A. However in the longer time the proponents agree on the importance ofmulti readers for improving the reliability of age data based on earplugs, and the proponents areplanning to train a new reader (s) through the first six years of NEWREP-A. Detailed calibration will
be conducted and inter-reader variability will be assessed by the method of Kitakado et al. (2013)
when different readers participate in age reading.
Species targeted for abundance estimates in Main Objective II (2.2.2)
In its evaluation on the relevance of Main Objective II of NEWREP-A ‘the Panel recommends thatspecies for which abundance estimates are obtained in Objective II (ii) match with the species to bemodelled in Objectives II (iv) and II (v)’ (Item 2.2.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p8).
The proponents agree with this recommendation. In principle, species for which abundance estimates
are obtained in Objective II (ii) are planned to match with the species to be used in ecosystem models.
Use of retinol as body condition index (3.9.3.2)
The proponents note that in relation to the proposed use of retinol as chemical marker ‘the Panelquestions the validity of this approach and they reiterates that body mass-at-length, blubber mass,

20

percent lipid (in blubber) and other metrics are likely to be more robust than retinol’ (Item 3.9.3.2 of
SC/66a/Rep6, p25).
The proponents agree with the Review Panel on this point. Instead of retinol, the proponents plan toanalyse the lipid content % of blubber throughout NEWREP-A research. At first, the total lipid
content % of blubber from mid lateral position (near the position used in JARPA and JARPA II for the
point measurement of blubber thickness) will be analysed since this position has been informative ofchanges of blubber thickness in relation to feeding season (Konishi et al., 2008). The lipid content % of
blubber will be compared to other body condition indicators such as blubber thickness and girthmeasurements. As an initial feasibility test, the measurements of body conditions (blubber thickness,girth, total fat weight and he total lipid content % of blubber) from Antarctic minke whales collectedunder the NEWREP-A will be used. At least 50 whales for each sex and sub area will be used for thisanalysis.
Use of drones for body length measurement (3.4.3.1)‘The Panel notes that aerial photogrammetric techniques (from aircraft and drones) can be effectively
used to estimate whale length (Perryman et al. 2014) and so the Panel recommends considering thepossibility of using drones’ (Item 3.4.3.2 of SC/66a/Rep6, p17).
The proponents recognize that attempts to photograph the animal from the sky using drone to estimatebody length has been developed in recent years (Goebel et al., 2015; Perryman et al., 2014). The
proponents note that photogrammetric techniques from drones are useful for the investigation of wild
animals without threatening target individuals, but there are some limitations in this technique such as
limitation of payload capacity, ability to withstand high wind and short endurance. Considering the useof drones on moving vessels under high wind speed and large swell conditions which are specificfeature in northern part of NEWREP-A research area, the proponents reached the conclusion that theuse of drones in NEWREP-A is impractical at this stage.

REFERENCES
Aguilar, A., Giménez, J., Gómez–Campos, E., Cardona, L. and Borrell, A. 2014. δ15N Value Does Not
Reflect Fasting in Mysticetes. Plos One. 9: 1-7.
Best, P. B. and Schell, D. M. 1996. Stable isotopes in southern right whale (Eubalaena australis)baleen as indicators of seasonal movements, feeding and growth. Mar. Biol. 124: 483–94.
Bocklandt, S., Lin, W., Sehl, M.E., Sanchez, F.J., Sinsheimer, J.S., Horvath, S. and Vilain, E. 2011.
Epigenetic predictor of age. PloS One 6(6): e14821.
Cox, M.J., Demer, D.A., Warren, J.D., Cutter, G.R. and Brierley, A.S. 2009. Multibeam echosounderobservations reveal interactions between Antarctic krill and air-breathing predators. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 378: 199-209.
de la Mare, W.K. 1989. Report of the Scientific Committee. Annex L. The model used in the Hitter andFitter Programs (Program: Fitter.SC40). Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39: 150-1.
Demer, D.A. 2004. An estimate of error for the CCAMLR 2000 survey estimate of krill biomass. Deep
Sea Res. II 51: 1237-51.
Goebel, M.E., Perryman, L., Hinke, J.T., Krause, D.J., Hann, N.A., Gardner, S. and LeRoi, D.J. 2015.
A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators.
Polar Biol. DOI 10.1007/s00300-014-1625-4.
Gunnlaugsson, T. and Vikingsson, G.A. 2013. Report on blood testosterone and progesterone
concentrations of the North Atlantic minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) during thefeeding season in Icelandic waters from research catches 2003-2006. Paper SC/F13/SP13
presented to the Expert Workshop to Review the Icelandic Special Permit Research
Program, 18-22 February 2013, Reykjavik, Iceland. 7pp.
International Whaling Commission. 2013. Revised “Annex P”. Process for the Review of the Special
Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Completed Permits. J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 14: 465-68.
International Whaling Commission. 2014. Report of the Expert Workshop to Review the Icelandic
Special Permit Research Programme, 18-22 February 2013, Reykjavik, Iceland. J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 15: 455-88.
International Whaling Commission. 2015. Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. (Suppl.) 16:1-87.

