10. INDIAN OCEAN SANCTUARY

(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-First Annual Meeting")


10.1 Report of Technical Committee Indian Ocean Sanctuary Administrative Sub-committee
Mr R. Delpech (Seychelles), as Chairman, introduced the report of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary Administrative sub-committee in which delegates from Australia, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Seychelles, Sweden, UK and USA took part. An apology for unavoidable absence was received from South Africa. At that meeting the Sub-committee reviewed the actions taken by the Secretariat and Scientific Committee as a result of the recommendations approved at the 1988 Meeting. This included compilations of information on scientific research and national legislation.

Australia, in commenting on its contribution, stated that the existence of the Sanctuary had stimulated the funding of research. It believed the statements from past Scientific Committee documents gave an unjustifiably negative impression and that more positive comments could now be made.

Japan interpreted the general lack of response to requests for information as pointing to the low priority of this subject in the states concerned and remarked on its own research activities. Some delegations indicated that more research is still to be reported and that data are accumulating for further analysis. Oman suggested that the IWC itself was partly responsible for the weakness of growth and research in the sense that effort had been focussed on the Comprehensive Assessment and the review of scientific permits in the Scientific Committee.

Iceland felt that the Sanctuary should not be continued because it seemed to have created little interest among the nations bordering the Sanctuary. It had not provided the stimulus for research originally envisaged and it imposed financial burdens on the Commission.

Some other governments supported the continuation of the Sanctuary.

The national legislation available was reviewed and the value of liaison between states and other organisations emphasised.

In discussing the report in Technical Committee, Japan spoke of the concept of sanctuaries and the comparison of whale stocks within and outside their borders. It had some doubts on how to do this and quoted an extract from the report of the Scientific Committee that the Sanctuary provides no special advantage for the scientific study of whales. This could, of course, change if or when commercial whaling is resumed. It believed there had been little activity or interest by Indian Ocean states.

Switzerland emphasised the conservation and protection aspects of the Sanctuary, much of which falls within EEZs. UNCLOS Articles 56 and 61 define rights and duties of states which it believes the IWC should enhance on the high seas component.

Australia emphasised that it takes time to realise the benefits of the Sanctuary, particularly when there are other responsibilities and financial calls. A significant database is developing and useful contacts are being established.

The Technical Committee agreed to the recommendation that the IWC should maintain liaison with appropriate regional organisations, comparable with its relations to other organisations such as CCAMLR. The Technical Committee also agreed to recommend the adoption of a proposal regarding aspects of scientific coordination in the Sanctuary. This is given in Appendix 4.


10.2 Prohibition on commercial whaling in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary
Seychelles, supported by Australia, introduced its proposal to extend the duration of the Sanctuary provision for a further three years. It explained that when it introduced its original proposal in 1979 it had wished for an indefinite time span and that the whale stocks' breeding and feeding grounds should be completely covered. It still wished for this. It recognised that it is better not to prejudice the outcome of the 1990 Comprehensive Assessment and put forward the three year extension, which can be reconsidered before 1992, so that the sanctuary provision is not considered in isolation.

Many governments spoke in support of this proposal. France and Spain noted that the resumption of whaling would enhance the Sanctuary provision. India spoke of the ethos of a sanctuary with its potential for the resuscitation of resources. Antigua & Barbuda recorded its wish for a larger and all encompassing Sanctuary. Oman and UK noted that more information accumulates with time. Argentina, Brazil and Mexico emphasised the rights of coastal states, the latter recalling it had established the first sanctuary for whales, and the Netherlands and USA also looked for a long life for the Sanctuary.

St Lucia, the Federal Republic of Germany, New Zealand, St Vincent & The Grenadines and Sweden voiced their support for the proposal.

Japan indicated that, whilst it regarded an ocean sanctuary as a special case, it would not oppose the proposal, and Iceland indicated a similar position.

The proposed amendment to the Schedule was therefore agreed for recommendation by consensus to the Technical Committee. The final sentence of paragraph 7, beginning 'This prohibition will apply...' would then read

'This prohibition will apply until 24 October 1992 unless the Commission decides otherwise.'


10.3 Action arising
The Commission endorsed the three recommendations from the Technical Committee on liaison with appropriate regional organisations, scientific coordination in the Sanctuary, and the amendment to the Shedule to extend the Indian Ocean Sanctuary provision until 24 October 1992.

_