(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")

(1)

welcomes initiatives to assess the achievements and orientation of the cumulative work of the Commission in the pursuit of its conservation objective;

(2)

endorses the proposals made by various Contracting Governments to organize, on the basis of that assessment, the future Conservation Agenda of the Commission and to cooperate in its preparation;

(3)

decides to establish a Conservation Committee of the Commission, composed of all Contracting Parties, in conformity with Article III paragraph 4 of the Convention, and to amend paragraph M.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure accordingly, together with all the resulting budgetary implications.

(4)

decides to entrust the Conservation Committee with: (1) the preparation and recommendation to the Commission of its future Conservation Agenda, taking full account of this Resolution; (2) the implementation of those items in the Agenda that the Commission may refer to it and ; (3) making recommendations to the Commission in order to maintain and update the Conservation Agenda on a continuing basis.

(5)

instructs the Conservation Committee to meet before the Commission's Annual Meeting in 2004, in order to organize its work, so that the Conservation Agenda can be considered for adoption by the Commission at that Annual Meeting.

(6)

directs the Conservation Committee to explore how the Commission can coordinate its conservation agenda through greater collaboration with a wider range of other organizations and conventions including inter alia CMS, CCAMLR, IMO, IUCN, and UNEP.

(7)

requests the Scientific Committee to advise the Conservation Committee in the performance of the tasks entrusted to it in this Resolution, and to ensure that the appropriate scientific research items, including inter alia, whalewatching, environmental issues and behavioural research, under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee, are incorporated in the Conservation Agenda.

(8)

requests the Conservation Committee to begin exploring the possible establishment, by the Commission, of an appropriate trust fund (including the identification of potential contributors), to make available the necessary financial resources to the Commission and, particularly, to the Contracting Governments committed to implementing specific items of the Conservation Agenda related to conservation-oriented research. To that end, the Committee shall give priority to the question of securing assistance for scientific research and capacity building for scientists and institutions from developing countries, and shall take advantage from the experiences obtained in other international environmental and conservation conventions and treaties, in the establishment of similarly-oriented international funds.

(9)

directs the Secretariat to prepare a report, to be considered by the Commission at its next annual meeting, on the implementation of Resolution 1998-6 regarding the establishment of a dedicated 'Environment Research Fund' to facilitate research on environmental change and cetaceans, as well as on the results of the appeal it made in its Resolution 1999-5 'to the Contracting Governments, other governments, international organizations and other bodies to contribute financially and in kind' to research programs, and to include in that report a recommendation to the Commission, as to how that Fund could best be considered in the light of the possible establishment of the trust fund referred to in the previous paragraph.

In explaining the rational behind the proposed Resolution, Mexico believed that a series of new developments concerning IWC-related issues that have emerged since the Convention was agreed in 1946 (e.g. UNCLOS, regional management agreements, the establishment of sanctuaries and the moratorium on commercial whaling) indicate that there is a conservation agenda to be discussed and examined within IWC. It stressed that the Resolution was being proposed simply to provide the institutional structure needed to take account of conservation issues within IWC and not as stated by Japan prior to the meeting to, inter alia, attempt to change the fundamental purpose of the whaling treaty by introducing a strategy to end all sustainable use of whale resources for food. Mexico noted that the draft Resolution does not attempt to change the Convention nor any of the mandates, rules or decisions of other bodies within the Commission, and neither does it seek to override the Scientific Committee. It also noted that the proposed Conservation Committee might not have been needed if the Commission agreed on its competency to deal with matters such as whalewatching and habitat protection. Mexico believed that only a proactive, dynamic and solid conservation agenda would lead to a realisation of all the objectives and purposes of the Convention. The co-sponsors, who did not believe that the only purpose of the Convention is to regulate whaling, considered the Berlin Initiative to be a bone fide attempt to help the Commission escape its current stagnation so that rather than one side prevailing over the other, the Convention would prevail over the division of its Parties. Finally, it noted that the proposed Conservation Committee would be on a par and equal with the Scientific and Finance and Administration Committees and should not have major implications for either cost or responsibilities of the Commission.