21

Kellar, N.M., Trego, M.L., Marks, C.I. and Dizon, A.E. 2006. Determination pregnancy fromblubber in three species of delphinids. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 22(1): 1-16.
Kishiro, T. and Miyashita, T. 2011. Satellite tracking of a common minke whale in the coastal waters
off Hokkaido, northern Japan in 2010. Paper SC/63/RMP10 presented to the IWC ScientificCommittee, June 2011, Tromsø, Norway (unpublished). 10pp.
Kishiro, T., Murase, H., Minamikawa, S. and Miyashita, T. 2013. Sighting and trials for satellite
tracking of common minke whales in the Sea of Japan in autumn 2012. Paper
SC/65a/NPM01 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 2013, Jeju Island,
Republic of Korea (unpublished). 7pp.
Kitakado, T., Lockyer, C. and Punt, A.E. 2013. A statistical model for quantifying age-reading errors
and its application to the Antarctic minke whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 13(3): 181-90.
Kitakado, T., Schweder, T., Kanda, N., Pastene, L., and Walløe, L. 2014a. Dynamic population
segregation by genetics and morphometrics in Antarctic minke whales. SC/65b/IA13
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2014, Bled, Slovenia (unpublished). 25pp.
Kitakado, T., Murase, H., Tamura, T. and Yonezaki, S. 2014b. An attempt to ecosystem modelling forspecies in Area IV in the Antarctic Ocean using JARPA and JARPAII data. Paper
SC/F14/J26 presented to the JARPA II Special Permit Review Workshop, February 2014
(unpublished). 15pp.
Konishi, K., Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Kato, H. and Walløe, L. 2008. Decline in energy
storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean.
Polar Biol. 31: 1509–20.
Lee, S.H., Schell, D.M., McDonald, T.L. and Richardson, W.J. 2005. Regional and seasonal feeding by
bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus as indicated by stable isotope ratios. Mar. Eco. Prog.
Ser. 285: 271-87.
Lindstrøm, U., Smout, S., Howell, D. and Bogstad, B. 2009. Modelling multi-species interactions in the
Barents Sea ecosystem with special emphasis on minke whales and their interactions withcod, herring and capelin. Deep Sea Res. II: 56(21-22): 2068–79.
Lockyer, C. 1984. Age determination by means of the earplug in baleen whales. Rep. Int. Whal.
Commn 34: 692-6.
Maegawa, S., Hinkal, G., Kim, H.S., Shen, L., Zhang, L., Zhang, J., Zhang, N., Liang, S., Donehower,
L.A. and Issa, J.P.J. 2010. Widespread and tissue specific age-related DNA methylation
changes in mice. Genome Research 20: 332–40.
Mansour, A.A.H., McKay, D.W., Lien, J., Orr, J.C., Banoub, J.H., Øien, N. and Stenson, G. 2002.
Determination of pregnancy status from blubber samples in minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18(1): 112-20.
Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Miyashita, T. 2014. Proposal for a cetacean sighting survey in the
Antarctic in the 2014/15 austral summer season. Paper SC/65b/IA12 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee, May 2014, Bled, Slovenia (unpublished). 4pp.
Mitani, Y., Bando, T., Takai, N. and Sakamoto, W. 2006. Patterns of stable carbon and nitrogenisotopes in the baleen of common minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata from the western
North Pacific. Fish. Sci. 72: 69-76.
Murase, H., Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T. and Kitakado, T. 2014. Preliminary analysis of changes inspatial distribution of Antarctic minke and humpback whales in Area IV during the period of
JARPA and JARPAII from 1989 to 2006. Paper SC/F14/J18 presented to the JARPA II
Special Permit Expert Panel Review Workshop, February 24-28 2014, Tokyo, Japan(unpublished). 17pp.
Nicol, S., Pauly, T., Bindoff, N.L. and Strutton, P.G. 2000. “BROKE” a biological/oceanographic
survey off the coast of East Antarctica (80–150°E) carried out in January–March 1996. Deep
Sea Res. II 47: 2281-97.
Nicol, S., Meiners, K. and Raymond, B. 2010. BROKE-West, a large ecosystem survey of the SouthWest Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean, 30°E-80°E (CCAMLR Division 58.4.2).
Deep Sea Res. II 57: 693-700.
Nishiwaki, S., Joyce, G., Ensor, P., Mermoz, J., Sanpera, C. and Kasamatsu, F. 1990. Report on the
Biopsy Dart Sampling Feasibility Study during the 12th IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere
Minke Whale Assessment Cruise, 1989/90. Paper SC/42/SHMi21 presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee, June 1990 (unpublished). 12pp
Nishiwaki, S. 2000. Performance of biopsy skin sampling for minke whales during the JARPN and
JARPA surveys using ICR air gun. Paper SC/52/O5 presented to the IWC ScientificCommittee, May 2000 (unpublished). 8pp.

