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

Norway supported the suggestion for a fresh look at the 1946 Convention. It spoke of the new framework for the management and conservation of marine living resources through the extension of national zones of maritime resource jurisdiction, and it believes it is time to put the basic constitutional instrument in tune with actual practices. In particular, the work of the Scientific Committee now constitutes the most important part of the activities of the Commission, and this is hardly reflected in the 1946 Convention. It referred to the report of the Reykjavik meeting on the revision of the Convention as a basis for a new meeting of experts.

Iceland and Japan supported this position, but New Zealand questioned the need for such an exercise, given the way in which the Convention has been able to evolve over time to accommodate changing circumstances. It noted, in particular, that the Law of the Sea has specific provision for the 1946 Convention, and thought that the present financial difficulties are not problems arising from the mechanisms of the Convention.

The USA, Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany supported the latter view, while the UK had no firm position. In the absence of a broad consensus on the matter, it was agreed to retain the Item on the Agenda for the next Annual Meeting, to give governments time to consider the issues further.

6.2 Socio-economic considerations
Mrs T.M.M. Quintella (Brazil) presented the report of an ad hoc Working Group she had chaired which was attended by delegates from Australia, Brazil, Iceland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Philippines, Spain and the USA. This Group had been established last year 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 Working Group agreed that the socio-economic information required for such an examination could be divided in three large categories: economic input factors, economic output factors, and employment. For each category the Group listed the kind of information to be provided so as to be considered. Its lists are not exhaustive and the Group specified that other direct and indirect implications should be examined where applicable. In all cases the information should cover the current situation and trends over at least the past five years, and implications should be identified both from a national and local perspective.

The full terms of reference are shown in Appendix 1. The Group further agreed that the Terms of Reference should guide both the Commission in evaluating the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit and Contracting Governments making submissions for such an examination.

There were four other points of agreement within the Group:

- any evaluation of the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit should take into consideration the work done in 1980 by the Working Group which examined questions related to the implementation of a ban on whaling and the social and economic trends in the whaling industry;

- Contracting Governments that submitted information to the 1980 Working Group should be encouraged to submit any new information to cover the elapsed period so as to ensure continuity;

- while Contracting Governments making submissions should be guided by the information needs set forth in the Terms of Reference, that they should be free to include additional information describing the current and recent circumstances of their whaling operations;

- Contracting Governments that have terminated their commercial whaling should be invited to make submissions describing that experience without regard to the five year time frame found in the Terms of Reference.

Brazil, together with the Philippines and others, then presented a proposal in the following terms:
(1) The Commission adopts the report of the ad hoc Working Group established to draft terms of reference for use in evaluating the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit.
(2) The Commission decides to establish a Working Group that, based upon the terms of reference set out in the report, shall make an examination of the socio-economic implications of a zero catch limit. The Working Group shall meet immediately before the 39th Annual Meeting and shall report to it.
(3) Member Governments are invited to nominate themselves to participate in the Working Group and to make submissions through the Secretariat by 31 March 1987, so that they may be circulated to the members of the Working Group for preliminary consideration before their meeting.

Spain, the Seychelles, Argentina, Mexico, Australia, Chile and Japan all supported this proposal, which was adopted by consensus. Argentina, seconded by Mexico, proposed that Brazil should be the convenor of the new Working Group, and this was also agreed, together with the suggestion from the UK that the Working Group should report to the Technical Committee next year.

6.3 Scientific permits
A Working Group was established last year to study a draft resolution proposed by Sweden and seconded by Switzerland on the subject of scientific permits and any relevant matters. The Working Group was chaired by Mr S. Irberger (Sweden) and attended by delegates from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, People's Republic of China, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, St Lucia, the Seychelles, Sweden, USSR, UK and USA.

The Group was unable to reach consensus in its discussions, and presented a new draft resolution, including a paragraph recommending that the products from special permit catches should not enter international trade, over which divergent opinions were expressed. Different views were also reported on special permit catches from Protection Stocks.

The UK seconded the resolution, including the trade paragraph. It expressed concern over the permits issued by Iceland and the Republic of Korea in the light of comments on both by the Scientific Committee, and saw no conflict between the proposed resolution and any other legal agreements of Contracting Governments. This position was shared by New Zealand, while the People's Republic of China believed that special permit catches should not be made from Protection Stocks.

Iceland explained its opposition to the trade paragraph, making reference to Articles VIII and VI of the Convention to support its view that research should not be discouraged and that there should be no restrictions on trade. The Republic of Korea also spoke of the importance of scientific research for the Comprehensive Assessment during the pause in commercial whaling, and Japan emphasised the sovereign rights of governments to carry out research, and the need to process the whales taken.

Spain pointed out that there was consensus on all the paragraphs of the resolution except one, on international trade, and warned against forcing the issue to a vote. This view was supported by Mexico, France, Norway and the Philippines.

Oman then introduced a new draft resolution, in which the trade paragraph was replaced by one recommending that products from whales taken under scientific permit should not be used for purposes other than scientific research or local consumption as human food; and a second recommending against permits being issued for Protection Stocks unless there is clear scientific evidence that the proposed catch will not further deplete or substantially impede the recovery of the stock.

This proposal was seconded by Sweden, and supported by Switzerland, India and the Seychelles.

Further discussion ensued in which a number of delegations emphasised that scientific permits should not be used to continue commercial whaling under another guise, and Norway and Australia spoke on the freedom of science in this context. Argentina also wished to stop any abuses, but stressed that the Commission is now in a transitional period and care should be taken in establishing any particular line for the future. It therefore suggested that a small Working Group should be set up to try and finalise an agreed form of resolution. The Commission agreed to this suggestion, and Argentina, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Oman, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK were nominated to the Working Group.

After further protracted discussions in the Working Group, a third draft resolution was developed and presented by the Chairman. The two previous drafts were withdrawn by their sponsors, and the Commission then adopted by consensus the new Resolution, which is shown in Appendix 2.

Sweden declared that it had, in the spirit of consensus, agreed to accept the recommendation on the use of whales taken under special permits for scientific purposes. It hoped that all whaling nations will implement the recommendation conservatively so as not to make the special permit for scientific purposes a cover for continued commercial whaling. Oman associated itself with this statement.

6.4 Listed species
Mexico requested guidance last year from the Commission in solving the legal aspects of the species referred to as 'small cetaceans'- species not listed in the Annex on Nomenclature of Whales to the Final Act of the 1946 International Whaling Conference. Mexico did not wish for a repetitive debate, and its own position was not static, but it thought it important to establish the competence of the IWC with respect to species. It proposed that the Item should be maintained on the Agenda, leading to a proper analysis of the subject. Spain, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Brazil, the Philippines and Argentina supported this proposal.

New Zealand reviewed the legal texts of the 1946 Convention and the Schedule and stated its view that these are not restrictive as to species. It referred to the Annex of Nomenclature, which it believes has no binding force, as it is not part of the Convention or Schedule and was a Secretariat paper produced for guidance purposes to list the common names of species being discussed. Therefore, it should not be used to restrict the range of the Commission's activities.

This view was shared by the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Finland, Australia, Switzerland and India, while France and Denmark stated their position to the contrary. In the absence of consensus, the Commission agreed to keep the subject on its Agenda for next year.

6.5 Operations of the Scientific Committee
The future mode of operation of the Scientific Committee, funding and associated activities, especially in relation to the programme of Comprehensive Assessment, are reported under Sections 7 and 16.

_