(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting")

The Working Group Chairman reported that although all outstanding issues had not been resolved, progress was made on both the substance of the discussions and on the question of how to take the work forward.

12.1.1 Inspection and observation scheme, including DNA identification and tracking
Rather than report to the Commission in detail on the Working Group's discussions, the Chairman focused on the major areas where agreement had not been reached. First of all disagreement remained over who should be responsible for the registration of vessels and landing sites or land stations involved in whaling operations, i.e. the IWC or national authorities. Japan and Norway held the view that registration with IWC would give rise to security problems and thus could not accept this approach. Norway also thought that there should be only two points of control, i.e., on vessels and at land stations but not at landing sites as this would duplicate effort. A similar problem remained concerning whether each whaling vessel should be equipped with a system allowing it to be continuously tracked by satellite while at sea.

The Chairman reported that there had been a wide-ranging discussion on the question of competence and whether DNA tracking and market sampling should form part of the inspection and observation scheme as proposed in his draft on which discussions were based. Several countries supported this proposal but others considered that control of markets and trade in whale products was outside the competence of the IWC and under the sole jurisdiction of national authorities.

Regarding the International Observer Scheme, disagreement remained over whether an international observer should be present on all vessels and all landing sites. Norway felt that this would be impracticable in small-type whaling operations and that an international observer should only be present if there is room for both an observer and a national inspector. The matter of the frequency of reporting by the observers on whaling vessels was also left unresolved. Several countries supported the view that there should be daily reporting of any whales hunted, struck and killed, while other countries considered this unnecessary. An important area of remaining disagreement was the question of who should bear the costs of an inspection and observer scheme. While there was general agreement that the costs of the national inspection schemes should be borne by the whaling countries concerned, there were different views on who should bear the costs of an international observer scheme. The Chairman's draft document, which was supported by a number of countries, was based on the view that either the whaling industry or the national governments of the countries where whaling takes place should bear the full cost of the observer scheme. Other countries, however, felt that this scheme benefited the Commission as a whole and therefore the Commission should meet these costs.

There were also different views regarding the proposal in the Chairman's draft that a Review Committee be established to review and report on the compliance of all whaling operations with agreed conservation measures. Some countries supported the establishment of such a Committee, since it would deal not only with infractions but review the working of an inspection and observation scheme as a whole and thereby enhance the transparency of the system. Other countries believed that a Review Committee was unnecessary and that the Infractions Sub-Committee should deal with these matters instead.

Finally, on the issue of DNA identification and tracking, the Working Group considered the findings of this year's Scientific Committee meeting in response to the Resolution adopted last year by the Commission (i.e. 1999-8). In respect of the development of genetic methods for species, stocks and individual identification, the Scientific Committee recommended that a diagnostic register should be developed under which all of the registered individuals are defined as permitted and any others are defined as non-permitted. Following the discussion of this item, New Zealand presented a new draft text for paragraph 19 of the draft inspection and observer scheme under the title 'Verification of Catch Data by genetic Monitoring'. This text built on the Chairman's draft, reflected the discussion in the Scientific Committee and the Working Group and set out the underlying principles and justification for market sampling. Although there was wide support for this approach, the discussion on the issue of conducting genetic surveys in domestic markets remained one of the more fundamental differences of opinion that the Commission will have to resolve.

12.1.2 Total catches over time
The RMS Working Group reviewed the proposed text developed by the Scientific Committee following last year's request by the Commission, and agreed that it needed to be made more specific regarding the meaning of human induced mortalities other than commercial catches. The following text was agreed:

Catch limits calculated under the Revised Management Procedure shall be adjusted downwards to account for human-induced mortalities caused by aboriginal subsistence whaling, scientific whaling, whaling outside IWC, bycatches and ship strikes.

Each such adjustment shall be based on an estimate provided by the Scientific Committee of the size of adjustment required to ensure that total removals over time from each population and area do not exceed the limits set by the Revised Management Procedure. Total removals include commercial catches and other human-induced mortalities caused by aboriginal subsistence whaling, scientific whaling, whaling outside IWC, bycatches and ship strikes to the extent that these are known or can be reasonably estimated.

12.1.3 Other matters
The Working Group Chairman explained that the UK had submitted a paper that contained a list of data related to welfare aspects, that they and others believed should be collected under the RMS. Japan and Norway were opposed to such a proposal, but the UK undertook to provide suitable language for discussion at a future date.

12.1.4 Recommendations from the Working Group
The Working Group proposed that:

(1)

the Commission endorse the text on total catches over time proposed by the Scientific Committee and amended by the Working Group;

(2)

a new draft of Chapter V be considered at an intersessional meeting or a meeting of the RMS Working Group immediately preceding next year's Annual Meeting;

(3)

there be a transcription of agreed elements of the RMS into language suitable for incorporation into the Schedule;

(4)

there be a further consideration of data collection and other parts of the Schedule to determine if they require revision.