22

Pastene, L.A., Goto, M. and Kanda, N. 2014. An update of the genetic study on stock structure of the
Antarctic minke whale based on JARPAII samples. Paper SC/65b/SD01 presented to the
IWC Scientific Committee, May 2014, Bled, Slovenia (unpublished). 14pp.
Pauly, T., Nicol, S., Higginbottom, I., Hosie, G. and John, K. 2000. Distribution and abundance ofAntarctic krill (Euphausia superba) off East Antarctica (80–150°E) during the Australsummer of 1995/1996. Deep Sea Res. II 47: 2465-88.
Perryman, W., Ash, L.N., LeRoi, D., Gardner, S.C. and Goebel, M.E. 2014. Evaluation of Small
Unmanned Aerial Susyems as Tools for Assessment of Krill Predators in the Antarctic Final Report, 23.
Polanowski, A.M., Robbins, J., Chandler, D. and Jarman, S.N. 2014. Epigenetic estimation of age inhumpback whales. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14(5): 976-87.
Punt, A.E., Hakamada, T., Bando, T. and Kitakado T. in press. Assessment of Antarctic Minke Whales
using Statistical Catch-at-age Analysis. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
Ryan, C., McHugh, B., Trueman, C.N., Sabin, R., Deaville, R., Harrod, C., Berrow, SD. and O’Connor,
I. 2013. Stable isotope analysis of baleen reveals resource partitioning among sympatricrorquals and population structure in fin whales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 479: 251–61.
Tamura, T. and Konishi, K. 2009. Feeding Habits and Prey Consumption of Antarctic Minke Whale(Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean. J. Northwest Atlantic Fish. Sci. 42: 13–
25.
Tamura, T., Konishi, K. and Hakamada, T. 2014. Work plan for further analyses of prey consumption
rate by Antarctic minke whales based on JARPA and JARPAII data. Paper SC/65b/EM01
presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 2014, Bled, Slovenia (unpublished). 8pp.
Trathan, P.N., Watkins, J.L., Murray, A.W.A., Brierley, A.S., Everson, I., Goss, C., Priddle, J., Reid,
K. and Ward, P. 2001. The CCAMLR-2000 Krill Synoptic Survey: A description of therationale and design. CCAMLR Sci. 8: 1-23.
Yoshida, H., Kanaji, Y., Miyashita, T., Uoya, T. and Furukawa, H. 2010. Cruise report of the common
minke whale biopsy sampling survey in the Okhotsk Sea, summer 2009. Paper
SC/62/NPM22 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, June 2010, Agadir, Morocco(unpublished). 10pp.
Yoshida, H., Kishiro, T., Kanda, N. and Miyashita, T. 2011. Cruise report of the sighting and biopsy
sampling survey in the Okhotsk Sea, summer 2010. Paper SC/63/RMP9 presented to the
IWC Scientific Committee, June 2011, Tromsø, Norway (unpublished). 10pp.

