(from "Chair's Report of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting")
22 e.g. see Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 1998: 42.
7.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted the report from the Scientific Committee and accepted
its workplan.
In response to a request from the Scientific Committee at the 53rd Annual Meeting, Japan, on behalf of Norway and Antigua and Barbuda, proposed a Resolution that would provide guidance to the Committee for conducting reviews of existing or proposed sanctuaries. Japan stressed the importance of providing guidance because of the reviews scheduled for the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean Sanctuaries in 2002 and 2004 respectively. Japan's view was that the adoption of both of these sanctuaries had not been based on scientific findings as required under Convention Article V.2. The Resolution therefore proposed a set of scientifically-based criteria for use in sanctuary reviews that would determine if a sanctuary has a scientific basis and whether it is needed for conservation purposes. Finally Japan noted that the Resolution's wording did not preclude the Scientific Committee from adding further questions or issues, and urged its adoption by the Commission.
Iceland, supported by Japan and Norway, objected to being removed from the list of sponsors, and emphasised the reference made by Japan to Convention Article V.2. Norway believed the Resolution to be highly appropriate and justified, and stressed that the list of criteria is not exclusive and that it would be open to the addition of others.
New Zealand, while supporting the development of guidance, considered the questions included in the Resolution to be leading questions that could be posed in a more non-controversial manner. It also felt that sanctuary reviews should not be restricted to narrow scientific debate and that account should be taken of the increasing debate and use of sanctuaries by other international fora and, for example, cultural and regional considerations. It rejected any suggestion that the establishment of the existing whale sanctuaries was not based on science. New Zealand offered to work with the co-sponsors to develop more suitable text with a view to developing consensus.
In the ensuing discussion, there was support for the development of guidance from many countries, with some supporting the proposed Resolution and others expressing views similar to those of New Zealand. A group, chaired by Norway with participation from 14 countries, was subsequently established to try to develop consensus on revised text. This resulted in the replacement of the Resolution with a document titled 'Instructions from the Commission to the Scientific Committee for Reviews of Sanctuaries' (see Annex E). Although the document was agreed by consensus (but with Brazil reserving its position on item 1), the Commission did not view the guidance as final and agreed to keep it under review. It was therefore agreed that: (1) the Scientific Committee be asked to use the document in its review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary next year and to report back to the Commission on the utility of the guidance: and (2) that it be used for any new sanctuary proposals.
7.2 Research activities within sanctuaries
7.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee does not discuss this item as a separate issue but
rather considers research carried out within Sanctuary areas where relevant
to other items on its agenda, particularly those relating to status of stocks.
7.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Japan commented that it is actively co-operating in research in the Southern
Ocean Sanctuary through the SOWER 2000 programme, providing research vessels,
crew and scientists.
In addition, it noted the contribution made by JARPA to increase knowledge
on cetaceans.
Brazil described its dedicated whale research activities in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary over the last 5 years. The work has focused mainly on humpback whales, where non-lethal methods such as photo-identification and genetic sampling have been used to gain a better understanding of stocks in the Antarctic peninsular and the migratory patterns of this species. Brazil reported that it has (1) also gathered information on the sighting of 7 other cetacean species, (2) that it has participated in SOWER 2000 activities, and (3) that it would continue to contribute to non-lethal research in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and seek co-operation in this issue.
7.3 Southern Ocean Sanctuary
7.3.1 Proposal to amend paragraph 7.(b) of the Schedule
Japan introduced its proposed amendment to paragraph 7 of the Schedule that
would involve deleting the 3rd sentence of Paragraph 7.(b) and adding a new
sub-paragraph (c) as follows:
'7. (c) The prohibition described in sub-paragraph (b) above shall be applied only on the advice of the Scientific Committee in accordance with Article V(2) of the Convention.'
Japan noted that it had provided legal analysis to the Commission demonstrating that the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was adopted in contravention of Article V.2 of the Convention. It explained that the proposed Schedule amendment was designed to make this sanctuary consistent with Article V.2.
7.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Norway and Antigua and Barbuda reiterated their support for Japan's proposed
Schedule amendment.