4.2 Commission discussions and action arising
A number of co-sponsors reinforced Mexico's introduction and spoke in support of the draft Resolution. Australia considered that the draft Resolution represented a milestone in the evolution of the IWC that would help the Commission clarify, develop and meet the conservation objective of the Convention. It believed that the Conservation Committee should fully involve all Contracting Governments, that it should be supported by and promote good science and have an ambitious agenda. Australia indicated that with this initiative, it would redouble its efforts within IWC. Germany believed that in view of the variety of threats to cetaceans from, for example, pollution, climate change, noise, bycatch in fisheries, shipping and off-shore activities, many conservation measures were needed and that the Resolution would provide a sound basis for future conservation efforts. It stressed that the proposed Resolution is not against sustainable use and is not linked to the moratorium or the RMS. As such, Germany could not understand some countries opposition to the proposal.

New Zealand considered that the Berlin Initiative would provide the framework for meeting the obligation in the preamble to the Convention, i.e. of 'recognising the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks'. It also considered that the initiative would help synthesise and prioritise issues and assist in future planning and would enable the Commission to respond more efficiently than at present. Italy believed that the Resolution would restore the balance between sustainable use and conservation and improve co-operation within the IWC. Noting the concern regarding cetaceans in the Mediterranean, Italy urged those countries that had ratified the ACCOBAMS treaty to support the Berlin Initiative.

For Sweden, a continued balance between the objectives of the Convention is essential, underlining the link with ongoing broader discussions on sustainable development within the Rio/Johannesburg process. As others, it noted that conservation issues are not just linked to questions of sustainable use, since various forms of environmental degradation and fisheries practices are threatening the world's whale populations. Sweden hoped that the new Committee would be able to strengthen actions in response to such threats. It supported completion of the RMS and believed that the Conservation Committee would ultimately be seen as a support structure for an efficient RMS. Sweden regretted that there had not been sufficient time for wider consultation on the draft Resolution but hoped that there would be continued contacts between different Parties so as to build on it and make the Conservation Committee an important element in realising all the objectives of the Convention. Switzerland noted that the Scientific Committee and Commission has been dealing with conservation issues (e.g. quotas, sanctuaries, giving management advice, RMP) and like Sweden supported completion of the RMS. It also supported the draft Resolution but requested clarification on how the Conservation Committee will be composed and how it will relate to the Scientific Committee. Monaco pleaded for consistency in countries' attitudes to conservation. It did not see the sense of Contracting Governments voting for conservation in other fora and against it at IWC and believed that there is a need to reflect and integrate this new body of knowledge within the work of the Commission.

In supporting the draft Resolution, the USA considered that it did not undermine its commitment to the management principle within the IWC nor did it consider the proposal to be an anti-whaling initiative. The USA supported the draft Resolution because it believed it to be good governance. Finland reported that since 1983, whale conservation had been its main objective under the Convention, but noted that it had never said that there could not be controlled sustainable commercial whaling once an acceptable management system is in place. It referred to the Convention on Biodiversity in which, like the ICRW, conservation and sustainable use are the two basic principles. Finland associated itself with earlier remarks regarding the purpose of the draft Resolution and regretted that it had not been possible to broaden the support even though efforts had been made to do so.

Although Brazil noted that it fully embraces the concept of sustainable use of natural resources, it stressed that direct harvest is not the only option for sustainable use. Accordingly, it believed that conservation of whale resources is not limited to setting catch quotas but must also include adequate action to address other threats to ensure the long-term survival of these species. It considered that to vote against the draft Resolution would be to deny the conservation principle. South Africa considered that the proposals in the draft Resolution worked in favour of developing countries that could benefit from whalewatching and tourism. Ireland expressed some sympathy with the comments of some of those opposing the draft Resolution. Like them, it believed that completion of the RMS is important and noted that it had worked hard towards this goal, including the tabling of the 'Irish Proposal' some six years ago³. However, it considered the development of the RMS to be in a state of paralysis and therefore supported the draft Resolution since it felt it would help drive the work of the Commission forward. It did not doubt that Japan, Norway and others believed conservation to be important. Spain and Portugal also spoke in support of the draft Resolution and associated themselves with the remarks of other co-sponsors.