23

Table 1. Summary of the responses from the proponents to the 29 recommendations provided by the Review Panel, including timeframe of the works. A=To evaluate
contribution of a particular objective or sub-objective of the programme to meet conservation and management needs; B=to evaluate feasibility of particular techniques(whether lethal or non-lethal); C= relevant to a full evaluation of whether any new lethal sampling is required; D= relevant to issues related to sample size (irrespectiveof method used to obtain data); E= relevant to improve existing components of the proposed programme (key for ‘Purposes’ obtained from SC/66a/Rep6) (‘Reasoning’is for longer timeframe planned by the proponents than the timeframe suggested by the Review Panel)# (Item)
1 (2.1.2)

2 (3.1.3)

Review Panel recommendations
Summary
PurposeTimeframe
Evaluate the level of
A, C, D
Within 6 months
improvement that might
be expected either in the
SCAA or in RMP
performance byimproved precision in
biological parameters
using simulation studies
including updated
Implementation
Simulation Trials
Analyses to distinguish
A, DWithin 3 months
between 2-stocks withmixing versus isolation
by distance

Summary
Simulation study to be conducted

Proponents’ responses
Timeframe
Before the 2015 IWC SC
meeting

Analyses to be conducted to elucidate
whether the genetic and morphometricdata are consistent with isolation by
distance hypothesis

Within program (results tobe presented to 2016 IWC
SC meeting)Reasoning-

IWC SC agreed that it
would be reasonable to use
the two-stock hypothesis asa default for in-depth
assessment (IWC, 2014),
i.e. the two-stock withmixing hypothesis is moreplausible than the isolation
by distance hypothesis. .
Priority is given to the tasks
with respect torecommendation 1 above.

3 (3.1.3)

Simulation study to
examine how additional
sampling could be
expected to improve
precision and/or reducebias in estimates of
mixing rates

A, D

Within 3 months

Simulation study to be conductedWithin program (results tobe presented to 2016 IWC
SC meeting)4 (3.1.3.1)

Comprehensive biopsy
sampling feasibility study

B, C, D, E

1-2 field seasons

Feasibility study to be conducted, taking
account of all four technical suggestions

Within program (first twothree years)-

2-3 field seasons

Feasibility study to be conducted, taking
account the technical suggestions,particularly making effort to collaborate
with research groups with experience inWithin program (first twothree years)-

5 (3.1.5)

Comprehensive telemetry
feasibility study

B, E

24

6 (3.2.2)

7 (3.2.2)

8 (3.3.4)

Estimate g(0) for all
species(1) review survey design
and methods taking into
account: (a) analysis of
IWC IDCR/SOTHEPROPONENTSR
cruises; (b) spatialmodelling developments;(c) experience ofprevious multidisciplinary surveys; (d)JARPAII review
recommendations; (e) the
possibility of focusedsurveys on specific issues
in some years; (f) whales
within the ice; (g)updated analyses of theeffects of survey intervaland estimation of trend(2) work closely with the
IWC ScientificCommittee before
finalizing survey
approaches;(3) ensure that future
survey plans submitted to
the Scientific Committee
follow fully theguidelines for such
survey plans, including
incorporating proposed
track lines
Examine feasibility ofusing DNA methylation
ageing technique with
Antarctic minke whales
using good quality
earplugs, testing against
geographical areas anddifferent time periods

Throughout programE
Within 6 months then throughout

telemetry study of whales
Data to be collected using IO mode andanalyzed for not only the Antarctic
minkes but also other whale species
Sighting survey plans taking account of
the technical suggestions to be presented
and discussed at annual IWC SC meetings

Throughout program-

Throughout program-

Within program(preliminary results to bepresented to 2017 and final
results to 2018 IWC SC
meeting)

Proponents need acquirefamiliarity with thetechnique.
The result of this feasibility
study alone does not affectthe proposed sample size.

E

Within 1 year

B, C, D

Feasibility study to be conducted, initiallyusing existing ‘highly readable’ earplug
samples and testing for stock, sex andyear of sampling differences.