12.2 Commission discussions
12.2.1 Comments on the outcome of the Working Group meeting
Many delegations congratulated the Chairman of the Working Group on the outcome of the meeting and on the progress made. However, despite this progress, a number of delegations voiced concern over the approach being promoted by some countries. Norway highlighted what it believed to be a fundamental problem of the IWC, i.e. that whaling is regarded as an abnormal if not criminal activity, and that the principles for the utilisation of natural resources do not seem to apply to the sustainable use of whale resources. Norway believed that there is an attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling operations through excessive requirements for the supervision and control of whaling operations. Norway reiterated its view that the monitoring of production processes and domestic and international marketing and trade are outside the scope of IWC. This view was supported by other countries including Japan, the People's Republic of China and Korea.

Japan referred to the letter from the Secretary-General of CITES to the Chairman of the Commission, in which he expressed the hope that the IWC would finalise the RMS as quickly as possible and added that Japan would spare no effort to come to agreement on the RMS through discussions in the Commission. Japan identified three points that it considered to be essential for a supervision and inspection scheme: (1) that it must comply with the purposes of the Convention; (2) that it must reflect actual whaling operations and be practical; and (3) that inspection and control methods commonly used in other fishery organisations should be taken into consideration. Japan saw no need to establish a Review Committee since the Infractions Sub-Committee could perform this function. Antigua and Barbuda stressed the critical importance of the inspection and observation scheme, and commented that the idea to engage an independent group to assist the organisation in developing an acceptable scheme should not be treated lightly and that it should be judged on its merit.

The USA disagreed with the comments that the requirements being discussed with the RMS Working Group were excessive. The USA reported that international inspectors on all vessels, satellite tracking, daily if not real time reporting of catches are common features of many contemporary domestic and international management regimes, and that it is essential for the IWC to also adopt a contemporary supervision and control scheme.

The UK agreed with the USA comments. In addition, it referred to its reservation on the Working Group's amendment to text from the Scientific Committee on total catches over time, and sought clarification from the Scientific Committee Chair on whether the RMP took account of pollution-induced mortalities. The Scientific Committee Chair confirmed that the RMP would take account of any mortality that could be clearly attributed to humans, but that subtler effects such as mortality caused by high tissue concentrations of pollutants would not be directly included. However, the Chair added that where there was evidence of considerable impact of either direct human-induced mortality or a more subtle sort of indirect human-induced mortality, an implementation review would be carried out during which the need for further trials or changes in the management procedure would be considered. The UK thanked the Scientific Committee Chair, and then sought clarification from Japan and Norway as to whether they continued to oppose the basic principle in Resolution 1998-2, that catch limits for commercial purposes should be calculated by deducting all human-induced mortalities that are known or can reasonably be estimated other than commercial catches from the total allowable removal, or whether the two countries now agreed with the wording agreed within the RMS Working Group. If the latter was the case, then the UK could agree to lift its reservation on that text. Norway responded that it would go along with the wording in the spirit of cooperation. However, in the absence of what the UK considered a satisfactory response from Japan, it retained its reservation on the text agreed in the Working Group on catches over time.

Japan reiterated its views expressed in the Working Group that the collection of information on welfare aspects falls outside the objectives of the RMS and the competence of the IWC.

12.2.2 Proposed Schedule amendment
Japan introduced a draft text to amend the Schedule to finalise and incorporate the RMS. It reported that it believed that the draft text took account of the RMS Working Group discussions and that the text, if agreed, could allow limited whaling from next year. Japan urged that the Schedule amendment be adopted by consensus.

The Netherlands, referring to a number of previous Resolutions on the RMS, commented that the Japanese proposed text omitted certain elements and safeguards previously agreed, including: (1) that the Commission would only accept catch limits other than zero when all the provisions of the RMS have been complied with; and (2) the arrangements for addressing total catches over time. The Netherlands considered that the authors of the Japanese text had been selective in choosing which aspects of the, as yet, incomplete observer and inspection scheme to include, and that the proposal did not help to expedite finalisation of the RMS. New Zealand strongly endorsed these comments, criticised the delay in submission of Japanese documents on this issue to the RMS Working Group and to the Commission (i.e. the night before scheduled debate) that left insufficient time to give them full consideration, and suggested that Commission members who favoured retention of the moratorium in the past should refuse to agree the Schedule amendment. The USA, noting that its own suggestions regarding the supervision and control text had been ignored could also not support Japan's proposal.

In response to an enquiry from the People's Republic of China, the Secretary reminded the meeting that Schedule amendments should be notified to Contracting Governments 60 days in advance of the meeting and that Resolutions should be submitted to the Secretariat for distribution by 6 o'clock on the night before they are to be discussed.

