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

The impact of the Sanctuary on research was difficult to evaluate because of economic and other factors which occurred at about the same time as the establishment of the Sanctuary.

The question of the possible extension of the southern boundary of the Sanctuary to improve its ecological coherence was discussed and it was concluded that, since the question of stock boundaries for whale species will be addressed during the Comprehensive Assessment, details of possible adjustments to any of the boundaries of the Sanctuary can be more appropriately discussed when those results become available.

The need for consideration to be given to critical habitats and areas of special scientific interest within the Sanctuary may require special provisions and warrant concentrated research effort.

The Scientific Committee repeated its recommendation that the workshop on the incidental take of cetaceans should be held.

12.2 Report of Administrative Meeting
The Administrative Meeting held in Bournemouth immediately before the present Annual Meeting, chaired by Mr R.F. Delpech (Seychelles) had limited participation, with delegations from Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Japan, Seychelles and South Africa, but there were no non-IWC states present. However, a wide ranging discussion of the various issues involved arising from the report of the Scientific Meeting and of the Scientific Committee took place. In particular the Administrative Meeting stated the need for

(a)

co-ordination of research and monitoring activities, including population status, incidental and other catches;

(b)

co-ordination of approaches to the Governments concerned for assistance and co-operation, including legislation relevant to cetacean research and its implementation;

(c)

regional sub-division of the Indian Ocean for administrative purposes;

(d)

review of legislation and regulations of the different Indian Ocean countries and their implementation, for mutual information, to see what uniformity already existed, to encourage improvements, etc; and to arrange initial data collection on matters such as incidental catches;

(e)

increased public and decision-makers' awareness of the Sanctuary;

(f)

consideration of ways to encourage and facilitate access/interchange for scientists, in and between Indian Ocean countries.

To this end, the Administrative Meeting recommended that

(1)

support be given to the recommendations of the Seychelles Scientific Review Meeting;

(2)

an Indian Ocean Sanctuary Administrative sub-committee should be formed to promote IWC activities relevant to the Sanctuary;

(3)

to this end, high priority should be given to holding a meeting of IWC members and non-member Indian Ocean States at an Indian Ocean venue. This should take place before the next Annual Meeting of the Commission, and the support of UNEP and other international organisations, should be sought to supplement core funds provided by the IWC. The key items for consideration would be those indicated in items a) to f) above;

(4)

the Indian Ocean Sanctuary Administrative sub-committee should meet in the week before the next Annual Meeting of IWC to develop and submit specific proposals to the Technical Committee. These would concern arrangements to promote activities relevant to the IWC within the Sanctuary;

(5)

IWC funds of 5,000 be allocated to provide core support for the proposed Indian Ocean meeting.

12.3 General review of prohibition on commercial whaling in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary
Australia spoke of its support for the Sanctuary and the proposed meeting, and saw the proposed administrative framework as a way for facilitating research and management within the Indian Ocean. Japan commented that it opposed the establishment of the Sanctuary in 1979 in light of the objectives of the Convention and it remained in the same position. It also expressed its concern on the poor level of research in the Sanctuary. The USSR associated itself with these views. The UK referred to the merits of the Sanctuary, and wondered when proposals for the future would appear. Oman pointed out that the Sanctuary allows comparison with areas where whaling occurs.

In discussion of the slow start on research in the Sanctuary, Seychelles believed that this was a result of economic factors, particularly the lack of funding from the IWC and its member nations, continuing lack of expertise in many of the coastal states of the region and the apparent decision by countries that conduct pelagic whaling operations in the Southern Hemisphere not to participate. However, it noted that funding from other sources, including UNEP, was now resulting in increased research activity. Japan observed that it had conducted sightings surveys within the Sanctuary after its inception and reported on these to the Scientific Meeting. The USSR noted that there is no obligation for non-Indian Ocean IWC nations to conduct research in the Sanctuary.

12.4 Action arising
The Technical Committee agreed to endorse recommendations 1-5 above, and noted that the terms of reference for the proposed sub-committee will be presented to the Plenary session. In the Plenary the establishment of this sub-committee was approved, with the following terms of reference:

to promote and coordinate research and other activities in relation to the Indian Ocean Sanctuary, and to prepare for the general review of the prohibition of commercial whaling in the Sanctuary by the 41st Annual Meeting at the latest.

Seychelles agreed to act as Convenor for this Sub-committee.

_