25

and using several
laboratories
9 (3.4.3.1)

10 (3.4.3.1)

11 (3.4.3.2)

12 (3.4.3.2)

13 (3.4.3.2)

14 (3.6.2.1)

15 (3.6.2.3)

Examine use ofhormones in blubber todetect sexual maturity
Evaluate the effect on
SCAA of assuming‘resting’ females are
immature females
Update SCAA withrespect to densitydependence following
Punt et al., in press, andstock mixing based on
existing data
Identify more fully thedata to be used to informthe time-varying natural
mortality in the SCAA
and analyze existing data
to determine thefeasibility and accuracyof obtaining such
estimates.
Develop metrics toevaluate the benefits ofincluding time varying
ASM data in the SCAA
Consider the adoption ofthis multibeam sonar in
krill surveys.
Trial the ship andechosounder system(s) inJapan the well before
going to the Antarctic todetermine the likely
effective acoustic
sampling range andpotential for detecting
krill for multiple
frequencies over therequired survey depth.
Conduct for both annual

Within 2 years

Within program (results tobe presented to the 2017
IWC SC meeting)-Within 6 months

Feasibility study to be conducted initiallyusing existing blubber samples from
JARPAII, for female at different
reproductive status
Simulation study to be conducted

Before start of the program-

Within 3 months

Simulation study to be conducted

Before the 2015 IWC SC
meeting-Within 6 months

Simulation study to be conducted in thecontext of work related torecommendation1 above

Before the 2015 IWC SC
meeting-Within 3 months

Simulation study to be conducted in thecontext of the work related torecommendation 1 above

Before the 2015 IWC SC
meeting-Within 6 months

The adoption of the multibeam sonar in
krill survey vessels to be considered

Not urgent issue and needs
careful consideration

Within 1 year for annual surveys

Trial the ship and echosounder system (s)to be conducted well before going to the
Antarctic every year

Within program (before thefirst CCAMLR-type krill
survey to be conducted)
Throughout program

B, C, D

A, C, D

A, C, D

A, C, D

A, C, D

E

B, E

26

-

16 (3.6.2.5)

17 (3.6.2.6)

18 (3.6.2.7)

19 (3.7.2)

20 (3.8.2)

21 (3.9.3.1)

and broad-scale survey
vessels.
In the years (two out of12) when both
NEWREP-A and
CCAMLR-type surveys
are conducted, try tosurvey the same transects
by both vessels in nearsynchrony
Conduct full analysis ofstatistical power to detectchanges in krill
abundance fromproposed techniques
Develop more detailedplans to consider whether
comparisons between
stomach contents andproposed krill survey
data are feasible and if
so, how they can be done
Ensure that sufficient
time is allocated foradequate net sampling,based an analysis ofprevious net sampling
data (e.g.
BROKE/BROKE Westdata).
Give carefulconsideration to scaleand design ofoceanographic sampling,taking into account
BROKE/BROKE Westdata
Compare overlap in dietamongst fin andAntarctic minke whales
using stable isotopes inskin, with concurrent
analyses of krill samples
to obtain stable isotope

Within program

Cross-calibration between the two typesof krill survey vessels to be carried out inwaters around Japan in a nearsynchronous way (possibly in the survey
area if conditions are met)

Within program-

Within 6 months

To be considered in collaboration with
CCAMLR experts

Within program (earlier inthe program)Not an urgent issue andneeds careful considerationin consultation with
CCAMLR experts

Within 3 months

Consideration to be given to conduct asimultaneous survey by the three type ofvessels (two types of krill survey vessels
and the whale sampling vessel) within asmall-scale experimental survey area overa short time period (one week)

Within program (before thefirst CCAMLR-type krill
survey)Not an urgent issue andneeds careful considerationin consultation with
CCAMLR experts

Within program

Sufficient time for net sampling to beallocated considering previous CCAMLRsurveys as guidelines

Within program (before thefirst CCAMLR-type krill
survey)-Within program

Careful consideration to be given to thescale and design of oceanographic survey,
considering previous CCAMLR-surveys
as guidelines

Within program (before thefirst CCAMLR-type krill
survey)-Throughout program

Isotope study to be conducted in two
parts: first analyses in the prey species(krill) to ensure the correct determinationof stable isotope baselines, and second
analyses in three baleen whale species
based on blubber samples

Within program (first six
years as a first step)

-

E

A, E

A, B, C

E

E

E

27

22 (3.9.3.1)

23 (3.9.3.1)

24 (3.9.3.3)

25 (3.11.2)

26 (4.3.2)