New Zealand opposed the proposal, considering it an attempt to repeal the sanctuary. It again rejected claims that the sanctuary was improperly established and recalled the consensus adoption of the report from the February 1994 Norfolk Island meeting on this issue. New Zealand further noted that when the sanctuary was established, the minke whale population estimate was 750,000 and that since it may now be as low as 268,000, believed that the sanctuary should be retained in its present form. Finally, it stressed that decisions can only be taken by the Commission and cannot be delegated to the Scientific Committee. The USA, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, France, Mexico, Brazil and Sweden supported this view.
In response, Japan reminded the meeting that the Scientific Committee has stated that it will not be in a position to reach a conclusion on estimates from the 3rd circumpolar cruise until 2004. Japan reported that its own provisional estimates for the 3rd cruise using a number of assumptions to account for incomplete surveys, methodological differences and other factors did not suggest a decline in numbers. Finally, it was Japan's view that the necessity of including scientific evidence in the establishment of sanctuaries was not discussed at the Norfolk Island meeting and that a number of scientific questions posed at that meeting had not been answered when the Sanctuary had been established.
On being put to a vote, there were 13 votes in favour of the proposed Schedule amendment, 23 against and one abstention. The proposed Schedule amendment therefore failed. Iceland indicated that it supported the proposed amendment.
7.4 South Pacific Sanctuary
7.4.1 Proposal to amend the Schedule to establish a sanctuary
As the original sponsors of the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary proposal,
Australia and New Zealand proposed to amend the Schedule by adding 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 generally 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.'
New Zealand thanked the other co-sponsors for supporting this proposal when introduced in Adelaide last year. It reported that since then, regional support to establish a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific had advanced and referred to an April 2001 meeting of Ministers and representatives from countries and territories in the Pacific, who (1) reaffirmed their commitment to progress the proposed sanctuary, (2) recognised whales as an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of Pacific island peoples, (3) welcomed the growth of whalewatching in the area, and (4) requested the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and IWC members to advise the Commission of the outcome of the meeting.
Cognisant that the Commission must have regard to the science available on this matter, New Zealand reported that further evidence had come to light that the number of whales killed in the Southern Hemisphere last century, especially fin whales, was much higher than previously thought and in excess of 2 million animals. It also noted that while scientists may not be certain of the abundance of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere, there appears to be scientific consensus that the population levels for most other great whales species in the area remain extremely low. While acknowledging the effort made on the RMP/RMS, New Zealand considered that this is not the only valid approach to managing whale populations and that the RMP/RMS is not the paramount consideration for the local people whose non-consumptive cultural relationship with whales should be recognised within the Commission in the same way as aboriginal subsistence needs are recognised. It stressed the need to also recognise the new opportunities emerging from, and the growing economic importance of whalewatching and eco-tourism that would be enhanced by a sanctuary. Finally, New Zealand rejected the claim that whales are depriving Man of other species, noted that it is Man that has over-exploited both whales and fish, and urged governments to support the proposed sanctuary to safeguard whales in their breeding grounds in the Southern Hemisphere.
Like New Zealand, Australia stressed the scientific justification and extensive regional support (e.g. from SPREP and the Pacific Island Leaders' Forum) for establishing a sanctuary and also noted the opportunity in the South Pacific for, and economic benefits of whalewatching. It considered that establishing a sanctuary would be the best way to foster research and improve knowledge on the status of whale populations. It further considered that establishing a sanctuary would provide protection so that populations can recover and noted with interest that fisheries and wildlife management support the protection afforded through no-take zones such as sanctuaries. It also urged the Commission to support the proposal.
7.4.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The representative from SPREP thanked the Commission for being given the
opportunity to address the meeting and reported that the Pacific Islands'
Forum and SPREP have supported the development of a proposal to establish a
South Pacific Whale Sanctuary for the last four years.
Like New Zealand and Australia, he referred to activities since the Adelaide
meeting to progress and reaffirm the proposal.
Brazil, the UK, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, Mexico,
Monaco, Italy, Sweden, Argentina also spoke in favour of the proposed
sanctuary.
Norway, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, Japan, Antigua and Barbuda and the Republic of Korea commented that they could not support the proposal. Norway noted that decisions to establish sanctuaries should be based on science as required by Convention Article V.2.(a). It considered that the background document provided by Australia and New Zealand did not provide any scientific evidence and was interested to hear the views of the Scientific Committee on this matter. Dominica noted the need to be particularly sensitive to the needs of sovereign indigenous people and considered that the establishment of a sanctuary would violate these rights. Grenada could see no new arguments to support the sanctuary, suggested that a sanctuary that simply prevents catching whales that could be taken safely frustrates rather than fulfils the Convention's objectives and questioned what a sanctuary could do that a moratorium and an RMS could not. It noted that all whale species are currently protected by the moratorium on commercial whaling that would only be lifted once an RMS is agreed, adding that at this point quotas would only be set for abundant whale stocks. Grenada also believed that there is no quantifiable evidence that tourists only visit certain countries to go whalewatching. St Vincent and The Grenadines and St Kitts and Nevis and made similar comments, the latter, together with Japan and Antigua and Barbuda commenting that there had been insufficient consultation with regional peoples.
