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

The Chairman introduced the Report of the second session to the Annual Meeting. This included an Appendix developed at the Cambridge session setting out the Future Activities of the Commission under the headings of: Commercial Whaling and the Comprehensive Assessment; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling; Revision of the Present Management Procedure; Humane Killing; Sanctuaries; Publications; Statistics; Special Permits; Infractions; and Other Activities. The financial implications of these proposals were endorsed and updated by the Finance and Administration Committee during the Annual Meeting.

A number of governments, including the UK, USSR, USA and Denmark, spoke in support of the Report, recognising that its value was already apparent in the work of this meeting, and commenting on its usefulness as a springboard for the future.

There was also discussion of four particular items raised by the USSR, Brazil, Australia and Mexico, which is reported in the following paragraphs.

1. Revision of the Convention
The USSR expressed its belief that the best way forward for the IWC is to consider revision of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, in the light of the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The USA, Norway and Japan also supported the idea of Contracting Governments considering reviewing the Convention in the present climate, which is very different from that of 1946. There was particular emphasis laid on the functions of scientific research and conservation.

2. Socio-economic considerations
In the Working Group, Brazil considered that the Commission should take into account the economic implications when it comes to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the decision in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, and Japan drew attention to the Convention requirement to take into consideration the interests of consumers when amending the Schedule.

The Philippines suggested that the socio-economic implications need to be clearly specified, and there was considerable support for development of this idea. After further discussion of the practicality of forming a Working Group to evaluate the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit as first proposed by Brazil and the Philippines, the Commission adopted the following amended proposal:

The Commission recognizes the importance of considering the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit. The Commission decides that an ad hoc working group of Brazil, the Philippines and such other member states as may be interested, be established to draft terms of reference for use in evaluating the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit, particularly for those countries which have adhered to and been affected by it. The Commission will consider the terms of reference adopted by the ad hoc group at its 38th Annual Meeting.

3. Scientific permits
Australia, with support of other members of the Working Group, spoke of its belief that the Commission should give consideration to other factors than those reviewed by the Scientific Committee when it considers special permits proposed by Contracting Governments for scientific research.

There was considerable discussion of this matter in the plenary (arising under Item 15, Adoption of Report of the Scientific Committee), when a draft Resolution on scientific permits was put forward by Sweden and Switzerland because of their concern over some proposed substantial scientific catches. This Resolution referred to the need for compliance by Contracting Governments issuing such permits to the existing requirements, suggested certain extensions of the scientific justification for the permits, emphasised the need for the use of humane killing techniques, and added a recommendation that the products of whales taken under the permits should not enter international trade.

Whilst many governments were sympathetic to the aims of the Resolution, others expressed reservations over various details and the need to have more time to consider the procedural aspects, especially consistency with Articles VI and, VIII of the Convention. The trade question was recognised as a substantive new matter, and the Commission eventually adopted by consensus, but noting the reservations previously expressed, another Resolution (shown in Appendix 2) establishing a Working Group to study the first proposal and any relevant matters so that a decision can be taken at the next Annual Meeting.

4. Lisled species
Mexico expressed its view in the Working Group that species not of direct concern to the IWC and not listed in the Convention should not be the subject of Commission activity. It, and a number of other governments, requested guidance from the Commission in solving the legal aspects related to the work of the Scientific Committee on species (referred to as Small Cetaceans) which are not listed in the Annex entitled Nomenclature of Whales to the Final Act of the 1946 International Whaling Conference.

Other delegations took the position that the Convention covers all cetaceans regardless of whether they are listed in the Chart of Nomenclature. They considered that the activities of the Scientific Committee with regard to small cetaceans should be continued, and recalled the Resolution concerning the Commission's responsibility for small cetaceans adopted in 1980.

6.2 Review of the operations of the Scientific Committee
6.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee provided the Finance and Administration Committee with a detailed explanation of the review carried out by his Committee concerning possible cost-cutting measures in its operations. This was undertaken when it was decided by the small group of Commissioners meeting in Cambridge that the Working Group set up at the 36th Annual Meeting to look into these financial aspects should not be constituted.

The Scientific Committee considered reducing its size, shortening and reducing the frequency of its meetings, eliminating one or more of its sub-committees, introducing a per capita charge for participants, and radically restructuring its mode of operation. The Scientific Committee was commended for this thorough analysis of its operations, and it was noted that many cost cutting measures have been undertaken already. It was stressed that the general conclusion of the review was that savings were either limited or, if substantial, could seriously hamper the functioning of the Committee.

On the specific question of the cost of the sub-committee on small cetaceans, the Scientific Committee thought that its elimination would result in a very small saving (because there would be no reduction in Secretariat costs), and it pointed out that this sub-committee had addressed a number of topics of particular interest to the Commission, including bottlenose whales, killer whales, Baird's beaked whales, pollution, and at one time, minke whales. Mexico noted the number of participants in this sub-committee in recent years, and the number of papers presented and published, and therefore believed a larger saving would result. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee pointed out that there is a great deal of overlap of expertise of the members of the Committee and a participant in the sub-committee on small cetaceans is likely to attend a number of other groups as well.

The Scientific Committee also examined several possible ways in which the cost of its publications could be reduced. It believes that IWC publications play an essential and integral role in its work, and noted the great improvement in production, scientific content and sales in recent years. It commended the measures being taken to reduce printing costs and the investigation of new technology, and recommended continued publication and publicity.

Finally, the Scientific Committee recommended that payment of overheads when funding research should be negotiated on a case by case basis.

6.3 Action Arising
In adopting the Report of the Working Group on the Future Activities of the Commission, the Commission took account of the discussions of the points indicated above and also a reservation by Mexico concerning the designation of closed waters, including the designation of sanctuaries. In this respect, Mexico noted that the sovereign rights and opinions of member states and coastal states were not considered in the report, and believed that they should be fully considered in such designations.

_