(from "Chair's Report of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting")

Last year, the Commission provided £51,000 for the POLLUTION 2000+ programme; considerably less than required for full funding. After some discussion with the Steering Group for POLLUTION 2000+ (SGP2000+) and the Chair of the Committee, a revised budget for activities to be supported by the IWC in 2000/01 was approved. It was agreed that the initially proposed research programme would be pared down to include only two sub-components: (1) a bottlenose dolphin project, where field studies on live animals would be carried out at several possible field sites (Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor, USA; southern Balearic Islands (Mediterranean Sea) and the Bahamas); and (2) a harbour porpoise project, where studies would be based on samples collected from dead animals.

At the 2001 meeting, the Committee's primary topic concerned pollutant issues, especially related to POLLUTION 2000+. Progress was made in both sub-projects but was limited due to the shortfall in funding.

12.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Japan commented that as a general rule it is interested in the issue of chemical pollution both in relation to effects on human health and on threats to cetaceans but considers it of secondary importance in view of IWC's objectives. Japan was concerned that IWC spends time and funds on this work and considered it serious that the POLLUTION 2000+ includes work only on small cetaceans. It added that if this work is to be implemented, it should be funded from the Small Cetaceans Fund or, in view of the extensive workload of the Scientific Committee, that it be done by a more appropriate forum.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and accepted its recommendations.

³³ See Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (special issue) 1 - Chemical Pollutants and Cetaceans.

12.2 SOWER 2000
12.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
SOWER 2000³⁴ is a multi-disciplinary programme developed by the Scientific Committee that will examine the influence of temporal and spatial variability in the physical and biological Antarctic environment on the distribution, abundance and migration of whales. The Scientific Committee also considered progress on the SOWER 2000 programme, particularly with respect to future collaboration with Southern Ocean GLOBEC and preliminary results from last year's collaboration with CCAMLR³⁵.

The Scientific Committee recommended that high priority be given to the task of validating the data collected during the joint IWC/CCAMLR cruises, to enable collaborative analyses to proceed. The interdisciplinary approach of cooperative studies between CCAMLR and the IWC benefited both organisations. It was noted that it was very important for IWC to maintain this cooperation to make sure that the remaining analysis of the large whale data, as well as the data verification, proceeds in a timely manner. The Committee also stressed the value of collaboration with SO-GLOBEC.

12.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Japan stated that it believed it important to accumulate knowledge on the ecosystem and on the geology of the Antarctic and that it thinks highly of the surveys and research being conducted. However, it entertained doubts about IWC giving priority to research programmes related to CCAMLR and SO-GLOBEC, and considered that environmental work not related directly to the management of large cetaceans had expanded to too large a scale to be appropriate. Finally Japan noted that it is possible that resulting abundance estimates may be negatively biased owing to the research methods employed by the sighting surveys using CCAMLR and SO-GLOBEC research vessels and urged caution in analysis and interpretation of these results and in use of the data in ecosystem models.

The UK thanked the Scientific Committee for its work on the environmental programme and recalled the Commission's attention to the strong support it gave to the Committee's environmental programme, including collaboration with other bodies such as CCAMLR. The UK believed strongly that this work should continue and that the Commission should give the work its strong support, priority and continued funding.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and accepted its recommendations.

³⁴ See J. Cet. Res. Manage. 2 (Suppl.): 321-46.
³⁵ Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

12.3 Competition between cetaceans and fisheries
12.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee agreed that there is little doubt regarding the importance of using models to address such questions as 'if we remove or reduce the number of marine mammals from an ecosystem, should we expect greater yields of fish?' and, 'if we reduce fishery yields, should we expect increases in the rate of recovery of depleted stocks of cetaceans?'

The Committee agreed that in order to begin to address this issue, a short workshop should be held, if possible before the meeting in 2002. The Workshop would (1) review existing modelling approaches that might be used to address the question 'How are changes in abundance of cetaceans likely to be linked (in the short term and the long term) to changes in fishery catches?; (2) identify the constraints and data requirements in the existing models or modelling approaches that limit our ability to answer the above question; (3) describe the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches, bearing in mind the areas for which they were developed; and (4) identify those approaches that seem most likely to be able to answer the above question and provide guidelines as to when and where they might be used (e.g. depending on the likely level of data availability).

