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

the Northern bottlenose whale, striped dolphin, Dall's porpoise, harbour porpoise, killer whales, narwhals and white whales.

In addition, it also made specific recommendations for management and conservation for northern bottlenose, Antarctic killer whales, North Atlantic killer whales, white whales and narwhals, noting that the two latter species should be considered by the Commission in the same manner as is the bowhead fishery in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean.

There was an extensive discussion in Technical Committee on the Commission's responsibilities for small cetaceans after Canada gave a detailed account of its position with regard to narwhal and beluga and stated its opposition to amending the Schedule to include these species. This opposition included policy, legal and practical concerns and also takes account of sovereign states' rights (viz the draft text constructed by Canada for a new International Cetacean Convention). It proposed that:

(a)

no Schedule amendments be made upon the recommendations of the Scientific Committee;

(b)

a Resolution be adopted which would establish a working process whereby the Scientific Committee would consider all cetaceans and be able to make scientific advice available to Contracting Parties, coastal states and other interested Governments and intergovernmental organisations.

Member countries stated their positions based upon legal and policy advice obtained from their national authorities in response to the Commission's decision to that effect at the 31st Annual Meeting. Some delegations noted that advice on what was legally permissible was not always consistent with what was practicable or desirable. The views expressed concerned the competence of the IWC to manage all cetaceans under the 1946 Convention, whether whales and smaller cetaceans can be distinguished on any biological or legal distinctions, the need for comprehensive management policies, and the possible conflict with coastal states' rights and the principles being developed in the UNCLOS.

In an attempt to reconcile some of the arguments and counter-arguments put forward the Technical Committee considered two Resolutions. After discussion of the differences between the two and the expression of interpretations and views from various members, a joint Canada/USA Resolution was adopted by a majority vote for recommendation to the Commission.

A lengthy procedural debate arising from some countries' view that discussion of the issue should be deferred because of drafting problems rather than moving to an immediate decision resulted in a motion to adjourn the debate proposed by Australia and seconded by Sweden. This was not carried, receiving 11 votes in favour and 11 against with 2 abstentions. A motion to close the debate on this item proposed by the USA and seconded by Canada, was approved by 17 votes in favour with 7 against.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 8 was then adopted by the Commission with 15 votes in favour, 6 against and 3 abstentions.

_