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

7.1.2 Proposed Schedule Amendment
Japan indicated its strong view that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be abolished for scientific and legal reasons. However, it recognised that, if put to a vote, such a proposal would not gain the required three-quarters majority. It therefore proposed an amendment to the Schedule to make it consistent with Article V of the Convention requiring the Commission's regulations to be based on scientific findings. Japan's proposal was to:

(1) delete the 3^rd sentence of Paragraph 7(b); and
(2) add a new sub-paragraph (c) as follows:

7(c). The prohibition in sub-paragraph (b) above shall be applied on the advice of the Scientific Committee in accordance with Article V(2) of the Convention.

Norway, the Republic of Korea, St Lucia, Grenada, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis supported the proposal.

The USA commented that the third sentence in Paragraph 7(b) of the Schedule is similar to the corresponding sentence in Paragraph 7(a) on the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. It believed that this language does not imply that the sanctuaries are unscientific or contrary to scientific advice, but rather that the prohibition on commercial whaling in these areas was considered appropriate by the majority of the members of the Commission, no matter how depleted or abundant the stocks were. The USA further noted that Japan's proposal would attempt to give the Scientific Committee the power to over-ride the Commission's decision to prohibit whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, which they could not support. Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Finland, Monaco, Italy, Sweden, Austria, France, Spain, Oman, India, Switzerland, Ireland and Chile had similar views and could not support the proposal.

Japan withdrew the proposed Schedule amendment in view of the majority against it, but reserved its right to bring it back next year and to call for a vote.

7.1.3 Proposed review of the sanctuary
Japan proposed a Resolution on the review of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary on behalf of the co-sponsors Antigua and Barbuda, the People's Republic of China, Dominica, Grenada, Norway, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. The Resolution proposed that the Scientific Committee prepare criteria that it could use, by 2004, to review the necessity of the prohibition on commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The Russian Federation indicated that they also wished to co-sponsor the Resolution.

The USA commented that it is for the Commission, not the Scientific Committee, to decide to create or to review a sanctuary and that it could not support the proposal. The UK, France, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany could also not support the proposal. The UK drew attention to the Scientific Committee's request for advice from the Commission on reviews of future sanctuary proposals. The UK considered this to be a reasonable request, but added that any review should be comprehensive and take into account a range of issues. The UK felt that the proposed Resolution was too narrow and that if adopted would result in only a partial review of sanctuaries. Australia shared the concerns of the UK, the USA and others and suggested that the proposed text might be revised to provide more precise guidance to the Scientific Committee. Consultation amongst a number of countries failed to result in a revised Resolution.

On being put to the vote, there were 12 countries in favour and 20 against the draft Resolution which was thus not adopted.

7.2 South Atlantic Sanctuary
Brazil again indicated that they wished to postpone discussion on the establishment of a South Atlantic Sanctuary, but stressed that such a postponement did not indicate a lack of interest by the Brazilian authorities, but rather the need to seek, together with its neighbours, a proposition that could be acceptable for all.

7.3 South Pacific Sanctuary
7.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Last year, Australia and New Zealand's proposal to create a sanctuary for great whales in the South Pacific was referred to the Scientific Committee for consideration. The Chair of the Scientific Committee therefore reported on the Committee's discussions, noting that it had not addressed legal, political or economic issues.

The Committee reviewed information on the great whales in the South Pacific region. Eleven species are known to occur within the proposed sanctuary area, most of which had been commercially harvested in the past. Although blue, fin, right and humpback whales are probably the most severely depleted, there is little firm evidence on the status of most species relative to their initial abundance.

The Committee reviewed its discussions on sanctuaries over the last 20 years and agreed that the general points made previously relating to the desirability or otherwise of a sanctuary also applied to this latest proposal. It was unable to reach a consensus view on the proposal and referred the arguments for and against sanctuary proposals for consideration by the Commission.

General arguments in favour of sanctuary proposals are that they:

(1)

provide a focus for regional cooperation at the government, inter-government and non-government level;

(2)

provide a focus for the development of national and international non-lethal research programmes;

(3)

provide a non-lethal research framework that will enable the Commission to make appropriate decisions to ensure the effective conservation of whale stocks in the region;

(4)

provide an area to study whales undisturbed by any whaling activities;

(5)

provide an 'insurance' against unforeseen problems with the RMP;

(6)

protect all whales within a large habitat - an IWC sanctuary protects whales from commercial whaling and this is seen as a necessary first step in a more comprehensive management regime.