12.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
GENERAL COMMENTS
The USA stated that it believed the claim that whales are responsible for the decline in fish stocks to be grossly over simplified and biologically unsound and expressed concern that this issue is being suggested for consideration and analysis in organisations not recognised as having competence in the management of whale stocks. It did however accept that there are valid issues that should be examined by the Scientific Committee. It was therefore pleased that the Scientific Committee had recommended that a workshop be conducted and looked forward to participating. The USA was also pleased to propose a joint Resolution with Japan on Interactions Between Whales and Fish Stocks (see below).

Norway appreciated the interest now being shown by the USA on the scientific questions related to the interaction between fish and marine mammals - an issue that Norway has been investigating for a number of years. Norway mentioned that this issue is also being addressed within NAMMCO, involving North American participation, and that a third workshop would take place in autumn 2001. It looked forward to contributing and participating in the proposed IWC workshop.

With respect to the proposed focus of the workshop, New Zealand, supported by the UK, Austria and Australia, indicated that it would like the Scientific Committee to also review the impact of fisheries on cetaceans through bycatch and prey depletion. Responding to this and other comments, the Chair of the Scientific Committee stressed that in addressing the broad question, the Committee would take a full ecosystem approach, looking at interactions between fisheries and cetaceans (rather than links in a single direction). In this regard, the term 'fishery' was being used in a broad sense (i.e. would not exclude the examination of other marine resources such as krill). She further noted that the Workshop was the first step in a much longer process. In response to a question on whether the data sets to be used at the workshop would include those from scientific whaling programmes, the Scientific Committee Chair indicated that the workshop would consider whatever data sets were appropriate to examine the ecosystem models. The UK thanked the Chair for her clarifications and in addition commented that in its view, any multispecies ecosystem approach should include consideration of environmental threats and concerns.

St. Lucia offered to host the workshop.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and accepted its recommendations.

RESOLUTION ON INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WHALES AND FISH STOCKS
The USA introduced a joint Resolution with Japan that inter alia: (1) gave notice that IWC, as the competent international organisation for the conservation and management of whales, had decided to make the study of these interactions a matter of priority; (2) agreed that any studies conducted by the FAO on ecosystem-based fisheries management be holistic and balanced in approach; (3) endorsed the Scientific Committee recommendation for a workshop; and (4) requested the Secretary to seek co-operation with FAO in the organisation and conduct of this workshop. The USA noted that its support for the Resolution does not change its position of opposing Japan's scientific whaling and its continued belief that lethal research whaling is not necessary for the study of the interaction between whales and fish stocks.

The Netherlands, as on previous occasions, expressed its concern over allegations that whales are causing harm to commercially important fish stocks and noted the simplistic nature of the arguments proffered and the general inadequacy of the scientific evidence presented to the Commission to date. Austria was also sceptical of such claims. However, the Netherlands welcomed the further research proposed and considered that the Resolution put the issue in a proper broad perspective. In commenting on the first operative paragraph, the Netherlands suggested that the Commission await the outcome of the workshop before deciding the priority of the issue, but added that, given this understanding, it wished to co-sponsor the proposal. Oman and Spain gave their support and also wished to be co-sponsors. Argentina did not consider the issue to be a matter of first priority but suggested that budgetary provisions be made to enable the participation of developing country scientists.

A number of countries while supporting the sentiment of the Resolution, expressed concern over the wording of the second preambular and first operative paragraphs that recognises IWC as the universally-recognised/the competent international organisation with competence for the conservation and management of whales. Norway considered these formulations not to be in accordance with UNCLOS Article 65 and proposed that the paragraphs be amended to recognise IWC as an organisation with competence. This view was supported by Iceland, Morocco, Denmark and Antigua and Barbuda. NAMMCO, ASCOBANS and ECCO were cited as other international organisations with competence in this area.

Japan was pleased to present the joint proposed Resolution, suggested that the workshop would clarify views on the importance of the issue and indicated that it could accept Norway's proposed revisions. The USA considered that while the issue may not be a first priority, it is a priority, but unlike Japan it could not support Norway's revisions.

After further discussions in the margin of the meeting, Norway indicated that it would not block consensus by insisting on its proposed rewording. Resolution 2001-9 (Annex C) was then adopted by consensus noting Norway's comments. Denmark, for the record, wished to be associated with Norway's remarks.