27 (5.2 and
8.5)
28 (7.2 and8.7)

baselines,
Develop a more powerfulapproach to estimatingenergy intake(requirements) using abioenergetics model;
evaluate non-lethal
methods for obtaining atime series of tuning data
for such models
Investigate stable
isotopes along edge ofbaleen plates to see if thisprovides insights into
duration of time on
feeding grounds.
use ‘non-lethal’techniques on all
animals; develop‘condition indices’; work
to develop non-lethal
techniques for total
consumption
Provide an improved
outline of the proposed
ecosystem andmultispecies model
structures and provide adata gap analysis
Provide a thoroughpower analysis of sample
sizes required to detectchange in ASM andfollow the otherrecommendations in this
Item
Provide additional
analyses on effect ofcatches upon the stocks
for comparison withthose presented
Improve mechanisms for
co-operative researchWithin 6 months

Effort to be made to develop moresophisticated bioenergetics models using
the data collected previously regarding the
body weight-length relationship andmaturity status as much as possible, inparallel with prey consumption estimates
based on stomach contents

Within program(preliminary results to bepresented to 2016 IWC SC
meeting)

The result of this exercise
alone does not affect the
proposed sample size

Within 6 months

Study to be conducted initially using
baleen plates of Antarctic minke whale
collected during the JARPAII. Results
will be compared with the results ofsatellite tagging studies

Within program(preliminary results to bepresented to 2018 IWC SC
meetingWithin program

Feasibility studies to be conducted if there
will be novel non-lethal methodologies
and/or approaches with some potential

Throughout programTime is required by the
proponents to acquirefamiliarity with thetechnique.
The result of thisinvestigation does not affectthe proposed sample size-

Within 3 months

More detailed description of underlying
data and data quality related to ecosystemmodelling to be provided, with an
explanation of how the information will
be acquired. Data gaps will be identified

Needs careful consideration

Within 3 months

Simulation study to be conductedWithin program(preliminary results will bepresented to the 2016 IWC
SC meeting and final
results will be presented to
the 2017 IWC SC meeting)
Before the 2015 IWC SC
meetingWithin 3 months

Additional analyses to be conducted basedon RMP-type and other available methods
including Fitter, and reflecting further
improvement of SCAA

Within the program (firstsix years)

Given the conclusion of the
Review Panel, there is nourgency in conducting thiswork

Within 3 months

Attempts to be made to improve themechanism based on three suggestions

Before and throughout
program (first six years)-

A, B, D

B

E

E

-

D

E

E

28

29 (8.2)

Provide information on
programme management,
personnel and logistic
resources

Throughout program
E

Information to be provided as the program
progress. Relevant information to beprovided to the IWC SC every year in anannual progress report for the SC’scomments and suggestions

29

Throughout program-Main Objective I
First 6 years

Flowchart of survey & analyses(i) Abundance#1

Estimationc) + d) variation / interpretation(ii) Biologicalparameters

Age

Earplug

Analysis

Assessa) Racemization

Analysis

Assess#2b) DNA methylation

Estimation
Analysis
Continue?
Continue?

Analysis/Assess

Others c) Age at sexual matuity

Analysisd) New age reader

Assess#3

Initial applicatione) SCAA#4

Hormones in blubberb) Mixing I/P stocks

Continue?

SurveyAnalysis

Survey#5#6c) Movement

Feasibility biopsy

SurveySurveyAnalysis

Survey & Analysis
Prep.

Trial

SurveySurveyContinue?

Survey & Analysisd) New genetic technique#7

Improvement / application

Analysis/Assessa) IIIW/VIE stock structure(iii) Stock structure

ReviewAbundance estimationg(0) initial triala) + b) abundance, g(0)Second 6 years

Review

Interpretation

Survey & Analysis(iv) RMP/ISTs

Initial specification with SC

Continue?
Continue?
Final specification

Main Objective I
First 6 years

Flowchart of survey & analyses(i) Abundancea) + b) abundance, g(0)Abundance estimationg(0) initial trial

Estimatec) + d) variation / interpretation(ii) Biologicalparameters

Age

Earplug

Analysis

AssessAnalysisa) Racemization

Analysis

AssessContinue?

b) DNA methylation

Analysis/Assess

Continue?

Others c) Age at sexual matuity

Analysisd) New age reader

AssessSpecificatione) SCAA
Hormones in blubber(iii) Stock structure

Analysis/Assessa) IIIW/VIE stock structure

Survey

Prep.

