12. COMMISSION'S COMPETENCE TO SET CATCH LIMITS FOR BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE IN THE NORTH PACIFIC

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


The Netherlands made reference to Section 1.B and section 3, Table 3 of the Schedule and stated that in spite of the fact that only the northern bottlenose whale has actually been classified, no arguments can be derived from the text of the Schedule or the Whaling Convention to maintain that these instruments prohibit the Commission from classifying other bottlenose species including the Baird's beaked whale. It therefore reaffirmed its conviction that the IWC has legal competence to regulate the catch. The Netherlands expressed concern because one contracting party had increased its catch of Baird's beaked whale by 50%. It proposed that this item be retained on the Commission's agenda.

Japan gave an explanation of its position. It believes that the Convention was intended to regulate large whale species which therefore does not include Baird's beaked whale since this was not included in the Annex of Nomenclature to the Convention. The 200 n.mile zone jurisdiction gives coastal states responsibility and it has its own domestic measures. Although it had asked the IWC for an interim allocation for its small-type coastal whaling operations last year, no assistance had been given and it had interpreted the results of postal responses to its request as leaving the matter to the discretion of Japan. It had therefore increased the national catch limit for Baird's beaked whale from 40 to 60 animals as an emergency measure to alleviate the severe local cultural and socio-economic impacts of the loss of the minke whale catch. It would reduce the catch if minke whales are permitted to be taken again.

New Zealand disagreed that the Convention was for large whales only and saw no evidence of such a restriction. It explained its view that the Annexed Table of Nomenclature was for information only and, since it is not part of the Convention, the IWC can consider and regulate all cetacean species. It too believed that this item should be retained on the agenda. The UK supported this position. Switzerland concurred, regarding the Nomenclature as illustrative, not exclusive, and identified the responsibilities of international organisations as well as coastal states under Article 65 of UNCLOS. Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany indicated their belief that the IWC is competent to regulate all whales. Mexico and France agreed that the item should be retained on the agenda and that the Commission should direct its attention to the specific problem rather than all species.

The Technical Committee therefore agreed and the Commission accepted that this item should be retained on the Commission's agenda.

_