In commenting on sanctuaries in general, the representative of OLDEPESCA noted that it was the view of his organisation that such politically sensitive issues should be subject to extensive consultation with the international community at large. Decisions should be taken not by voting, but preferably by consensus built gradually, based on strong legal and scientific grounds. OLDEPESCA did not consider that this present proposal met these criteria. Referring also to the current moratorium, he remarked that over protection of whales could ultimately impact other fisheries in areas that are now being regulated by existing management schemes or where new ones are being created. It was therefore important not to undermine these efforts. Finally, OLDEPESCA respectfully reminded Australia and New Zealand, that Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Columbia share the South Pacific and that this should be borne in mind when talking of the people of the South Pacific.
Monaco noted the care taken by New Zealand, Australia, SPREP and others to consult with South Pacific Island people and the support the proposal received from these islands. It expressed surprise at the opposition to the sanctuary proposal expresse by delegates from some of the Caribbean islands, recalling that these same countries had endorsed recommendations from the 1994 Barbados meeting of the global 'Alliance of Small Island States' that included, inter alia, the establishment of Marine Protected Areas and sanctuaries wherever necessary in order to enhance the sustainable development process of small island states. Monaco also noted the coming into force in June 2000 of the UNEP Protocol on Specially Protected Areas in Wildlife in the wider Caribbean region (SPAW) that establishes a marine sanctuary protecting all marine mammals. Monaco called for consistency in approach.
Denmark, whilst not against sanctuaries in principle, saw no urgent need for the proposal since the moratorium is still in place and since there is no aboriginal subsistence whaling in the region. It noted that the Scientific Committee had been unable to provide clear recommendations last year and that no new information had emerged this year to change this position. It suggested that in view of the guidance for reviewing sanctuaries just agreed under agenda item 7.1, voting on the proposal be postponed until clear advice, based on this guidance, is forthcoming from the Scientific Committee. The Republic of Guinea stressed the importance of the Commission being guided in its decisions by advice from the Scientific Committee. Ireland, while supporting the concept of sanctuaries as management measures necessary to ensure conservation of whales, considered that further discussions were needed on the current proposal to ensure consensus. It believed that without consensus, and particularly the agreement of whaling countries, it would not be possible to achieve the full potential of sanctuaries since broad issues such as research whaling and international trade would not be addressed. Ireland preferred to delay a vote to give more time to achieve consensus and noted that without consensus it would abstain.
On being put to a vote, the proposed Schedule amendment failed to receive the required three-quarter majority to be adopted. There were 20 votes in favour, 13 against and 4 abstentions. Iceland did not support the proposed amendment. Spain explained that it had voted in favour of the sanctuary in spite of the fact that two of its main sponsors have not complied with provisions of UNCLOS regarding regulations concerning living marine resources in regional fisheries organisations. It expects a change of attitude from these countries. Denmark regretted that the vote had not been postponed pending recommendations from the Scientific Committee.
7.5 South Atlantic Sanctuary
7.5.1 Proposal to amend the Schedule to establish a sanctuary
Brazil introduced its proposal, co-sponsored by Argentina, to create a South
Atlantic Whale Sanctuary that would be enacted through the inclusion of a new
sub-paragraph in Chapter III of the Schedule 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 Atlantic Whale Sanctuary. This Sanctuary comprises the waters of the South Atlantic Ocean enclosed by the following line: starting from the Equator, then generally south following the eastern coastline of South America to the coast of Tierra del Fuego and, starting from a point situated at Lat 55°07,3'S Long 066°25,0'W; thence to the point Lat 55°11,0'S Long 066°04,7'W; thence to the point Lat 55°22,9'S Long 065°43,6'W; thence due South to Parallel 56°22,8'S; thence to the point Lat 56°22,8'S Long 067°16,0'W; thence due South, along the Cape Horn Meridian, to 60°S, where it reaches the boundary of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary; thence due east following the boundaries of this Sanctuary to the point where it reaches the boundary of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary at 40°S; thence due north following the boundary of this Sanctuary until it reaches the coast of South Africa; thence it follows the coastline of Africa to the west and north until it reaches the Equator; thence due west to the coast of Brazil, closing the perimeter at the starting point. This prohibition shall be reviewed twenty years after its initial adoption and at succeeding ten-year intervals, and could be revised at such times by the Commission. Nothing in this sub-paragraph shall prejudice the sovereign rights of coastal states according to, inter alia, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.'