Trial

d) New genetic technique
Feasibility biopsy

Continue?
Analysis

SurveySCAASurvey & Analysisb) Mixing I/P stocksc) Movement

Evaluation of non-lethal
methods on a wholeprogram basis

Survey & Analysis
Interpretation

SurveySurvey(iv) RMP/ISTs

Survey & Analysis
Initial specification with SC#1

The survey plan for each austral summer season including details of the survey design, will be presented to the annual IWC SC
meetings. The survey design will take into account the specific research activities planned for a particular Area and australsummer season, and will follow the seven guidelines or suggestions provided by the Review Panel regarding survey design.
The survey design for the first two-three years will include feasibility studies on biopsy sampling and telemetry of Antarctic
minke whale. The survey plan for the 2015/16 austral summer season will be presented to the 2015 IWC SC meeting (seedetails in the main text).
#2
At first, the stock effect on the DNA methylation technique will be examined using 50 highly readable earplugs each from I
and P-stocks. In the next step the effect of the period will be examined by using similar number of samples from different
austral summers. A specialized laboratory and a university in Tokyo have been contacted so that this study can be conductedin collaboration with experts. Preliminary results will be reported to the 2017 IWC SC meeting and final results at the 2018
IWC SC meeting.
#3
The proponents will respond to several SCAA/RMP-related recommendations from the Review Panel through a specific plan
to be implemented with the highest priority (see details in main text). A progress of the work in this plan will be presented to
the 2015 IWC SC meeting, before the starting of the program.
#4
The proponents will conduct progesterone analyses in blubber tissues of Antarctic minke whales using JARPAII samples.
Females with various reproductive status such as ovulating, resting and pregnant with small fetus will be selected, and30

hormone levels will be compared with histological information of reproductive organ. Analysis of progesterone level for a
total of 50 Antarctic minke whale samples will be assayed using the compact ELISA workstation (Crocodile, Titertek
Berthold). Progesterone will be assayed with the Cayman Practice ELISA Kits (Cayman Chemical), according to the
manufacturers’ protocols. Preliminary results will be reported to the 2017 IWC SC meeting.
#5
The estimation of performance will consider the use of a random effect model for the mixing proportions, by using a statisticalprinciple of “borrowing strength”. This work will be conducted once the proponents have some progress in the tasks related
to recommendations on SCAA/RMP, which have the highest priority.
#6
The feasibility study on telemetry in Antarctic minke whale will be undertaken along the dedicated sighting surveys, in theearly stage of the first six-year period of NEWREP-A. Detailed study design will be provided in the sighting survey plan to
be presented and discussed at the annual IWC SC meetings. With regard field methods as well as tag types, the proponents
will collaborate and consult with experienced foreign and Japanese colleagues (see details in the main text).
#7
The feasibility study on biopsy sampling in Antarctic minke whale will be undertaken along the dedicated sighting surveys, inthe early stage of the first six-year period of NEWREP-A. Originally the NEWREP-A plan stated that this feasibility study
would be conducted in Areas IIIW and VIE. Because this feasibility should be conducted early in the program, it will be
conducted in the IWC Area to be covered by the sighting surveys in 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 (not necessarily in Areas
IIIW and VIE). Detailed study design will be provided in the sighting survey plan to be presented and discussed at the annual
IWC SC meetings (see details in the main text).

31

Main Objective II
First 6 years

Flowchart of survey & analyses(i) Kril survey#8

Second 6 years

Review

Surveya) Under NEWREP-A

SurveyAnalysisAnalysis

Si multaneous s mall scale s urvey #9

Prep.

b) CCAMLR standard type(ii) Abundance#10

Analysis

Surveyc) + d) Demography& Oceanography

Si multaneous s mall scale s urvey #9

Prep.

Surv.

SurveyAnalysis

SurveyAnalysisAnalysis

Surveyg(0) initial triala) DISTANCE

Other spp.#1

Estimationb) DSM

Estimation

SurveyInvest. of model

Estimation(iii) Prey consumption

Estimation

Samplinga) Prey consumption

Sampling
Analysis

Prep.
#12

Trial

Continue

Survey & Analysis

Continue?
Continue?