12.4 Reports from Contracting Governments
There were no reports from Contracting Governments on national and regional efforts to monitor and address the impacts of environmental change on cetaceans and other marine mammals. However, the following two Resolutions were introduced.

RESOLUTION ON THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
New Zealand introduced this Resolution on behalf of the other co-sponsors Italy, South Africa, the UK, and the USA who hoped that it could be adopted by consensus. Recognising that persistent organic pollutants are being dealt with in other international fora, New Zealand explained that the Commission's attention was being drawn to this issue in view of the effects these substances may have on cetaceans.

Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Spain, Finland and the Netherlands asked to be added to the list of co-sponsors. The Netherlands noted the special interest of IWC in pollution matters, as expressed in the framework of the POLLUTION 2000+ programme, and proposed that a third operative paragraph be added to the Resolution requesting the Secretary to transmit the Resolution text to the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention. Denmark supported the proposal but noted the similarity to Resolution 2000-6³⁶ on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals that it had introduced last year.

A number of countries, including Japan, Dominica, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Guinea and Antigua and Barbuda indicated that they did not support the Resolution since the matter it addressed was not of central importance to the work of the Commission.

The Resolution, including the addition proposed by the Netherlands, was adopted after receiving a substantial majority when put to the vote by a show of hands (Resolution 2001-10, Annex C). St. Vincent and The Grenadines explained that it did not participate in the vote, as it did not know the position of its government on the Stockholm Convention.

RESOLUTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF HABITAT PROTECTION AND INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
In introducing this proposed Resolution on behalf of the other co-sponsors (Italy, South Africa, the UK, France and Oman), New Zealand recalled that already in 1980³⁷, the Commission had recognised that 'measures should be taken to preserve the habitats of whales since the survival and health of whale populations is dependent upon the maintenance of a healthy marine and coastal environment'. However, New Zealand noted that despite the best intentions of many, these habitats are deteriorating, with recent FAO estimates indicating that some 34% of the world's coastal zones are at high risk, with 17% being at moderate risk and the prognosis that the situation will worsen. New Zealand suggested that the causes of the problem may be international such as climate change contributing to coral bleaching, the ubiquitous nature of POPs and outflow of polluted international rivers. It also noted that problems are also caused by nation states through, for example, lack of control of land-based pollution, ill-planned development objectives, excessive nutrient run-off and increasing flow of untreated sewage. The co-sponsors were aware that the Commission could not solve many of the problems, fully appreciated and respected the sovereign rights of States, but were also mindful of the UNCLOS principal that policies of nation states must be in accordance with their duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. New Zealand indicated that the Resolution recognised that this obligation is the subject of numerous international and regional initiatives, and commended these developments to the Commission.

Norway welcomed and supported the Resolution, noting the importance of placing the conservation and management of whale stocks in the broader context of habitat protection and international coastal zone management. It also proposed amendments to clarify the operative paragraph. After further minor proposed amendments the Resolution was subsequently revised and adopted by consensus (Resolution 2001-11, Appendix 2). Japan, while not blocking the consensus, indicated that it did not join it since it considered the issues to be outside the Convention.

³⁶ See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 2000: 56.
³⁷ See Rep. int. Whal. Commn 31: 32.

12.5 Health issues
12.5.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee considered the data structure and protocol for electronic submissions established by the World Health Organisation (WHO) - Global Environment Monitoring System - Food Contaminants Monitoring and Assessment Programme (GEMS/Food). In order for the IWC to determine whether it should follow these protocols, the following should be considered: (1) the time and effort needed for transcribing data into the specific format; (2) duplicate entries must not occur; (3) only data on tissues consumed are appropriate; and (4) issues of possible regulatory and proprietary conflicts.

The Committee recognised that following such high standards for data control and data transfer may complicate the process of data submissions considering the many forms in which the IWC receives contaminants data. The Committee also noted that other organisations could be considered for providing advice, as well as data submissions, on the risk of specific consumption rates, including the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme's Human Health Group, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Centers for Disease Control (USA) and other nationally based agencies. The Scientific Committee does not believe that it is the appropriate body to try to conduct a risk assessment related to the consumption of cetacean products by humans. However, it will try to make data available to those capable of doing so or encourage member nations to provide these data to the appropriate organisations.

After some discussion, the Committee agreed on information that should be reported in the evaluation of health effects from the consumption of cetaceans and on guidelines to be followed when reporting information on contaminant levels in cetaceans³⁸.