Brazil acknowledged its past involvement in whaling but reported that it in 1987 it had decided to permanently ban whaling and to direct its efforts to a more sustainable, equitable and socially acceptable use of whales through, for example, scientific research and whalewatching. It is proud of the progress made in this respect and of the fact that this approach has been incorporated into national law and public policy. Brazil reported that since 1994, a Federal working group on marine mammals, comprising governmental and non-governmental representatives, has advised national authorities on how best to manage these resources and that in September 2000 the first national sanctuary for whale protection was established. It noted that other countries in the South Atlantic are taking a similar approach. Commenting on threats to whales, Brazil remarked that in addition to pelagic whaling by far-away nations, pollution in its many forms (e.g. habitat degradation, large-scale environmental change) poses a serious threat that must be considered if credible management and long-term conservation of whale stocks is to be achieved. It supported strengthening the Scientific Committee's role in this area. Finally, Brazil considered that the establishment of a further sanctuary in the Southern Hemisphere would ensure that entire populations of whales are adequately conserved and that co-operative research would be fostered on a large scale. It urged the Commission to adopt the proposal.
7.5.2 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Chair of the Scientific Committee reported that in its review of the South
Atlantic sanctuary proposal, the Committee had agreed that it would not
discuss legal, political or economic issues.
It had also agreed that the major points made during last year's meeting
regarding the general arguments in favour and against sanctuary proposals
were pertinent to this proposal and that therefore it had been unable to
reach a single consensus view.
7.5.3 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report.
As co-sponsor of the proposal, Argentina informed the meeting that it has long taken a conservationist approach to the marine environment and its resources including whales. It noted that whaling in waters subject to its jurisdiction has been prohibited by national legislation for a long time and that non-lethal uses of whales, including scientific research and whalewatching are subject to specific regulations. It referred to the economic and educational benefits from whalewatching and considered that the proposed sanctuary would enhance research in the area and promote the sustainable non-lethal use of whales, particularly through eco-tourism. Argentina explained that the proposed sanctuary would encompass the high seas as well as coastal waters in order to protect migration routes. Like Brazil, it urged the Commission to adopt the proposal.
Australia, Austria, the USA, Chile, France, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Monaco, the UK, Sweden, Italy, Finland and Spain, many of whom were co-sponsors, supported the proposed sanctuary. Spain however, commented that since the proposers had not reported the result of any consultation with non-IWC members, no information on the degree of support from such countries is available. Iceland, Norway, Japan and Antigua and Barbuda did not support the sanctuary proposal for reasons similar to those given during discussions on the South Pacific sanctuary proposal. Japan and Antigua and Barbuda both expressed concern over the absence of consultation with African countries bordering the South Atlantic. Denmark could see no strong Scientific Committee recommendation to establish the sanctuary, and again suggested that voting be postponed until a review of the proposal using the newly approved guidance could be performed. Ireland, although supporting the proposal in principle, indicated that further consultation was needed to achieve consensus and that it would abstain in any vote.
On proceeding to a vote, the proposal received 19 votes in favour, 13 against and 5 abstentions. It did not achieve the required three-quarters majority and was therefore not adopted.
Iceland indicated that it was against the proposal. Switzerland reported that while it welcomes the establishment of sanctuaries as management tools for whale conservation, its government gives great importance to the need for every state affected directly by a sanctuary to agree to its establishment. It remarked that as the Commission had not received information on the views of the West African states or of Uruguay, it had abstained in the vote. Brazil thanked the co-sponsors, range states and others who supported its proposal. It noted that it would continue to participate in good faith in negotiations aimed at accommodating the needs and views of all member countries, but stressed that its sovereign rights to use whales through non-lethal means must be respected and protected by the Commission against the threat posed by the possible resumption of commercial whaling.
_