General arguments against sanctuary proposals are that:

(1)

sanctuary proposals only address direct catches. Current (Schedule) and likely future (RMP) management strategies of the IWC would only allow exploitation of abundant whale stocks and then at conservative and sustainable levels;

(2)

sanctuaries provide no extra protection for the most vulnerable depleted stocks from actual threats that they face such as habitat destruction, pollution, shipping, fisheries interactions, etc. and do not distinguish between areas of critical habitat and those of little importance. Such stocks are already protected under existing IWC management measures;

(3)

sanctuary provisions may prevent utilisation of stocks for which a sustainable catch would be allowed under the RMP/RMS;

(4)

whether or not an area is designated as a Sanctuary is irrelevant to whether or not research is carried out in the area;

(5)

the need to provide information relevant for management and utilisation of one species may stimulate research that is also of value in monitoring depleted species.

In conclusion, the Committee noted that whilst it had received guidance from the Commission on factors of interest to the Commission in reviews of scientific permits, this was not the case for sanctuary proposals. A Technical Committee working group met in 1982 to consider requirements for the listing of sanctuaries but its report (IWC/34/14) was not adopted by the Commission. The Committee agreed that advice from the Commission with respect to reviews of sanctuary proposals would be useful in the future.

7.3.2 Commission discussion on the proposal to amend the Schedule to establish a South Pacific Sanctuary
Australia, on behalf of the other co-sponsors introduced a proposal to amend the Schedule to establish a South Pacific Sanctuary. The proponents believed that the South Pacific Sanctuary is needed to:

(1)

protect whale stocks that have been severely depleted by whaling in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries and allow their recovery;

(2)

complement and improve the effectiveness of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in protecting migratory whale species;

(3)

foster and allow for long-term ecosystem based research on whale stocks that are not being harvested; and

(4)

manage whale stocks in accordance with the goal of long-term conservation of biodiversity and the precautionary principle.

They also drew attention to the following broader benefits of a South Pacific Sanctuary i.e. that it would:

(1)

effectively conserve whales and ecosystems;

(2)

foster research and increase knowledge about whales;

(3)

provide economic benefits through whalewatching; and

(4)

increase public awareness and understanding.

Australia drew attention to the text of the proposed Schedule amendment in that it would add a new paragraph 7 (c) as follows:

In accordance with Article V (1)(c) of the Convention, commercial whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the South Pacific Sanctuary.

This Sanctuary comprises the waters of the Southern Hemisphere enclosed within the following line: starting from the southern coast of Australia at 130°E; thence due south to 40°S; thence due east to 120°W; thence due north to the equator; thence due west to 141°E; thence generally south along the Papua New Guinea - Indonesian maritime boundary to the northern coast of Papua New Guinea at 141°E; thence geneally east, south thence west along the coast of Papua new Guinea to the southern coast of Papua New Guinea at 141°E; thence due south to the northern coast of Australia at 141°E; thence generally east, south thence west along the coast of Australia to the starting point.

This prohibition applies irrespective of the conservation status of baleen or toothed whale stocks in this Sanctuary as may from time to time be determined by the Commission. However, this prohibition shall be reviewed ten years after its initial adoption, and at succeeding ten year intervals and could be revised at such times by the Commission.

Australia referred to the scientific justification for the sanctuary it had provided in paper IWC/52/20, and added that by agreeing to establish the Southern Ocean Sanctuary in 1994, the Commission had accepted that there was strong scientific justification for establishing sanctuaries and that the Convention provided the legal capacity to do so.

Australia referred to strong regional support for the South Pacific Sanctuary, for example from the South Pacific Forum (the principal political body in the region) and the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme - SPREP (the principal environmental body in the region). Finally, it stressed the economic benefits that could flow to the South Pacific region from the development of the whalewatching industry should the sanctuary be established.

New Zealand added its support to the points made by Australia. It noted the cultural importance of the great whales to the indigenous people of New Zealand and to the economic benefits that can be achieved through whalewatching as seen in Kaikoura in New Zealand's South Island. It also believed that the Scientific Committee's discussion suggested that not enough was known about whale populations in the region and thus that a sanctuary represented an appropriate precautionary approach. In conclusion, New Zealand informed the meeting that if the proposal was not successful, the government would continue to argue forcefully for it.

A number of countries spoke in favour of the proposal. Brazil indicated that they would like to co-sponsor the proposal. The Netherlands noted the part Dutch whaling had played in over-exploitation and recognised that it must share the blame for the current situation in which many whale populations are depleted. It believed that the establishment of the South Pacific Sanctuary was a logical step that would protect the whales in their breeding grounds and along their migration route. The USA, reported that in deciding to co-sponsor the proposal and as a member of SPREP, they took account of other regional states' views and noted their overwhelming support. It further commented that the proposal is not inconsistent with completion of the Revised Management Scheme. All three countries requested that representatives from relevant regional organisations, in particular SPREP, be allowed to address the meeting.