Denmark expressed a number of concerns over the draft Resolution relating to procedure, substance and timing. With respect to procedure, Denmark believed that the third operative paragraph violated an earlier decision by the Commission that Resolutions cannot be used to amend either the Schedule or the Rules of Procedure. It therefore questioned the legality of the draft Resolution. With respect to substance, Denmark considered the introductory text to have a number of notable omissions. The draft Resolution did not refer to the role of the Commission in managing whaling, it did not mention the Revised Management Procedure and it had omitted NAMMCO from the list of regional and international organisations/agreements that have been established since the ICRW and that may affect great whales. Referring to the operative paragraphs, it considered that creation of a Conservation Committee would detract resources from other activities and it expressed unease that the ninth paragraph might give NGOs undue influence in setting Commission priorities. Denmark believed that this is a responsibility for Contracting Governments alone. It also took issue with certain parts of Annex II of the draft Resolution, particularly regarding language used in relation to whaling under special permit - a right clearly enshrined in the Convention. With respect to timing, Denmark believed that in view of the existence of the temporary moratorium on commercial whaling and other area restrictions (Schedule paragraph 8) and two comprehensive whale sanctuaries, there is no urgency for other measures. It did not wish to exclude the possibility of developing a set of guidelines on how the IWC might wish to deal with conservation, which might be a good idea. However, it considered the current priority is to agree an RMS, although if the two things could be done at the same time in good faith, then it believed the IWC would be back on its dual track of conservation and management.

Iceland noted that it supports whale conservation and believed that all whaling must be sustainable. However, it considered that the draft Resolution was hi-jacking the terms of the Convention by selective quotation from its preamble, would draw attention away from work on the RMS and increase polarisation in the IWC. Noting Mexico's remark that the Berlin Initiative would help the Commission escape stagnation, Iceland therefore considered that at the very least, the proposers should be willing to postpone a decision on this issue while the Commission tries to find a more widely agreeable avenue for a conservation agenda. Like Denmark, it had concerns with the legality of the 3rd operative paragraph, noting that it contravened Rule of Procedure R.1 that requires 60-days notice of amendments to the Rules of Procedure.

Norway, the Republic of Korea, Antigua and Barbuda, China, Dominica, the Russian Federation, Japan, Grenada, St. Lucia and Morocco made similar remarks. While agreeing that the Commission has a conservation agenda, Norway expressed the view that this agenda has been exercised consistently at the expense of the main purpose of the Convention (i.e. the orderly development of the whaling industry) and that the Berlin Initiative would further aggravate this imbalance and create a radical and lasting change in the character of the IWC. Norway considered that the only proper way of making such a change would be to call a diplomatic conference to re-negotiate the Convention. Realising that this is not feasible, it believed that those Contracting Governments unhappy with the Convention were choosing to circumvent it via the 'Berlin Initiative'. Antigua and Barbuda noted that the sponsors of the draft Resolution had not consulted with those countries supporting sustainable whaling. China recalled a significant conservation measure was taken by the Commission in 1982 when it agreed the commercial whaling moratorium and therefore did not see the need for a Conservation Committee. It noted that like other developing countries, it already has difficulties in attending the whole Annual Meeting series, and expressed concern that the Conservation Committee, if established, may not attract wide enough participation. Dominica reported that it had been put under unacceptable pressure to support the draft Resolution by certain NGOs. The Russian Federation noted that it gave high priority to the conservation of whale stocks in the context of sustainable use. It agreed with Denmark that there might be room for compromise and suggested that whale conservation could be given high priority under the framework of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Like others, Japan believed the draft Resolution to be contrary to the primary objective of the Convention. It expressed concern regarding the possible establishment of a trust fund, believing that instead, effort should be made to broaden participation in IWC through reducing the financial burden of membership by developing countries. Noting that about half of the Commission appeared strongly opposed to the draft Resolution, Japan questioned how any Conservation Committee could function properly under such conditions. Grenada asked: (1) how the so-called conservation agenda differs from the regulatory and conservation objectives of the RMP, the RMS, the moratorium, sanctuaries and other management tools; and (2) what was the real purpose of the proposal and how did the proposers interpret the meaning of conservation. St. Lucia believed that the proposal would undermine progress on the RMS and the work of the Scientific Committee. It believed that the Scientific Committee's work should expand to allow the conservation agenda to be investigated and achieved and that funds should be used to advance the work of the Scientific Committee.

