18. THE FUTURE OF THE IWC

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


The Chairman, Michael Canny (Ireland), reported that since the last meeting in Grenada, he had continued informal discussions to see whether there is support for a compromise, or at least support for a process to develop a compromise. Although he had not been able to reach a consensus, he reported that he had received support to continue to work on this issue. He noted that the extension of scientific whaling to additional species this year demonstrated that the Commission needs an approach to addressing such questions other than passing Resolutions exhorting one country to accede to the views of other countries and suggested that serious efforts needed to be made to understand different points of view and to seek compromise and consensus. He also noted that the views expressed by the CITES Secretariat, while not necessarily a view of the Conference of Parties, is a clear signal that the RMS should be finalised. He asked for delegations to consider how they saw the IWC in five years, how this might be achieved and where compromises could be made. Finally he added that he would continue to work on this issue as the Irish Commissioner.

South Africa and Antigua and Barbuda associated strongly with the views expressed by the Chairman. Antigua and Barbuda added that a new system of contributions would enable more countries to participate in the IWC - a matter of importance - that the IWC has a significant role to play and that a spirit of compromise is needed. Oman reiterated its support for the Irish proposal and Denmark commented that they had always supported and appreciated the Chairman's initiative since it is very important to reach a compromise.

St Lucia stated that the Chairman had done everything possible to bring the parties together. It was concerned about the perception of the IWC from the outside, and referring to the letter from the CITES Secretariat stated that the only reason that whales have not been downlisted is because of the agreement the IWC has with CITES not to do anything to undermine the IWC. St Lucia believed that the organisation's inconsistencies are holding up progress and that the RMS should be concluded next year. Norway fully supported these views, adding that it has repeatedly commented that the IWC is not adhering to the Convention and that it has become a protectionist organisation with no will to lift the moratorium. However, Norway was ready to continue to work within the IWC in the spirit of the Convention, providing any compromises are compatible with international law. Japan expressed gratitude and appreciation to the Chairman for his efforts to find a solution to the deadlock of the IWC and associated itself with the comments of St Lucia and Norway. Japan emphasised that in future, the IWC should work on issues based on the Convention as well as those on scientific grounds. St Vincent and the Grenadines associated itself with the views expressed by St Lucia.

In addressing the Chairman's question about the vision for the IWC, Germany welcomed the importance given to environmental concerns, considered that the IWC should be effective in the conservation of whale stocks and while the Irish proposal contains important elements, it does not see a basis for the resumption of commercial whaling as indicated in the Irish proposal. However, Germany indicated that it would participate actively in a review of the moratorium but that it would insist on effective regulations on supervision and control. It looked forward to the results of the Comprehensive Assessment and to further advice from the Scientific Committee on the status of whale stocks.

The Netherlands welcomed the Irish proposal as a basis for negotiations and indicated that it would continue to support the IWC as the appropriate organisation for the conservation and management of cetaceans at a global level. It would therefore continue to play a constructive role in completion of the RMS, but would continue to oppose practices, whether for commercial or other purposes, that are not in conformance with the decisions and criteria adopted by the Commission in previous years. Regarding the IWC's future, the Netherlands felt that more attention should be given to environmental concerns, small cetaceans, humane killing and whalewatching as a sustainable use of cetaceans. Sweden, Switzerland and Finland associated themselves with the views expressed by the Chairman and by the Netherlands.

The UK admired the courage of the Irish proposal that has been a catalyst for discussion within the IWC. The UK believes its position to be clear and consistent in that it is opposed to whaling except for aboriginal subsistence whaling, and that it regrets that Japan and Norway continue whaling while the moratorium remains in place. Since most of the focus of attention during the current meeting had been on Japan, the UK wanted to record that it continues to be deeply disturbed by Norwegian whaling and by the number of whales taken. Regarding the Irish proposal, while the UK is prepared to discuss all ideas for improving whale conservation and supports strongly some elements of the proposal, it has significant reservations about others, particularly those relating to coastal whaling. The UK added that despite calls for compromise, a willingness to compromise had not been demonstrated by the whaling countries. Regarding the letter from CITES, the UK emphasised that it expressed the views of the CITES Secretariat and not of the organisation. Regarding the future, the UK hoped that the IWC has a future but that it is not clear what this will be. In any case, it will require a greater willingness to compromise than has been apparent in the last few years. St Vincent and the Grenadines voiced its disagreement with the interpretation given to the CITES letter by the UK.

Australia associated itself with the UK's comments, particularly in relation to Norwegian whaling and the CITES issue. It commented that it had admired the Chairman's persistence in seeking consensus, and noted that despite a lack of consensus on some intractable issues, the Commission is getting on with a great deal of valuable and vital work. The USA associated itself with the views of the UK and Australia.

The Republic of Korea welcomed the Irish proposal and encouraged the Chairman to continue his work. With regard to the future, it believed that the IWC should pursue the sustainable use of cetacean resources under an RMS when adopted.

In responding to the UK, Norway indicated that its whaling is conducted in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Convention and that the number of whales taken by Norwegian whalers are in accordance with the methods developed by the IWC. Norway also considered that it has shown a willingness to compromise. It had shown patience by remaining a member of the organisation even when in 1990 the IWC demonstrated its unwillingness or inability to fulfil the 1982 decision that by 1990 at the latest a Comprehensive Assessment should have been completed and new catch limits set to replace the temporary moratorium. Norway added that it had remained in the Commission and continued to work constructively even when the RMP was agreed but not implemented and believes it has been working hard to achieve the kind of compromise that would satisfy members but would not violate international law. Japan associated with these statements. Japan added that its scientific permit whaling is totally in conformance with Article VIII of the Convention.

The Netherlands stated for the record that the interpretation of Article 10(e) of the Schedule given by Norway and Japan is in its view incorrect. The Commission has never given an undertaking to set quota under the moratorium other than zero. All the Commission did was to commit itself to a Comprehensive Assessment and a consideration of a modification for the provision.

_