Monaco, France, Sweden, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Finland, Chile, Austria, India and Switzerland all supported the proposed sanctuary and made comments similar to previous speakers. The UK stressed the need for a precautionary approach in view of the limited understanding of many aspects of whale biology and of the impact of environmental change on whales. Italy noted the agreement signed in 1999 with France and Morocco to establish a cetacean sanctuary in the Mediterranean and that it firmly believes in sanctuaries as a major tool in the conservation of cetacean populations. And like the USA, Spain expressed the need to achieve progress on the RMS. Chile supported the proposal on the understanding that it did not include its Exclusive Economic Zone - a position consistent with that it had taken over the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

By contrast, St Lucia, Denmark, the People's Republic of China, Norway, Japan, Antigua and Barbuda, the Republic of Korea, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis all indicated they could not accept the proposal. They referred to the lack of scientific advice in favour of the proposal. Many also commented that it is unnecessary in view of the current moratorium. The People's Republic of China commented that whalewatching is not the only way to achieve sustainable utilisation and expressed concern about the competition between whales and fisheries in view of its strong fisheries interest in the South Pacific.

St Lucia believed that the proposal contravened Article V, paragraph 2(a) of the Convention since it took no account of the explicitly linked concepts of utilisation and conservation. Norway associated itself with the view of St Lucia, and commented that the precautionary approach is taken care of within the RMP - a view shared by Antigua and Barbuda. Norway added that if the observer from SPREP was allowed to speak, other relevant regional Intergovernmental Organisations such as OLDEPESCA and NAMMCO should be given the same opportunity, a view shared by Japan.

Denmark, referring to its previous support for the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean sanctuaries, stated that it was not against sanctuaries in principle. However, it expressed concern that the establishment of further sanctuaries may result in whaling operations being performed outside the IWC with the subsequent loss of worldwide cooperation in the preservation and management of large whales.

Japan noted that the proposed sanctuary: (1) disregards the interests of consumers of whale products and the whaling industry; (2) is contrary to the concept of ecosystem management and the sustainable use of marine living resources; and (3) that it disregards the compromise attempted by the Irish proposal (see Item 18).

Ireland commented that while it would normally support a sanctuary proposal, in tills case it felt that further consultation was needed to secure a consensus. Without consensus, and particularly without the agreement of whaling nations, it believed that the sanctuary would not achieve its aim of the maximum long-term conservation of whales, and would not address the major global threats to whales such as research whaling and international trade, even within the sanctuary area. Ireland would therefore abstain.

Regarding the request for observers from intergovernmental organisations to be allowed to speak, the Chairman ruled (Rules of Debate A.2) that, although observers were not usually called on, he would allow interventions from SPREP and OLDEPESCA in the spirit of openness. He believed that these organisations were relevant to the debate since their members included countries that would be affected by the proposed sanctuary, including IWC member countries. He proposed not to call upon NAMMCO since it operates in a different geographical region. A number of countries commented that NAMMCO should also be allowed to speak since it is directly involved with marine mammal management, but the Chairman's ruling was not challenged.

The representative of SPREP, who was accompanied by the Secretary for Fisheries for Tonga and a representative from the Papua New Guinea Office of the Environment, informed the meeting that SPREP has been part of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme since 1982 and that it includes among its members five IWC countries (Australia, France, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands and the USA). He explained that the purposes of SPREP are to promote cooperation in the South Pacific region, to provide assistance in protecting and improving its environment and to ensure sustainable development. In addition, the 1998 Annual Pacific Islands Forum, comprising 16 heads of governments in the region, gave support to the development of the South Pacific Sanctuary. The SPREP representative believed that it was logical for SPREP to seek to speak on the South Pacific Sanctuary proposal given the paucity of membership by the South Pacific islands in the IWC and emphasised the need to engage this region effectively in the discussions. He regretted the request to speak had caused so much concern to a few Commission members.

The representative of OLDEPESCA informed the meeting that his organisation was the largest intergovernmental fisheries organisation in Latin America. OLDEPESCA failed to see the scientific merits of the proposed sanctuary, and believed that from a management perspective, the addition of a sanctuary to a moratorium would be redundant. It was OLDEPESCA's view that men and whales are competing for the sometimes compromised or poorly managed fish stocks, and that fisheries and whales need to be scientifically and coherently managed as a unit. OLDEPESCA believed that it would be inappropriate for such a politically sensitive issue as the proposed sanctuary to be decided by the Commission without consultation with the international community at large.

As there was clearly no consensus of the proposed South Pacific Sanctuary, the Chairman called for a vote. Before proceeding with the vote, Japan requested confirmation that all countries present had voting rights, and questioned whether the financial contribution for one IWC member - outstanding at the beginning of the meeting - had now been received. The Chairman reported that he understood that the money had been transferred outside banking hours, that if this were confirmed that country's vote would stand, but if not it would be nullified. On holding the vote there were 18 votes in favour of the proposed sanctuary, 11 votes against and four abstentions. (Italy later explained that while it had inadvertently missed the vote, it strongly supported the proposed sanctuary.) The proposal did not receive the required three-quarters majority and so was unsuccessful. Australia therefore withdrew its proposed Resolution on the objectives for the South Pacific Sanctuary.

_