Analysis/Assess

Isotope (baleen)#13

Analysis

Continue(Bioenergetics model)#11 Analysis

Tagging

Isotope (krill, skin)Sampling & Analysisb) Body condition

Sampling

Continue?
Sampling
Analysisc) Chemical markers #14(iv) Ecosystem model

Analysis

Continue?

Sampling/Analysis/Assessa) Multispecies productionb) Spatial

ReviewModelling and Analysis

Continue

Main Objective II
First 6 years

Flowchart of survey & analyses(i) Kril survey

Surveya) Under NEWREP-A
Si multaneous s malls ca le s urveyb) CCAMLR standard typePrep.

c) + d) Demography& Oceanography(ii) Abundance
Other spp.

a) DISTANCE(iii) Prey consumptiona) Prey consumptionb) DSM

AnalysisAnalysis

SurveySurveyAnalysis

Estimationg(0) initial trial(iv) Ecosystem Model

Estimation

Invest. of model

Sampling
Analysis

Continue(Bioenergetics model) Analysis

Survey & Analysis

Tagging

Prep.

Isotope (baleen)

Analysis/Assess

Trial

Continue?

Isotope (krill, skin)Sampling & Analysisb) Body condition

Sampling
Analysisc) Chemical markers

Sampling/Analysis/Assess#8

Evaluation of non-lethal
methods on a wholeprogram basis

Continue?

Since the NEWREP-A review workshop, progress has been made on the installation of equipments (echosounder, Norpac net
and CTD) in the research vessel that will be engaged in krill surveys under NEWREP-A. During this work the specifications
made by the Review Panel for those instruments are being taken into consideration.
#9
The proponents will consider to conduct a simultaneous survey by a krill survey vessel equipped with a frame-type trawl andechosounder, the dedicated sighting vessel equipped with an echosounder and the whale sampling vessels within a smallscale experimental survey area over a short time period (e.g. one week) so that comparisons among vessels/samples can be
made.
#10
Identification of duplicate sightings will be also conducted for whale species other than Antarctic minke whale during the
NEWREP-A sighting surveys in IO mode. To determine whether g(0) is significantly different from one, analyses on
duplicate sightings will be conducted for those whale species where sufficient data are obtained during the NEWREP-A
program. Details will be provided in the sighting survey plans to be presented to the annual meetings of the IWC SC.
#11
The proponents will make effort to build more sophisticated models adding some categories such as age, growth and maturity
status based on the energy requirement by change in blubber mass and lipid contents. Previously and newly collected data
will be used. Preliminary results of this work will be reported to the 2016 IWC SC meeting (see details in the main text).
#12
Stable isotopes analyses (δ13C and δ15N) along the edge of baleen plates will be conducted to estimate time duration of
Antarctic minke whale in the feeding grounds. Stable isotopes in baleen plates (n=10-20) of Antarctic minke whales sampled
under JARPA II will be analysed early in the research program, as an initial step. The results of the analyses will be reported
to the IWC SC in 2018.
#13
As a first step in the work to compare overlap in diet amongst fin and Antarctic minke whale using stable isotope, krill
samples will be analyzed to ensure the correct determination of stable isotope baselines. This will be done during the first six-32

year period of NEWREP-A. Concurrently, the proponents will examine the overlap in diet amongst fin, humpback andAntarctic minke whales using stable isotope ratios in skin samples collected by lethal method (Antarctic minke whales) andby biopsy sampling (fin and humpback whales). This analysis will be carried out early in the NEWREP-A program based on
the information accumulated on stable isotope baselines of krill in each area. Results will be presented to the IWC SC
meeting as appropriate in the first six-year period and evaluated at the mid-term review of NEWREP-A (see details in themain text).
#14
At first, the total lipid content % of blubber will be compared to other body condition indicators such as blubber thickness andgirth measurements. As an initial feasibility test, the measurements of body conditions (blubber thickness, girth, total fat
weight and the total lipid content % of blubber) from Antarctic minke whales collected under the NEWREP-A will be used.
At least 50 whales for each sex and sub areas will be used or this analysis.

Figure 1. Updated timeline of research activities under NEWREP-A’s Main Objectives I and II. For
both Main Objectives, the upper part of the figures shows the timeline for the research activities in theentire 12-year period. The lower parts of the figures show the timelines for the first 6-year period,
specifying the outputs and evaluation to be conducted after the first period. This figure is based on thatoriginally presented to the NEWREP-A review workshop.

33