12.5.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The USA was happy to endorse any Scientific Committee recommendations regarding guidelines to be followed when reporting information on contaminant levels in cetaceans. Recalling that Resolution 1999-4³⁹ on health effects from the consumption of cetaceans simply required the Scientific Committee to receive, review, collate and report information on contaminant burdens in cetaceans to the Commission, the USA considered that the Scientific Committee need not address the issue of risk assessments. The UK associated themselves with these comments and urged Contracting Governments to respect the requirements of Resolution 1998-11⁴⁰ to submit information on possible human health effects resulting from the consumption of cetacean products.

Referring to the widespread contamination of fish and cetaceans and subsequent impacts on people reliant on marine resources, Japan considered that there is an obligation to keep the oceans clean so that safe sea food would be available for future generations. It considered that global restrictions on the discharge of pollutants will be required, and that nations worldwide must be encouraged to reduce the amount of harmful substances discharged into the environment.

The Commission endorsed the Scientific Committee report on this issue.

³⁸ For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberations on this Item see J. Cet. Res. Manage. 4 (Suppl.).
³⁹ See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 1999: 53.
⁴⁰ See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 1998: 46.

12.6 Other
12.6.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
STATE OF THE CETACEAN ENVIRONMENT REPORT (SOCER)
A working group produced the draft SOCER and the importance of developing such a report for the Commission (as expressed in Resolution 2000-7⁴¹) and the responsibility for its annual production by the Committee was noted. Appreciation was expressed over the amount of work undertaken by the editors of SOCER but concern was expressed about the document in its present form being misinterpreted as representing the Committee's view. The Committee noted the size and complexity of the task represented by the compilation of such a report and it was probably inevitable that members of the Committee had a number of problems regarding its scope, selection of entries, misunderstanding of some papers included, implied priorities, etc. Given these difficulties, the Committee agreed that it should not be appended to the Committee's report. In the light of Commission Resolution 2000-7, it agreed that the report should be made available to the Commission as document SC/53/E21 under the names of the editors.

Recognising the complexity of the task, the Committee agreed that attention should be given to further developing the mechanism by which such a report should be compiled and reviewed, the appropriate style and structure of the report and its frequency. In this regard, it thanked the editors of SOCER for initiating what clearly must be an iterative process.

WORKSHOP ON HABITAT DEGRADATION
An intersessional group met in Rome, Italy in June 2001 and considered several potentially complementary approaches to furthering work on cetacean habitat assessment, with a long-term view to quantification and modelling. The group recommended a three-day workshop to: (1) quantify natural and unnatural environmental parameters and; (2) estimate their significance through a combination of direct assessment and modelling. The methodology used to quantify the relationship between environmental variables and the health of a given cetacean population would include multivariate regression of cetacean life history data and habitat properties, evaluation of specific contaminants on individual life history parameters for a given population and extrapolation from studies on non-cetacean species. An offer to host the workshop was received from ICRAM (Government of Italy).

Given the relatively short intersessional period, the Committee recommended that: either the habitat degradation workshop be held intersessionally in 2002, if the necessary support can be found, or the merits of supporting the workshop be again reviewed at the 2002 meeting.

12.6.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Netherlands commended the Scientific Committee on is work on environmental concerns and noted that significant progress had been made in the POLLUTION 2000+, SOWER 2000 and SO-GLOBEC programmes and in habitat-related issues. It considered it important that IWC address these issues and encouraged the Committee to maintain the work at the same pace. It particularly welcomed the SOCER report that it considered to be a timely and useful source of information and a first step towards a comprehensive evaluation of the state of the cetacean environment. The Netherlands suggested that the review be performed at regular intervals such as every 3 to 5 years, and was convinced that the habitat-degradation workshop that Italy has offered to host should be held as soon as possible. Following on from the Netherland's comments, Austria remarked that the SOCER is still a prototype and that comments and suggestions would be welcomed. Italy, Mexico, the USA, Germany, the UK and New Zealand associated themselves with the previous comments. Brazil also welcomed the report, supported its continuation and suggested that this is an area to which developing country scientists could contribute. Argentina indicated that it could provide information regarding the South Atlantic Ocean.

In contrast, Norway did not consider the SOCER to be a good prototype and drew attention to the criticism it received from within the Scientific Committee.

⁴¹ See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 2000: 56-7.

_