Denmark regretted that Japan's documents had arrived rather late, but congratulated them in their efforts to table documents in English. It agreed to the proposed Schedule amendment's overall thrust (i.e. to complete the RMS as soon as possible) but felt that it was rather premature and preferred to support the alternative Resolution proposed by Sweden and others (see Section 12.2.3).

Spain associated itself with Denmark's remarks. Switzerland associated itself with the Netherlands and Denmark. Oman stated that if the intention of the Schedule amendment was to resume commercial whaling next year, it reserved its right not to accept it since it had received no governmental instructions to do so unless the Scientific Committee supported the proposal.

Norway welcomed the proposed Schedule amendment, particularly the part outlining the provisions on supervision on control. Norway indicated that these provisions were along lines it could accept for the sake of compromise and making progress, but they still considered the provisions to be excessive. Norway added that the repeal of the moratorium has to be part of the process in finalising the RMS since it would make no sense to work for years developing very strict rules without anything changing as a result. Finally Norway clarified that it has always reserved its position regarding the specific tuning level of 0.72 agreed in an earlier Resolution since from the work of the Scientific Committee it is known that other tuning levels are just as appropriate.

As there was not a three-quarters majority support for the proposed Schedule amendment, the Chair proposed that with Japan's permission discussion move on to the proposed Resolution. Japan indicated their regret that consensus was not achieved and requested that it be allowed to submit the document again at an appropriate time. Finally, Japan clarified for the record that it had notified its intention to submit a draft Schedule amendment 60 days in advance, but that this had coincided with Japan's Golden Week holidays.

12.2.3 Action arising
The Commission accepted the Working Group recommendations.

RESOLUTION ON THE RMS
On behalf of the other co-sponsors (South Africa, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Mexico, Oman, Spain and Switzerland), Sweden introduced a Resolution on the RMS that incorporated the Working Group recommendations for further work and proposed a timetable for doing them, i.e. for the Secretary to circulate a draft text of a Schedule amendment to Commissioners by the end of November 2000, for the RMS Working Group to meet before the end of February 2001 and for the Secretary to circulate the report of this intersessional meeting in good time before the 2001 Annual Meeting. Sweden indicated that the Resolution represented a serious attempt to move the IWC forward and achieve concrete results. It recognised that both whaling and anti-whaling countries would find points in the Resolution that might be difficult, but urged that it be adopted by consensus. It also drew attention to another document from the same co-sponsors that proposed draft text for the incorporation of the RMS and the RMP into the Schedule and which could assist the Secretary in preparing the Schedule amendment. Sweden's view is that the IWC should be the international organisation for conservation and management of whales operating on a precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable use. It expressed concern that major whaling operations take place outside IWC control; an essential step in regaining control was for the IWC to have agreed rules for which the RMS would form the central part.

South Africa, expressed great pleasure in being one of the co-sponsors of the proposed Resolution, and commented that the case for the IWC to be seen to be making progress towards adoption of the RMS is overwhelming. It referred to the concern expressed at the CITES meeting in Nairobi April 2000 and in the CITES Secretariat's letter to the IWC Chairman in this regard. South Africa urged all other delegations to lend their full support to the Resolution. The other co-sponsors and the People's Republic of China supported the comments of Sweden and South Africa.

Brazil commented that it was willing and able to join a consensus on the proposal. However, it stated for the record that whilst fully participating in the negotiations towards achieving a workable RMS, it has repeatedly stated its view that any resumption of commercial whaling must not threaten the rights of developing countries that have opted for a non-lethal sustainable use policy for the management of whale resources.

While several other countries welcomed the draft Resolution, some reservations were expressed. A number of countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, the USA, the UK, and Monaco considered that an intersessional meeting was not necessary and that the RMS Working Group should meet in association with the 2001 Annual Meeting. Their reasoning included difficulties in obtaining funding for intersessional meetings and that the draft Resolution suggested that the RMS Working Group should 'finalise' the draft text for Chapter V - something only the Commission can do. Some countries (including USA, Italy, the UK, Monaco, New Zealand, France, Brazil) did not want the RMS to be limited to elements identified in Resolution 1992 and subsequent Resolutions on the RMS (i.e. other elements such as DNA tracking and welfare issues should be considered). Other countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Norway, Japan, St Lucia, Dominica) were concerned that the draft Resolution does not commit the Commission to a Schedule amendment and that it does not prejudge the positions of Contracting Governments regarding the status of paragraphs 10(d) and 10(e) of the Schedule. Norway considered the reference in the Resolution to the proposed text for the Schedule amendment was unnecessary.

Japan offered to host the intersessional meeting of the RMS Working Group.

Finally, following revisions to take into account some of the comments expressed above, Resolution 2000-3 was passed by consensus, although the strong reservations of a number of countries regarding the last two operative paragraphs were noted. The Resolution is given in Appendix 1.

Australia asked that their established policy on participation in discussions on the RMS be noted for the record.

_