Although it was not necessarily against the Committee, Morocco did not consider it necessary since conservation issues can be addressed within the existing structure of the Commission and its sub-groups. It considered it preferable to improve the functioning of the existing structure rather than establishing a new group that would face the same problems. While it recognised the significant effort made in developing the draft Resolution, it believed further discussion was necessary and that without consensus the Conservation Committee would not work.

In responding to a number of points made, Mexico acknowledged that amendments to the Rules of Procedure could not be made until the draft Resolution is adopted. It agreed that if the Commission did decide to establish a Conservation Committee then the Rules of Procedure would need to be amended. It reported that the co-sponsors were willing to delete part of the 3rd operative paragraph (i.e. the part reading 'and to amend paragraph M.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure accordingly, together with all the resulting budgetary implications') on the understanding the it will propose appropriate Rules of Procedure prior to the next Annual Meeting and in accordance with the 60-day notice rule. Responding to Switzerland, Mexico drew attention to the third operative paragraph of the draft Resolution indicating that the Conservation Committee would be open to all Contracting Governments. It noted that it would be up to individual governments to decide whom to send to the Committee, but it hoped that there would be a combination of those with experience in conservation issues and those with experience in the science of conservation. Mexico noted that the relationship of the Conservation Committee with the Scientific Committee was described in operative paragraph 7 and that there would be no major costs involved. The main cost would be that associated with holding a Committee meeting. With respect to the proposal of the Russian Federation, Mexico did not believe this to be an appropriate alternative since the CBD does not have competency over cetaceans, unlike the IWC, and that in addition, not all IWC members are also Parties to the CBD. Mexico again stressed that there was no hidden agenda behind the Berlin Initiative but expressed the view that to vote against the draft Resolution would be to vote against conservation.

Noting that there had been an exhaustive debate, the Chair ruled that the draft Resolution, with the third operative paragraph amended as described by Mexico, be voted upon. Norway challenged this ruling, but the ruling was upheld when put to a vote - there being 20 votes in support of the challenge and 26 against. The amended draft Resolution was therefore put to a vote. There were 25 votes in favour and 20 against, thus the Resolution was adopted (Resolution 2003-1, Annex C). A number of countries explained their vote. Grenada, who had not participated in the vote, believed that to establish a Conservation Committee without consensus is counterproductive. Antigua and Barbuda, Norway and Japan considered that despite the amendment to the third operative paragraph, the vote was still in contravention of the Rules of Procedure. Japan considered that this outcome would further polarise the IWC and together with Antigua and Barbuda, Norway and Dominica, reserved the right not to participate in the Committee or to contribute financially. Iceland associated itself with other speakers. It also asked the proponents not to misrepresent the outcome, i.e. voting against the proposal did not mean that countries were against conservation. On the contrary, Iceland believed that all countries supported conservation, but it considered that the proposal would direct attention away from the real purpose of the Convention, i.e. conservation of whale stocks to allow sustainable use. It hoped that this would not mean the end of the RMS development process. China felt that more time should have been made available for consultations.

In drawing discussions to a close, the Chair noted that establishment of the Conservation Committee would not solve the problems within IWC and stressed the need to continue to work to find a balance between conservation and management.

³ Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm 49:35

_